What is?
Stanley Beck
FundyMaine wrote:
>
> Although debating what art is will never get in the way of its being
> produced, I'll put in my two cents. It seems to me, at the moment, that
> until we finish the post-industrial transition and society settles down,
> trying to arrive at a working definition of art is futile, though still
> fun. Any sarcasm?
> John
No, just one question: Why is everyone so obcessed with the need to
pricesly define everything? That is what bureaucrats do.
William Markiewicz
Stanley Beck <sbec...@earthlink.net> wrote:
And Aristotle too.
Nikole (at William's)
William
http://web.idirect.com/~vagabond
Neal Weiss
In article <32BEC8...@earthlink.net>, Stanley Beck
<sbec...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> No, just one question: Why is everyone so obcessed with the need to
> pricesly define everything? That is what bureaucrats do.
Why? Perhaps because so many so often are involuntarily and helplessly
indistinct and imprecise.
Humans often want to put to use the machinery they are given upstairs.
Philosophers are also quite determined at attempting to precisely define
things. Scientists. Lawyers. Poets too. Articulation of thought and it's
expression.
Comes from the same impulse that your above question does.
-----------------------------------------
Neal Weiss
Founder: L' Ecole De Fromage.
Originator of a Greater Shoe of Mud.
Finder of the Country Blue Squeak-Out.
wsparker
Neal Weiss wrote:
>
> In article <32BEC8...@earthlink.net>, Stanley Beck
> <sbec...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > No, just one question: Why is everyone so obcessed with the need to
> > pricesly define everything? That is what bureaucrats do.
>
> Why? Perhaps because so many so often are involuntarily and helplessly
> indistinct and imprecise.
> Humans often want to put to use the machinery they are given upstairs.
> Philosophers are also quite determined at attempting to precisely define
> things. Scientists. Lawyers. Poets too. Articulation of thought and it's
> expression.
> Comes from the same impulse that your above question does.
>
Good point above. Generally.
Specifically to this newsgroup I think the impulse is based upon a
woeful insecurity.
Some therapist said, "the stronger the denial the greater the fear?"
Especially this "art not art" discussion. Or the "can't draw? = not an
artist," and "lack of skill equals bad art;" mostly these are arbitrary
distinctions supported by confused thinking.
Every attempt is made to separate the people who are believing it from
those that don't. There's no middle ground, I have tried to establish it
sometimes and I got no flexibility.
In all my years in this field I have never had to seriously deal with
these issues. It seems institutions of higher learning attract the kinds
of people with open minds who are comfortable with a diversity of views,
in all their subtlety and variety.
So you may conclude: in this newsgroup people are making these
distinctions, ultimately, to make themselves members of a special club.
The "I can draw well so I declare this allows gives me the penetrating
insight that gives me special place in the halls of human achievement.
Also, as an added benefit, I declare that anyone whom I deem bad at
drawing is not as special as I."
Now do you see why Groucho Marx said, "I wouldn't want to be a member of
any club which would have me as a member?"
wsparker
Mdeli wrote:
>
>
> Of course you never had to deal with these issues. But
> now you are confronted with both sides on the internet.
> The best you can do is to make believe that the issues
> don’t really exist. That may work in your ivory tower
> but not here.
>
Here I enjoy dealing with BOTH sides, thanks only to you!.
The STUPID side never gets a chance to say anything where I come from!
Mdeli
wsparker <w...@olympus.net> wrote:
>Especially this "art not art" discussion. Or the "can't draw? = not an
>artist," and "lack of skill equals bad art;" mostly these are arbitrary
>distinctions supported by confused thinking.
Unlike your wishy-washy over-extended Artspeak stuff,
these distinctions are clear.
>Every attempt is made to separate the people who are believing it from
>those that don't. There's no middle ground, I have tried to establish it
>sometimes and I got no flexibility.
>In all my years in this field I have never had to seriously deal with
>these issues. It seems institutions of higher learning attract the kinds
>of people with open minds who are comfortable with a diversity of views,
>in all their subtlety and variety.
At present institutions of higher learning are
populated with people who come to seminars to agree
with each other. The result is the ruin of many
students and the teaching of a creed instead of a
craft.
Art schools turn out incompetent evangelists who
blubber Artspeak and can’t understand why they are
failures. The only remedy is to win the Modern Art
lottery or join the teaching institutions where "they
never had to seriously deal with these issues."
Of course you never had to deal with these issues. But
now you are confronted with both sides on the internet.
The best you can do is to make believe that the issues
don’t really exist. That may work in your ivory tower
but not here.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Ehud Tal
wsparker wrote:
> The STUPID side never gets a chance to say anything where I come from!
-i'm telling! mom! wsparker called me stupid!
seriously, what wsparker is saying here makes me question a remark he
made in "Re:minimalism" :
>I wouldn't call it a "peak" as much as I would call it a "monopoly" in
>the 19th C.
ever stopped to check whether there is a "monopoly" or dogmatism in
"art" today?
Ehud Tal
http://www.geocities.com/~bbbsot
Mdeli
I wrote:
>> Of course you never had to deal with these issues. But
>> now you are confronted with both sides on the internet.
>> The best you can do is to make believe that the issues
>> don’t really exist. That may work in your ivory tower
>> but not here.
>>
WSporker answers:
>Here I enjoy dealing with BOTH sides, thanks only to you!.
Your welcome.
>The STUPID side never gets a chance to say anything where I come from!
I guess that is why you write such long winded
convolutions here.
I'll describe the brilliant side where you come from in
metaphoric Artspeak terms which any artzy-fartzy like
you can clearly understand.
Today's Modern Academic Art profs have one very old
sore foot stuck in Duchamp's urinal. The other foot has
a cheap (artists aren't supposed to have any interest
in money) shoe covered with paint drippings which are
an ersatz of their latest work. One hand and has four
thumbs. One to hold up when looking at their work from
a distance and the others to make it impossible to
paint any evil detail. The other hand is a flat Matisse
flipper which has been carefully manicured by using an
old Bauhaus brick . This hand is used to cover their
eyes when they leave the Modern Academic section of the
museum or see fine commercial work.
They sleep on Rothko and Mondrian bedsheets when they
want the smooth sort but switch to the scratchy
expressionistic kind when they feel veeery serious.
They occasionally give their favorite student a candy
box with a Hockney on the cover.
Any student who dares criticize these profs is given
bad grades and branded as a bitter neurotic.
wsparker
Mdeli wrote:
>
> I wrote:
> >> Of course you never had to deal with these issues. But
> >> now you are confronted with both sides on the internet.
> >> The best you can do is to make believe that the issues
> >> don’t really exist. That may work in your ivory tower
> >> but not here.
> >>
>
> WSporker answers:
> >Here I enjoy dealing with BOTH sides, thanks only to you!.
>
> Your welcome.
>
> >The STUPID side never gets a chance to say anything where I come from!
>
> I'll describe the brilliant side where you come from in
> metaphoric Artspeak terms which any artzy-fartzy like
> you can clearly understand.
Please don't you are a broken record! Negative and pissy! Christ, come
up with something worth reading!
There isn't even any humor in the shit you write.
I'm sorry a little bit for calling you stupid, maybe you aren't totally
stupid but you sure act like it!
wsparker
Ehud Tal wrote:
>
> wsparker wrote:
>
> > The STUPID side never gets a chance to say anything where I come from!
>
No! Please don't tell her that I didn't mean it!
Seriously though: I certainly didn't want to call you E.T. stupid!
Honestly, I am very sorry if you read it like that. I was implying that
about the other poster, The I felt bad and apologised to him. I actually
think he just acts stupidly, the effect of what he says has worn off
long ago and yet he repeats himself like he just though of it. In a
slightly better world, he'd think things thru, possibly evolve, insted
of repeating everything.
Again I apologise to you for any misunderstanding which could have been
avoided by me.
>
> seriously, what wsparker is saying here makes me question a remark he
> made in "Re:minimalism" :
>
> >I wouldn't call it a "peak" as much as I would call it a "monopoly" in
> >the 19th C.
>
> ever stopped to check whether there is a "monopoly" or dogmatism in
> "art" today?
I have arrived at this conclusion: the field is too big for any
monopoly.
If you don't like something or part of it go somewhere else! The world
is too big and too complex and thankfully for us we are all now
interconnected. Disconnect and then reconnect elsewhere if necessary.
Thanks to postmodern thinking alot of the boundaries have been
seroiusly questioned too. But I don't want to upset anybody by
mentioning the P word.
Go ahead live it up it's a banquet!
You have to admit though we are getting some pretty good threads going.
Soon there will be more people involved and there'll be room for
everybody!
Ehud Tal
wsparker wrote:
> The STUPID side never gets a chance to say anything where I come from!
-i'm telling! mom! wsparker called me stupid!
seriously, what wsparker is saying here makes me question a remark he
made in "Re:minimalism" :
>I wouldn't call it a "peak" as much as I would call it a "monopoly" in
>the 19th C.
ever stopped to check whether there is a "monopoly" or dogmatism in
"art" today?
Ehud Tal
http://www.geocities.com/~bbbsot
Mdeli
I wrote:
>> Of course you never had to deal with these issues. But
>> now you are confronted with both sides on the internet.
>> The best you can do is to make believe that the issues
>> don’t really exist. That may work in your ivory tower
>> but not here.
>>
WSporker answers:
>Here I enjoy dealing with BOTH sides, thanks only to you!.
Your welcome.
>The STUPID side never gets a chance to say anything where I come from!
I guess that is why you write such long winded
convolutions here.
I'll describe the brilliant side where you come from in
metaphoric Artspeak terms which any artzy-fartzy like
you can clearly understand.
Today's Modern Academic Art profs have one very old
pathan
Mdeli wrote:
> ...no skill no art.
A paraphrase "....no skill no craft".
wsparker
Mdeli (poopy pants) wrote:
> ..Nor do the intellegent.
> Where are those heights located Porker?
yadda, yadda, wonk wonk.. huh?
> Perhaps this is because your language is Artspeak. As
> you always suggest in your inflated way a little
> homework will help.
yes, fartspeak, get over it!
>
> >I'm sorry a little bit for calling you stupid, maybe you aren't totally
> >stupid but you sure act like it!
>
> All those of your ilk here call me stupid here. Please
> continue I don’t mind in the least.
GREAT! YOU WON"T MIND IF I USE CRUDE LANGUAGE TO DISCUSS THINGS WITH
YOU! THANKS!
>
> I fully understand your denigration of my humor.
THERE'S NO HUMOR! BECAUSE YOU APPEAR TO BE A MEAN BASTARD WITH NOTHING
POSITIVE TO SAY! IT IS ALL NEGATIVE HORSE SHIT! ALSO NO ONE HERE NOT
EVEN THE ONES WHO AGREE A LITTLE BIT WITH YOU WILL EVER WANT YOU TO
SPEAK FOR THEM! TURN YOUR SHITTY EXPERIENCE INTO SOMETHING POSITIVE FOR
PEOPLE! YOU JUST CREATE MORE NEGATIVITY! PEOPLE WANT YOU TO GO TO HELL
BECAUSE YOU ACT LIKE A FUCKING IDIOT! DON"T BE SUCH A PRICK AND MAYBE
THERE'S SOMETHING TO TALK ABOUT! EVEN IF YOU MAKE SOME SENSE NOW NO ONE
IS GOING TO TAKE you seriously. It isn't funny
>
> After all, academic blow-bags like you who are very
> serious leftovers from the pickled-herring school of
> art criticism started by our Fuhrer of flatness Clement
> Greenberg, don’t crack jokes at their stupendously
> important coffee-Klatsch seminars where (non-stupid)
> acolytes come to agree with each other.
You are so full of shit. What I think of CG you have no idea, but that
is because you can't say anything that people listen to, you are too
negative to listen to anything people say. Who the fuck will take you
seriously? which came first? Whatever you say is crap to people, even it
you make sense no one really pays any attention to it. Talk about
shooting yourself in the foot, Or having your head up your ass! Bore me!
The only reason I respond to you is because you are a poopy pants!
>
> As to your writing which reeks of patronizing inflated
> antiquated Modern Academic Bullshit of which I have
> heard every permutation for the last forty years, its
> humorless.
Grow up!
Please continue it as I enjoy being able to
> say something about it.
You say very little and it is a repetitive anyway! You don't even bother
me , I have time to kill and this is more convenient for me I don't have
to go into ALT. Life sucks, or Alt.tasteless
> Perhaps you might eventually join the congregation of
> Monsignor Eicher whose sense of humor doesn’t go beyond
> calling me bitter and a lousy artist who needs his head
> examined etc.
Like I would be interested in anything about your life after you have
lost every smidgeon of credibility, You Blew it for yourself with your
shitty attitude!
I can send you some quotes which you can
> add to the above message.
Never mind just put them in your book, will I get a complimentary signed
copy?
drookes
Mr. Parker,
All of those scurrilous remarks! Mon Dieu!! Bad enough. But to call
a person "poopy pants," that is carrying freedom of expression much too
far. For shame!!! Cordially, HB
drookes
wsparker wrote:
>
> He wants to call people names I hereby declare his new name: Mr.
> Pissyman.
>
> If he stops I stop, he's gonna get it what his dad comes home!
Mr. Parker, Sir,
Now you've gone just a bit too far!!! "Mr. Pissyman" indeed. I shall
take this up with my attorney. This slander has set me reeling. So
much so that I can't even think of a clever rejoinder. Let me think
now, Mr. Shi.....no, no, no that's not it, how 'bout "Mr. Urinal" Yeah,
yeah, that's the ticket. MR. URINAL. Both gutteral and artistic at
the same time. Cordially, HB
Mdeli
WSporker wrote:
>The STUPID side never gets a chance to say anything where I come from!
..Nor do the intellegent.
Where are those heights located Porker?
>Please don't you are a broken record! Negative and pissy! Christ, come
>up with something worth reading!
>There isn't even any humor in the shit you write.
Perhaps this is because your language is Artspeak. As
you always suggest in your inflated way a little
homework will help.
>I'm sorry a little bit for calling you stupid, maybe you aren't totally
>stupid but you sure act like it!
All those of your ilk here call me stupid here. Please
continue I don’t mind in the least.
I fully understand your denigration of my humor.
After all, academic blow-bags like you who are very
serious leftovers from the pickled-herring school of
art criticism started by our Fuhrer of flatness Clement
Greenberg, don’t crack jokes at their stupendously
important coffee-Klatsch seminars where (non-stupid)
acolytes come to agree with each other.
As to your writing which reeks of patronizing inflated
antiquated Modern Academic Bullshit of which I have
heard every permutation for the last forty years, its
humorless. Please continue it as I enjoy being able to
say something about it.
Perhaps you might eventually join the congregation of
Monsignor Eicher whose sense of humor doesn’t go beyond
calling me bitter and a lousy artist who needs his head
examined etc. I can send you some quotes which you can
add to the above message.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
wsparker
wsparker
drookes wrote:
>
> Now you've gone just a bit too far!!! "Mr. Pissyman" indeed. I shall
> take this up with my attorney. This slander has set me reeling. So
> much so that I can't even think of a clever rejoinder. Let me think
> now, Mr. Shi.....no, no, no that's not it, how 'bout "Mr. Urinal" Yeah,
> yeah, that's the ticket. MR. URINAL. Both gutteral and artistic at
> the same time. Cordially, HB
Yes, excellent for the smart-set. I prefer the infantile in this case
Doctor Drookes, so we have to come up with something like... uh.
No, no I've got it: "i'M Smeli" much, much better!
"i'M Smeli" "i'M Smeli" "i'M Smeli" Nya nya, nyanya, nya! Poopy
pants! Pissyman!
drookes
Mr. Parker,
You are hitting a new high. One that is hard to match. I'm in the
middle of researching the wit and wisdom of Curly. With that guide, I
may be able to stop you right on your slippery tracks.
Until next recess, HB
Mdeli
in answer to some of my comments wsparker makes the
following important points:
>yadda, yadda, wonk wonk.. huh?
>yes, fartspeak, get over it!
>GREAT! YOU WON"T MIND IF I USE CRUDE LANGUAGE TO DISCUSS THINGS WITH
>YOU! THANKS!
>> I fully understand your denigration of my humor.
>THERE'S NO HUMOR! BECAUSE YOU APPEAR TO BE A MEAN BASTARD WITH NOTHING
>POSITIVE TO SAY! IT IS ALL NEGATIVE HORSE SHIT! ALSO NO ONE HERE NOT
>EVEN THE ONES WHO AGREE A LITTLE BIT WITH YOU WILL EVER WANT YOU TO
>SPEAK FOR THEM! TURN YOUR SHITTY EXPERIENCE INTO SOMETHING POSITIVE FOR
>PEOPLE! YOU JUST CREATE MORE NEGATIVITY! PEOPLE WANT YOU TO GO TO HELL
>BECAUSE YOU ACT LIKE A FUCKING IDIOT! DON"T BE SUCH A PRICK AND MAYBE
>THERE'S SOMETHING TO TALK ABOUT! EVEN IF YOU MAKE SOME SENSE NOW NO ONE
>IS GOING TO TAKE you seriously. It isn't funny
And
>You are so full of shit. What I think of CG you have no idea, but that
>is because you can't say anything that people listen to, you are too
>negative to listen to anything people say. Who the fuck will take you
>seriously? which came first? Whatever you say is crap to people, even it
>you make sense no one really pays any attention to it. Talk about
>shooting yourself in the foot, Or having your head up your ass! Bore me!
>The only reason I respond to you is because you are a poopy pants!
>You say very little and it is a repetitive anyway! You don't even bother
>me , I have time to kill and this is more convenient for me I don't have
>to go into ALT. Life sucks, or Alt.tasteless
>Like I would be interested in anything about your life after you have
>lost every smidgeon of credibility, You Blew it for yourself with your
>shitty attitude!
Which is that I disagree with Parker.
Mani DeLi
PS I'm sure yourhe above points will help your
students on the road to becoming better artists.
wsparker
Hey, good observation!
Well it seems to have worked: I noticed you have stopped calling me
Porker! We'll have no more of that, now shall we!
Euphemism
Mdeli wrote:
> BACK TO SCHOOL for the new semester
>
> For all those students who sincerely believe that
> learning skill and technique is of no importance, I
> have taken the liberty of renaming and describing some
> of the important courses offered to them by their
> favorite Modern Academic Art Academy.
Please specify the academy you mean.
I'm all ears for a parody of the excesses, pretensions and general
goofiness that can be found in any art school (or college or university
art department). The problem here, for me, is that most of this parody
makes fun of nothing I recognize as true. Where, these days, are students
expected to be little Mondrian's and Abstract Expressionists? AbEx has
status as history, but doesn't have much to do with new art.
No school that I've come across thinks that technique is of no importance;
the issue is whether you can realistically predict which techniques a
given artist will need, or whether technical training should precede any
other kind. (In other words, artist doesn't equal draughtsman.)
If anything, "BACK TO SCHOOL" is a parody of a certain breed of older
faculty. Usually tenured, these folks have grown apart from their
discipline and carry on "dripping, flipping and snipping" as if the last
forty years hadn't happened, with dwindling relationship to (or
expectation for) their students.
Can you also specify something about the Ideal Academy that you would like
to see, where technical instruction (what sort?) rules and paychecks (for
doing what?) are assured? What is the closet approximation of this place
in the real world?
I'm sincerely interested: I look forward to your follow up.
drookes
Euphemism,
I realize your cynisism about the (drab old) basics. But in the
broad scheme, most young, naive, clear headed students who just graduate
from High school need some force feeding at the academic trough. Just
like lawyers, dancers, learning the flute, doctors, well you get the
picture. The best schools yet were those where the hopeful artist was
an apprentice to the master. In the early teen years. Now we have to
learn our ABCs before going to the institutes.
The great majority of them are a disaster. Simply because most
instructors don't know what it all about. They have very rudimentary
drawing classes, (we've booted drawing enough already), there is
virtually nothing on the "classic" elements of color or design.
But there are a couple of schools were some good is gleaned. The
American Academy of Art in Chicago. The California Institute of Art.
Bits and pieces of the Art Students League in NY. But good training is
unbelievably rare. Breaking all of these learned rules can then be up
to the student. But to learn and understand them is a must. However
you want to look at it. HB
drookes
Euphemism wrote:
>
> drookes <dro...@direct.ca> wrote:
>
> Thanks for contributing to this thread.
>
> For the moment, just a request for a minor clarification:
>
> > But there are a couple of schools were some good is gleaned. The
> > American Academy of Art in Chicago. The California Institute of Art.
> > Bits and pieces of the Art Students League in NY.
>
> assuming that this is NOT the same as "California Institute of the Arts"?
Euphemism,
No, this one is way beyond Woodland Hills. One the very edge of the
Northern section of L.A. There are professional artists taking out time
to instruct there. Their specialties are varied. Some, had great
careers doing movie posters. Now that computerized photos are almost
exclusively being used, they are on to other things. Essentially, they
teach basics, but go way beyond what "normal" art colleges attempt.
Duchamp is of little concern at these places other than a historical
oddity; useful perhaps as someone to chat about at Fri night beer fests.
Probably the best, for basics, is found in one or two week workshops
that are scattered about the country. The best ones are conducted by
professional aritsts who take out a few weeks for such endevours.
Thanks for asking, HB
Mdeli
>> > drookes wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Mr. Parker,
>> > > All of those scurrilous remarks! Mon Dieu!! Bad enough. But to call
>> > > a person "poopy pants," that is carrying freedom of expression much too
>> > > far. For shame!!! Cordially, HB
>> >
>> > I'm throwing caution to the passing wind!
passing wind should help you.
>> >
>> > He wants to call people names I hereby declare his new name: Mr.
>> > Pissyman.
>> >
>> > If he stops I stop, he's gonna get it what his dad comes home!
>>
>> Mr. Parker, Sir,
>>
>> Now you've gone just a bit too far!!! "Mr. Pissyman" indeed. I shall
>> take this up with my attorney. This slander has set me reeling. So
>> much so that I can't even think of a clever rejoinder. Let me think
>> now, Mr. Shi.....no, no, no that's not it, how 'bout "Mr. Urinal" Yeah,
>> yeah, that's the ticket. MR. URINAL. Both gutteral and artistic at
>> the same time. Cordially, HB
>Yes, excellent for the smart-set. I prefer the infantile in this case
>Doctor Drookes, so we have to come up with something like... uh.
>No, no I've got it: "i'M Smeli" much, much better!
>
>"i'M Smeli" "i'M Smeli" "i'M Smeli" Nya nya, nyanya, nya! Poopy
>pants! Pissyman!
The effluvia which rose from Duchamp's urinal certainly
has a hold on the mind of Dr. Parker. No wonder he's
under the delusion that its influence is so pervasive.
Mdeli
BACK TO SCHOOL for the new semester
For all those students who sincerely believe that
learning skill and technique is of no importance, I
have taken the liberty of renaming and describing some
of the important courses offered to them by their
favorite Modern Academic Art Academy.
Note:
By the time you finish your training you will be a
certified ARTIST and you will get a coveted certificate
to prove it.
Disclaimer: it should be understood that the staff take
no responsibility should you fail to earn a living at
anything they claim they trained you for.
Drawing courses should be renamed "Paper Dirtying."
You will be expected to produce one realistic drawing
of an egg in order to convince yourself that you have
mastered drawing realism. You will then proceed to more
serious stuff. Here you can smear away on large
newsprint pads. You will be taught all methods of how
to excuse the academic errors and the little
sloppinesses you produce, as experimental distortions,
etc.
Design courses should renamed "Kindergarten Theory for
slow learners."
Here you will learn all those modern academic
techniques including advanced dripping flipping and
snipping. Although students have been doing this for
the last fifty years you will be given the impression
that this is all very new and highly important.
Art history should renamed "Art Mythology."
Here you will learn how all past art merely anticipated
the Impressionists whose evangelical struggle to
overcome their evil enemies led to the glories of
Avant Garde Modern Academic Art which is presently
admired by anyone who claims intellectual grace; That
the camera has replaced the necessity for producing any
realistic image ; that abstraction is a the new
provocative artform.
Painting courses should be called "Canvas Alteration."
(course requirement-the above three courses)
Here you will learn the latest methods of how to
convince yourself that your product enhanced by your
lack of drawing skills, is an all new, very serious,
self expression which was designed to exhibit honesty,
sincerity and emotion rather than a mere exhibition
useless technique. VERY NICE teachers will instruct
you in accomplishing this. Extra large canvas
stretching will be emphasized in order to meet market
competition.
I have also suggest a new course called "Artspeak One."
This would compress the ideas in all the above courses
and include attention to manifesto writing. Besides
sharpening your illogical post modern abilities,
mastery of this course will teach the Artspeak
necessary to oppose any detractors of your incompetent
work, and how to praise any work similar to yours.
The latest issues of the most prominent Artzy Fartzy
magazines will be required reading with attention to
the lingo used to describe the masterpieces therein.
The public dangers of anything labeled as kitsch,
commercial and illustration will be discussed in
lectures by important guest critics.
At term’s end you will be examined on your abilities to
analyze the ethereal essences of Mondrian in at least
ten thousand words or more. Mastery of this course
should enable you to defend Abstract Expressionist work
against any and all negativism’s.
Mani DeLi
PS
I suppose my detractors here will write the usual stuff
about my "ranting negativism etc."
Therefore; I sincerely advise them, in the words of Dr.
Parker, to do their "homework." Consult some
unrecognized, technically inept disgruntled genius
artschool graduates who failed to win the Modern
Academic Art lottery and listen to their extensive
ranting negativism about lack of money their art
brings in..
wsparker
Mdeli wrote:
>
> The effluvia which rose from Duchamp's urinal certainly
> has a hold on the mind of Dr. Parker. No wonder he's
> under the delusion that its influence is so pervasive.
Is this funny? Or is it supposed to upset me? It doesn't bother me at
all. There's no reputation to protect here. I can be as goofy as I
want. Good thing I don't make a habit of it, like you do, because it
will become annoying to people, like you are.
Don't forget that you incited the whole thing by calling me "Porker."
BTW, the one thing that "matters" here you don't have.
You don't get no respect!
Euphemism
Mdeli
euph...@aol.com (Euphemism) wrote:
>Mdeli wrote:
>> BACK TO SCHOOL for the new semester
>>
>> For all those students who sincerely believe that
>> learning skill and technique is of no importance, I
>> have taken the liberty of renaming and describing some
>> of the important courses offered to them by their
>> favorite Modern Academic Art Academy.
>Please specify the academy you mean.
I see the work produced by students and even better,
the works on the internet. They bare the signature of
the training I satirize here. I will not name any
schools here.
>I'm all ears for a parody of the excesses, pretensions and general
>goofiness that can be found in any art school (or college or university
>art department). The problem here, for me, is that most of this parody
>makes fun of nothing I recognize as true.
So?
> Where, these days, are students
>expected to be little Mondrian's and Abstract Expressionists?
I didn’t say they were.
> AbEx has
>status as history, but doesn't have much to do with new art.
Really? Have you been reading the messages here? AE
and the new art share the element of incompetence.
>No school that I've come across thinks that technique is of no importance;
>the issue is whether you can realistically predict which techniques a
>given artist will need, or whether technical training should precede any
>other kind. (In other words, artist doesn't equal draughtsman.)
If you think technique is of importance that is quite
different from being able to teach it. Every art school
catalog lists courses in drawing. Student drawings are
what show what is or isn’t taught. You say artist
doesn't equal draughtsman. The science behind drawing
is the basis for both. The artist who doesn’t learn the
science of rendering the solid is like a musician who
doesn’t know the scales.
>If anything, "BACK TO SCHOOL" is a parody of a certain breed of older
>faculty.
…and newer.
>Can you also specify something about the Ideal Academy that you would like
>to see, where technical instruction (what sort?) rules and paychecks (for
>doing what?) are assured? What is the closet approximation of this place
>in the real world?
I leave the bookkeeping to you. Here are some
suggestion to students when they try to find a school.
- Don't attend a school without first seeing the work
of its students. Ask yourself whether they can do
something that you can't do. Then ask yourself whether
they can do something you want to do. Make sure you
feel that the student work is superior to yours. If you
feel you can do better work than the teacher or his
students, forget it.
-Never blindly imitate a teacher to gain approval. If
good grades are dependent on this, as is often the
case, get out of there fast. Fooling the teacher
amounts to fooling yourself. Good grades or
certificates from prestigious art schools will not help
you in the long run. Unless you have spectacular
connections, you will be judged solely by the quality
of your work.
-If your teacher is extremely nice, utterly charming
and glamorous, always remember that this is no
criterion for judgment. Never blindly commit yourself
to a teacher. Always attempt to find better.
-Always keep an eye on what others are doing; other
students can often teach you more than the instructors.
-Try to get work in your field if you can, even while
attending school. Even if it is lowly work you will
most likely learn much about your profession which you
can't get in school. Cash in on your abilities as early
as you can.
-Leave school as soon as you feel that you have
acquired the knowledge you needed to become
professional or find that you aren't improving any
more. Remember that except for inmates, who are
committed to these institutions for life, school is a
temporary state of affairs.
Remember, the more incompetent artists there are, the
more work and better living for the competent ones.
Euphemism
(Mdeli) wrote:
I will not name any
> schools here.
Why not? It always helps communication to use specific examples, don't
you think?
>
>
> > Where, these days, are students
> >expected to be little Mondrian's and Abstract Expressionists?
>
> I didn’t say they were.
Here's what you said:
"At term’s end you will be examined on your abilities to
analyze the ethereal essences of Mondrian in at least
ten thousand words or more. Mastery of this course
should enable you to defend Abstract Expressionist work
against any and all negativism’s. "
I took this as suggesting that those guys were being put forward as
models. Was I rash?
> > AbEx has
> >status as history, but doesn't have much to do with new art.
>
> Really? Have you been reading the messages here? AE
> and the new art share the element of incompetence.
What can I say? A real conversation-stopper, that one.
> >No school that I've come across thinks that technique is of no importance;
> >the issue is whether you can realistically predict which techniques a
> >given artist will need, or whether technical training should precede any
> >other kind. (In other words, artist doesn't equal draughtsman.)
>
> If you think technique is of importance that is quite
> different from being able to teach it. Every art school
> catalog lists courses in drawing. Student drawings are
> what show what is or isn’t taught.
No disagreement here.
You say artist
> doesn't equal draughtsman. The science behind drawing
> is the basis for both. The artist who doesn’t learn the
> science of rendering the solid is like a musician who
> doesn’t know the scales.
What if the artist doesn't use drawing in their work?
> >Can you also specify something about the Ideal Academy that you would like
> >to see, where technical instruction (what sort?) rules and paychecks (for
> >doing what?) are assured? What is the closet approximation of this place
> >in the real world?
>
> I leave the bookkeeping to you.
Hold on--lack of income seems to be one of your principle criticisms of
the "Modern Academy." What reliable source of income do you promise your
grads?
Here are some
> suggestion to students when they try to find a school.
>
> - Don't attend a school without first seeing the work
> of its students [...].
OK
> -Never blindly imitate a teacher to gain approval[...].
OK
>
> -If your teacher is extremely nice, utterly charming
> and glamorous, always remember that this is no
> criterion for judgment. Never blindly commit yourself
> to a teacher. Always attempt to find better.
OK
>
> -Always keep an eye on what others are doing; other
> students can often teach you more than the instructors.
Very true.
>
> -Try to get work in your field[...]-Leave school as soon as you feel
that you have
> acquired the knowledge you needed to become
> professional or find that you aren't improving any
> more. [...]
OK, but I'm still hoping you'll answer my request for elaboration about
what gets taught at this school, how, and to what end. "Competent"
doesn't explain much.
Mdeli
Skill in the most general sense is the ability to make
or do something others can't do and thus creating
something that people want.
In the arts there are the learned skills namely those
of which the basics can be taught in a rote sense like
drawing, color, painting technique etc. These are
essential fundamental skills. It is these skills which
one should expect to acquire in school. It is these to
which I refer to when I say, "no skill no art."
After practicing and mastering fundamental skills one
combines this foundation with ones talents and
perseverance and attempts to create what is regarded by
others as artwork. This results in an ability to
create something people want and sometimes to creating
something a great number of people treasure for a long
time (great art.)
I offer a musical analogy. Anyone can be taught the
scales and if they persevere they can learn to play the
piano fairly well. All must learn a degree of rote. Few
become great pianists. Few have the mysterious gift
necessary to become great pianists. Yet all great
pianists master technique.
To all those who believe that I advocate nothing more
than learned skills I can only say that they are
mistaken. I do advocate that all art must rest on a
foundation of the fundamental skills and that anything
which lacks this foundation and is presently classed as
great art will fail to withstand the test of time.
I maintain that the vast majority of Modern Art which
inhabits our museums does not even possess a modicum of
the fundamental skills. That is why I predict that when
the tide of fashion changes Modern Art will be
reassessed
I do not believe that art must return to the realism or
the subject matter of the past. I do not even favor
realism over abstraction. I do not advocate any one
style of subject matter as necessarily being better
than another.
However I see no merit whatever in work claiming to be
great art which anyone with even a modicum of skill can
imitate and even forge. I see no merit in a work's
claim of being first when it exhibits nothing more than
flat drips, stripes or schmiers. I regard such work in
spite of present day adulation to fall into a category
of which should be called STUPID ART.
And I regard anyone claiming to produce artwork whose
product shows that he lacks fundamental artistic skills
(no matter how brilliant at other things) as a STUPID
ARTIST.
And I regard anyone who doesn't possess fundamental
skills and claims he teaches art as a STUPID ART
TEACHER.
Mani DeLi
If an artist hasn't the skill to do something most
others can't do his only alternative is Bullshit.
wsparker
Euphemism wrote:
>
> (Mdeli) wrote:
>
> I will not name any
> > schools here.
> > I didn’t say they were.
> > I leave the bookkeeping to you.
> OK, but I'm still hoping you'll answer my request for elaboration about
> what gets taught at this school, how, and to what end. "Competent"
> doesn't explain much.
Well that's a good question because he doesn't choose to answer it.
Therefore he must not have an answer.
So his ideas must be a product of his own "bullshittism?"
Takeitdown
our bullshit artist , Mani DeLi, refuses to post his locale for
obvious reasons......
fear of complete strangers hunting him down.... such as myself..... just
to shake his hand and say "right On!, brother!
I would like to formally submit a request to title any further
responses to this thread under the pseudo-title 'artspeak 2'....
wsparker
Mdeli wrote:
>
> Skill in the most general sense is the ability to make
> or do something others can't do and thus creating
> something that people want.
Like the guys at Eljer Plumbing who make urinals, the fine porcelin
glaze, the carefully tended moulds, the finishing touches of the brush
before they go into the kiln. Or, we could go into the skill required
for crafting a rosewood dashboard for the Rolls Royce.
>
> In the arts there are the learned skills namely those
> of which the basics can be taught in a rote sense like
> drawing, color, painting technique etc. These are
> essential fundamental skills. It is these skills which
> one should expect to acquire in school. It is these to
> which I refer to when I say, "no skill no art."
Yes most everybody agrees with this; the good student who gets good
marks from an artschool has acquired these skills. Obviously this is
true. Art students are qualified to make art when they get out of art
school; they have acquired the skills.
>
> After practicing and mastering fundamental skills one
> combines this foundation with ones talents and
> perseverance and attempts to create what is regarded by
> others as artwork. This results in an ability to
> create something people want and sometimes to creating
> something a great number of people treasure for a long
> time (great art.)
So, going by your well published theory here, this above which you have
thought out quite carefully, proficient black velvet paintings of Elvis
are "great art which people treasure for a long time."
I agree with that. Who needs a museum to sanctify great art, you can
find it at the roadside by your theory.
>
> I offer a musical analogy. Anyone can be taught the
> scales and if they persevere they can learn to play the
> piano fairly well. All must learn a degree of rote. Few
> become great pianists. Few have the mysterious gift
> necessary to become great pianists. Yet all great
> pianists master technique.
This is not a difficult analogy to understand, your thoughts are very
simple. No matter if you are a great pianist you still need to know the
scales. After you learn the scales you find out if you have a
"mysterious gift" to become great.
>
> To all those who believe that I advocate nothing more
> than learned skills I can only say that they are
> mistaken.
No you advocate more than that, you self-appointed yourself to stand in
judgement of all art for all people by applying your personal tastes as
criteria for art that is truely art.
> I do advocate that all art must rest on a
> foundation of the fundamental skills and that anything
> which lacks this foundation and is presently classed as
> great art will fail to withstand the test of time.
>
No, you go further than that, you call it "crap," "bullshit," and
"farty." And you are so transparent, like you give a shit about
posterity being the judge, you want results now, you want your ideas to
prevail, you want to feel power, and you would go thru museums and
discard the art you don't like.
Don't put this curatorial beneficience spin on your jaded outlook. "The
test of time," has nothing to do with your impatient simplistic,
hostility against all art that doesn't follow your small-minded rules.
> I maintain that the vast majority of Modern Art which
> inhabits our museums does not even possess a modicum of
> the fundamental skills.
Talk about all-engrossing bullshit! You take the artsy-farty cake!
You are so out there. So, according to you the artists haven't even gone
to art school to acquire these skills as good students, that's what you
said above. Now, are you going to modify your well-developed theory to
make some artschools capable of teaching these skills and others not
qualified.
You don't know that every major artist in major museums has shown
proficiency in these basic skills, of the work you see on the walls
there are thousands of other pieces somewhere else that many people,
those who are much smarter than you, have seen this work, plus there are
numerous other significant factors inmvolved when, all tolled, it
results in the recognition the museum offers.
> That is why I predict that when
> the tide of fashion changes Modern Art will be
> reassessed
WOW, you've really gone out on a limb here. You mean maybe they will
discard alot of the art that is in the museums after dozens of experts
decide according to your theory that it evidences no skill. Just think
they will have to pay to haul the garbage (former great art) away.
Seriously though I hope you can comprehend that, it is constantly being
reassessed. Don't you know that? You don't understand that there is not
one final version.
You are promoting a total rupture with the past, only a very angry
person would need that.
>
> I do not believe that art must return to the realism or
> the subject matter of the past. I do not even favor
> realism over abstraction. I do not advocate any one
> style of subject matter as necessarily being better
> than another.
You are also suffering a delusion. Don't you know that from the
considerable diatribe which you have generated, you are a most
vituperative, hostile, opinionated wilfully ignorant person in this
newsgroup. You openly despise all forms of art that don't fall in line
with your taste/habits.
>
> However I see no merit whatever in work claiming to be
> great art which anyone with even a modicum of skill can
> imitate and even forge.
Well, you are caught in a myth that the original possesses some
"mysterious" qunitessence that only you can appreciate which is
essential for you, with your ultra refined senses, to appreciate.
Without these components the art ceases to exist for you. You are such a
sensitive person, one who runs finely tuned cognitive and perceptual
mechanisms that run on the highest of octane. You generate, from your
immense worldly experiences thru space and time, briliantly crafted
insights for which everyone struggles anxiously to grasp as they are
issued. You so brilliant who can use words like, "bullshit, crap,
pisspot, farty, shit," words which sparkle and shine the wisdom and
refinement which only the greatest art can provide.
> I see no merit in a work's
> claim of being first when it exhibits nothing more than
> flat drips, stripes or schmiers. I regard such work in
> spite of present day adulation to fall into a category
> of which should be called STUPID ART.
No it shouldn't be called, it _IS CALLED_ "stupid art." YOU call it that
and no one listens to you. You don't have the equipment to get beyond
that. You think it should be called stupid art but that's part of the
stupidity.
Like any sensible person is going to listen to a hothead, an agitator, a
person with no demonstrable _skill_ or familiarity with art historical
concepts.
>
> And I regard anyone claiming to produce artwork whose
> product shows that he lacks fundamental artistic skills
> (no matter how brilliant at other things) as a STUPID
> ARTIST.
So, again, more huffing and puffing, anyone who doesn't go to art school
and learn fundemental skills can only make stupid art. That's saying an
awful lot for the importance of art schools. But I'll give eduaction the
benefit of the doubt anyday!
>
> And I regard anyone who doesn't possess fundamental
> skills and claims he teaches art as a STUPID ART
> TEACHER.
>
Your simplistic, infantile,"shocking," agitating, hostile pronouncement
is ringing, roaring, resounding, across an empty room!
People will stay away in droves from your inarticulated rantings.
jkea...@aol.com
In article <32D37D...@olympus.net>, wsparker <w...@olympus.net> writes:
>
>Mdeli wrote:
>>
>> Skill in the most general sense is the ability to make
>> or do something others can't do and thus creating
>> something that people want.
>
>Like the guys at Eljer Plumbing who make urinals, the fine porcelin
>glaze, the carefully tended moulds, the finishing touches of the brush
>before they go into the kiln. Or, we could go into the skill required
>for crafting a rosewood dashboard for the Rolls Royce.
>
>> In the arts there are the learned skills namely those
>> of which the basics can be taught in a rote sense like
>> drawing, color, painting technique etc. These are
>> essential fundamental skills. It is these skills which
>> one should expect to acquire in school. It is these to
>> which I refer to when I say, "no skill no art."
>
>Yes most everybody agrees with this; the good student who gets good
>marks from an artschool has acquired these skills. Obviously this is
>true. Art students are qualified to make art when they get out of art
>school; they have acquired the skills.
>
Perhaps.
>
>>
>> After practicing and mastering fundamental skills one
>> combines this foundation with ones talents and
>> perseverance and attempts to create what is regarded by
>> others as artwork. This results in an ability to
>> create something people want and sometimes to creating
>> something a great number of people treasure for a long
>> time (great art.)
>
>So, going by your well published theory here, this above which you have
>thought out quite carefully, proficient black velvet paintings of Elvis
>are "great art which people treasure for a long time."
>
>I agree with that. Who needs a museum to sanctify great art, you can
>find it at the roadside by your theory.
>
Mani qualified his statement with the word "sometimes." That deflates your
Socratism.
>No you advocate more than that, you self-appointed yourself to stand in
>judgement of all art for all people by applying your personal tastes as
>criteria for art that is truely art.
>
I think Mani lives in NYC. This is not unusual for New Yorkers and should
be overlooked in the discussion. You can't accuse him of being unwilling
to commit to an opinion!
>
<snip>
>No, you go further than that, you call it "crap," "bullshit," and
>"farty." And you are so transparent, like you give a shit about
>posterity being the judge, you want results now, you want your ideas to
>prevail, you want to feel power, and you would go thru museums and
>discard the art you don't like.
>
>Don't put this curatorial beneficience spin on your jaded outlook. "The
>test of time," has nothing to do with your impatient simplistic,
>hostility against all art that doesn't follow your small-minded rules.
>
Mani used to get me worked up like this, too. If we didn't have him to
play Devil's Advocate this newsgroup would degenerate into a love-in.
<snip>
>
>WOW, you've really gone out on a limb here. You mean maybe they will
>discard alot of the art that is in the museums after dozens of experts
>decide according to your theory that it evidences no skill. Just think
>they will have to pay to haul the garbage (former great art) away.
>
I'd like to have a look at the basement of the Met. They probably have
tons of leftover 19th century stuff nobody recognizes anymore.
<snip>
>You are promoting a total rupture with the past, only a very angry
>person would need that.
Uh, W.S., the anger on your end scorched my modem...
>
>>
>> I do not believe that art must return to the realism or
>> the subject matter of the past. I do not even favor
>> realism over abstraction. I do not advocate any one
>> style of subject matter as necessarily being better
>> than another.
>
>
>You are also suffering a delusion. Don't you know that from the
>considerable diatribe which you have generated, you are a most
>vituperative, hostile, opinionated wilfully ignorant person in this
>newsgroup. You openly despise all forms of art that don't fall in line
>with your taste/habits.
>
The paragraph you are responding to here (like the entire posting) was an
honest attempt by Mani to express his personal philosophy, maybe make
peace.
>>
>> However I see no merit whatever in work claiming to be
>> great art which anyone with even a modicum of skill can
>> imitate and even forge.
>
>
>Well, you are caught in a myth that the original possesses some
>"mysterious" qunitessence that only you can appreciate which is
>essential for you, with your ultra refined senses, to appreciate.
>Without these components the art ceases to exist for you. You are such a
>sensitive person, one who runs finely tuned cognitive and perceptual
>mechanisms that run on the highest of octane. You generate, from your
>immense worldly experiences thru space and time, briliantly crafted
>insights for which everyone struggles anxiously to grasp as they are
>issued. You so brilliant who can use words like, "bullshit, crap,
>pisspot, farty, shit," words which sparkle and shine the wisdom and
>refinement which only the greatest art can provide.
>
Wait a minute, all he said was, 'good art is not easily imitated or
forged.'
>
<snip>
>
>
>Your simplistic, infantile,"shocking," agitating, hostile pronouncement
>is ringing, roaring, resounding, across an empty room!
>
>
>People will stay away in droves from your inarticulated rantings.
>
>
I doubt that! Mani was here when I got here and he hasn't left yet. Seems
like every once in a while, a newcomer goes up against him, gets zapped
and goes on from there. I admire Mani's ability to take the flak. If as
many people attacked me as have attacked him, I think I'd feel safer in
Sarajevo.
I think Mani is having the best laugh of anyone. He posts a little essay
about one of his pet subjects, then sits back and watches the bits fly. He
even sucked me in for a while. No one on this newsgroup has stimulated as
much discussion. By taking a firm stand against areas that many of us hold
dear, he's forced us to look anew at our sacred beliefs. All of us at one
time or another have taken the easy way out and just gone along with some
critic's evaluation of an artist or a style. Not Mani. He attacks, and
sometimes I find my beliefs weren't as strong as I thought. Even when he
doesn't persuade me, my efforts to defend my beliefs have caused me to
look at some areas more closely than I had before, which as often led me
to new insights.
Sure, he could be kinder and gentler; so could the BATF. Life's tough. You
think he's hard? Try to get your work hung on 57th Street. You don't have
to read his postings, but most of do. We know we're going to get singed
but we just have to see what he's saying today. When he doesn't post for a
few days I miss him. Don't you?
In a world of wimps and dissemblers, I'll take a Mani Deli (or whatever
his name really is) any day.
JK
wsparker
jkea...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Mani qualified his statement with the word "sometimes." That deflates your
> Socratism.
His facile utterances deflate themselves.
> I think Mani lives in NYC. This is not unusual for New Yorkers and should
> be overlooked in the discussion. You can't accuse him of being unwilling
> to commit to an opinion!
I'm not interested in the opinions of just anyone. His opinions on art
are totally facile, lacking in any substance. Normal lack of awareness
doesn't bother me, even makes me want to lend a hand; but when lack of
awareness is combined with hostility, cantankerousness, and vulgarity it
is a different story.
> Mani used to get me worked up like this, too. If we didn't have him to
> play Devil's Advocate this newsgroup would degenerate into a love-in.
No, I would rather have a highly aware person throwing subtle twists and
turns into the flow of the discourse.
I don't need bombasticosity commenting in the most basal fashion. It
is a hinderance; too much energy is spent mopping up after the little
accidents.
> I'd like to have a look at the basement of the Met. They probably have
> tons of leftover 19th century stuff nobody recognizes anymore.
Excellent point! Too bad we're not going to be around to see what goes
there next. I'm not interested in anybody's prognistications either.
>
> >You are promoting a total rupture with the past, only a very angry
> >person would need that.
>
> Uh, W.S., the anger on your end scorched my modem...
You are missing an essential point: I'm not in the habit of launching
little hate-fests against whole areas of modern art and modern artists.
There's no one on the nsgrp whom is more filled with a combination of
hostility, vulgarity, and lack of awareness.
> The paragraph you are responding to here (like the entire posting) was an
> honest attempt by Mani to express his personal philosophy, maybe make
> peace.
I've garnered enough about it from ten thousand postings. It is not very
complicated. He's got a very constrained view of artmaking. He makes
assumptions founded on what he intends to conclude not the other way
around.
Oh, gee, I don't know about that peace thing. "As ye sow, so shall ye
reap"
I'm sorry to contribute to a flame war, and if we were all meeting face
to face I would probably be embarassed and have to apologise. Being kind
and considerate to people in real life is more important than any ideas
about art that I may have.
This nsgrp is a different story, it happens inside one's own head. It is
this little world we create for ourselves and we do and say stuff in it
we wouldn't in real life. Don't take this stuff personally, take it
"personaelly."
> Wait a minute, all he said was, 'good art is not easily imitated or
> forged.'
I disagree with that as a serious criterion. It is meaningless when it
tries to account for whole areas of art production. If you put that into
law there are whole areas which are no longer art.
> >Your simplistic, infantile,"shocking," agitating, hostile pronouncement
> >is ringing, roaring, resounding, across an empty room!
> >
> >
> >People will stay away in droves from your inarticulated rantings.
> >
> >
> I doubt that! Mani was here when I got here and he hasn't left yet. Seems
> like every once in a while, a newcomer goes up against him, gets zapped
> and goes on from there.
I get *alot* of email from low-key members and lurkers of this nsgrp
explaining how much they are happy people here are finally giving him
what he deserves.
He has actually turned people off and *made them afraid, or wary* to
post their own ideas!!!
His interruptions have diverted the conversation and brought it down to
low level of performance.
>I admire Mani's ability to take the flak. If as
> many people attacked me as have attacked him,
It is easy to walk away from a confrontation here. What you need to ask
yourself is this: did what you created and displayed here do something
to generate a good, growth-oriented experience for others or detract
from it?
>
> I think Mani is having the best laugh of anyone. He posts a little essay
> about one of his pet subjects, then sits back and watches the bits fly.
Yes indeed, I'll bet in a very negative way, a selfish, self-satisfied
way. I don't think it is that great. There's no socially redeeming value
to it. It would get tiring, eventually embarassing to a person with
better intentions.
> No one on this newsgroup has stimulated as
> much discussion. By taking a firm stand against areas that many of us hold
> dear, he's forced us to look anew at our sacred beliefs.
My sacred beliefs stand: avoid ignorance at all costs. Improve thyself,
know thyself. Challenge your assumptions. etc. I don't have to argue
with a person who doesn't know very much to feel challenged.
> you don't have to read his postings, but most of do.
I just click them off; don't even read them. This last thing was a
summary of his philosophy which I thought needed a critique.
> We know we're going to get singed
> but we just have to see what he's saying today. When he doesn't post for a
> few days I miss him. Don't you?
No, too hostile, no sense of humor, undeveloped facile theories, repeats
like a broken record.
Mdeli
I wrote:
>> Skill in the most general sense is the ability to make
>> or do something others can't do and thus creating
>> something that people want.
Parker writes:
>Like the guys at Eljer Plumbing who make urinals, the fine porcelin
>glaze, the carefully tended moulds, the finishing touches of the brush
>before they go into the kiln. Or, we could go into the skill required
>for crafting a rosewood dashboard for the Rolls Royce.
I’m writing about painting. Try to keep your mind on
the subject
> the good student who gets good
>marks from an artschool has acquired these skills. Obviously this is
>true. Art students are qualified to make art when they get out of art
>school; they have acquired the skills.
Most certified artschool grads can't do a damned thing.
Their portfolios are ridicules Their competence resides
in manifesto writing. Just look at the incompetent crap
on the net.
>> After practicing and mastering fundamental skills one
>> combines this foundation with ones talents and
>> perseverance and attempts to create what is regarded by
>> others as artwork. This results in an ability to
>> create something people want and sometimes to creating
>> something a great number of people treasure for a long
>> time (great art.)
>So, going by your well published theory here, this above which you have
>thought out quite carefully, proficient black velvet paintings of Elvis
>are "great art which people treasure for a long time."
Your logical acumen needs a bit of sharpening.
I presume you are interested in what people don't want.
>> That is why I predict that when
>> the tide of fashion changes Modern Art will be
>> reassessed
> You mean maybe they will
>discard alot of the art that is in the museums after dozens of experts
>decide according to your theory that it evidences no skill. Just think
>they will have to pay to haul the garbage (former great art) away.
No, I suggest that before much of this crap becomes
garbage, they sell it now to people who think like you
do but have lots of money,
>Seriously though I hope you can comprehend that, it is constantly being
>reassessed. Don't you know that? You don't understand that there is not
>one final version.
Classical work remains classical that is why people
consider it great art. What is presently in fashion
will certainly be reassessed.
>You are promoting a total rupture with the past, only a very angry
>person would need that.
Utter nonsense. There is more fine work produced in
this century than ever before. It just isn’t the crap
which presently hangs in the modern sections of our
museums.
>> However I see no merit whatever in work claiming to be
>> great art which anyone with even a modicum of skill can
>> imitate and even forge.
>Well, you are caught in a myth that the original possesses some
>"mysterious" qunitessence that only you can appreciate which is
>essential for you, with your ultra refined senses, to appreciate.
>Without these components the art ceases to exist for you. You are such a
>sensitive person, one who runs finely tuned cognitive and perceptual
>mechanisms that run on the highest of octane. You generate, from your
>immense worldly experiences thru space and time, briliantly crafted
>insights for which everyone struggles anxiously to grasp as they are
>issued. You so brilliant who can use words like, "bullshit, crap,
>pisspot, farty, shit," words which sparkle and shine the wisdom and
>refinement which only the greatest art can provide.
Why not stick to the subject.
>> I see no merit in a work's
>> claim of being first when it exhibits nothing more than
>> flat drips, stripes or schmiers. I regard such work in
>> spite of present day adulation to fall into a category
>> of which should be called STUPID ART.
>No it shouldn't be called, it _IS CALLED_ "stupid art." YOU call it that
>and no one listens to you. You don't have the equipment to get beyond
>that. You think it should be called stupid art but that's part of the
>stupidity.
>Like any sensible person is going to listen to a hothead, an agitator, a
>person with no demonstrable _skill_ or familiarity with art historical
>concepts.
>> And I regard anyone claiming to produce artwork whose
>> product shows that he lacks fundamental artistic skills
>> (no matter how brilliant at other things) as a STUPID
>> ARTIST.
>So, again, more huffing and puffing, anyone who doesn't go to art school
>and learn fundemental skills can only make stupid art. That's saying an
>awful lot for the importance of art schools. But I'll give eduaction the
>benefit of the doubt anyday!
If that is the best you can conclude from my statement
I can only say that you are a victim of stupid logic.
>> And I regard anyone who doesn't possess fundamental
>> skills and claims he teaches art as a STUPID ART
>> TEACHER.
>Your simplistic, infantile,"shocking," agitating, hostile pronouncement
>is ringing, roaring, resounding, across an empty room!
>People will stay away in droves from your inarticulated rantings.
Your cerebral hemorrhoids seem to be getting you
agitated.
Mani DeLi
James C. Maxted
>Screw how much technical skills matter... anyone can have them...I'm
surprised that you neglected the subject of creativaty...Have I been
lost all these years thinking that it's the most Important thing?
The reason things are reassesed is becaused somebody gets a new
different (not nessisarily better) idea. Eventually people will get
bored with all this flat computer art and come up with something
else...at least I hope so other wise I'm screwed...Little j
wsparker
jkea...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Gosh! Afraid of what?
The internet is like the wild west, people are wary, they want to play
it safe. A ranting individual is not going to be engaged by most people.
Especially if their email goes to their office... .
> If the possibility that Mani Deli might say something mean to
> you keeps you from expressing an opinion, I think you aren't very secure
> in your opinion.
That's one way to look at it. There are a few others. Also, people don't
want to be in needlessly unpleasant situations, especially situations
where it seems obvious that no progress will be made. IOW, you either
take this bull by the horns, or you've got something better to do, most
people are wise enough to see that they will probably get nowhere.
>
> If you want freedom of speech, you can't selectively deny it to those who
> offend you.
I want freedom of speech and also freedom from uncivilized behavior. I
just head out of the area, if I feel like it, when somebody begins their
rude behavior. The way I figure it I owe *nothing* to a habitually rude
person... .
We are digressing from the purpose of the nsgrp though. I understand
what you are saying though. Thanks for the perspective.
jkea...@aol.com
In article <32D554...@olympus.net>, wsparker <w...@olympus.net> writes:
>
>jkea...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>wsparker wrote:
>> >
>> >People will stay away in droves from your inarticulated rantings.
>> >
>> >
>
>> I doubt that! Mani was here when I got here and he hasn't left yet.
Seems
>> like every once in a while, a newcomer goes up against him, gets zapped
>> and goes on from there.
>
>I get *alot* of email from low-key members and lurkers of this nsgrp
>explaining how much they are happy people here are finally giving him
>what he deserves.
What _percentage_ of the readers of this newsgroup have contacted you?
>
>He has actually turned people off and *made them afraid, or wary* to
>post their own ideas!!!
>
Gosh! Afraid of what? Afraid he's going to put a hex on them? I think
everybody better get used to the way things work on the 'net. Over on
Paint-L they're discussing figure drawing and watersoluble oil paint.
Maybe the scaredy cats should go there. If _one man's_ passionate dislike
of certain artists is going to scare them off, I wish them luck in the
"real" world. Walk in front of a NYC cabbie en route to the Met and you'll
get called a lot worse words than Mani uses. If that keeps you from going
to the Met, that's fine with me; more room for me. Ditto on this
newsgroup. If the possibility that Mani Deli might say something mean to
you keeps you from expressing an opinion, I think you aren't very secure
in your opinion.
>His interruptions have diverted the conversation and brought it down to
>low level of performance.
>
Can you prove that? I've been on the Internet for years and I've read
plenty of newsgroups and mailing lists. Some people like to think of the
Internet as some kind of virtual utopia. Guess what? It's just as nice and
nasty, comfortable and annoying, educational and boring as the real world
it exists in.
I find it rather reassuring, though, that only you and I are engaging in
this debate. Because, you know, Mani might just be right. Maybe the
artists he decries ARE frauds. You can't prove he's wrong. You can drag
out every critic from here to Impressionism and that doesn't prove a
thing. I'd much rather be part of a community in which one person is free
to stand up periodically and shout "THE KING HAS NO CLOTHES," even though
his manner offends some listeners, than to deny him his voice in favor of
not offending a few timid lurkers.
If you want freedom of speech, you can't selectively deny it to those who
offend you.
Cheers,
JK
jkea...@aol.com
>jkea...@aol.com wrote:
>> I'd like to have a look at the basement of the Met. They probably have
>> tons of leftover 19th century stuff nobody recognizes anymore.
>
>
>Excellent point! Too bad we're not going to be around to see what goes
>there next. I'm not interested in anybody's prognistications either.
>
>
The Met's guidebook claims more than 3 million pieces in the collection,
"several hundred thousand" on display. FWIW.
JK
Mdeli
max...@crpl.cedar-rapids.lib.ia.us (James C. Maxted)
wrote:
Creativity is what you do with your skill.
MD
Mdeli
Parker says:
>My sacred beliefs stand: avoid ignorance at all costs. Improve thyself,
>know thyself. Challenge your assumptions. etc. I don't have to argue
>with a person who doesn't know very much to feel challenged.
Mr. Parker is not used to hearing opposition. When he
does, he locks himself up in his Bauhaus outhouse and
relieves himself into Duchamp’s urinal and improves
himself.
JK replies:
>> you don't have to read his postings, but most do.
>I just click them off; don't even read them. This last thing was a
>summary of his philosophy which I thought needed a critique.
I read every Parker speech. I like his homework
suggestions.
>> We know we're going to get singed
>> but we just have to see what he's saying today. When he doesn't post for a
>> few days I miss him. Don't you?
>No, too hostile, no sense of humor, undeveloped facile theories, repeats
>like a broken record.
It hard for artists like Parker. Perhaps like so many
other great artists these days, he’s a misunderstood
pauper. (not funny)
deni
In article <19970110230...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
jkea...@aol.com writes
>>I get *alot* of email from low-key members and lurkers of this
nsgrp explaining how much they are happy people here are finally giving
him what he deserves.
>
>What _percentage_ of the readers of this newsgroup have contacted you?
>
>>
>>He has actually turned people off and *made them afraid, or wary* to
>>post their own ideas!!!
>>
>
>Gosh! Afraid of what? Afraid he's going to put a hex on them? I think
>everybody better get used to the way things work on the 'net. Over on
>Paint-L they're discussing figure drawing and watersoluble oil paint.
>Maybe the scaredy cats should go there. If _one man's_ passionate dislike
>of certain artists is going to scare them off, I wish them luck in the
>"real" world. Walk in front of a NYC cabbie en route to the Met and you'll
>get called a lot worse words than Mani uses. If that keeps you from going
>to the Met, that's fine with me; more room for me. Ditto on this
>newsgroup. If the possibility that Mani Deli might say something mean to
>you keeps you from expressing an opinion, I think you aren't very secure
>in your opinion.
>
>>His interruptions have diverted the conversation and brought it down to
>>low level of performance.
>>
>Can you prove that? I've been on the Internet for years and I've read
>plenty of newsgroups and mailing lists. Some people like to think of the
>Internet as some kind of virtual utopia. Guess what? It's just as nice and
>nasty, comfortable and annoying, educational and boring as the real world
>it exists in.
>
>I find it rather reassuring, though, that only you and I are engaging in
>this debate. Because, you know, Mani might just be right. Maybe the
>artists he decries ARE frauds. You can't prove he's wrong. You can drag
>out every critic from here to Impressionism and that doesn't prove a
>thing. I'd much rather be part of a community in which one person is free
>to stand up periodically and shout "THE KING HAS NO CLOTHES," even
>though
>his manner offends some listeners, than to deny him his voice in favor of
>not offending a few timid lurkers.
>
>If you want freedom of speech, you can't selectively deny it to those who
>offend you.
>
>Cheers,
>
>JK
Unlike you JK who turns out to be an 'old timer' I am new to the
Internet and the news groups and have only been following articles since
Christmas, I hadn't expected to find Utopia here or for that matter in the
'real' world, just discussions about different forms of art (?).
From my ever so brief encounter with Alt.rec.fine-arts it should have the
news group heading of *Alt.what.mani.thinks.is.fine-art* or *Alt.ehud.t
al.shows.us.how.to.be.fine-art.ists*.
I am all for passionate opinion, for me there is no life/art without
passion, so Mani keep up with the passion, nothing wrong with that!
what I do find destructive is the hostility towards art that Mani (and not
only Mani) does not like or understand. You don't like it, fine no need
to give us an 'ear bashing' go kick the dog.
There is no glory in saying Picasso is twaddle, big deal, so what, who
cares about Picasso, his dead isn't he? Now if he had said it to his face
or put a whoopee cushion under old 'Pic' in an important interview
when Pic was alive, then maybe I could warrant him with some guts.
Please JK when you mention Mani exposing the Emperer for a fake,
are you saying (I know that you wouldn't imply such things) that the
remainder of us artists are just sheep following the views of art critics,
that no one but Mani has the courage to think for themselves?
I take that back, I just looked and I do have a furry tail.
Baaaah, Baaaaah,
I have listened to the arguments against the 'urinal/fountain' and
Duchamp, and basically who gives a flying cheesecake, Duchamp isn't
making work now, we are.
I noticed an article which I have copied below from Andrew Werby
asking for a discussion on a 'break away' group for sculpture and as
Aard1vark puts it 2.5D work.
It seems a shame that sculptors and artists using other media should
have to form an alternative newsgroup in order to have a forum of
discussion, but after witnessing the hostility here and lack of tolerance I
can see why.
I am all for dialogue, and passionate disagreements, that's how we test
our theories and assumptions of life/art and grow, but hostility doesn't
further discussions it just stops them dead.
I say onwards to Alt.Sculpture and leave Mani and friends to discuss
their intolerance of "STUPID ART"
Andrew Werby: wrote in article RFD:Alt.Sculpture
>
[Although I have no desire to split the existing readership of
rec.arts.fine, alt.artcom, and the various crafts groups, I think it is
time for a usenet group to form that focusses on the issues unique to
sculpture. This is a distinct form of art practice that should have a
group of its own, distinct from those dominated by two-dimensional
artists. A lot of professional sculptors are put off by the "recreation"
hierarchy designation, so this group would be in the "alternate"
category. I'm aware that one art group exists in "alt", but it does not
concentrate on sculpture, and many people are under the impression it
is dedicated to commercial announcements. (Also, "alt" groups are
easier to form.)
Alt.sculpture would be for discussion of: works of sculpture,
including reviews of shows, websites, books, and installations;
techniques of sculpture, including (but not limited to) carving,
casting, modeling, and assemblage in all three-dimensional media;
theories of art as they relate to sculpture, and opportunities for
creating, showing, and commissioning sculpture.
<snip>
Reply from AARD1VARK:
I'm ALL for a sculpture group! (And thanks for including assemblage...
sometimes we fall in the middle as 2.5-D)
da
--
deni moore
AARD1VARK
Way to go, deni. Man, when you stand up you stand TALL!
Let's hear it for living, working, THINKING artists... aka <alt.artists>
Elaine Park
Mdeli (hu...@interlog.com) wrote:
: max...@crpl.cedar-rapids.lib.ia.us (James C. Maxted)
: wrote:
: MD
it is not.
-elaine park
jkea...@aol.com
In article <5bbjo5$m...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>, mi...@expert.cc.purdue.edu
(Elaine Park) writes:
>: Creativity is what you do with your skill.
>
>: MD
>
>it is not.
>
>
Ah, a fresh viewpoint! Please tell us your opinion of the relationship
between creativity and skill. I've previously gone on record as saying
skill precedes creativity, with both being required for art.
JK
jkea...@aol.com
In article <Zd9gOBAS...@deni.demon.co.uk>, deni
<de...@deni.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>Unlike you JK who turns out to be an 'old timer' I am new to the
>Internet and the news groups and have only been following articles since
>Christmas, I hadn't expected to find Utopia here or for that matter in
the
>'real' world, just discussions about different forms of art (?).
>
>From my ever so brief encounter with Alt.rec.fine-arts it should have the
>news group heading of *Alt.what.mani.thinks.is.fine-art* or *Alt.ehud.t
>al.shows.us.how.to.be.fine-art.ists*.
That's just not so. I spend an hour a day going through all the other
topics on this newsgroup. If Mani didn't stimulate some discussion there
wouldn't be any! If you want to talk about something else, come up with a
position and post it. Otherwise, you're welcome to play with us, on
rec.arts.fine (this is a real newsgroup, not an "alt").
>
>I am all for passionate opinion, for me there is no life/art without
>passion, so Mani keep up with the passion, nothing wrong with that!
>what I do find destructive is the hostility towards art that Mani (and
not
>only Mani) does not like or understand. You don't like it, fine no need
>to give us an 'ear bashing' go kick the dog.
>
>There is no glory in saying Picasso is twaddle, big deal, so what, who
>cares about Picasso, his dead isn't he? Now if he had said it to his face
>or put a whoopee cushion under old 'Pic' in an important interview
>when Pic was alive, then maybe I could warrant him with some guts.
>
MD recently posted what I thought was a pretty funny (and appropriate)
comment about Picasso's _Gertrude Stein_, in a very low-key. So far, I'm
the only respondent. Since his other recent posts are taking flak, one can
only assume that low-key comments are ignored here. I've learned more
about art by reading and considering his opinions than I have from anyone
else's posts. Once I figured out that being upfront was his style, I got
on with it, and now I feel bad about getting mad at him in the past.
But let's look at it from an art perspective. The kind of art that MD
decries makes as much noise as you attribute to his postings. Yet you seem
to want to defend the art, but not the critic. If it's okay for museums to
spend megadollars on smeared canvases that assault the eye, why can't one
Mani speak out against it?
>Please JK when you mention Mani exposing the Emperer for a fake,
>are you saying (I know that you wouldn't imply such things) that the
>remainder of us artists are just sheep following the views of art
critics,
>that no one but Mani has the courage to think for themselves?
>
>I take that back, I just looked and I do have a furry tail.
>
>Baaaah, Baaaaah,
>
You have a sense of humor. I like that. You just have to work on careful
reading. What I said was, 'I'd much rather be part of a community in which
one person is free to stand up periodically and shout "THE KING HAS NO
CLOTHES,"'
If I wanted to say 'Most of the readers of this newsgroup are sheep' I
would have said just that.
>I have listened to the arguments against the 'urinal/fountain' and
>Duchamp, and basically who gives a flying cheesecake, Duchamp isn't
>making work now, we are.
>
I like cheesecake, on the wall or on the table. Apparently a lot of people
care about Duchamp, judging by the size of the thread. I encourage you to
launch a few threads yourself.
>I noticed an article which I have copied below from Andrew Werby
>asking for a discussion on a 'break away' group for sculpture and as
>Aard1vark puts it 2.5D work.
>
>It seems a shame that sculptors and artists using other media should
>have to form an alternative newsgroup in order to have a forum of
>discussion, but after witnessing the hostility here and lack of tolerance
I
>can see why.
>
>I am all for dialogue, and passionate disagreements, that's how we test
>our theories and assumptions of life/art and grow, but hostility doesn't
>further discussions it just stops them dead.
Well, it certainly didn't stop you from joining the discussion, so there
goes that argument. Nobody has to go start another newsgroup. If anyone
has something to say about sculpture or any other fine-arts medium, I'd be
pleased to see it on this newsgroup. I noticed my friend Aard1vark started
his own thread about Favorite Living Artists; he could as easily start one
about sculpture or any other art-related subject. So could you or anyone
else reading this.
>
>I say onwards to Alt.Sculpture and leave Mani and friends to discuss
>their intolerance of "STUPID ART"
[SPLOOSH!] (Sound of cheesecake hitting her in the face.)
JK
Mdeli
jkea...@aol.com wrote:
>I'd like to have a look at the basement of the Met. They probably have
>tons of leftover 19th century stuff nobody recognizes anymore.
You might have a look at French Paintings Vol2 (catalog
of the Metropolitan Museum collection) 1966. They don’t
have tons of 19th century work.
It might surprise you to know that they have about 22
Corot’s. The worst of which I don’t remember ever
seeing. Must be in the basement.
Also, their finest Academic paintings are often hanging
and are very popular; Cot, Lepage (real impressionism)
Gerome, Bouguereau, Bonheur, Bargue etc.
They also have lots of awful Courbet’s which they
wisely never Hang.
Mani DeLi
jkea...@aol.com
In article <19970112201...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
aard...@aol.com (AARD1VARK) writes:
>
>Way to go, deni. Man, when you stand up you stand TALL!
>
>Let's hear it for living, working, THINKING artists... aka <alt.artists>
>
>
Let's hear it for gender bending. Deni's no "man," although (as you point
out) she has a lot more gumption than a lot of guys (if you have a
dictionary maybe you can look it up).
JK
Bruce Attah
> From my ever so brief encounter with Alt.rec.fine-arts it should have the
> news group heading of *Alt.what.mani.thinks.is.fine-art* or *Alt.ehud.t
> al.shows.us.how.to.be.fine-art.ists*.
Or, how about
alt.what.mani.thinks.is.fine-art.AND.what.his.opponents.think.of.him.etc.?
I mean, it's hardly a one-way thing, now, is it?
>
> I am all for passionate opinion, for me there is no life/art without
> passion, so Mani keep up with the passion, nothing wrong with that!
> what I do find destructive is the hostility towards art that Mani (and not
> only Mani) does not like or understand. You don't like it, fine no need
> to give us an 'ear bashing' go kick the dog.
If you think that people here are being hostile to the art they don't
like, you should read more art criticism: Richard Cork claimed that Lord
Leighton could not draw hands (which seemed to me, when I looked at the
paintings to be a flat lie), while Waldemar Januszack, under the heading
"Lorded for His Lies" accused the same painter -- without a shred of
evidence -- of pederasty! Adrian Searle (I think it was) recently called
Giacometti a talentless thief, David Lee called David Bowie's work "shit",
and Januszack only last week (with more justification this time) claimed
that Howard Hodgkin's paintings are mediocre and repetitive. Just the
other day, I read a review of Max Beckman which claimed that his paintings
were entirely worthless as art -- that Beckman was bad in every respect.
And this has been going on for a long time. Ruskin was famously fined a
farthing for accusing Whistler of flinging a pot of paint in the public's
face and asking to be paid for it (he hadn't seen Hodgkin) -- and you
should hear the things Delacroix and Ingres said about each other!
> There is no glory in saying Picasso is twaddle, big deal, so what, who
> cares about Picasso, his dead isn't he?
It does matter what attitude we take to past artists, because this
indicates what directions we will take in the future. And it does take
courage (or perhaps foolhardiness) to deprecate an artist whose reputation
many hold unassailable, even though the guy is dead.
> I noticed an article which I have copied below from Andrew Werby
> asking for a discussion on a 'break away' group for sculpture and as
> Aard1vark puts it 2.5D work.
>
> It seems a shame that sculptors and artists using other media should
> have to form an alternative newsgroup in order to have a forum of
> discussion, but after witnessing the hostility here and lack of tolerance I
> can see why.
I doubt that it has to do with any "hostility" in this group. Certainly,
sculpture has not been subject to hostility here. Rather, I would suggest
that it has to do with the fact that there are specific issues to do with
sculpture and sculpture alone that tend not to get discussed here at all
-- or get swamped by other topics when they are raised.
> I am all for dialogue, and passionate disagreements, that's how we test
> our theories and assumptions of life/art and grow, but hostility doesn't
> further discussions it just stops them dead.
You should lurk for a while in a few other groups. You'll come back
acknowledging that compared to some, we're all cute, fluffy puppies here.
Cheers,
Bruce Attah.
deni
In article <19970113151...@ladder01.news.aol
.com>, jkea...@aol.com writes<snip>
>>
>>From my ever so brief encounter with Alt.rec.fine-arts it should have the
>>news group heading of *Alt.what.mani.thinks.is.fine-art* or *Alt.ehud.t
>>al.shows.us.how.to.be.fine-art.ists*.
>
>That's just not so. I spend an hour a day going through all the other
>topics on this newsgroup. If Mani didn't stimulate some discussion there
>wouldn't be any! If you want to talk about something else, come up with a
>position and post it. Otherwise, you're welcome to play with us, on
>rec.arts.fine (this is a real newsgroup, not an "alt").
>>
until you have monitored the newsgroups for a period of time",
but thank you for the offer of playing with you on rec.arts-fine.
deni wrote:
>>I am all for passionate opinion, for me there is no life/art without
>>passion, so Mani keep up with the passion, nothing wrong with that!
>>what I do find destructive is the hostility towards art that Mani (and
>not
>>only Mani) does not like or understand. You don't like it, fine no need
>>to give us an 'ear bashing' go kick the dog.
>>
>>There is no glory in saying Picasso is twaddle, big deal, so what, who
>>cares about Picasso, his dead isn't he? Now if he had said it to his face
>>or put a whoopee cushion under old 'Pic' in an important interview
>>when Pic was alive, then maybe I could warrant him with some guts.
>>
>
JK wrote
>MD recently posted what I thought was a pretty funny (and appropriate)
>comment about Picasso's _Gertrude Stein_, in a very low-key. So far, I'm
>the only respondent. Since his other recent posts are taking flak, one can
>only assume that low-key comments are ignored here.
I also have read this article and there is now a rather good
posting from amos, I guess some threads just take time to
develop.
> I've learned more
>about art by reading and considering his opinions than I have from anyone
>else's posts. Once I figured out that being upfront was his style, I got
>on with it, and now I feel bad about getting mad at him in the past.
Well then JK, if you have been through an initial time of getting
'mad' with Mani, then shouldn't you allow me that freedom also
as a new comer, I am an open minded person so maybe I shall
reach your lofty height and one day say "Good on you Mani,
you have truly stimulated me".
>
>But let's look at it from an art perspective. The kind of art that MD
>decries makes as much noise as you attribute to his postings.
What is the art that Mani decries? Its never been very clear to
me.
>Yet you seem
>to want to defend the art, but not the critic. If it's okay for museums to
>spend megadollars on smeared canvases that assault the eye, why can't one
>Mani speak out against it?
I would never suggest that Mani or anyone else should not be
allowed to speak out about art that we sometimes believe to be
no more than 'artistic' cow dung. WE ALL DO IT, there's
nothing amazing about Mani.
I know that museums and collectors spend a 'few bob' on art
work to fill their spaces, but which smeared canvas are *you*
referring to? and exactly which piece offends *your* eyes? If I
knew JK of which piece you are referring to maybe I would
have to agree with you. Maybe you could post me a gif of this
offending art work.
My curiosity is overflowing to know what is "STUPID ART"
>
deni wrote:
>>Please JK when you mention Mani exposing the Emperer for a fake,
>>are you saying (I know that you wouldn't imply such things) that the
>>remainder of us artists are just sheep following the views of art
>critics,
>>that no one but Mani has the courage to think for themselves?
>>
>>I take that back, I just looked and I do have a furry tail.
>>
>>Baaaah, Baaaaah,
>>
JK wrote:
>You have a sense of humor. I like that.
Why thank you, I picked it up at the Dollar General.
>You just have to work on careful
>reading.
<she stands erect and salutes> "Aye, aye, captain".
> What I said was, 'I'd much rather be part of a community in which
>one person is free to stand up periodically and shout "THE KING HAS NO
>CLOTHES,"'
>
>If I wanted to say 'Most of the readers of this newsgroup are sheep' I
>would have said just that.
>
Hey, I now know you to be a guy that shoots from the hip.
We *are* part of a community in which all of us are free to
stand up and say "whataloadarubbish" or "that's the bees knees"
it is part of what we know as FREEDOM OF SPEECH, and
freedom of speech should also go along with freedom of
expression.
I am not too sure how Picasso got the status of being a member
of the royal family though, did Lady Di come pick him up on
one of her many shopping sprees in Spain? Is Picasso a King? I
can only think of him as an artist who made work, he's just a
man.
>
>>I have listened to the arguments against the 'urinal/fountain' and
>>Duchamp, and basically who gives a flying cheesecake, Duchamp isn't
>>making work now, we are.
>
JK wrote:
>I like cheesecake, on the wall or on the table. Apparently a lot of people
>care about Duchamp, judging by the size of the thread. I encourage you to
>launch a few threads yourself.
>
Oh thank you JK, I do so like to be encouraged, I dare say I
will, as you know I did send out a 'feeler' to ascertain the
different types of artists that were involved in this newsgroup. I
believe along with Mr Parker that there are many artists who
would be willing to contribute it discussions, if they thought they
would be fruitful, heckling isn't constructive. And, yes some of
us have ideas that aren't set in stone, for some of us life and art
is a journey of discovery.
Just a little question, how do you get the cheesecake to stay on
the wall?
<snip>
>>
deni wrote:
>>I am all for dialogue, and passionate disagreements, that's how we test
>>our theories and assumptions of life/art and grow, but hostility doesn't
>>further discussions it just stops them dead.
>
JK wrote:
>Well, it certainly didn't stop you from joining the discussion, so there
>goes that argument.
Hey, not the first time I have blown one of my arguments and
certainly wont be the last. But I stand by what I said even
though I have contradicted it by my action of jumping in and
'playing with you'
Hostility is a negative trait in the 'real' world and I believe it to
be just as negative here in the newsgroups.
I did find it interesting Mani contributes heavily to many threads,
with some comments that amount to no more than heckling, but
as yet I have seen no posting from him within the 'Favorite
Artists'. I read sweeping statements about art and artistic
concerns that he doesn't like but as yet I have never heard him
say something that he does like, I mean "Mani, what rocks your
boat, honey?" "What does it for you?"
Do you actually *like* anything?
>Nobody has to go start another newsgroup. If anyone
>has something to say about sculpture or any other fine-arts medium, I'd be
>pleased to see it on this newsgroup. I noticed my friend Aard1vark started
>his own thread about Favorite Living Artists; he could as easily start one
>about sculpture or any other art-related subject. So could you or anyone
>else reading this.
>
I agree with you, I am for ALL ARTISTS to be involved with
this news group. I dont distinguish between types of media that
artists choose to express themselves in and I certainly don't
agree with fragmenting ourselves into little niches, because at the
very chore we are all artists, and a fine arts news group should
act as an umbrella for us all.
>>
>
<snip>
JK wrote:
>[SPLOOSH!] (Sound of cheesecake hitting her in the face.)
>
Would you be so kind to make that chocolate!
By the way, throwing a cheesecake at me is rather hostile isn't
it? Gosh I only responded to an article.
Peace Man!!!
--
deni moore
G*rd*n
jkea...@aol.com:
| ...
| MD recently posted what I thought was a pretty funny (and appropriate)
| comment about Picasso's _Gertrude Stein_, in a very low-key. So far, I'm
| the only respondent. Since his other recent posts are taking flak, one can
Hey, not so! I followed it up, too.
Oh, God, perhaps my precious articles are being lost Out
There....
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ gcf @ panix.com }"{
deni
In article <19970113180...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
jkea...@aol.com writes
American I excuse his language.
Thank you both for your encouragement it is very much appreciated.
Gumption, now that's what my mother used to clean the bath with they
call it 'Jif' now. I guess I should buy some to clean up the mess of that
chocolate cheesecake you threw at me JK.
Here's to more cheesecake throwing!
All the best and peace to all, including Mani.
--
deni moore
jkea...@aol.com
In article <5be9v4$7...@news.interlog.com>, hu...@interlog.com (Mdeli)
writes:
>jkea...@aol.com wrote:
>>I'd like to have a look at the basement of the Met. They probably have
>>tons of leftover 19th century stuff nobody recognizes anymore.
>
>You might have a look at French Paintings Vol2 (catalog
>of the Metropolitan Museum collection) 1966. They don’t
>have tons of 19th century work.
>
That's interesting. Perhaps in the 19th century they were preoccupied with
filling in their collections from earlier times.
>It might surprise you to know that they have about 22
>Corot’s. The worst of which I don’t remember ever
>seeing. Must be in the basement.
Maybe they were in the recent Corot exhibition (see below).
>
>Also, their finest Academic paintings are often hanging
>and are very popular; Cot, Lepage (real impressionism)
>Gerome, Bouguereau, Bonheur, Bargue etc.
>
>They also have lots of awful Courbet’s which they
>wisely never Hang.
>
>
This lends credence to your argument that museums acquire a great deal of
what is currently popular, but which may not be popular in the future. It
might be a service to the public if they were to hang some of the junk
once in a while. The Met staffer I followed around the Corot exhibit as he
gave a private tour to some dowagers, made me think there isn't an excess
of sentimentality there ("Here's another painting of Italian peasants
sitting around doing nothing."). I don't think the dowagers were getting
the message, though.
Art historians need to see the bad as well as the good, so I guess museums
can justify their dusty basements on that account. Besides, if they sold
off the lesser works they'd probably use the money to buy more Twomblys.
JK
Deirdre
I think creativity can come long before skill. I have some excellent ideas
for works, I just don't have the technical ability to carry them off. Some
of these I've had in my head for years. However, I think that skill also
leads to creativity in that you might do something interesting by playing
out some "what if" scenarios you might not have thought of before you were
trained.
Some of the comments on this forum I've seen thrown about artists (you
must be looking at the back of the canvas, about Richter's technique also)
I have also had hurled at me personally by art teachers. Are all art snobs
so vicious?
I never promised I was great, but with technique, maybe I would be. I
dunno. I don't even know if I care, but I am once again trying. I at least
had the advantage of being dragged around art galleries as a kid and being
the granddaughter of an illustrator (probably why I defend them so <g>)
and the daughter of a painter.
Last time I tried to learn technique, oh, 'round about 1980, I made the
mistake of taking a life painting class. No prerequisites, never had life
drawing (though I'd had a couple of drawing classes) and never any prior
experience painting. I must say the fundamentals of controlling a brush
and shading and all that really threw me. On top of which, without any
experience *drawing* figures, well, I was really out of my element.
The teacher knew this, but ridiculed me anyway. One of my pieces, seeing
it come out cubist, well, I just went with it and hammed it up. I got made
fun of (the guy who painted the woman as though she was a martian,
however, didn't). In fact, I gave it to a friend who genuinely liked the
piece.
But I'd get comments like "did you paint that in your car?" and other
non-encouraging remarks. So, I kinda hope I don't get any instructors like
you guys. I can take almost anything but the ad hominem attacks. ;D
_Deirdre
In article <19970113180...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
jkea...@aol.com wrote:
> Ah, a fresh viewpoint! Please tell us your opinion of the relationship
> between creativity and skill. I've previously gone on record as saying
> skill precedes creativity, with both being required for art.
deni
In article <Bruce.Attah-1301972147050001@support-
neptune.isltd.insignia.com>, Bruce Attah <Bruce...@insignia.co.uk
> writes
>Or, how about
>alt.what.mani.thinks.is.fine-art.AND.what.his.opponents.think.of.him.etc.?
>
>I mean, it's hardly a one-way thing, now, is it?
>
could easily fill another newsgroup
>If you think that people here are being hostile to the art they don't
>like, you should read more art criticism: Richard Cork claimed that Lord
>Leighton could not draw hands (which seemed to me, when I looked at the
>paintings to be a flat lie), while Waldemar Januszack, under the heading
>"Lorded for His Lies" accused the same painter -- without a shred of
>evidence -- of pederasty! Adrian Searle (I think it was) recently called
>Giacometti a talentless thief, David Lee called David Bowie's work "shit",
>and Januszack only last week (with more justification this time) claimed
>that Howard Hodgkin's paintings are mediocre and repetitive. Just the
>other day, I read a review of Max Beckman which claimed that his paintings
>were entirely worthless as art -- that Beckman was bad in every respect.
>
>And this has been going on for a long time. Ruskin was famously fined a
>farthing for accusing Whistler of flinging a pot of paint in the public's
>face and asking to be paid for it (he hadn't seen Hodgkin) -- and you
>should hear the things Delacroix and Ingres said about each other!
>
Yes the famous quote went something like "I have seen, and heard,
much of Cockney impudence before now; but never expected to hear a
coxcomb ask two hundred guineas for flinging a pot of paint in the
public's face" and we all know how impudent Cockney's can be.
But yes mud throwing is part of art discourse, its one of the fun parts I
think. Each to his own opinion. I have nothing against Mani's opinion in
the slightest, I LOVE people with a passion for what they believe in,
and I admire free thinkers.
Reading some of the threads over Christmas, especially about
Duchamp, got kind of frustrating, I take it that most working artists
should at least be familiar with a particular discourse within some forms
of art, and to keep going over Duchamps 'idea' and writer's reverting to
trying to educate others about a particular work is frustrating, if there is
going to be a discussion about Duchamp then it would be nice to go a
little further with it, than justifying what the artist did, it should be where
do we take it from there.
Personally I am thumbs up for Duchamp, he opened up much
discussion about the role of art and the artist, I am not saying that I
particularly like his work, but he opened up the box to new possibilities
for the rest of us, for me that where his importance lays.
>> There is no glory in saying Picasso is twaddle, big deal, so what, who
>> cares about Picasso, his dead isn't he?
>
>It does matter what attitude we take to past artists, because this
>indicates what directions we will take in the future. And it does take
>courage (or perhaps foolhardiness) to deprecate an artist whose reputation
>many hold unassailable, even though the guy is dead.
I don't see the courage or foolhardiness in denouncing an artist, I take it
we are all free thinkers? Using Picasso was just an illustration. There are
artists in history that are supposed to be the 'bees knees' but it doesn't
mean that I have to relate to their work. I will admit that Picasso had
some great ideas with some of his work, but he has never given me
goose bumps, a lot of his work in 'my opinion' can be hit and miss,
which isn't surprising because he was so prolific.
>
>
deni wrote:
>> I noticed an article which I have copied below from Andrew Werby
>> asking for a discussion on a 'break away' group for sculpture and as
>> Aard1vark puts it 2.5D work.
>>
>> It seems a shame that sculptors and artists using other media should
>> have to form an alternative newsgroup in order to have a forum of
>> discussion, but after witnessing the hostility here and lack of tolerance I
>> can see why.
>
Bruce wrote:
>I doubt that it has to do with any "hostility" in this group. Certainly,
>sculpture has not been subject to hostility here. Rather, I would suggest
>that it has to do with the fact that there are specific issues to do with
>sculpture and sculpture alone that tend not to get discussed here at all
>-- or get swamped by other topics when they are raised.
>
Yes you may be right, or I may be right, "Come tell us all you sculptors,
come out of the woodwork and express yourselves". I have posted a
response to JK and to Andrew, I believe that sculptors should stay
within this newsgroup, I want to know about these things too, after all
we are all artists, whether we paint flowers or wrap up Tower Bridge in
Christmas paper.
deni wrote:
>> I am all for dialogue, and passionate disagreements, that's how we test
>> our theories and assumptions of life/art and grow, but hostility doesn't
>> further discussions it just stops them dead.
>
>You should lurk for a while in a few other groups. You'll come back
>acknowledging that compared to some, we're all cute, fluffy puppies here.
>
Oh I don't think that the enviroment is *that* hostile, I find it more
hostile on the London Underground, but it would be nice to have a
thread that went further than educating others about art, (hey, remember
I am new I may have missed all of these discussions, but knowing you
cute, fluffy puppy types, I will begin ducking right now!)
Anyway when you get to know me I always make sweeping
statements! that's *my* fluffy side and I am frequently wrong and never
mind admitting to it when I am..
I actually like the newsgroup, and I have read the article on 'Flame
Wars' not that I know exactly what these are, seems to me that people
have passion and they are expressing it, I say good on all. Lets talk art
denouncing art and Yahoo'ing art. The Internet is a big space there's
enough room for all of us.
>
Hey Bruce, did you think I was on a diet, that I couldn't take two
cheesecakes in one day? Here's a request to you all readers that intend
to throw things my way, only throw chocolate cheesecakes! its the only
ones I like.
Peace to all! honest.
--
deni moore
jkea...@aol.com
In article <deirdre-1601...@pm0a7.new.sover.net>,
dei...@sover.net (Deirdre) writes:
>I think creativity can come long before skill. I have some excellent
ideas
>for works, I just don't have the technical ability to carry them off.
Some
>of these I've had in my head for years. However, I think that skill also
>leads to creativity in that you might do something interesting by playing
>out some "what if" scenarios you might not have thought of before you
were
>trained.
>
>
Mani has a favorite quote of Dali's that is appropriate. Perhaps he'll
post it again. Many people we tend to think of as creative have said
things to the effect of "Invention is 99% perspiration and 1%
inspiration." All the successful artists, musicians and writers I know
would be called workaholics in the traditional workforce. (A few years
ago, there was a cartoon in the _New Yorker_, of an artist, palette in
hand, talking to his obviously unhappy significant other. The caption was:
"Workaholic? Brokers and salesmen are workaholics. Artists are obsessed.
There's a difference.") All of these people are "masters" of their media,
too.
Yes, you must have ideas to be a creative person, but I think it's much
easier to get an idea than to put it into a form that adequately
communicates the idea.
Nobody _needs_ to be cruel or impolite, but I think most people (self
included) are much more impatient with those with whom they disagree than
we realize. Politeness is often a thin veneer we put on as
self-protection. The Internet provides physical separation and implied
security; thus, the pretense of politeness is unnecessary and frequently
set aside.
Impolite behavior (and this is a cultural phenomenon and what it means
varies from country to country, etc) does not imply incorrect thinking or
a lack of insight.
Better to try to not take insults personally. Try to distill the
information from the emotion, and move on, whether the irritant is a
teacher or someone on the Internet. And learn to draw!
(I'll have my cheesecake with blueberries.)
Cheers,
JK
Mdeli
dei...@sover.net (Deirdre) wrote:
>I think creativity can come long before skill. I have some excellent ideas
>for works, I just don't have the technical ability to carry them off. Some
>of these I've had in my head for years. However, I think that skill also
>leads to creativity in that you might do something interesting by playing
>out some "what if" scenarios you might not have thought of before you were
>trained.
"The supreme tragedy is when ones abilities don't live
up to ones aspirations." S. Dali
>Last time I tried to learn technique, oh, 'round about 1980, I made the
>mistake of taking a life painting class. No prerequisites, never had life
>drawing (though I'd had a couple of drawing classes) and never any prior
>experience painting. I must say the fundamentals of controlling a brush
>and shading and all that really threw me. On top of which, without any
>experience *drawing* figures, well, I was really out of my element.
The human figure is an amorphous form. In order to know
what you are doing you must understand the rudiments of
drawing geometric forms, light and shade and
perspective, Mechanical and architectural drawing still
teach these fundamentals.
The person who understands this rote and more and is
able to do it freehand, has the fundamentals needed to
draw amorphous forms. This is like working from the
scales to harmony in music. Those who don’t understand
the science behind drawing are slaves to try copying
what they see, a very inefficient process leading to a
huge waste of time in order to create those square
miles of schmiery figure drawings to be seen littering
the garbage cans in art schools.
Remember that you don’t need a teacher to tell you that
the nose is off in your drawing. Besides the teacher
any idiot can notice that. The business of the teacher
is to instruct you how to draw it correctly. You can
judge this by looking at the drawings of other students
and those of the teacher. Teachers who can’t draw are
the norm.
>The teacher knew this, but ridiculed me anyway. One of my pieces, seeing
>it come out cubist, well, I just went with it and hammed it up. I got made
>fun of (the guy who painted the woman as though she was a martian,
>however, didn't). In fact, I gave it to a friend who genuinely liked the
>piece.
Compare yourself to and aspire to the works you like.
Don’t be fooled by compliments. Judge what people say
by how rational it is.
At the risk of sounding patronizing---
When I started out as a professional I never took what
people said at my shows very seriously or took great
pleasure at the compliments of my friends. The most
valuable criticism I got was by listening to the
comments of total strangers who saw my paintings
hanging in the window of an antique store. If you can
stop an absolute stranger and get him to look at your
work and take the time to admire the detail from close
and want to purchase it, you wont have to take heed of
the comments of postmodern nitwits or join the ranks of
the disgruntled. If people at some point still don’t
like your work get another profession.
Rrose Selavy
Mdeli wrote:
>
>
>
> When I started out as a professional...
> valuable criticism I got was by listening to the
> comments of total strangers who saw my paintings
> hanging in the window of an antique store.
Well, that explains alot... I like the antique store twist.
> If you can
> stop an absolute stranger and get him to look at your
> work and take the time to admire the detail from close
> and want to purchase it,...
Absolute strangers have impeccable qualifications to appreciate your
work, that's revealing. They also have, or will get, the money to buy it
off the street.
> you wont have to take heed of
> the comments of postmodern nitwits...
Who needs educated nitwits when you've got total strangers! I get it.
> or join the ranks of
> the disgruntled.
Wait, that doesn't make sense because you *are* the disgruntled aren't
you?
> If people at some point still don’t
> like your work get another profession.
Yes, that is the formula all great artists have followed: no one liked
their work so they quit.
Deirdre
> The human figure is an amorphous form. In order to know
> what you are doing you must understand the rudiments of
> drawing geometric forms, light and shade and
> perspective, Mechanical and architectural drawing still
> teach these fundamentals.
Actually, *those* skills I had (in drawing anyway), with a year of basic
drawing and also quite a lot of architectural drafting (including
perspective). My problem was going into life painting without having had
what I consider two prerequisites: life drawing and beginning painting. I
was working with unfamiliar forms and unfamiliar tools.
I will be taking life drawing this spring. I have been practicing my basic
shapes and forms and, while not perfect, do seem to look realistic.
> The person who understands this rote and more and is
> able to do it freehand, has the fundamentals needed to
> draw amorphous forms. This is like working from the
> scales to harmony in music.
Understood.
> Remember that you don't need a teacher to tell you that
> the nose is off in your drawing. Besides the teacher
> any idiot can notice that.
Well, but you might need a teacher to help you learn how to correct it --
or prevent it.
> The business of the teacher is to instruct you how
> to draw it correctly. You can judge this by looking
> at the drawings of other students and those of the
> teacher. Teachers who can't draw are the norm.
Most good computer programmers can't teach. A lot of the writing teachers
I've seen can't compose a decent paragraph (but have MFAs). Skill at doing
and skill at teaching don't necessarily overlap but ideally they do and at
some point you need someone with both.
> Compare yourself to and aspire to the works you like.
> Don't be fooled by compliments. Judge what people say
> by how rational it is.
Compliments can keep you going when you're starting out though. I did my
first watercolor at the end of last month (I mean ever). I thought to
myself "gee, that's not half bad" and pinned it up on the wall. Sure I
could see where it needed improvement and I learned some things, but for a
first effort it was significantly better than I expected.
A friend visited and complimented me on it. It was OK, but it was just for
practice. She wasn't impressed by my perfect cones and spheres though.
::sigh:: ;D
> When I started out as a professional I never took what
> people said at my shows very seriously or took great
> pleasure at the compliments of my friends. The most
> valuable criticism I got was by listening to the
> comments of total strangers who saw my paintings
> hanging in the window of an antique store. If you can
> stop an absolute stranger and get him to look at your
> work and take the time to admire the detail from close
> and want to purchase it, you wont have to take heed of
> the comments of postmodern nitwits or join the ranks of
> the disgruntled. If people at some point still don't
> like your work get another profession.
I'm actually not doing this with the intent of going into art. OK, I'd
like to be a *star* in some profession. But I got 20 years' head start in
programming and a good six in writing.
Anyhow, I'm mostly taking this up for a couple reasons: 1) my husband died
two months ago and none of the other things I did for fun are at all
interesting right now; 2) I don't have that many photos of him, but it
occurred to me that I might enjoy drawing/painting his picture if I had
the requisite skill -- and I wanted to learn that before the memory of
what he looked like faded too much; 3) we sort of have a family tradition
going on of painting one particular scene. My grandfather and grandmother
did it when I was a kid (I remember running around playing) -- he in oil
and stormy and she in watercolor and very light and impressionistic. I
love the tradition (now four paintings strong) and wanted to keep going.
_Deirdre
Deirdre
In article <19970116215...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
jkea...@aol.com wrote:
> Mani has a favorite quote of Dali's that is appropriate. Perhaps
> he'll post it again.
Yep!
> Many people we tend to think of as creative have said things to
> the effect of "Invention is 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration."
I agree with this sentiment.
> All the successful artists, musicians and writers I know would be
> called workaholics in the traditional workforce. (A few years ago,
> there was a cartoon in the _New Yorker_, of an artist, palette in
> hand, talking to his obviously unhappy significant other. The
> caption was: "Workaholic? Brokers and salesmen are workaholics.
> Artists are obsessed. There's a difference.") All of these people
> are "masters" of their media, too.
There's a difference in the creative professions: there is no off switch. ;D
Brokers can turn off their mind. Writers and artists (and programmers)
can't switch it off.
> Nobody _needs_ to be cruel or impolite, but I think most people
> (self included) are much more impatient with those with whom
> they disagree than we realize.
Well, there's also "nothing annoys you so much as the bad habit you've
broken" syndrome.
> Politeness is often a thin veneer we put on as self-protection.
> The Internet provides physical separation and implied security;
> thus, the pretense of politeness is unnecessary and frequently
> set aside.
This is partly it, but it's also that it's so much easier to take offense
when the tone of voice and other contextual clues may have softened the
statement. OTOH, they *could* make them worse. ;D
> Better to try to not take insults personally. Try to distill the
> information from the emotion, and move on, whether the irritant is a
> teacher or someone on the Internet. And learn to draw!
As I said, I'm taking more drawing, including the elusive life drawing.
Also taking a watercolor class. I'm much more a "stick it out" person than
I was back then. Now I'd answer back rather than take it and I'd stick
with the program rather than disappear.
_Deirdre
D.E. Williams
>myself "gee, that's not half bad" and pinned it up on the wall. Sure I
>could see where it needed improvement and I learned some things, but for a
>first effort it was significantly better than I expected.
>
>A friend visited and complimented me on it. It was OK, but it was just for
>practice. She wasn't impressed by my perfect cones and spheres though.
>::sigh:: ;D
Something to think about when 'seeing' where something 'needed' improvement:
If you give your all to any particular work, it is the best you could do at
the time. Allow it to be a chronicle of your art journey. That you 'could'
have done this or that 'better' is nonesense. You did it as well as you could
at the time. If you were to take on a similar work you could obviously use the
experience you have gained from your former works. Saying something could've
been better is essentially saying "I did not do the best work that I was
capable of doing at the time." If on the other hand you 'did' do the best work
you could've at the time, then you could not have done it better!
One last thing I'm sure you've heard plenty: The best way to learn to
do art (or almost anything) is to do it. The more you do art the greater your
knowledge of yourself and your abilities (and, hopefully, your abilities will
improve over time).
D.E. Williams
_____________________________________________________________
Cogitare! Deus ex machina! Mindspawn
http://www.mindspawn.com Webmaster
Deirdre
In article <5bod38$1...@news-central.tiac.net>, dewil...@mindspawn.com
(D.E. Williams) wrote:
> Something to think about when 'seeing' where something 'needed'
> improvement: If you give your all to any particular work, it is
> the best you could do at the time. Allow it to be a chronicle
> your art journey. That you 'could' have done this or that of
> 'better' is nonesense. You did it as well as you could at the time.
> If you were to take on a similar work you could obviously use the
> experience you have gained from your former works. Saying
> something could've been better is essentially saying "I did not
> do the best work that I was capable of doing at the time." If on
> the other hand you 'did' do the best work you could've at the time,
> then you could not have done it better!
This is a good point. It's not that I deliberately didn't do my best work,
it's that I saw, when I was able to look on it and reflect on it, that I
made errors which were probably more due to trying to work in something
very unfamiliar and feeling awkward than any other factor. What I really
meant to say was that if I did it over, I probably wouldn't have made some
of those mistakes.
One of the issues with watercolor is fixing "errors." One common error is
using too much water and buckling the paper (yes, the first trial was on
the too-thin stuff they sell to students and one thing I said was that I
wasn't going to use it).
So, the parts I started earlier (when I was less practiced) vs. those I
did later aren't as good. I learned while I was working. That is really
what I meant.
> One last thing I'm sure you've heard plenty: The best way to learn to
> do art (or almost anything) is to do it. The more you do art the
> greater your knowledge of yourself and your abilities (and, hopefully,
> your abilities will improve over time).
Yes, I think Yoda said this best. ;D (Do or do not, there is no try)
_Deirdre
G*rd*n
jkea...@aol.com:
| ...
| varies from country to country, etc) does not imply incorrect thinking or
| a lack of insight.
I've generally found it accompanied by a lack of
intelligence, and often sociopathy or criminality.
This is anecdotal, of course, but I know a number of
my acquaintances have had similar experiences. I
don't mean to say that rude people are always wrong,
but I would hesitate to do business with them or
rely on anything they said.
wsparker
D.E. Williams wrote:
>
> Saying something could've
> been better is essentially saying "I did not do the best work that I was
> capable of doing at the time." If on the other hand you 'did' do the best work
> you could've at the time, then you could not have done it better!
Yes, the point bears repetition! Who would wake up in the morning and
say, "Today I am going to do less well than I can do?"
Mdeli
dewil...@mindspawn.com (D.E. Williams) wrote:
> One last thing I'm sure you've heard plenty: The best way to learn to
>do art (or almost anything) is to do it. The more you do art the greater your
>knowledge of yourself and your abilities (and, hopefully, your abilities will
>improve over time).
Learn by doing sounds fine until you see how art is
taught today by carrying this idea to the extreme.
Take drawing. You start with paper and something to
draw with. Now here is the model and the teacher in
essence says "do" and everyone proceeds.
The equivalent in music would be; the teacher sits you
in front of the piano and says "play." No scales, no
lessons, no passing on of knowledge. Now after two
weeks of trial and error you have figured out how to
play "jingle bells" and the teacher tells you, "see,
you can play, now all you have to do is practice and
you’ll do art."
You can practice till you drop. It would be a huge
waste of time to try to figure out the basic knowledge
which took the best minds centuries to figure out. It
would be as stupid as everyone having to reinvent the
wheel for himself.
Mani Deli
…no skill no art
wsparker
Mdeli wrote:
over time).
>
> Learn by doing sounds fine until you see how art is
> taught today by carrying this idea to the extreme.
I doubt even you know how "art is taught today."
>
> Take drawing. You start with paper and something to
> draw with. Now here is the model and the teacher in
> essence says "do" and everyone proceeds.
Yes, all are one-word instructors. But you need to think this way for
your following facile analogy.
>
> The equivalent in music would be; the teacher sits you
> in front of the piano and says "play." No scales, no
> lessons, no passing on of knowledge.
I fail to see the connection to this simplistic analogy.
> Now after two
> weeks of trial and error you have figured out how to
> play "jingle bells" and the teacher tells you, "see,
> you can play, now all you have to do is practice and
> you’ll do art."
See, how simplistic the analogy is?
>
> You can practice till you drop. It would be a huge
> waste of time to try to figure out the basic knowledge
> which took the best minds centuries to figure out.
This comment makes no sense at all. Sounds important though.
> It
> would be as stupid as everyone having to reinvent the
> wheel for himself.
>
Good thing you have given us another simplistic analogy describe the
"degrees" of stupidity you perceive.
Dan Fox
On Sun, 19 Jan 1997 18:03:34 GMT, hu...@interlog.com (Mdeli) wrote:
(snip previous message)
>
>Learn by doing sounds fine until you see how art is
>taught today by carrying this idea to the extreme.
>
>Take drawing. You start with paper and something to
>draw with. Now here is the model and the teacher in
>essence says "do" and everyone proceeds.
>
>The equivalent in music would be; the teacher sits you
>in front of the piano and says "play." No scales, no
>lessons, no passing on of knowledge. Now after two
>weeks of trial and error you have figured out how to
>play "jingle bells" and the teacher tells you, "see,
>you can play, now all you have to do is practice and
>you’ll do art."
>
>You can practice till you drop. It would be a huge
>waste of time to try to figure out the basic knowledge
>which took the best minds centuries to figure out. It
>would be as stupid as everyone having to reinvent the
>wheel for himself.
>
>Mani Deli
>…no skill no art
Mani -
I agree with you 100 percent - *teaching* art this way is useless.
There was a time in the 70's when many art schools subscribed to this
theory - and a lot of puny artists resulted. (Some of the more
conscientious students subsequently worked hard with private teachers
to get the skills they were cheated out of in school.) If you're
around my age (52) you may be recalling this odorous period.
Today, however, if you visit most art schools you will find people
like me teaching the fundamentals in the same manner that music is
taught (good analogy on your part, by the way). There are exceptions,
of course, but in general I believe that most schools have realized
the truth of what you're saying..
Dan Fox
Dan Fox
On Thu, 16 Jan 1997 12:44:15 -0500, dei...@sover.net (Deirdre) wrote:
[snip]
>
>The teacher knew this, but ridiculed me anyway. One of my pieces, seeing
>it come out cubist, well, I just went with it and hammed it up. I got made
>fun of (the guy who painted the woman as though she was a martian,
>however, didn't). In fact, I gave it to a friend who genuinely liked the
>piece.
>
>But I'd get comments like "did you paint that in your car?" and other
>non-encouraging remarks. So, I kinda hope I don't get any instructors like
>you guys. I can take almost anything but the ad hominem attacks. ;D
>
>_Deirdre
Deirdre -
I hear stories like this all the time. As a successful working artist,
and one who has taught art off and on for over 20 years, let me say
that I have nothing but contempt for instructors in any field who
ridicule their students. I apologize for them and am embarrassed to be
included in the same job category.
Students learn by getting competent instruction - and by being
encouraged and gently but firmly kept on the right path. Let me tell
you a secret about these abusive so-called art instructors - most of
them are failed artists - and it has made them bitter. They take it
out on students who have come to them for guidance. They should all
burn in hell.
Dan
jkea...@aol.com
>I've generally found it accompanied by a lack of
>intelligence, and often sociopathy or criminality.
>This is anecdotal, of course, but I know a number of
>my acquaintances have had similar experiences. I
>don't mean to say that rude people are always wrong,
>but I would hesitate to do business with them or
>rely on anything they said.
Maybe, but then there are the Ted Bundys, who are usually very polite,
except in certain circumstances, to which there are no living witnesses!
(Aside to readers outside the USA: Bundy was a serial killer of women, who
was known as a charming and highly intelligent individual. At his
sentencing, the judge complimented him on his self representation during
the trial (Bundy had studied law), and said he would have been pleased to
have Bundy serving as an attorney in his courtroom. This to a man who
killed dozens of young women, and whom he was sentencing to death. (Bundy
was executed, in 1990 I believe.)
Cheers,
JK
William O. Barrett
Interesting topic and some interesting comments..........
Has anyone posted any of this in the Newsgroup "alt.art.colleges" -
might get an interesting reaction there, too?
Bruce Attah
In article <32E248...@olympus.net>, w...@olympus.net wrote:
[To MDeli, deprecating a perfectly sensible and easy-to-understand argument]
> I fail to see the connection to this simplistic analogy.
What IS your point, wsparker? Your style of argument grows increasingly
bellicose, and you rarely refrain from insulting your opponents, yet all
you seem to be arguing for is that art schools should not teach the
technical skills that many students want to acquire -- skills that could
help them earn a living in their chosen field. What is so terrible, what
is so _evil_, about learning to draw?
What do you believe should be taught in fine art departments? History,
sociology, literary theory? Why? Are there not departments already that
teach those subjects? If that's what you want, why not close down the art
departments altogether and replace BFAs with Bachelors in General
Humanities?
Bruce Attah.
wsparker
Bruce Attah wrote:
>
> In article <32E248...@olympus.net>, w...@olympus.net wrote:
>
> [To MDeli, deprecating a perfectly sensible and easy-to-understand argument]
Yes, it is perfectly sensible, easy to understand and facile.
> > I fail to see the connection to this simplistic analogy.
>
> What IS your point, wsparker?
Read the posting. He's making a point on which I have an disparaging
opinion.
> yet all
> you seem to be arguing for is that art schools should not teach the
> technical skills that many students want to acquire -- skills that could
> help them earn a living in their chosen field. What is so terrible, what
> is so _evil_, about learning to draw?
I never said THAT! I believe learning to draw is very important.
I am "arguing" against overly simplistic close-mindedness.
Tugi
jkea...@aol.com wrote:
>
> In article <deirdre-1601...@pm0a7.new.sover.net>,
> dei...@sover.net (Deirdre) writes:
>
> ideas
> >for works, I just don't have the technical ability to carry them off.
> Some
> >of these I've had in my head for years. However, I think that skill also
> >leads to creativity in that you might do something interesting by playing
> >out some "what if" scenarios you might not have thought of before you
> were
> >trained.
> >
>
> easier to get an idea than to put it into a form that adequately
> communicates the idea.
>
visual form. That is, ideas remain ideas and art objects become art
objects.
It is not good to confuse idea and object (and 'logos' and 'mythos').
Object
is no more nor less of an idea. It is simply, a different class.
To imagine a result is an impressive ability. But I believe that such a
'divine' ability would mean the absence of creativity. What would be the
point
of creation if we know in advance how the result would look like.
Experiment, experiment, experiment...
A line on empty paper is the beginning, and not some 'ideal forms' or
clever
ideas one 'wants to convey'. Isn't the finding of a pleasure in
experimenting what
makes an art-workoholic? The game of "what if" is what a creativity is
about, and
not some arrogant preaching "over the visual medium" of rational,
linguistic 'truths'.
I still believe that there are no 'contents' without 'forms'. What do
you think?
--
/_~
TUGI______________________ (/9 6`) _____________________________
Melbourne, Australia (/~\) t.co...@sab.unimelb.edu.au
\`/
~
Deirdre
In article <32e4fff8.2623218@news>, Dan Fox wrote:
> I hear stories like this all the time. As a successful working
> artist, and one who has taught art off and on for over 20 years,
> let me say that I have nothing but contempt for instructors in
> any field who ridicule their students. I apologize for them and
> am embarrassed to be included in the same job category.
Thanks.
Actually, Mani's post about those who just throw the student to work --
well that's exactly what this instructor did. I did pretty well in drawing
and learned a lot and my drawing improved considerably. Yet, I took this
comment too personally. I was right to quit that class, but wrong to give
up.
> Students learn by getting competent instruction - and by being
> encouraged and gently but firmly kept on the right path. Let me
> tell you a secret about these abusive so-called art instructors -
> most of them are failed artists - and it has made them bitter.
> They take it out on students who have come to them for guidance.
> They should all burn in hell.
I never saw the guy's work, but later he was hired by a bigger school and
everyone hated him. I was glad to hear the same sentiment, but sorry
others had to suffer under him. I only hope he's managed to be ousted.
_Deirdre
--
http://www.sover.net/~deirdre
First alien says to the second alien, who is looking at an apparently empty pedestal in an art gallery, "Yes, I know it's invisible. But Is It Art?" -- Martin Young
{ brad brace }
> On Thu, 16 Jan 1997 12:44:15 -0500, dei...@sover.net (Deirdre) wrote:
> >But I'd get comments like "did you paint that in your car?" and...
This comment may be more useful than you first thought!!
--
{ brad brace } <<<< bbr...@netcom.com >>>> ~finger for pgp
The 12hr-ISBN-JPEG Project ftp.netcom.com/pub/bb/bbrace
continuous hypermodern ftp.teleport.com/users/bbrace
photo-art ftp.pacifier.com/pub/users/bbrace
--
Usenet-news: alt.binaries.pictures.12hr/ a.b.p.fine-art.misc
Mailing-list: list...@netcom.com / subscribe 12hr-isbn-jpeg
Reverse Solidus: http://www.teleport.com/~bbrace/bbrace.html
Deirdre
The only use it was to me was that I should vote with my feet.
Since you either haven't been paying attention or are a complete asswipe
(and I'm willing to be charitable), here's a recap:
1) I never said the piece was any good, in fact I was unhappy with it.
2) It was the first time (outside an afternoon with oil paints as a girl
scout) that I'd tried my hand at painting.
3) It was billed as a beginning painting class, but we were thrown in the
first day with a nude model to paint.
The point was NOT that I was defending my work but that the teacher wasn't
helpful.
If I were presented (as a teacher) with something like what I turned in,
I'd probably ask the student how they felt about the piece and why before
I made any comments of my own.
_Deirdre
In article <32E7A1...@wired.com>, bbr...@wired.com wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Jan 1997 12:44:15 -0500, dei...@sover.net (Deirdre) wrote:
>
> > >But I'd get comments like "did you paint that in your car?" and...
>
>
> This comment may be more useful than you first thought!!
--
mdeli
Skill in the most general sense is the ability to make or do something
others can't do and thus creating something that people want.
In the arts there are the learned skills namely those of which the
basics can be taught in a rote sense like drawing, color, painting
technique etc. These are essential fundamental skills. It is these
skills which one should expect to acquire in school. It is these to
which I refer to when I say, "no skill no art."
After practicing and mastering fundamental skills one combines this
foundation with ones talents and perseverance and attempts to create
what is regarded by others as artwork. This results in an ability to
create something people want and sometimes to creating something a
great number of people treasure for a long time (great art.)
I offer a musical analogy. Anyone can be taught the scales and if they
persevere they can learn to play the piano fairly well. All must learn
a degree of rote. Few become great pianists. Few have the mysterious
gift necessary to become great pianists. Yet all great pianists master
technique.
To all those who believe that I advocate nothing more than learned
skills I can only say that they are mistaken. I do advocate that all
art must rest on a foundation of the fundamental skills and that
anything which lacks this foundation and is presently classed as great
art will fail to withstand the test of time.
I maintain that the vast majority of Modern Art which inhabits our
museums does not even possess a modicum of the fundamental skills.
That is why I predict that when the tide of fashion changes Modern Art
will be reassessed
I do not believe that art must return to the realism or the subject
matter of the past. I do not even favor realism over abstraction. I do
not advocate any one style of subject matter as necessarily being
better than another.
However I see no merit whatever in work claiming to be great art which
anyone with even a modicum of skill can imitate and even forge. I see
no merit in a work's claim of being first when it exhibits nothing
more than flat drips, stripes or schmiers. I regard such work in spite
of present day adulation to fall into a category of which should be
called STUPID ART.
And I regard anyone claiming to produce artwork whose product shows
that he lacks fundamental artistic skills (no matter how brilliant at
other things) as a STUPID ARTIST.
And I regard anyone who doesn't possess fundamental skills and claims
he teaches art as a STUPID ART TEACHER.
Mani DeLi
If an artist hasn't the skill to do something most others can't do his
only alternative is Bullshit.
wsp
mdeli wrote:
trollish agitprop
dwilson
In article <3366a37e...@news.interlog.com>, hug...@interlog.com
(mdeli) wrote:
> Skill in the most general sense is the ability to make or do something
> others can't do and thus creating something that people want.
This is a flawed thesis. Skill is the ability to do what everyone else can do.
wsp
Right.
If it were true artists would have no need for the work of other
artists.
Just as skilled typists have no need for the skills of other typists.
J. Helfrich
mdeli wrote:
>
> Skill in the most general sense is the ability to make or do something
> others can't do and thus creating something that people want.
>
You got THAT right. Most of it is a case of the Emperor's new
clothes...
jmh
--
J.M. Helfrich
jhel...@agt.net
http://www.agt.net/public/jhelfric/jhelfric.htm (Surrealism/Realism)
JKearman
It's the return of the Corgi!
/s/
Gramps
Cdeiner
Because you have skill neither makes you an artist nor prohibits you from
being one.
I don't understand why you are talking about skill.
Larry Seiler
I just won our state's 1998 Inland Trout Stamp design competition. After
33 entrees, and 23 being finalists or runner-ups in duck, turkey, trout,
and salmon...number 34 won. Now perhaps the judges are not the best
judges of good art...but my peers are artists, and we sharpen one
another.
In the early years, I focused on anatomical accuracies, which today
after much analytical time spent has become intuitive or second nature.
There is a repulse in the arts today if anything requires an analytical
approach. The same focus however that one needed to find balance and
control in riding a bicycle, or hitting a backhand in tennis, becomes in
time second nature..an intuitive response.
When I teach art workshops, adult students are often or frequently
flabbergasted at how I can mix the color they are after in 5-10 seconds,
after they had been at it for minutes. I no longer have to think twice
about color mixing...a skill that over years of discipline and conscious
effort I have acquired. Now my focus on my subject can be more
aesthetic more intuitive. I can put full attention on the subject,
sense the "aha!" and not have to struggle with the mechanics to "conjur"
up that color to apply to canvas before the inspiration escapes.
Let me use a metaphor in an entirely different way, one that will be
repulsive to some. When first learning to shoot a bow, there are a
great many mechanical things to learn and master to develop any
consistency. Proper draw lengths, anchor points, correct distance
recognition..etc; The problem is, when for example one uses a bow on a
deer, the hunter needs to focus attention on what the deer is doing and
the deers attitude. A simple twitch of the ear may mean he is about to
explode out of the picture...but all the while, the amateur or
intermediate is is focusing on mechanics. He's thinking to himself,
"okay..hhhmm, the deer is by that tree, that tree is about 27 yards.
Oops, now he's by that bush...I think that bush is about 23 yards. Hhmm
should I depend on my upper site, the next one, or go in between?"
Well..all this focus, and none of the charature or creaturely intentions
were sensed. Suddenly this deer jumps and is gone.
Skill acquired, and all behind one based upon experience and time, the
focus is entirely on the deer. What was initially analytical has become
intuitive and that intuitive sense is wholly depended upon.
What we fail to understand as artists is that skills to learn are not
the enemies of creativity. First of all the person who has made that
conclusion has made the mistake of assuming artistic prowess or calling
ones self an artist must be done immediately. And why so? One is not
an adult immediately upon exiting the womb! Teens constantly fight not
being regarded as an adult...but, no matter the argument, they are not.
When one pays his or her dues in time, the development of skills pass
out of the picture and lie dormant, where upon focus turns entirely upon
the subject. Time may have passed, but does not mean the artist is less
creative because the earlier years focused upon skill development.. he
or she was just more patient.
I appreciate works of contemporary artists whom first acquired skills of
the academy, could produce works of realism...the illusion of that which
is or could be, and then embarked upon their own to create an entirely
different approach. Look at the early works of Picasso or of Van Gogh,
and you see the demonstration of trained and disciplined observation and
applied skills. From there, they matured their vision. Today, we want
instant success..our star in the cement. We want to bypass the
fundamentals and if necessary redefine the descriptive words "good" or
"excellent" or "what is acceptable".
As an art teacher, I recognize that one reason art teachers have
difficulty finding tenure in public high schools or full time employment
there..is that art has little value in the public domain. In an age of
tight budgets and fiscal concerns, administrations hardly understand why
hanging onto a good and experienced art teacher is necessary...after all
we can't even tell if a piece of art is to be deemed good or not good
anymore!
This mindset has infested the public as well, and so only a minimal
amount of money will be set aside for the arts...to be saved for new
football jerseys for the high school athletes instead!
Now...I am not attacking abstract or contemporary art in and of itself,
because quite frankly I have seen quite a few examples that demonstrate
skill and knowledge of the craft. Colors were not haphazardly applied
with no rhyme or reason nor was my intelligence preyed upon and mocked.
There appears to be a point to the work, a sense of design or
understanding of composition.
What I am refering to is blatant mockery of talent disguised to statiate
a postmodern valueless void to attain undue applause and respect...
to truly argue what art is...one will need to understand worldviews,
Lenin/Marxist, Secular Humanist, Cosmic Humanist, Biblical; one will
need to understand influences of time such as Judaeo/Christian,
Modernism, and Post-Modernism...one needs to see the innocence of the
40's, the family of the 50's, the revolution of the 60's, the
independence of the 70's, the affluence/greed of the 80's...and the post
modernism of today. Otherwise everyone in this discussion is comparing
bananas to Valvoline 30 weight oil...and is only a display of ignorance.
There is a place for art being used to express opinion, (which includes
an intentional misuse of skill for that purpose..but to achieve that
purpose is so easy why expect a great deal of respect from others for
doing it?)...a place for expression, an aesthetic reaction to one's
environment, etc., but to argue that there is no place for skill in art
is to say there is no need to arrange letters of the alphabet is such a
way to communicate one's thoughts..
do you 0ikewhgpn zvp wdkuan wjh fanw[uig fnoewh snoewh!!!!
Larry
mmw
>
> Let me use a metaphor in an entirely different way, one that will be
> repulsive to some. When first learning to shoot a bow, there are a
> great many mechanical things to learn and master to develop any
> consistency. Proper draw lengths, anchor points, correct distance
> recognition..etc; The problem is, when for example one uses a bow on a
> deer, the hunter needs to focus attention on what the deer is doing and
> the deers attitude. A simple twitch of the ear may mean he is about to
> explode out of the picture...but all the while, the amateur or
> intermediate is is focusing on mechanics. He's thinking to himself,
> "okay..hhhmm, the deer is by that tree, that tree is about 27 yards.
> Oops, now he's by that bush...I think that bush is about 23 yards. Hhmm
> should I depend on my upper site, the next one, or go in between?"
> Well..all this focus, and none of the charature or creaturely intentions
> were sensed. Suddenly this deer jumps and is gone.
> Skill acquired, and all behind one based upon experience and time, the
> focus is entirely on the deer. What was initially analytical has become
> intuitive and that intuitive sense is wholly depended upon.
Unfortunate "metaphor" - why hunt a deer with a bow & arrow?
it takes an hour for the creature to die in agony.
> I appreciate works of contemporary artists whom first acquired skills of
> the academy, could produce works of realism...the illusion of that which
> is or could be, and then embarked upon their own to create an entirely
> different approach. Look at the early works of Picasso or of Van Gogh,
> and you see the demonstration of trained and disciplined observation and
> applied skills. From there, they matured their vision.
Do you mean that they learned to draw?
> we can't even tell if a piece of art is to be deemed good or not good
> anymore!
Speak for yourself. There are still a few good art critics around.
Marilyn
Larry Seiler
Unfortunate "metaphor" - why hunt a deer with a bow & arrow?
> it takes an hour for the creature to die in agony.
>
to interview a deer in the process of dying!
First and foremost, sportsmen practice hours upon hour..the average bow
kill shot is within 17 yards. Secondly, it is commonly known among the
practicioners of the sport that the "razor" sharp broadheads at 212 feet
per second cuts through and more often than not passes through the deer
without the deer hardly noticing. I have seen deer hit from a high
angle by archers in a tree continue right on feeding in an alfalfa
field.
The deer, if it does run..will run 300-400 yards at most, and basically
will lay down feeling tired..continue to lose strength, and goes to
sleep. It does not have the explosive impact of a high powered rifle,
though I do not have a problem with gun hunting either. But as far as
your agonizing is concerned, I haven't seen it. Plus, the experience of
getting within 17 yards of mature whitetail yields more to sportsmanship
than a kill kill ethic. Sorry, I do not ascribe a "Bambi" personhood to
an animal. At any rate..back to art.
> > I appreciate works of contemporary artists whom first acquired skills of
> > the academy, could produce works of realism...the illusion of that which
> > is or could be, and then embarked upon their own to create an entirely
> > different approach. Look at the early works of Picasso or of Van Gogh,
> > and you see the demonstration of trained and disciplined observation and
> > applied skills. From there, they matured their vision.
>
> Do you mean that they learned to draw?
They learned color theory, use of negative and positive space, use of
symmetrical and assymetrical eye path to lead the eye throughout the
picture plane, the mixing of and application of paint in various
disciplined manners, use of contrast..that is- light versus dark, detail
versus lack of detail, warm color versus cool, texture versus flat,
yes..then the ability to draw or render, and to trust what the trained
eye can see.
>
> > we can't even tell if a piece of art is to be deemed good or not good
> > anymore!
>
> Speak for yourself. There are still a few good art critics around.
I didn't say I do not have an opinion of good or bad works nor that
others do not have that ability either...I was speaking on the practical
existent biases that administrators have in an educational setting such
as a high school, pressured as it is to please the existing property tax
residents..and that the majority of administrators have no artistic
training in their background whatsoever. Works by students that
suggest a focus on freedom to create.. at that level, are suspect to why
a teacher need be kept, tenured and have a salary increased year after
year. That is real...that is what is happening! Those of us whom value
aesthetics may understand what is transpiring and the value of it, but
the more people complain that their 5 year olds can splatter paint like
that..the more people question the value of continuing to payroll the
arts.
Good art critics also know when a work is an attempt to be passed off as
art, when clever marketing is attempting to advantage itself upon the
ignorance of the affluent, and why a piece in their opinion is good.
The piece will speak for itself and will not need a page statement by
the artist defending or explaining his/her intentions! The arts should
draw the viewer into the work, not into the artist...and cause the
viewer to reflect upon it as to how it relates or pertains to him/her.
Otherwise it is just art therapy, and need hang no where but the
artist's own home.
>
Larry lse...@eau.net
Charlie James
I think it's because NOT having skill DOES prohibit you from being one.
__________________________________
Charlie James
jame...@eawr.madison.k12.il.us
Art Teacher
East Alton-Wood River Community High School District 14
http://eawr.madison.k12.il.us
__________________________________
mdeli
self expression without skill is self delusion.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Larry Seiler
If skill is unnecessary, sure puts our positions and necessity as art
teachers in question...
Good post.
Larry Seiler
J. Helfrich
Larry Seiler wrote:
>
> Unfortunate "metaphor" - why hunt a deer with a bow & arrow?
> > it takes an hour for the creature to die in agony.
> >
> Evidently you're assuming "agony" or Disney provided a language for you
> to interview a deer in the process of dying!
> First and foremost, sportsmen practice hours upon hour..the average bow
> kill shot is within 17 yards. Secondly, it is commonly known among the
> practicioners of the sport that the "razor" sharp broadheads at 212 feet
> per second cuts through and more often than not passes through the deer
> without the deer hardly noticing. I have seen deer hit from a high
> angle by archers in a tree continue right on feeding in an alfalfa
> field.
> The deer, if it does run..will run 300-400 yards at most, and basically
> will lay down feeling tired..continue to lose strength, and goes to
> sleep. It does not have the explosive impact of a high powered rifle,
> though I do not have a problem with gun hunting either. But as far as
> your agonizing is concerned, I haven't seen it. Plus, the experience of
> getting within 17 yards of mature whitetail yields more to sportsmanship
> than a kill kill ethic. Sorry, I do not ascribe a "Bambi" personhood to
> an animal. At any rate..back to art.
I have an idea, let me shoot YOU with an arrow and test your theory that
there is no agony involved. After all, you might not even notice it and
may only feel a bit tired.
(The amazing thing is, I think you actually BELIEVE that.)
and could we PLEASE stick to the subject of art here. If you want to
talk about hunting, why don't you post to rec.killing.redneck
jmh
>
> > > I appreciate works of contemporary artists whom first acquired skills of
> > > the academy, could produce works of realism...the illusion of that which
> > > is or could be, and then embarked upon their own to create an entirely
> > > different approach. Look at the early works of Picasso or of Van Gogh,
> > > and you see the demonstration of trained and disciplined observation and
> > > applied skills. From there, they matured their vision.
> >
> > Do you mean that they learned to draw?
>
> They learned color theory, use of negative and positive space, use of
> symmetrical and assymetrical eye path to lead the eye throughout the
> picture plane, the mixing of and application of paint in various
> disciplined manners, use of contrast..that is- light versus dark, detail
> versus lack of detail, warm color versus cool, texture versus flat,
> yes..then the ability to draw or render, and to trust what the trained
> eye can see.
> >
> > > we can't even tell if a piece of art is to be deemed good or not good
> > > anymore!
> >
> > Speak for yourself. There are still a few good art critics around.
>
> I didn't say I do not have an opinion of good or bad works nor that
> others do not have that ability either...I was speaking on the practical
> existent biases that administrators have in an educational setting such
> as a high school, pressured as it is to please the existing property tax
> residents..and that the majority of administrators have no artistic
> training in their background whatsoever. Works by students that
> suggest a focus on freedom to create.. at that level, are suspect to why
> a teacher need be kept, tenured and have a salary increased year after
> year. That is real...that is what is happening! Those of us whom value
> aesthetics may understand what is transpiring and the value of it, but
> the more people complain that their 5 year olds can splatter paint like
> that..the more people question the value of continuing to payroll the
> arts.
>
> Good art critics also know when a work is an attempt to be passed off as
> art, when clever marketing is attempting to advantage itself upon the
> ignorance of the affluent, and why a piece in their opinion is good.
> The piece will speak for itself and will not need a page statement by
> the artist defending or explaining his/her intentions! The arts should
> draw the viewer into the work, not into the artist...and cause the
> viewer to reflect upon it as to how it relates or pertains to him/her.
> Otherwise it is just art therapy, and need hang no where but the
> artist's own home.
> >
> Larry lse...@eau.net
--
J.M. Helfrich
jhel...@agt.net
http://www.agt.net/public/jhelfric/jhelfric.htm (surrealism/realism)
mmw
Larry Seiler wrote:
> Evidently you're assuming "agony" or Disney provided a language for you
> to interview a deer in the process of dying!
Snipped
No Larry,
I read about it in one of your own magazines, "Deer" "How to Bag a Big
Buck." That's good readin' It seems that bow hunters like the lingering
death, so they can have the thrill of tracking their prey.
Anyway, if you see art that shows no craft, skill, expertise
just walk away. Don't let it bother you. Go into your studio
and do your own art work, that will keep you so busy that you
won't care what the other 10 million artists are doing.
As long as you have a few colleagues/ mentors to encourage and
support you, what do you care about all that schlock that is out
there?
Just don't dismiss all contemporary art, all non-representational
art as talentless garbage the way some conservative posters do. That
won't get you anywhere.
Marilyn
>
mmw
Yeah Mani, whoever you are, man or woman, art demon -
why don't you moderate this newsgroup Then you could
terminate anyone who didn't agree with your own idea
of art and your dismissiveness of contemporary art.
PS I love Cy Twombly! So there.
Marilyn
mmw
J. Helfrich wrote:
>
> I have an idea, let me shoot YOU with an arrow and test your theory that
> there is no agony involved. After all, you might not even notice it and
> may only feel a bit tired.
> (The amazing thing is, I think you actually BELIEVE that.)
>
> and could we PLEASE stick to the subject of art here. If you want to
> talk about hunting, why don't you post to rec.killing.redneck
>
> jmh
Larry was talking about art, the art of archery.
Actually I read about bow hunting deer in "Deer" Magazine,
subtitled "Bag a big Buck." The hunters love it that it
takes an hour for the deer to succumb because of the thrill
of tracking the wounded animal.
What kind of art work would a hunter produce? Interesting idea.
Some kind of architechtonic, angular works such as Picasso
created after watching his beloved bloody bull fights.
Anyway, Larry rants too much. He should try to be more succinct.
Marilyn
Larry Seiler
J. Helfrich wrote:
>
> Larry Seiler wrote:
> >
> > Unfortunate "metaphor" - why hunt a deer with a bow & arrow?
> > > it takes an hour for the creature to die in agony.
> > >
> > to interview a deer in the process of dying!
> > kill shot is within 17 yards. Secondly, it is commonly known among the
> > practicioners of the sport that the "razor" sharp broadheads at 212 feet
> > per second cuts through and more often than not passes through the deer
> > without the deer hardly noticing. I have seen deer hit from a high
> > angle by archers in a tree continue right on feeding in an alfalfa
> > field.
> > The deer, if it does run..will run 300-400 yards at most, and basically
> > will lay down feeling tired..continue to lose strength, and goes to
> > sleep. It does not have the explosive impact of a high powered rifle,
> > though I do not have a problem with gun hunting either. But as far as
> > your agonizing is concerned, I haven't seen it. Plus, the experience of
> > getting within 17 yards of mature whitetail yields more to sportsmanship
> > than a kill kill ethic. Sorry, I do not ascribe a "Bambi" personhood to
> > an animal. At any rate..back to art.
>
> I have an idea, let me shoot YOU with an arrow and test your theory that
> there is no agony involved.
When we aquate and ascribe human qualities and emotions to animals, due
no doubt to an evolutionary enculturated society..it does not take many
decades for people to have little ethical problems shooting other
people!!! Wouldn't surprise me if you wanted to do that!
big..BIG difference my dear between me, you, and a wild forest creature!
If you won't accept, well, we speak different languages then anyway!
After all, you might not even notice it and
> may only feel a bit tired.
> (The amazing thing is, I think you actually BELIEVE that.)
Obviously...VERY OBVIOUSLY you have had little direct lifelong learning
experience in the woods, perhaps understandanding very little..so, I
ought instead to believe your enculturated pseudo intellectual urban
biases???
>
> and could we PLEASE stick to the subject of art here.
I was and ventured to attempt to get it back to the subject of art!!
Seems as though you have an ethical problem with me though, which makes
me wonder what makes a right right for you and a wrong wrong?? Only a
Biblical morality attempts to suggest adherence to a higher law or an
absolute truth....if you ascribe to anything less than an absolute,
there is no ethical reason we should need to agree..agree???
If you want to
> talk about hunting, why don't you post to rec.killing.redneck
Hhhmmm...after all, artists would never have any interest in the "stuff"
of life would they??? So outdoor art is drawn from what experiences..
Disney film archives???
First off all..it was a metaphor...you know, metaphor??? Second of all,
it would have succeeded as a metaphor if it wasn't vogue today for
wachos to ascribe human dignity and like human value to creatures! I
suppose that is what we can expect in a postmodern dehumanized Darwinist
culture.
Interestingly, we raise the value of animals lower the values of human
beings, All subjects..ALL SUBJECTS..are the colors and the rythms of
life for which artists can refer to for philosophical content..or are we
for censorship???
>
Larry
>
> >
Cdeiner
being one what?
Cdeiner
just wanted to thank you for your response to this comment, i did not
know how to put it . you said it perfectly.
cliff