Lack of skill and Cezanne
William DeRaymond
>
> Ross Green
> our psychic optometrist being his presumptuous self says:
> >Have you ever seen any real Cezanne’s, or do you form your opinions
> >entirely from looking at pictures in books? (like our friend Mani Deli)
> >
> Having visited European Capitals and lived in NYC for more years than you have
> been around Ross, I’m sure I’ve seen more Cezanne originals than most anyone
> here. In fact I just saw a room full of idiotic works by this genius at the DC
> National Gallery. There hang the two most incompetent portraits I’ve seen in a
> long time--anywhere. No street corner portrait artist could afford to be that
> bad.
>
> I much prefer Rothko who at least offers calm doses of nothing to that of
> Cezanne’s eyesores.
>
> "Eyesores": a subject which a psychic optometrist of your standing Ross, well
> understands. Perhaps you could, as Rosa says, "educate" us by telling us what
> we miss in evaluating these two masterpieces which I’m sure you visit
> constantly.
>
> Why don’t you answer the challenge Ross?
>
> Mani DeLi
> ..no skill no art.Do you know the story of the guy who forced his wife to look at the
Cezanne's (when Vollard first showed them in Paris) by way of punishing her
for being naughty, and she being absolutely horrified, after all she knew
how to draw? What a hoot! You could be her reincarnation.
Cezanne was in fact basically a mystic. He understood the archetypal
values of the artform. The archetypal values of the brush and color. You
want to consign him to your very literal and literary way of seeing art. He
wasn't just painting still Life to show you how well he could portray an
orange. He was aware he was looking at visual reality and understood the
deeply mystical principle of 'as above so below' how the microcosm reflects
the macrocosm. Do you know about that? So in his paintings, you can
actually get a sense of the unfurling of the cosmos, the Tao. You can in
his paintings see this deeply philosophical visual language, but you must be
receptive to the possibility or all you will see is your own mind. Far out.
--
William DeRaymond/Artist
http://www.worldlightproductions.com
'A painting is a doorway into psychological/spiritual space.
It is an expression of transcendent form, which opens out into
the infinite.' - William
wthu...@intergate.com
In Article<313C0B...@worldlightproductions.com>,
<dray...@worldlightproductions.com> write:
> He was aware he was looking at visual reality and understood the
> deeply mystical principle of 'as above so below' how the microcosm reflects
> the macrocosm. Do you know about that?
> William DeRaymond/Artist
I like this statement- Edward Weston did this with his photographs as well,
and I don't know that I've heard it described as eloquently as this.
Greg Scheckler
Mani Deli <md...@frontier.canrem.com> wrote:
>
>Why don’t you answer the challenge Ross?
>
I can't speak for Ross but the reason I haven't
answered the challenge directly is because the
challenge is stupid child's play. The target's too
obvious, and empty, nothing more than a balloon
filled with taste. Don't you know:
de gustibus non disputandem est,
de veritas disputandem est
(matters of taste are not debatable,
but matters of truth are debatable.)
you haven't offered any truths to debate about and
none of us give a flying f**k what your tastes are.
It means nothing to me if you think Cezanne's a bore.
That's why. Give us more than opinions.
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu