abstract expressionists
Cody Childers
expressionists (De Kooning, Gorky etc.) is amazing? Mani need not
respond
Thomas Ziorjen
Cody Childers wrote:
Yes. And Kline, Diebenkorn, Krassner, Pollock, Rothko and Joan
Mitchell...
Cody Childers
Thomas Ziorjen wrote:
I recently bought a book of Willem De Kooning's work, and it was
incredible. While lots of it doesn't seem (*seem* I'm not saying it
isn't) technically difficult, it looks so amazing. My favorite ones are
his abstract landscape series. Some of them really evoke images of
sunsets and other images in my mind. I'm also intrigued by Rothko's
color plate series.
I'm really new in the art world, and I'm not real sure what is going
on. Are there still lots of abstract expressionists? Or is that
movement dead? It seems like all the galleries in the region where I
live is full of boring paintings of deserts and cowboys. While I do
admire the technical difficulty of much of this art, it just seems
aesthetically unappealing.
EvaCarter1
Marilyn Welch
Elaine DeKooning
Mary Frank
Anne Truit
Jennifer Barlett
Nancy Graves
Mani can respond all that he wants to, but you don't have to read it.
Marilyn
lake
exciting painting that has been done, with a few isolated exceptions.
At the moment, the legacy of that movement is underground, and has been
for quite some time. A "post-modern" pluralism holds center stage, and
abstract-expressionism is viewed as just another segment of the vast
wheel of art history. None the less, the significance of what those
painters were doing surfaces in all kinds of unexpected ways.
- Lake
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
leslie ahern
Cody Childers <codych...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:395BCA2B...@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Thomas Ziorjen wrote:
>
> > Cody Childers wrote:
> >
> > > Does anyone else here think that the work of the American abstract
> > > expressionists (De Kooning, Gorky etc.) is amazing? Mani need not
> > > respond
> >
> > Yes. And Kline, Diebenkorn, Krassner, Pollock, Rothko and Joan
> > Mitchell...
>
> incredible. While lots of it doesn't seem (*seem* I'm not saying it
> isn't) technically difficult, it looks so amazing. My favorite ones are
> his abstract landscape series. Some of them really evoke images of
> sunsets and other images in my mind. I'm also intrigued by Rothko's
> color plate series.
>
> I'm really new in the art world, and I'm not real sure what is going
> on. Are there still lots of abstract expressionists? Or is that
> movement dead? It seems like all the galleries in the region where I
> live is full of boring paintings of deserts and cowboys. While I do
> admire the technical difficulty of much of this art, it just seems
> aesthetically unappealing.
>
Well, I hope it's not dead but...there is a backlash of representational
art happening!
Leslie
bruceattah
What's more, the ideas behind it are stupid.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
lake
what a typically incisive analysis of abstract expressionism!
No doubt bruceattah has many more inTELLigent and FASCinating isms to
deal with.
Thomas Ziorjen
bruceattah wrote:
> I find abstract expressionism boring.
>
> What's more, the ideas behind it are stupid.
Was that just foreplay or was that the whole thing?
Scarlett
Keifer, Susan Rothenberg?
Sheesh!
Take a 3-credit hour course: "Introduction to Contemporary Art" P_L_E_A_S_E
!!!!!!!!!!!
This AbEx drivel is wearing thin. B_O_R_I__N_G !!!!
(big yawn)
Scarlett
http://ScarlettDecker.homestead.com
lake wrote in message <060ca5d5...@usw-ex0107-050.remarq.com>...
:Yes I love the American abstract-expressionists! It was the last really
Erik A. Mattila
> Hasn't anyone in this group ever heard of the "Neo-Expressionists"? Anselm
> Keifer, Susan Rothenberg?
>
> Sheesh!
>
> Take a 3-credit hour course: "Introduction to Contemporary Art" P_L_E_A_S_E
> !!!!!!!!!!!
>
> This AbEx drivel is wearing thin. B_O_R_I__N_G !!!!
>
> (big yawn)
>
> Scarlett
> http://ScarlettDecker.homestead.com
Good call, Scar. I had completely forgotten those guys. Bazlitz made my neck
sore, because I kept trying to see if I recognized that upsidedown guy.
But now we have the "Neo-Retros." and the "Odies but newbies." and the
Retro-Successionists.
Erik
Cody
I know, if that is this guy's whole thought, it's pretty pathetic
bruceattah
(puffed-up interior decorators), but Baselitz' entire career is
centred around a single, moronic gimmick.
Peter H.M. Brooks
bruceattah <battahN...@datametrics.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> Kiefer is more interesting than any of those American Ab-Ex guys
> (puffed-up interior decorators),
>
would imagine that nobody could be more 'puffed-up', as you put it, than
they are - then you realise that they are simply novices in the matter!
>
> but Baselitz' entire career is
> centred around a single, moronic gimmick.
>
They aren't always 'moronic', but they are very seldom worth more than a
few weeks investigation, it is sad to see whole lives employed in this
way.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Beethoven was an innovator of form, Mozart an innovator of substance.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
lake
referring to, when I said that the Ab Ex movement was the last really
exciting painting. Baselitz also, & Basquiat, and there are others.
As a painter, this is work that excites me, that I admire. But I
maintain that they are isolated, at least critically, from art history.
Their relation to Arthur Danto's "grand narrative" is obscure.
bruceattah
>Rothenberg and Kiefer are among the "isolated exceptions" I was
>referring to, when I said that the Ab Ex movement was the last
really
>exciting painting. Baselitz also, & Basquiat, and there are
others.
Wow. If you'd just added Cezanne to the list, you'd have
mentioned all my least-liked painters in a single sentence.
andr...@my-deja.com
bruceattah <bjaNO...@afang.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> lake <lakeNO...@plateautel.net.invalid> wrote:
> >Rothenberg and Kiefer are among the "isolated exceptions" I was
> >referring to, when I said that the Ab Ex movement was the last
> really
> >exciting painting. Baselitz also, & Basquiat, and there are
> others.
>
> Wow. If you'd just added Cezanne to the list, you'd have
> mentioned all my least-liked painters in a single sentence.
Two questions.
1. What are the underlying reasons behind abstract expressionism that
you find boring.
2. What art do you like and could you explain or illustrate why and
how - in an intelectual or other articulate form.
AndrewB
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
> Up to 100 minutes free!
> http://www.keen.com
>
>
bruceattah
>In article <03762f60...@usw-ex0103-086.remarq.com>,
> bruceattah <bjaNO...@afang.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>Two questions.
>1. What are the underlying reasons behind abstract
expressionism that
>you find boring.
>2. What art do you like and could you explain or illustrate why
and
>how - in an intelectual or other articulate form.
Two answers:
1. Staring at a blank wall is not my idea of excitement.
2. I like pictures.
..the above may not be what you would call "intellectual", but
it's sure as heck articulate. If it's not enough for you, then
may I suggest you try the following experiment:
Step 1: pick out the funniest Abstract Expressionist painting.
Step 2: pick out the most serious Abstract Expressionist
painting.
Step 3: pick out the cruelest Abstract Expressionist painting.
Step 4: pick out the kindest Abstract Expressionist painting.
Step 5: pick out the most informative Abstract Expressionist
painting.
Step 6: pick out the most obscure Abstract Expressionist
painting.
Step 7: pick out the scariest Abstract Expressionist painting.
Step 8: pick out the cosiest Abstract Expressionist painting.
Step 9: pick out the most whimsical Abstract Expressionist
painting.
Step 10: pick out the most down-to-earth Abstract Expressionist
painting.
Step 11: repeat steps 1 to 10, but use a random selection of
pictures (a few thousand, say - i.e., a number roughly equal to
the number of Abstract Expressionist paintings that exist),
instead of Abstract Expressionist paintings.
Step 12: carry out a few comparisons.
Step 13: write up your conclusions in a big, fat book.
andr...@my-deja.com
I understand what you are getting at, although your list that you have
appended is just that a list.
There are many different emotions and experiences that an abstract work
can communicate - and not just a mono feeling sadness etc.
If you get the chance do look at a sequence of works by Rothko for
example. The feeling and experience that I get out of his work is of a
complete silence a spiritual silence like being in a church - and a
huge space. You cannot make comparisons with outer descriptions and
therein lies the problem with asking for the specific emotion/subject
expressed.
If it doesn't work for you then of course don't be convinced otherwise -
and of course there are the con artists created by fashion and the
needs of the art market. But please tell me that you have a least in
your terms and in your way have given it a try.
Please tell me what artists or specific pictures that you like.
Whatever form that it is - we needed'nt get elitist or highbrow here.
AndrewB
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
> Up to 100 minutes free!
> http://www.keen.com
>
>
Cody Childers
bruceattah wrote:
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
> Up to 100 minutes free!
> http://www.keen.com
I would hardly call abstract expressionisism looking at a blank wall.
Look at De Kooning's abstract landscape series, or Rothko's color
plates. If those color schemes don't give you any sort of excitement or
aesthetic pleasure, then it doesn't do it for you. But to call the
whole movement boring and stupid is an uneducated, crass statement.
Instead of being an arrogant punk, saying things like "abstract
expressionism is stupid and boring," say things like "I THINK abstract
expressionism is stupid and boring," because YOU are not the end-all and
be-all of art criticism. Tell us what you think and then back it up.
Come to think of it, a statement like a.e is boring can hardly be backed
up, because it is an extremely interesting art movement, nothing like it
had been done before, which makes it interesting, and worth more than to
be under-analyzed by idiots like you
bruceattah
>I would hardly call abstract expressionisism looking at a blank
>wall.
I would. Maybe an aged cement wall, or a dirty brick wall, or a
smooth marbled wall, depending on which work by which artist,
but pretty much a blank wall in every case.
>Look at De Kooning's abstract landscape series, or Rothko's
>color plates.
Exactly.
>If those color schemes don't give you any sort of excitement or
>aesthetic pleasure, then it doesn't do it for you.
Hey, I'm not saying that the colour schemes are never at all
pleasing - some are mildly pretty, some are just pretty grim -
but compare them with interior decoration, rather than with the
fine art of painting, because that's where they belong. Pictures
(as contrasted with these wall-decorations) often use colour in
more sophisticated ways, and combine that with other rewards,
too.
>But to call the
>whole movement boring and stupid is an uneducated, crass
>statement.
Well, if you think it's crass, that's fine by me, but believe
me, it is FAR from uneducated.
>Instead of being an arrogant punk, saying things like "abstract
>expressionism is stupid and boring," say things like "I THINK
abstract
>expressionism is stupid and boring," because YOU are not the
end-all and
>be-all of art criticism.
Yeah, yeah. If I say something is boring, then it is obvious
that I mean that I think it is boring. The "I think" is
redundant. As to the "stupid", that applied to the confused and
implausible theories about art and history that were used to
prop up abstract expressionism's claim to the throne of fine
art, and I make no bones about it, those ideas ARE stupid.
>Come to think of it, a statement like a.e is boring can hardly
>be backed up, because it is an extremely interesting art
>movement...
Compared to what is it interesting, and in what respect?
If you mean that it's interesting to contemplate drunken,
inarticulate, violent, antisocial individuals like Jackson
Pollock get paid 100,000 dollars for producing doodles that they
don't even want to do, because someone at the Guggenheim
insists - then, yeah, it's interesting, in a pathological kind
of way. But if you mean the work itself is interesting, well,
that's your opinion, and it is by far a minority opinion.
Personally, I'd rather watch an episode of the Simpsons.
>nothing like it
>had been done before, which makes it interesting,
Guess what, the other day I had Japanese miso soup AND pasta for
breakfast. I bet that's never been done before, in which case
it's as interesting as abstract expressionism.
In fact, abstract expressionism HAD been done before. Many
European painters had explored various forms of abstraction
during the first half of the twentieth century, and a lot of
abstract expressionist painting looks pretty similar to
paintings done by, e.g., Andre Masson in France and various
artists of the St. Ives school in England, which began before AE.
>and worth more than to be under-analyzed by idiots like you
What abstract expressionism deserves is to be ignored and
forgotten as an unfortunate and unimportant interlude at the fag-
end of modernism. Not under-analyzed and over-admired by
individuals (would it be polite to say idiots?) like you.
picasso89p
and Pollock. They experimented much with color, and also
texture, space, and depth. I think it is one of the most
influential movements in the 20th century, along with Dada and
Cubism.
I am sure many people still do not like it, for whatever
reasons. But abstract expressionism, like all other styles in
art, has to be viewed knowing what the artists were trying to do.
For example, the ancient Egyptians only concern when depicting a
person was to make sure that every body part was visible. The
fact that the figure would appear "stiff" or unnatural didn't
matter to them. When you understand that, a whole world of
appreciation can open up.
By the way, some consider my work to be abstract expressionist.
if you are interested, click on the link below.
Justin
http://www.angelfire.com/oh2/picasso
picasso89p
For one source concerning my statement on Egyptian art, consult
Sir Ernest Grombich's <i>The Story of Art</i>, first published
in 1950; which a reviewer on the back cover states, "Almost as
well known as the Mona Lisa.."
The Egyptians would paint tomb walls, depicting scenes from the
dead man's life. They believed this would both keep the spirit
company, as well as preserve his likeness. They often confused a
likeness with the actual person. Thus, they reasoned that if
they did not paint both hands, both feet, the eyes, the man
would not have those body parts in the afterlife. This is why
Egyptians would depict people in the stance known as
the "Egyptian stance." Chest is seen from the front, both arms
are visible, both legs with the feet shown from the side.
Perhaps they also did this because they did not know the
technique of foreshortening, which was developed by the Greeks.
Art didn't begin to look "right" until the 1300's with Giotto.
If Mani applies the same standards to Byzantine art as he
applies to modern art, he would be forced to label Byzantine art
as crap. Byzantine artists' cared little for space or
perspective. But I would assume since it falls under the label
of traditional art, it's alright with Mani.
Maybe the Egyptian mentality is similiar to that of the modern
artist-- sometimes it isn't supposed to look "right." Perhaps,
Mani, before condemning art, at least attempt to discover the
artists' reasoning; then you can at least condemn the work,
without being in total ignorance.
Of course many modern artists' ridicule their work when they
resort to artspeak and art theory; I, on the other hand, never.
When I show people a pure abstraction, and they ask "what is
it?", I say, "It is a painting." While I do have reasons for my
method and type of creation, I mostly want the viewer to enjoy
the work for either it's aesthetic qualities(color, color
interaction, texture, etc) or the way it affects him/her. If on
those grounds they call it crap, I am satisfied regardless.
Because all art is not meant for everyone-- tastes vary.
Beethoven, or James Joyce, won't be enjoyed by rednecks, but we
all know it is still great art. As I have said repeatedly, the
last thing which truly makes someone a great artist is their
work; the fact that James Joyce spent 19 years writing
<i>Finnegan's Wake</i>, or Nietzsche continued to write despite
poor health and poverty, makes them a great artist. If you
disagree, then if society's tastes change drastically, would
this negate their life's work? Even if I hate an artists' work,
I still can respect them greatly if their work meant something
to them. Whether or not you like Picasso, he gave everything to
his art; he spent over 80 years dedicated to it. It sure is a
long time to spend on work that is meaningless, or crap, if you
are Mani.
mdeli
So what is art? It's a label that has scores of meanings depending on
who says it. The only groups who can deny this are those who claim
that everything is art; lemons on the floor, junk yard remnants,
condoms covering large architectural structures.
You might notice that I usually label paintings as artwork in order to
avoid the is-it-art argument.
I pointed out that those who wish to label anything as art can indeed
logically do so do. However, I also pointed out that when they then
label paintings they don't happen to like as non-art they aren't being
logical.
The word Art among other things is often used as a term of indirect
intimidation. You will notice this among artzy fartzies in this
conference and critics. It works a bit like this. Someone says the
quality of the drawing and craftsmanship in a painting is abominable.
But its ART proclaim others and also new and different. In other words
they infer that they know what art is and you don't because you are a
closed minded anti-intellectual clod etc. This usually serves to avoid
any discussion about merit and the mentioned qualities.
I am sure that fine artwork which has any merit, has properties which
can be discussed. Here are a few: (note that I'm referring to painting
past and present.)
-It exhibits technique and craft.
- it contains a degree of skill which few can produce.
-It attracts the viewer's attention.
Artwork rated as great had these qualities until the advent of Modern
Academic Art (the politically correct modern stuff in museums and the
product of most art schools).
The gist of the main points I like to make here is that the most of
the stuff allowed into the Modern sections of museums lacks these
qualities and is inferior artwork (art) for that reason. The only
logical claim that is so often made for these artworks is that they
are new and different. They are indeed. However that insures nothing.
Mani DeLi
Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
Erik A. Mattila
> I understand what you are getting at, although your list that you have
> appended is just that a list.
> There are many different emotions and experiences that an abstract work
> can communicate - and not just a mono feeling sadness etc.
> If you get the chance do look at a sequence of works by Rothko for
> example. The feeling and experience that I get out of his work is of a
> complete silence a spiritual silence like being in a church - and a
> huge space. You cannot make comparisons with outer descriptions and
> therein lies the problem with asking for the specific emotion/subject
> expressed.
> If it doesn't work for you then of course don't be convinced otherwise -
> and of course there are the con artists created by fashion and the
> needs of the art market. But please tell me that you have a least in
> your terms and in your way have given it a try.
> Please tell me what artists or specific pictures that you like.
> Whatever form that it is - we needed'nt get elitist or highbrow here.
> AndrewB
>
Howdy Andrew,
This reminds me of an assignment I had in an Industrial Design course I
took several years ago. The assignment was to create a humerous mobile
withou resorting to flashy Disney slapstick or any other obvious imagery.
It was challenging. You really had to think about what 'humor' was. But
my solution got me an A. I designed a mobile with long, graceful sweeping
sails, but on one bar there were a series of small, twittering shapes. It
was all sheet-metal, peened down to look like fish scales. It was a subtle
kind of humor, or course, but definitely 'funny.'
Which leads me to believe that it's not at all unreasonable to expect an
abstact artist can convey emotions in a work. I know at least from Van
Gogh's letters that he contrived to make a painting project an emotional
aura, and he had worked out a vocabulary of color and form to achieve
this. Many of his ideas on this would transfer to non-objective painting.
Erik Mattila
Peter H.M. Brooks
picasso89p <picasso10...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> Of course many modern artists' ridicule their work when they
> resort to artspeak and art theory; I, on the other hand, never.
> When I show people a pure abstraction, and they ask "what is
> it?", I say, "It is a painting." While I do have reasons for my
> method and type of creation, I mostly want the viewer to enjoy
> the work for either it's aesthetic qualities(color, color
> interaction, texture, etc) or the way it affects him/her. If on
> those grounds they call it crap, I am satisfied regardless.
> Because all art is not meant for everyone-- tastes vary.
> Beethoven, or James Joyce, won't be enjoyed by rednecks, but we
> all know it is still great art. As I have said repeatedly, the
> last thing which truly makes someone a great artist is their
> work; the fact that James Joyce spent 19 years writing
> <i>Finnegan's Wake</i>, or Nietzsche continued to write despite
> poor health and poverty, makes them a great artist.
>
things. Many people have put enormous effort into things that have been
ultimately completely worthless, and still do - as a non-contentious
example, consider all the effort that has gone into attempts to produce
perpetual motion machines, all useless as it is a consequence of
thermodynamics that you cannot draw energy from such a machine without
supplying energy to it.
If somebody can produce, say, a brilliant portrait in twenty minutes,
tht doesn't, of itself, make it less good than one that took somebody
else six months to produce.
It is easier to see this effect in literature. Many novels have been
produced in a very short time and are considered very highly - others
have been worked on for decades and are not worth printing.
It is only the result that matters, usually it is true that more effort
and more time produces a better result, but there is no need to have
some religious law that equates effort with the level of quality.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Beethoven was an innovator of form, Mozart an innovator of substance.
mdeli
<picasso10...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>I love abstract expressionism, especially Rothko, Newman, Appel
>and Pollock.
How touching.
> They experimented much with color, and also
>texture, space, and depth.
So do guys who design floor covering and bed sheets.
> I think it is one of the most
>influential movements in the 20th century, along with Dada and
>Cubism.
It is Dada and Its dumber than cubism. It influences critics and
failures and a some richies.
>
>I am sure many people still do not like it, for whatever
>reasons. But abstract expressionism, like all other styles in
>art, has to be viewed knowing what the artists were trying to do.
I don't give a damn what an artist tried to do, which in the case of
AE is just a long list of excuses as to why most everyone thinks it
looks so crappy. . What's on the wall is what counts. Long bullshit
lectures count for nothing.
>
>For example, the ancient Egyptians only concern when depicting a
>person was to make sure that every body part was visible. The
>fact that the figure would appear "stiff" or unnatural didn't
>matter to them. When you understand that, a whole world of
>appreciation can open up.
This is baloney. You don't know what the concern was. Egyptian art is
masterful because of its technique and craftsmanship, not because of
the nature of what it depicts, although that may make it even more
interesting. One can appreciate Egyptian without knowing anything
about it.
>
>By the way, some consider my work to be abstract expressionist.
>if you are interested, click on the link below.
The usual repetitive garbage!
andr...@my-deja.com
> >
> > Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
> > Up to 100 minutes free!
> > http://www.keen.com
>
or
> aesthetic pleasure, then it doesn't do it for you. But to call the
> whole movement boring and stupid is an uneducated, crass statement.
> expressionism is stupid and boring," say things like "I THINK abstract
> expressionism is stupid and boring," because YOU are not the end-all
and
backed
it
> had been done before, which makes it interesting, and worth more than
to
> be under-analyzed by idiots like you
There is much merit in disputing the shiboleths of the art market and
fashion. The assertion of the individuals opinion against the voices of
those that know is a worthy cause.
My position on AE is stated in recent postings in this and allied
threads. However please let us not detract from a fruitful discussion
by calling each other names. Opinions on art have traditionally been
rubbished by those 'in the know'. To assert ones opinions in the face
of that and the manner in which they are framed is understandable. That
is the reason that I find this forumn so interesting.
Andrewb
Cody Childers
bruceattah wrote:
> Cody Childers <codych...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I would hardly call abstract expressionisism looking at a blank
> >wall.
>
> I would. Maybe an aged cement wall, or a dirty brick wall, or a
> smooth marbled wall, depending on which work by which artist,
> but pretty much a blank wall in every case.
>
> >Look at De Kooning's abstract landscape series, or Rothko's
> >color plates.
>
> Exactly.
>
> >If those color schemes don't give you any sort of excitement or
> >aesthetic pleasure, then it doesn't do it for you.
>
> Hey, I'm not saying that the colour schemes are never at all
> pleasing - some are mildly pretty, some are just pretty grim -
> but compare them with interior decoration, rather than with the
> fine art of painting, because that's where they belong. Pictures
> (as contrasted with these wall-decorations) often use colour in
> more sophisticated ways, and combine that with other rewards,
> too.
>
> >But to call the
> >whole movement boring and stupid is an uneducated, crass
> >statement.
>
> Well, if you think it's crass, that's fine by me, but believe
> me, it is FAR from uneducated.
>
> >Instead of being an arrogant punk, saying things like "abstract
> >expressionism is stupid and boring," say things like "I THINK
> abstract
> >expressionism is stupid and boring," because YOU are not the
> end-all and
> >be-all of art criticism.
>
> Yeah, yeah. If I say something is boring, then it is obvious
> that I mean that I think it is boring. The "I think" is
> redundant. As to the "stupid", that applied to the confused and
> implausible theories about art and history that were used to
> prop up abstract expressionism's claim to the throne of fine
> art, and I make no bones about it, those ideas ARE stupid.
>
> >Come to think of it, a statement like a.e is boring can hardly
> >be backed up, because it is an extremely interesting art
> >movement...
>
> Compared to what is it interesting, and in what respect?
>
> If you mean that it's interesting to contemplate drunken,
> inarticulate, violent, antisocial individuals like Jackson
> Pollock get paid 100,000 dollars for producing doodles that they
> don't even want to do, because someone at the Guggenheim
> insists - then, yeah, it's interesting, in a pathological kind
> of way. But if you mean the work itself is interesting, well,
> that's your opinion, and it is by far a minority opinion.
>
> Personally, I'd rather watch an episode of the Simpsons.
>
> >nothing like it
> >had been done before, which makes it interesting,
>
> Guess what, the other day I had Japanese miso soup AND pasta for
> breakfast. I bet that's never been done before, in which case
> it's as interesting as abstract expressionism.
>
> In fact, abstract expressionism HAD been done before. Many
> European painters had explored various forms of abstraction
> during the first half of the twentieth century, and a lot of
> abstract expressionist painting looks pretty similar to
> paintings done by, e.g., Andre Masson in France and various
> artists of the St. Ives school in England, which began before AE.
>
> >and worth more than to be under-analyzed by idiots like you
>
> What abstract expressionism deserves is to be ignored and
> forgotten as an unfortunate and unimportant interlude at the fag-
> end of modernism. Not under-analyzed and over-admired by
> individuals (would it be polite to say idiots?) like you.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
> Up to 100 minutes free!
> http://www.keen.com
What do you think art is? It is an expression of yourself, or your
feelings. If the abstract expressionists wanted to express themselves
by the kind of art work they did, then so be it. I agree with you that
their pieces were way over priced, though. Personally, I love abstract
expressionists work. I would much rather have a Rothko piece in my
house than some boring realist painter from the 1800's. For me, I
think that abstract expressionism is more aesthetically pleasing than
anything. It reminds of the modernity in which I live in, and gives me
images of monolithic modern buildings and contemporary things like
that. I do agree with you that the whole movement is more for interior
decorating than it was an important, societally changing art movement.
It can't be compared to the muralist painting in revolutionary Mexico or
anything.
It just makes me mad when people bash modern art, because I really like
it for mainly aesthetic reasons. Maybe everyone should stop reading
into modern art so much, trying to find meaning, and writing volumes and
volumes of artspeak, and enjoy it for what it is: something that looks
good.
ArtisticContours
ago we released a new gallery www.ArtisticContours.com and
expressionism is an important theme there. Please have a
look, especially www.ArtisticContours.com/Pavlenin.
Michael Pavlenin is the one who moves from Abstract
Expressionism to Figurative Expressionism back and forth!
Igor
Artistic...@ArtistiContours.com
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Lauri Levanto
If Rotho's works are expressions of himself,
what kind of impression of Rothko
you get through those works.
Cody Childers wrote:
<<...>>
> What do you think art is? It is an expression of yourself, or your
> feelings. If the abstract expressionists wanted to express themselves
> by the kind of art work they did, then so be it.
...
> I would much rather have a Rothko piece in my
> house than some boring realist painter from the 1800's.
...
I know hardly more than the name of Rothko.
I have seen only one original work.
I liked it, butI can't read the self-expression.
For me Rothko himself is still opaque.
SOmetimes I think that the
'dilemma of Abstract Expressionism'
is that many painters
have so tiny self ( as opposed to ego) to express.
- lauri
bruceattah
>The feeling and experience that I get out of his work is of a
>complete silence a spiritual silence like being in a church -
>and a huge space.
..but you ARE in a church. If you're not in a museum, you are
in an upmarket gallery, and every effort has been made
(precisely controlled lighting, carefully managed space, etc.)
to give you that sense of being in a chapel. Plus, there's the
acoustics of such places, which is generally reminiscent of the
chapel. If there are other people around, they are behaving as
if they were in church, too.
In such a setting, a large, essentially blank surface presented
as a route to quasi-mystical experience can hardly fail. This
says nothing in favour of the work - the paintings could be
replaced by normally uninteresting natural objects, and the same
experience would be available (minus the idolatry of "genius").
>If it doesn't work for you then of course don't be convinced
>otherwise -
Well, hey. What did I say? I said I find it boring. Clearly, I'm
not convinced of its merits. Why does that not satisfy you?
>But please tell me that you have a least in
>your terms and in your way have given it a try.
Why? I'm OBLIGED to try to like certain art? No sir, that's
wrong. Artists are free to try to make me like their art, but if
they fail, their efforts put me under no obligation whatsoever.
>Please tell me what artists or specific pictures that you like.
Okay, here's one:
http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/WebMedia/Images/65/NG651/eNG651
jpg
Jiri Borsky
how refreshing to read your level-headed contributions to this group, again.
A bronzino medal to a golden boy with a silver tongue.
> http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/WebMedia/Images/65/NG651/eNG651.jpg
Best wishes,
Jiri Borsky
--
remove all zzz from address
http://www.borsky.dial.pipex.com/
Erik A. Mattila
>Please tell me what artists or specific pictures that you like.Okay, here's one:
http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/WebMedia/Images/65/NG651/eNG651
jpg
Erik
bruceattah
and the ".jpg" is on a new line. Append the ".jpg" to see an
allegory by Bronzino - a strange and fascinating and beautiful
painting, I think.
Erik A. Mattila
> That'll be because the line got wrapped by the e-mail software
> and the ".jpg" is on a new line. Append the ".jpg" to see an
> allegory by Bronzino - a strange and fascinating and beautiful
> painting, I think.
Thanks, Bruce -- I actually figured that out -- I just couldn't resist
teasing you a bit.
By the way, there's a really terrific display of "Venus, Cupid and Time"
at this URL:
http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/b/bronzino/index.html
I agree with your assessment of this painting. Even among Bronzino's
work, it stands out. The complexity of the composition is remarkable.
I get really tired looking at it. I don't mean 'tired' in the sense of
looking at a boring painting, but rather in the sense of something that
takes a lot of work to look at.
I also can see how Bronzino's critics, or even Mannerist critics, draw
their idea that "allegory" was used as pretext for eroticism by these
painters. It's very interesting to think about how a simple erotic
impulse could have been rationalized by the moralistic message in
allegory.
Another thing that interests me about this painting is the dominance of
negative space in the design. In his other works, you don't see this.
Anyway, thanks for the reference. I agree that it's a strange and
beautiful painting.
Erik