Ethnic Influences on Art
Expatriate
daydreaming about the influence of ethnicity on art. Do French artists
produce French art; Italians, Italian, Canadians, Canadian? and so
forth. Only Canada seems to be working seriously to produce a definable
"Canadian Esthetic." If a powerful influence actually exists, does it
"just happen" or can it be "made to happen?" What happens if an
Irishman wants to paint portraits? (Ireland has a rich history in
literature, poetry, drama, sculpture and dance, but no great painting
tradition whatsoever, portraits or otherwise.) Is he adrift?
This is what happens when the mind wanders. I will check in more or
less regularly to see what anybody else thinks.
Joe
Clara Knett
>
>While facing another three or four months of solid work, I began
>daydreaming about the influence of ethnicity on art. Do French artists
>produce French art; Italians, Italian, Canadians, Canadian? and so
>forth.
I think your question can only be answered in
the most general way, and that answer would
have to be YES! Why? Because people who live
in various "regions" tend to appreciate art
that relates to their region. Those who live
near an ocean like marine art. Those who live
near mountains enjoy mountain scenes. Where
I live in the Southwestern USA, the average
person likes the region's Western or Southwestern
art as epitomized by cowboy and indian influences,
and of course the dramatic landscapes.
So artists as a "general rule" pander to their
local markets. But the "exceptional" artist
is the one who can find a niche wherever their
art is shown, and that is what has driven the
market in the latter half of the 20th century,
as it became to be called "Modernism." Artists
who have claimed fame as "Modernists" are often
influenced by art from other cultures and other
times - ie; African or Oriental or Aboriginal
art etc.
niloufer
you come from, gave an incredible amount to do with the work you
create and certainly the colours you use. For example, I'm from India,
and I've noticed there's no doubt that all the earth tones from red
and orange across the spectrum even into an olive, is something you're
more likely to notice in the work of artisits here than pastels, or
blues. Check out sites like www.indiaart.com, www.saffronart.com
I guess its what gives you the impression that Oriental art is red,
black and gold, or arabic art would be toned with greens, turquoises
and gold
Niloufer
(while you're at it check me out too. www.niloufer.com :-) )
Clara Knett
niloufe...@hotmail.com says...
>
>I have no doubt that your environment and the culture and background
>you come from, gave an incredible amount to do with the work you
>create and certainly the colours you use.
There's another side to the coin - imitation.
It's possible to create art that LOOKS like
aboriginal, eastern/oriental, Indian Indian
or American Indian, etc etc. What distinguishes
much of the art being created today, all
around the world, is a commonality brought
about by the amalgamization of cultures.
And that is because the world has shrunk so
much that anyone anywhere now can see art
outside their own culture. Once upon a time,
the world's cultures lived in much greater
isolation one from the other and the art
of one region could remain uncontaminated by
outside influences. Not any longer. Oriental
artists now produce art that looks like it
was created in NYC or London or Paris.
Joe Bennett
I think you have hit it on the head as to ethnicity in art. I see it in
its most obvious form in African pieces, but also, and also obviously, in
carvings from the South Seas, and up North, the Aleuts and Eskimo
artists. Mattiasdotter from Iceland produces paintings that could come
only from Iceland.
Here's the thing: Is this dying out? Clara Knett points out correctly
that communications and cross-polinization is resulting in a one-world
kind of art community, and no doubt clear examples of ethnicity are
becoming scarce. AE, mod and post-mod stuff might come from any corner of
the planet, unlike the work of the centuries preceeding the 20th. (Even
as to second and third tier painters, never mind the "biggies," I can tell
a 19th Century English landscape from a French landscape from a German
landscape at a glance.)
So what now? Homogenized mush? Processed pablum?
And what happens -- Niloufer this does not apply to you -- if you are an
American with three or four "ethnicity's" running through you, and America
not really around long enough yet, to have produced a clearly "American
Aesthetic?" Mass, homogenized confusion!
If I kept working instead of daydreaming, I wouldn't be thinking about
this stuff, and bothering people.
Regards,
Joe
bbamf
ethnic. The work will be ethnic because it is made by a man, ethnic in his
nature. However, studying particular ethnic groups, or referencing them,
adds depth of meaning to artwork, I think. The question for the Irish
portrait painter is 'Why paint a portrait?' Answering this will save him
from going adrift.
.....Bill
http://www.bbartee.com
Expatriate <Joseph...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3B7295B7...@mediaone.net...
Joe Bennett
"Why paint a portrait?"
Because the client is paying for it. Or perhaps it is her sugar daddy.
The question becomes, "Is there such a thing as an Irish portrait?" Most
certainly there is such a thing as an "English Portrait," and there ever is
such a thing as an "American Portrait" although it is a direct child of the
British version, just as "American Impressionists" were really only
reprocessed Frenchmen, and not quite as good as the originals, who,
themselves, were pretty pathetic (some exceptions noted).
But the portrait idea was tossed out as only one kind of painting, certainly
not the primum mobile (or is it primus?). The Italians had one way of
imagining sacred events, while Rembrandt had a distinctly different view of
the life and times of the early scriptures, and Rubens had still another, more
southern than northern. Examples could be multiplied.
But all of that distinctly different styles and types of art preceded the
advent of post-impressionism with cubism, and moved on through several
"schools" or epochs to today's absolute deconstructionism. More and more, it
all appears the same, a kind of dreadful, psycho babbling sameness.
And that is the "good" art! At the other pole is the so-called art that isn't
art at all, but at its heart another attempt to shock or scandalize or make
big bucks at Sotheby's.
My own impression is that ethnicity (my word) and regionalism (Clara's word)
which once provided an emotional foundation for creativity are disappearing,
leaving in their wake an "art practice" (I just made that up) that is
rootless, adrift without an anchor. Those of us who continue to paint in very
traditional ways I believe are looking for something, a search for creative
roots which simply cannot be found in contemporary work.
That's what I was wondering about. Actually going ahead with the painting
probably would have been more productive.
Regards,
Joe Bennett
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com)
link.
It explores painting preferences: size ,
colour, subject etc.
"http://www.diacenter.org/km/index.html"
take care: keith (the Bytown gentleman)
Marilyn
at the same time contriving to preserve cultural differences for
the tourist trade.
There's a difference between geography and ethnicity.
Geography imposes itself while ethnicity is taught.
For example landscape paintings of the Canadian Prairie would
not be identifiably different from those of the American Midwest.
I don't know of any specifically identifiable visual art being created
today, which is called Canadian Art. Although in our literature, the
landscape is a powerful influence.
What interests me is preserving my 'sense of place' and by being tuned
into where I am, I'm hoping to present that integrity and honesty in my
art work.
Marilyn
Clara Knett
>For example landscape paintings of the Canadian Prairie would
>not be identifiably different from those of the American Midwest.
You'll often hear an artist refer to
the "quality of light"as having a huge
influence on their work. For example,
someone who has lived all their life
in a colder darker northern latitude
may be very affected by the longer days
and clearer light of a more southerly clime.
That is, their landscape paintings may
take on an entirely different look because
they use a very different palette under
the two different circumstances.
On the other hand, you might find two
artists who work abstractly and in such
a way that light has no bearing on what they
are creating and see no influence of light
or its qualities in their work.
mdeli
>What interests me is preserving my 'sense of place' and by being tuned
>into where I am, I'm hoping to present that integrity and honesty in my
>art work.
...and what is that supposed to mean?
I'm sure we are all touched to know that your work is "honest."
Are there any other important qualities in your work which we still
don't know about?
...no skill no art
Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
Marilyn Welch
> Marilyn wrote:
>
> >What interests me is preserving my 'sense of place' and by being tuned
> >into where I am, I'm hoping to present that integrity and honesty in my
> >art work.
>
> ...and what is that supposed to mean?
>
> I'm sure we are all touched to know that your work is "honest."
>
> Are there any other important qualities in your work which we still
> don't know about?
SPEAKING FOR THE ENTIRE GROUP AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC ONCE AGAIN?
What gives you the right to use "we" when you have revealed that you
are an isolate-shut-in-old-geezer-grouch-spammer-alone with your
art-therapy-obsessivecompulsive paintings which you call art?
Marilyn
Chris
Free speech.
mdeli
>On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, mdeli wrote:
>
>> Marilyn wrote:
>>
>> >What interests me is preserving my 'sense of place' and by being tuned
>> >into where I am, I'm hoping to present that integrity and honesty in my
>> >art work.
>>
>> ...and what is that supposed to mean?
yes ...and what is that supposed to mean?
>> I'm sure we are all touched to know that your work is "honest."
Those who aren't touched by Honest Welche's "honesty" please speak up
now.
>>
>> Are there any other important qualities in your work which we still
>> don't know about?
>
>SPEAKING FOR THE ENTIRE GROUP AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC ONCE AGAIN?
Why does this question make you hysterical? If you answer it WE will
all know about it won't WE.
>
>What gives you the right to use "we" when you have revealed that you
>are an isolate-shut-in-old-geezer-grouch-spammer-alone with your
>art-therapy-obsessivecompulsive paintings which you call art?
>
You seem to be having trouble with your we-we. I hope it doesn't soil
your panties.
Chris
> [....] you have revealed that you
> are an isolate-shut-in-old-geezer-grouch-spammer-alone with your
> art-therapy-obsessivecompulsive paintings which you call art?
>
You know, this is pretty much in line with how many of Cezanne's
contemporariy critics saw him, as well as those of van Gogh, except for the
old part. Are you setting us (well some of us ) up for something?
Cheers;
Chris (who is taking a break from watching "Pollock," it's even worse than
the book. Still love the paintings though)
Marilyn
be valid, must be figurative and must reflect a specific definition of
skill - in this case, conventional drawing, perspective, etc., of the type
taught in technical schools. (All of us begin with arbitrary ideas that we
later accept, modify, or discard.) As he grew up, Mani encountered modern
art from Cezanne through Picasso and Pollock to the present. This art
clearly differed from what he had accepted and internalized as legitimate.
More importantly, this type of art was accepted as legitimate by the world
at large.
When they are confronted with new information, ideas, or facts, most
people consider them, evaluate them, and come to a conclusion that
incorporates the new material. They might not agree with it or like it,
but they can accept its presence. They also understand that a consensus of
acceptance of ideas, while not guaranteed to be valid, does give weight to
ideas and commend them to our attention and consideration.
Mani is a rigid personality. When confronted with modern art, and the
styles that conflict with his ideas, he could not accept that more than
one type of art can legitimately exist. For him there is only the
technical-craft paradigm he internalized early on. (He has mentioned
getting kicked out of art school for insisting that the professors teach
his idea of 'skill'.)
Here is his dilemma: 'I know that technically precise craft is the
only valid art. However, I see that modern art, which violates all the
tenets I hold sacred, is practiced and accepted throughout the world.
There are thousands of artists, critics, museums, galleries, and books
devoted to this -- this crap! How can he solve this dilemma? Most people
bend a little and go on with their lives.
Rigid personalities cannot bend. So they break.
When a rigid personality is confronted with an insoluble dilemma, he
creates a delusional system to justify his beliefs. I am told that this is
the source of most paranoid delusions (people are monitoring my brain,
etc.), and also of illogical conspiracy theories. Mani created a
conspiracy theory."
From a review by Dan Fox
Chris
- the analysis really is just as silly now as when it was written.
Cheers;
Chris (who as given up on watching "Pollock" and gone back to his easel - Ed
Harris is much better at playing a sniper than a person, being perfectly suited
for a role requiring a great deal of immobility...Not that the film "Enemy at
the Gates" was much good either.)
Marilyn cut and pasted: