Re Cincy and Me and The past and Andrew Werby
zi...@interport.net
Dear Andrew and friends,
Yes you do read me. And you are intelligent and I know exactly what
your educational bias is. From where I sit you are the true
intellectual and artistic enemy. Paul Klee said it first "formalism is
the enemy!" That doesn't mean that I will rail at you. I will do
exactly what you do, I will reason with you and try to show you the
error of your ways, as you try to show me mine.
First of all, in my whole life, although this has been said to me many
times, I have never enjoyed something less or experienced it LESS
FULLY because I knew something or a lot about it historically,
culturally or in terms of the personality of the artist. I even
believe that I learned something by reading Pontormo's Diary,
advertised as "il piu sordido documento del renascimento." Sordido
means the ordinary. It is largely about his eating habits and the
health or lack thereof of his bowels, interspersed with: "...and then
I painted the figure which goes like this [in the lost frescoes in San
Lorenzo]-or Bronzino [giving his ordinary name] and I drew from the
model last night..."
But from knowing whether a representation was a fetish or a symbol of
social status a lot of good can come. Is it really possible that
someone who does not know how to read Chinese painting in all its
categories can experience it as even, I, a non Chinese without a
Chinese art education can do-because I have studied among others, Kuo
Hsi? His pronouncements at the beginning of his "Essay on Landscape
Painting, after he explains why people make them, totally changed my
understanding of them. It was Ad Reinhardt who suggested that I read
the essay as well as other essays available then in Shio Sakanishi's
book "Spirit of the Brush" as well as the Siren book "Chinese on the
Art of Painting." I challenge you to give me an example of anyone who
has looked intelligently at Northern Sung painting without reading at
least one essay by a Chinese [translation allowed].
It seems to me so unlikely that anyone with our training and
perspective would ever be able to get the ideas behond a "Traveling"
painting, for example. Or a painting in which one could "dwell".
The two highest categories of painting according to Kuo Hsi.
I think that it is absolute nonsense that any intelligent, feeling
person could experience less emotion by knowing more.
My favorite 20th century expressionist was Chaim Soutine. He got on a
train in Paris, road all night to Amsterdam. Sat in front of the
Rembrandt "Jewish Bride" until closing, got back on the train and went
back to Paris. That was study. Study by an expressionist whose work
was wild and apparently "thoughtless."
Paul Klee kept natural objects in his studio which he studied as well
as drawings by the insane and also books on math including
non-euclidean geometry. I can't remember his name, but an art
historian recently and untimely dead proved conclusively in an issue
of the Art Bulletin some years ago that Picasso was influenced by the
diagrams and three dimensional solids of the French mathematicians
interested in more than three dimensional geometry. Kandinsky mined
every sort of scientific research and its diagrams and illustrations
for years. They believed that knowing more and more about other things
would help them as artists, right!
You should use Occam's razor a little bit. If there were african
objects which had been brought back to Europe as early as the 14th
century by the Portuguese as well as other objects brought back by
such travelers as Capt Scott and they did not find their way into art
museums, that is half of the equation. If then around 1910, avant
garde French artists in Paris start collecting the stuff at the market
de puce and use the stuff in their paintings [the same art historians
discovered pcitures of Picasso in his studio working ona still life
which included one such object, taken by Gellett Burgess' cameraman].
And the work then became popular -as did cubism -should we not infer
that it was because of the cubists interest in it that it became
popular? If we infer another reason are we not straining a bit at the
bit? There is no doubt in my mind that our taste now for that kind of
work is because of the taste of twentieth century artists for it and
the way in which it has influenced their art. To think otherwise is
straining for other and more far fetched truths. Also, it was arounf
for hundreds of years in thewest without being considered worthwhile
except for the study of the lives of "savages".
All art is not universal. Great art is not universal. Have you never
read the essay "Shakespeare in the Bush"? Abstraction, colors curves
or Kandinsky's point line and plane are not universal. These are
twentieth century constructs. To begin all art with the "simplest
thing" the dot -is a fallacy. The dot is philosophically and
artistically not the simplest thing! For Kandinsky to get to that as
the simplest, he had to go through a whole evolution as both a
figurativeand then the first abstract painter. Typical of the
fallacies in his work are the symbolism which he assings to color. It
is strictly the symbolism of the Russian Orthodox church. Klee is
better in that he believes in color as having associateive meaning
and changing its meaningdependent on its context-as did Van Gogh in
his letters [another expressionist intellectual, by the way].
As far as we can tell from the preserved historyof art, figuration
came FIRST and abstraction developed later. Recent and contemporary
art objects produced by peoples who are not members of civilizations
have similarities with each other which they do not share with
anything from ancient hunter and getherer or horticulturist times.
They have been developing all this time, too! We developed our way and
they developed theirs. If we truly want to get into their world we
cannot do it as formalists. We have to understand their motivation and
the way they look at the world. Look at Franz Boas' Primitive Art for
the reproduction of a work commissioned by him of an ectual event and
the discussion of its production and meaning.y
But do we really ever get into these other worlds? Can we ever look at
a Renaissance Italian painting as a citizen of the city it was painted
forwould look at it? Can we ever look at an altar piece like the
Maesta as the Sienese of 1317 would have looked at it? Of course not.
But in trying to understand the importance of the Duccio Maesta as a
civic, national, and religious symbol, the forming and narrative and
its deviation from the norms of his teacher Cimabue and his fellow
student Giotto become apparent. He was not making mistakes in
perspective. He was doing things for reasons. And these reasons might
be important for us to understand. We don't necessarily have to
believe in miracles to know that he meant for us to do so and
developed ways of doing this-as for example in the panel with the
angel sitting on the empty tomb.
The English art historian John White wrote a book some years ago
called the birth and rebirth of pictorial space which I found then
very moving. He did somethingin the Sienese Palazzo Publico which I
had never done. The allegory of Good Government is painted on an inner
wal and is almost perfect. The allegory of bad government is almost
all gone because it was painted on the inside of the wall which kept
out the cold. Hes stufirf the almost totally lost Allegory of Bad
Government and worked out its composition, and he realized what the
composition was about. Both of these paintings, the master piece we
have and the putative one we have lost use perspective as a symbol for
in the one case the results of good government, ease, flow openness of
movcement and in the other difficulty unpleasant inability to be
mover, being trapped. I am grateful to John White and his book. I am
glad I read it. I understand the one which is left even better thanI
could without knowing about its opposite. How does the knowledge I
gained from John White hurt me in experiencing the paintings?
I was not suggesting that every one go out and do Bartok's research
over again, and I tend to think you knew that. I was giving him as an
example of a great twentieth century artist who could be influenced by
folk traditions in his own work profitably and increasing his
originality, while at the same time collecting folk material more
truthfully and authentically thanany one before his time. Should we
collect folk material-if we want to we should. Should we try to read
whatever might increase our ability to absorb meaning from art, of
course. Including artists own writings and those of knowledgable and
helpful historians. Is there any contraditction between this and
doing good work? Only if you are a true believer in the absolute
universality of the kind of forming which you were taught, and perhaps
teach, which is itself a time bound artifact of our period. So you are
then trapped in a fishbowl of your own making, thinking it the world.
Sincerely,'
Gabriel
Andrew Werby
Gabriel<zi...@interport.net> wrote:
> Dear Andrew and friends,
>
> Yes you do read me. And you are intelligent and I know exactly what
> your educational bias is. From where I sit you are the true
> intellectual and artistic enemy.
[At last I stand revealed in all my demonic splendor! Bwa-ha-ha!]
Paul Klee said it first "formalism is
> the enemy!" That doesn't mean that I will rail at you. I will do
> exactly what you do, I will reason with you and try to show you the
> error of your ways, as you try to show me mine.
[I suppose you are calling me a formalist, but do you think you could define
what you mean by that?]
>
> First of all, in my whole life, although this has been said to me many
> times, I have never enjoyed something less or experienced it LESS
> FULLY because I knew something or a lot about it historically,
> culturally or in terms of the personality of the artist.
[I know that some people need a verbal "hook", an intellectual crutch, in
order to approach a work of art. For them, it is not sufficient to see,
hear or touch the work itself- they are frustrated unless they know every
little thing about the artist, his culture, religion-]
> believe that I learned something by reading Pontormo's Diary,
> advertised as "il piu sordido documento del renascimento." Sordido
> means the ordinary.
[This word is much like the English version- both derive from the Latin
"sordes" meaning dirt. In Italian, it also connotes meanness, avarice-
in American slang you might translate it as "the most down and dirty
document of the Renaissance"]
It is largely about his eating habits and the
> health or lack thereof of his bowels, interspersed with: "...and then
> I painted the figure which goes like this [in the lost frescoes in San
> Lorenzo]-or Bronzino [giving his ordinary name] and I drew from the
> model last night..."
[-and even his bowel movements. if this interests you, I recommend Dali's
diaries, which have a lot of detail on this very subject, which will
doubtless enrich your enjoyment of his art- perhaps it could be worked up
into a PHD thesis...)]
>
> But from knowing whether a representation was a fetish or a symbol of
> social status a lot of good can come. Is it really possible that
> someone who does not know how to read Chinese painting in all its
> categories can experience it as even, I, a non Chinese without a
> Chinese art education can do-because I have studied among others, Kuo
> Hsi? His pronouncements at the beginning of his "Essay on Landscape
> Painting, after he explains why people make them, totally changed my
> understanding of them. It was Ad Reinhardt who suggested that I read
> the essay as well as other essays available then in Shio Sakanishi's
> book "Spirit of the Brush" as well as the Siren book "Chinese on the
> Art of Painting." I challenge you to give me an example of anyone who
> has looked intelligently at Northern Sung painting without reading at
> least one essay by a Chinese [translation allowed].
[Isn't this whole discussion about what this act of "looking intelligently"
is supposed to mean? Don't you think anybody can get anything worthwhile
out of a Chinese painting without having read about it first? I remember
being very struck with some of them at an early age, long before reading
any Chinese essays (even in translation). But it seems you will win your
"challenge" due to the circularity of your argument- no doubt I wasn't
looking "intelligently" enough, right?]
>
> It seems to me so unlikely that anyone with our training and
> perspective would ever be able to get the ideas behond a "Traveling"
> painting, for example. Or a painting in which one could "dwell".
> The two highest categories of painting according to Kuo Hsi.
[Wasn't he writing after the fact, categorizing paintings which were old
when he was born? Perhaps the artists he lumps together would disagree
with his categorical scheme- perhaps your understanding has been deluded
by it.]
>
> I think that it is absolute nonsense that any intelligent, feeling
> person could experience less emotion by knowing more.
[There were some scientific studies done fairly recently, of people listening
to music while their brains were being scanned. It was found that the
professional musicians being tested processed the music in different areas of
the brain than people in general. In the musicians, the analytical-reasoning
portions of the brain lit up when the music was played; they were paying
attention to the technical aspects of the music and its performance. In the
lay audience, the music lit up the areas associated with emotion, not rational
thought. This experiment seems to show that something is gained when our
left-brains go to work, but something is lost as well.]
[Some fascinating but irrelevant remarks by Gabriel clipped here]
>
> But do we really ever get into these other worlds? Can we ever look at
> a Renaissance Italian painting as a citizen of the city it was painted
> forwould look at it? Can we ever look at an altar piece like the
> Maesta as the Sienese of 1317 would have looked at it? Of course not.
> But in trying to understand the importance of the Duccio Maesta as a
> civic, national, and religious symbol, the forming and narrative and
> its deviation from the norms of his teacher Cimabue and his fellow
> student Giotto become apparent. He was not making mistakes in
> perspective. He was doing things for reasons. And these reasons might
> be important for us to understand.
[If our aim is to write a treatise on Art history, it might be important. But I
doubt that this particular issue was either crucial to the original audience or
matters much to its current one of tourists, although the understanding of the
latter is often "enriched" by a ceaseless stream of information (often totally
incorrect) emanting from their guides. Tour guides everywhere are familiar with
many people's inability to appreciate works of art without an
accompanying stream
of verbal information, so they provide it, even if they have to make it up
themselves.]
> The English art historian John White wrote a book some years ago
> called the birth and rebirth of pictorial space which I found then
> very moving. He did somethingin the Sienese Palazzo Publico which I
> had never done. The allegory of Good Government is painted on an inner
> wal and is almost perfect. The allegory of bad government is almost
> all gone because it was painted on the inside of the wall which kept
> out the cold. Hes stufirf the almost totally lost Allegory of Bad
> Government and worked out its composition, and he realized what the
> composition was about. Both of these paintings, the master piece we
> have and the putative one we have lost use perspective as a symbol for
> in the one case the results of good government, ease, flow openness of
> movcement and in the other difficulty unpleasant inability to be
> mover, being trapped. I am grateful to John White and his book. I am
> glad I read it. I understand the one which is left even better thanI
> could without knowing about its opposite. How does the knowledge I
> gained from John White hurt me in experiencing the paintings?
[Maybe it was the only way you could get anything out of the experience
you could understand and take away with you. Some people are built that way,
I suppose. But allegory is not what painting is about, although it probably
helped sell the concept to the Signoria of Sienna. The unfortunate effect of
this sort of thinking is evident in a lot of public art these days, where one
can often see a grant proposal embodied in tangible form.]
>
[Digression re: Bartok clipped here]
Should we try to read
> whatever might increase our ability to absorb meaning from art, of
> course. Including artists own writings and those of knowledgable and
> helpful historians.
[I'm not as anti-intellectual as you seem bent on seeing me. By all means, if a
painting strikes you so deeply that you feel you have to learn everything there
is to know about an artist, his society, culture, love-life, bowel
movements, and
theories on art; then go ahead and more power to you. But where we part
company is
on your notion that all this is a precondition to looking at or "intelligently"
appreciating a work of art. Fortunately, art does not depend on this sort
of thing.
We can look at a work of art knowing nothing at all about it or its
author, or its
cultural context, and still get something profoundly valuable (at least I
can- sorry
about you). Sure, there's always more to know; but we have our esthetic
sense to guide
us in deciding what we want to spend the time in finding out more about in
the first
place.
Is there any contraditction between this and
> doing good work? Only if you are a true believer in the absolute
> universality of the kind of forming which you were taught, and perhaps
> teach, which is itself a time bound artifact of our period.
[I think you are making some unwarranted assumptions about my educational
career here.
I never accepted very much of what I was taught about art- especially when
I was being
told what to like- and have come to whatever conclusions I have
independently. But in
art one must learn to trust ones own judgement, even if nobody else
agrees. And no,
I don't teach art, don't worry.]
So you are
> then trapped in a fishbowl of your own making, thinking it the world.
[At least I can look outside without having to visit the library before
each occasion-
you should try it sometime...]
Anonymous
dre...@lanminds.com (Andrew Werby) wrote:
> [I'm not as anti-intellectual as you seem bent on seeing me. By all
means, if a
> painting strikes you so deeply that you feel you have to learn everything
there
> is to know about an artist, his society, culture, love-life, bowel
movements, and
> theories on art; then go ahead and more power to you. But where we part
> company is on your notion that all this is a precondition to looking at
or "intelligently"
> appreciating a work of art. Fortunately, art does not depend on this sort
> of thing. We can look at a work of art knowing nothing at all about it or its
> author, or its cultural context, and still get something profoundly
valuable (at least I
> can- sorry about you). Sure, there's always more to know; but we have our
esthetic
> sense to guide us in deciding what we want to spend the time in finding
out more about in
> the first place. [...] At least I can look outside without having to
visit the library before
> each occasion- you should try it sometime...]
You do sound anti-intellectual in this post, Mr. Werby. Response to art
does depend on the cultural competence of the viewer. Most of us can bring
enough knowlege to conventional forms of art to "get something" from the
work without reflecting on the information that allows us to do so. But if
we truly knew nothing about the cultural context of the thing, we wouldn't
recognize it as art.
While I agree with your impulse to honor one's naive responses as a guide
to lead us into a more sophisticated invovement with art, I think you are
mistaken to imagine that those responses are due to some natural "esthethic
sense" that emerges independent of our cultural experience.
Andrew Werby
In article <605fsh$n...@basement.replay.com>, x@y.z wrote:
> dre...@lanminds.com (Andrew Werby) wrote:
>
> > [I'm not as anti-intellectual as you seem bent on seeing me. By all
> means, if a
> > painting strikes you so deeply that you feel you have to learn everything
> there
> > is to know about an artist, his society, culture, love-life, bowel
> movements, and
> > theories on art; then go ahead and more power to you. But where we part
> > company is on your notion that all this is a precondition to looking at
> or "intelligently"
> > appreciating a work of art. Fortunately, art does not depend on this sort
> > of thing. We can look at a work of art knowing nothing at all about it
or its
> > author, or its cultural context, and still get something profoundly
> valuable (at least I
> > can- sorry about you). Sure, there's always more to know; but we have our
> esthetic
> > sense to guide us in deciding what we want to spend the time in finding
> out more about in
> > the first place. [...] At least I can look outside without having to
> visit the library before
> > each occasion- you should try it sometime...]
>
> You do sound anti-intellectual in this post, Mr. Werby.
[I knew Gabriel was trying to paint me into that particular corner, but I think
there is a difference between being against something under all circumstances
and being against its misapplication. While there surely are valid uses
of the intellectual faculty- this dialogue being one of them- it is not
the best thing to
use for every circumstance. Most therapists recognize, for example, that it can
be a serious impediment in such things as making love- too much thinking
about it often
defeats the purpose. Athletes are coached on methods of circumventing a natural
impulse to analyze the flight of a ball, and to cultivate another type of
kinesthetic response, from deeper within. Are these therapists and coaches anti-
intellectual, or are they simply recognizing the limitations of the intellectual
process? Art, in my opinion, is another thing that evokes a deeper level of
reaction than mere intellectual analysis, which often misses the point
completely.]
Response to art
> does depend on the cultural competence of the viewer. Most of us can bring
> enough knowlege to conventional forms of art to "get something" from the
> work without reflecting on the information that allows us to do so. But if
> we truly knew nothing about the cultural context of the thing, we wouldn't
> recognize it as art.
[I don't think it is necessary to recognize something as art in order to
appreciate
its beauty. I believe that art came about as an attempt to recreate the
feelings
evoked by the beauty of nature; feelings which don't require recognition of the
item being contemplated as being a product of artifice. Isn't it possible
to have
an esthetic reaction to natural objects- which can't be said to have a cultural
context at all?]
>
> While I agree with your impulse to honor one's naive responses as a guide
> to lead us into a more sophisticated invovement with art, I think you are
> mistaken to imagine that those responses are due to some natural "esthethic
> sense" that emerges independent of our cultural experience.
[Now you have put your finger on our point of divergence. I do believe that an
esthetic sense is innate in humans, perhaps in other animals as well,
particularly other primates. I wonder if any experimentation has been done to
establish (or disprove) its existence? Once you disregard your "naive
response",
what is left to guide you- the opinions of experts? Certainly one's tastes can
become more sophisticated with development, but this is a process that proceeds
at its own pace- force it, and one can easily become lost.]
cyli
Mr. Werby does not sound the least anti-intellectual to me. But then
I do* art. And my art page has no explanations, no resume', no
artist's statement. I love words, but they're not what I'm working
with when I do art and not what I can imagine directing at my viewers
when they see it. No one's had the least difficulty recognizing my
work as 'art.' They may not think it's great or good or worth the
time to do, but they all take one look and call it art.
There are some forms of art so old/ugly/obscure that they require an
interpretation in words to make us willing to look more closely at
them, but they're few. Seem to be required when anthorpologists find
something new and need to know if it's art, a calendar, scribbles by
accident, or language. The Lascoux (sp?) cave paintings can speak to
me vividly, even though no words go with them, nor ever will, from the
time of their painting. Are they less art for not knowing all about
(or even anything about) their circumstances? Whether they were
religious and magical in nature seems to be the big controversy as
opposed to art for its own decorative sake. But no one knows even
that. But look at them. Don't those lines and shapes speak to you
without any words?
On 22 Sep 1997 12:05:05 +0200, nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) wrote:
(large snip of quoted stuff)
-----
-----You do sound anti-intellectual in this post, Mr. Werby.
Response to art
-----does depend on the cultural competence of the viewer. Most of us
can bring
-----enough knowlege to conventional forms of art to "get something"
from the
-----work without reflecting on the information that allows us to do
so. But if
-----we truly knew nothing about the cultural context of the thing, we
wouldn't
-----recognize it as art.
-----
-----While I agree with your impulse to honor one's naive responses as
a guide
-----to lead us into a more sophisticated invovement with art, I think
you are
-----mistaken to imagine that those responses are due to some natural
"esthethic
-----sense" that emerges independent of our cultural experience.
"If I die of curiosity, who will entertain you with naive questions?"
I only answer my mail on an average of once every two months. Be patient.
zi...@interport.net
>There are some forms of art so old/ugly/obscure that they require an
>interpretation in words to make us willing to look more closely at
>them, but they're few. Seem to be required when anthorpologists find
>something new and need to know if it's art, a calendar, scribbles by
>accident, or language. The Lascoux (sp?) cave paintings can speak to
>me vividly, even though no words go with them, nor ever will, from the
>time of their painting. Are they less art for not knowing all about
>(or even anything about) their circumstances? Whether they were
>religious and magical in nature seems to be the big controversy as
>opposed to art for its own decorative sake. But no one knows even
>that. But look at them. Don't those lines and shapes speak to you
>without any words?
If Mr. Werby wrote this and he is quoting Anonymous. I tend to agree
with anonymous. There is no controversy as to whether the Lascaux
paintings or any cave paintings were made for decoration. They were
painted in the dark with illumination from smoking tapers. No one saw
them after they were done unless they came there especially for some
special purpose. No one could see them all at once-they did not have
the technology to light them up as we do.
So I am afraid the problem is what do they mean and that truly is a
major one. I am very glad that such a problem does not extend for
example to the frescoes in the Villa of the Mysteries or the frescoes
in Tun Huang.
I do believe that, even not knowing what the frescoes are about, they
have wonderful qualities which we can and do respond to. But would you
prefer not to know what the Michelangelo ceiling in the Sistine chapel
was about so you could respond to it purely? I would not. As a
glorious work by a great genius in a faith other than my own, I want
to know what it is about in order to more fully understand it.
Actually, I believe that recognition of images and narratives changes
the pictorial quality of painting and makes the painting fuller.
BUt also makes it possible to know what the metaphoric character of
the space and color is about. Why would anyone want to be without
that?
There is the remaining business which I mentioned when I quoted James
Johnson Sweeney's catalog to the first show of African art in an
American museum [any museum?] as art. "The less we know about this art
the better because it is the great sculpture of the 19th century."
Deracinating, dry-cleaning, separating the work from its original
African context to make it the European work of the 19th century. A
foolish, racist, provincial act.
You want to make all art of any period the art of your century-if you
like it-and then you will really be provincial to the past. Because
you will have no past, just a series of phantoms flitting in front of
your face which are from nowhere and nowhen. I cannot conceive why you
would want to do this to yourself. An artist -remember you are not the
only one of us here-is not merely an eye and hand, quick with these
but slow with his mind. I have never met one I truly cared for who was
not brilliant. Whether the words came easily or not. Do you think that
Brancusi was a formalist and in your camp?
Sincerely,
Gabriel
cyli
I wrote it. (Cy...@visi.com) I happen to think that it's great to
know all I can about a piece of art, but can enjoy much that I know
nothing about, too. And do believe that the most important thing
about art is not what you know about it, but how you feel about it.
Certainly it's nice to know how and why Michaelangelo did the Sistine
ceiling. But if it were ugly, badly proportioned, banal, and dull,
who'd care much? It is only because the work is both massive and
beautiful that we have much interest in who did it, how it was done,
and why it was done. Otherwise the tourists who visit would be there
for the church, not the art, and just occasionally look up at the
ceiling and say, "Oh, look. Pictures. Not very good ones." and go
on their way.
On Thu, 25 Sep 1997 04:56:24 GMT, zi...@interport.net wrote:
-----
----->There are some forms of art so old/ugly/obscure that they
require an
----->interpretation in words to make us willing to look more closely
at
----->them, but they're few. Seem to be required when anthorpologists
find
----->something new and need to know if it's art, a calendar,
scribbles by
----->accident, or language. The Lascoux (sp?) cave paintings can
speak to
----->me vividly, even though no words go with them, nor ever will,
from the
----->time of their painting. Are they less art for not knowing all
about
----->(or even anything about) their circumstances? Whether they were
----->religious and magical in nature seems to be the big controversy
as
----->opposed to art for its own decorative sake. But no one knows
even
----->that. But look at them. Don't those lines and shapes speak to
you
----->without any words?
-----
-----If Mr. Werby wrote this and he is quoting Anonymous. I tend to
agree
-----with anonymous. There is no controversy as to whether the Lascaux
-----paintings or any cave paintings were made for decoration. They
were
-----painted in the dark with illumination from smoking tapers. No one
saw
-----them after they were done unless they came there especially for
some
-----special purpose. No one could see them all at once-they did not
have
-----the technology to light them up as we do.
-----
-----So I am afraid the problem is what do they mean and that truly is
a
-----major one. I am very glad that such a problem does not extend for
-----example to the frescoes in the Villa of the Mysteries or the
frescoes
-----in Tun Huang.
-----
-----I do believe that, even not knowing what the frescoes are about,
they
-----have wonderful qualities which we can and do respond to. But
would you
-----prefer not to know what the Michelangelo ceiling in the Sistine
chapel
-----was about so you could respond to it purely? I would not. As a
-----glorious work by a great genius in a faith other than my own, I
want
-----to know what it is about in order to more fully understand it.
-----Actually, I believe that recognition of images and narratives
changes
-----the pictorial quality of painting and makes the painting fuller.
-----BUt also makes it possible to know what the metaphoric character
of
-----the space and color is about. Why would anyone want to be without
-----that?
-----
-----There is the remaining business which I mentioned when I quoted
James
-----Johnson Sweeney's catalog to the first show of African art in an
-----American museum [any museum?] as art. "The less we know about
this art
-----the better because it is the great sculpture of the 19th
century."
-----Deracinating, dry-cleaning, separating the work from its original
-----African context to make it the European work of the 19th century.
A
-----foolish, racist, provincial act.
-----
-----You want to make all art of any period the art of your century-if
you
-----like it-and then you will really be provincial to the past.
Because
-----you will have no past, just a series of phantoms flitting in
front of
-----your face which are from nowhere and nowhen. I cannot conceive
why you
-----would want to do this to yourself. An artist -remember you are
not the
-----only one of us here-is not merely an eye and hand, quick with
these
-----but slow with his mind. I have never met one I truly cared for
who was
-----not brilliant. Whether the words came easily or not. Do you think
that
-----Brancusi was a formalist and in your camp?
-----
-----Sincerely,
-----Gabriel
-----
-----
Richard Royce
Yes it is important to come to the art fresh without preconceived
notions. This will let you actually see what is there, however,
knowing more about the artist and the context in which it was created
gives texture and enriches the experience. It's like tasting a good
wine. Delicious as it is, it's even more fun to know about the region,
year etc. And also you can have that little joy of snobbery. Come now,
we all enjoy being able to say' "you know of course that King Louis
the 13th commissioned Carl de La Duc to produce 27 bottles of the
stuff and then he was assinated in order to limit the supply." Well
maybe that's too extreme. You know what I mean. And if it is not
totally made up it's interesting. Becomes more than just the thing.
nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) wrote:
>dre...@lanminds.com (Andrew Werby) wrote:
>> [I'm not as anti-intellectual as you seem bent on seeing me. By all
>means, if a
>> painting strikes you so deeply that you feel you have to learn everything
>there
>> is to know about an artist, his society, culture, love-life, bowel
>movements, and
>> theories on art; then go ahead and more power to you. But where we part
>> company is on your notion that all this is a precondition to looking at
>or "intelligently"
>> appreciating a work of art. Fortunately, art does not depend on this sort
>> of thing. We can look at a work of art knowing nothing at all about it or its
>> author, or its cultural context, and still get something profoundly
>valuable (at least I
>> can- sorry about you). Sure, there's always more to know; but we have our
>esthetic
>> sense to guide us in deciding what we want to spend the time in finding
>out more about in
>> the first place. [...] At least I can look outside without having to
>visit the library before
>> each occasion- you should try it sometime...]
>You do sound anti-intellectual in this post, Mr. Werby. Response to art
>does depend on the cultural competence of the viewer. Most of us can bring
>enough knowlege to conventional forms of art to "get something" from the
>work without reflecting on the information that allows us to do so. But if
>we truly knew nothing about the cultural context of the thing, we wouldn't
>recognize it as art.
>While I agree with your impulse to honor one's naive responses as a guide
>to lead us into a more sophisticated invovement with art, I think you are
>mistaken to imagine that those responses are due to some natural "esthethic
>sense" that emerges independent of our cultural experience.
--Richard <ro...@star.net>
cyli
Ideally, one would see the art, go away and read/hear about the art,
and go back and look at the art again. Repeated as necessary and
pleasureable. Hmm. Rather like drinking a good wine at that.
On Thu, 25 Sep 1997 17:13:34 GMT, ro...@star.net (Richard Royce)
wrote:
-----Yes it is important to come to the art fresh without preconceived
-----notions. This will let you actually see what is there, however,
-----knowing more about the artist and the context in which it was
created
-----gives texture and enriches the experience. It's like tasting a
good
-----wine. Delicious as it is, it's even more fun to know about the
region,
-----year etc. And also you can have that little joy of snobbery. Come
now,
-----we all enjoy being able to say' "you know of course that King
Louis
-----the 13th commissioned Carl de La Duc to produce 27 bottles of
the
-----stuff and then he was assinated in order to limit the supply."
Well
-----maybe that's too extreme. You know what I mean. And if it is not
-----totally made up it's interesting. Becomes more than just the
thing.
-----
-----
-----nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) wrote:
-----
----->dre...@lanminds.com (Andrew Werby) wrote:
-----
----->> [I'm not as anti-intellectual as you seem bent on seeing me.
By all
----->means, if a
----->> painting strikes you so deeply that you feel you have to learn
everything
----->there
----->> is to know about an artist, his society, culture, love-life,
bowel
----->movements, and
----->> theories on art; then go ahead and more power to you. But
where we part
----->> company is on your notion that all this is a precondition to
looking at
----->or "intelligently"
----->> appreciating a work of art. Fortunately, art does not depend
on this sort
----->> of thing. We can look at a work of art knowing nothing at all
about it or its
----->> author, or its cultural context, and still get something
profoundly
----->valuable (at least I
----->> can- sorry about you). Sure, there's always more to know; but
we have our
----->esthetic
----->> sense to guide us in deciding what we want to spend the time
in finding
----->out more about in
----->> the first place. [...] At least I can look outside without
having to
----->visit the library before
----->> each occasion- you should try it sometime...]
-----
----->You do sound anti-intellectual in this post, Mr. Werby.
Response to art
----->does depend on the cultural competence of the viewer. Most of
us can bring
----->enough knowlege to conventional forms of art to "get something"
from the
----->work without reflecting on the information that allows us to do
so. But if
----->we truly knew nothing about the cultural context of the thing,
we wouldn't
----->recognize it as art.
-----
----->While I agree with your impulse to honor one's naive responses
as a guide
----->to lead us into a more sophisticated invovement with art, I
think you are
----->mistaken to imagine that those responses are due to some natural
"esthethic
----->sense" that emerges independent of our cultural experience.
-----
-------Richard <ro...@star.net>
zi...@interport.net
Dear disputants,
I find that in these quotes I agree absolutely with Mr. Royce. I have
some anecdotes and visual reference material to expand his argument.
Gabriel Laderman
cy...@visi.com (cyli) wrote:
>Ideally, one would see the art, go away and read/hear about the art,
>and go back and look at the art again. Repeated as necessary and
>pleasureable. Hmm. Rather like drinking a good wine at that.
>On Thu, 25 Sep 1997 17:13:34 GMT, ro...@star.net (Richard Royce)
>wrote:
>-----Yes it is important to come to the art fresh without preconceived
>-----notions. This will let you actually see what is there, however,
>-----knowing more about the artist and the context in which it was
>created gives texture and enriches the experience. It's like tasting a
>good wine. Delicious as it is, it's even more fun to know about the
>region, year etc. And also you can have that little joy of snobbery. Come
>now, we all enjoy being able to say' "you know of course that King
>Louis-the 13th commissioned Carl de La Duc to produce 27 bottles of
>the stuff and then he was assinated in order to limit the supply."
>Wel maybe that's too extreme. You know what I mean. And if it is not
>-----totally made up it's interesting. Becomes more than just the
>thing. nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) wrote:
The only way to come to a work of art "freshly" is aware of your
prejudices both for and against and willing to be convinced otherwise.
There is no Rouseauian "Natural man". Natural is a time bound romantic
positive word then used as opposed to classical or effete. The
American Artist Benjaming West, who came from Rural Pennsylvania where
he was brought up in the 18th century, established his first
reputation by saying, when in Rome, after seeing the Apollo Belvedere
for the first time: "How like a Mohawk Warrior." Thus making an
explicit connection between a classical work held in the highest
esteem at that time, and a truly "natural man". GL
-->dre...@lanminds.com (Andrew Werby) wrote:
>-----
>----->> [I'm not as anti-intellectual as you seem bent on seeing me.
>By all means, if a painting strikes you so deeply that you feel you have to learn
>everything there is to know about an artist, his society, culture, love-life,
>bowelmovements, and theories on art; then go ahead and more power to you. But
>where we part company is on your notion that all this is a precondition to
>looking at or "intelligently" appreciating a work of art. Fortunately, art does not depend
>on this sort of thing. We can look at a work of art knowing nothing at all about it or its
author, or its cultural context, and still get something profoundly
valuable (at least I can- sorry about you). Sure, there's always more
to know; but we have our esthetic sense to guide us in deciding what
we want to spend the time in finding out more about in the first
place. [...] At least I can look outside without having to visit the
library before each occasion- you should try it sometime...]
You do sound anti-intellectual in this post, Mr. Werby.
>Response to art does depend on the cultural competence of the viewer. Most of
>us can bring enough knowlege to conventional forms of art to "get something"
>from the work without reflecting on the information that allows us to do
>so. But if we truly knew nothing about the cultural context of the thing,
>we wouldn't recognize it as art.
The problem is that you know a lot about your own society, culture,
love-life, bowel movements, and theories on art and if you donot
consciously try to get beside them or out side them even a little bit
then you will completely immerse art from other cultures in them. This
makes that other art about as alive as organs pickled in formaldehyde.
Those other arts will then be unable to influence you. They are
pickled and ready to be digested as a condiment to go with the main
course-the way you paint and/or think now. They will be added in to
spice up what you do, if you really like them with no understanding of
how their sensibilities or the principle of their construction differ
from yours.
Take Chinese landscape painting for example. When the great Sung
painter Kuo Hsi says, in his "Essay on Landscape Painting: " When the
dweller amid mountains and meadows hears the call to serve his
country, how can he refuse? When the lover of wind and fog, the cries
of monkeys and cranes leaves his retreat how can he meditate? This is
the true source of landscape painting." [paraphrase]And then goes on
to describe and categorize the uses and functions of 6 different kinds
of pictorial constreuction, the lowest of which is a painting which we
merely "look at". It changes, permanently and for the better how we
look at Chinese classical painting. Ther is no way of understanding
Chinese painting in any terms but as cut, odd, crue deviations from
the norm without such guidance. It is wonderful that Kuo His is
actually talking straight and not even that poetically. Scholars lived
in the country so they could miditate on the landscape and think and
write. These sacholars wer esuddenly called to the capitol in ordser
to become the admin istrators of the country. They were without the
landscape they need in order to gain the daily sustenance they need in
meditation. This is, oin fact, the source of the kind of Chinese
landscape painting which Kuo Hsi describes. Paintings as tools for
meditation. But with spoecific compositional construction allowing
different kinds of meditiation, one of which involved a "reading"
activity which is totally unlike that developed in the West. It is all
there in black and white to read and then to find in paintings. There
is no way that even a genius trained in the Western tradition would be
able to guess that this is what is happening and what was supposed to
happen in their paintings.
Without this knowledge the strangeness and the radicality of Mu Chi
{Mu Kuan] would not be understandable.
No "Natural Man" would have a chance. He would per force have to be a
natural barbarian. GL
-
While I agree with your impulse to honor one's naive responses as a
guide to lead us into a more sophisticated invovement with art, I
>think you are mistaken to imagine that those responses are due to some natural
>"esthethic sense" that emerges independent of our cultural experience.
-Richard <ro...@star.net>
During World War II the American field Forces in the Guadalcanal
region showed the local people photographs of Japanese warships in
order to get information from these friendlypeople as to whether they
had been around and when. None of the Guadalcanalise or other local
people could recognize any ships in these flat images. First of all
the were flat and second of all they were too small. When simple three
dimensional models were made and it explained that these were merely
meant to be models of much larger things- a convention which was not
unheard of- they were recognized and information gained. I believe
that you just have no idea how much of our culture you know andtake
for granted without thinking about it in your "natural" glance. I for
one don't trust your natural glance because it is not sufficiently
self doubting and open minded. Your unrecognized assumptions and
conventions of looking dominate your vision so much that I cannot see
you learning from a work of art either new emotional reaches or new
information. GL
My mother, rest her soul, used the word "Aesthetic" to mean pleasant
smells, sights and circumstances. She used the word unesthetic for
unpleasant smells, sights and circumstances. It had nothing to do with
art. I think you are using the work about the same way. GL
zi...@interport.net
Dear disputants,
cy...@visi.com (cyli) wrote:
>----->> [I'm not as anti-intellectual as you seem bent on seeing me.
>By all means, if a painting strikes you so deeply that you feel you have to learn
>everything there is to know about an artist, his society, culture, love-life,
>bowelmovements, and theories on art; then go ahead and more power to you. But
>where we part company is on your notion that all this is a precondition to
>looking at or "intelligently" appreciating a work of art. Fortunately, art does not depend
>on this sort of thing. We can look at a work of art knowing nothing at all about it or its
author, or its cultural context, and still get something profoundly
valuable (at least I can- sorry about you). Sure, there's always more
to know; but we have our esthetic sense to guide us in deciding what
we want to spend the time in finding out more about in the first
place. [...] At least I can look outside without having to visit the
library before each occasion- you should try it sometime...]
Larry Seiler
Richard Royce wrote:
>
> Yes it is important to come to the art fresh without preconceived
I would say one reason that so much mediocre "pictures" of art exist
such as over-marketed wildlife art (and I was a competition wildlife
artist for 20 years..and am branching out finally, and painterly
painting again!!!..there is good and bad wildlife art, but way too much
bad!) is that people have lacked in art education.
People do not understand the basics of art design, line, texture, form,
color...etc., and need slick marketing ploys to convince people that a
work or artist is worthy of investing in. I think too many people
already come to art without preconceived notion (can you tell I used to
be an art teacher???). Thus, they have no means for which to understand
a work of art...and are CLUELESS!!! That is why their first reaction 20
years ago was to reject abstract art, because unlike the artists.. the
public was CLUELESS!!! That is why poor unskilled realists cashed in
during the Reagan years making a bundle off of mindless renderings of
one chickadee after another, because the public prefer realism at a time
the artworld was emerging in another direction.
I think understanding art by the public would have sent the majority of
those realists back to actually learn good design, good composition,
convincing rendering. The public having understood art would have
allowed the truly worthy wildlife artists (for example) to make a living
at their art rather than lose income to an inflated marketplace. Good
design understanding would have then prevented those same lathargic
scammers from entering abstract art or "trinket" making and making a
living.
People not understanding art design has caused many divisions amongst us
as artists. I am now enjoying looking at how a "good" abstract artist
manipulates design to evoke emotion...because of a trained eye, artists
can appreciate cleverness. I think of abstract art more as an artist's
art, for it takes just enough understanding of design principles to
recognize the ingeniousness or lack thereof. I think it takes a trained
eye to look beyond the obvious of a piece simply being realistic to
notice the rhythm of brushstrokes, the use of color to manipulate and
move the eye..etc;
Not to say all cannot enjoy art...but one is held at bay to their
limitations. If you are weak, you cannot know the exhilaration of bench
pressing 285 lbs...if you have poor understanding artistically you
cannot recognize genious or talent, and your compliments are mute though
appreciated as a human kindness.
I would prefer five words of critique or admonishment by a gifted and
trained artist, than any five minute discourse of another.
So I don't think people will actually see what is there because they
will not know what to look for. Living in upper Wisconsin I would no
doubt see more deer bedded down inside and along dirt roads before most
city visitors...because I know from experience what to look for.
>, however,
and it is a GOOD "however"!!!
> knowing more about the artist and the context in which it was created
> gives texture and enriches the experience.
bingo....but that is why again only here can one truly see.
>It's like tasting a good
> wine. Delicious as it is, it's even more fun to know about the region,
> year etc.
ah.....but doesn't knowing the years, the culture and history, the
sacrifices to make it, the sufferings attached, make one more
appreciative and savor every drop???
> And also you can have that little joy of snobbery. Come now,
> we all enjoy being able to say' "you know of course that King Louis
> the 13th commissioned Carl de La Duc to produce 27 bottles of the
> stuff and then he was assinated in order to limit the supply." Well
> maybe that's too extreme. You know what I mean. And if it is not
> totally made up it's interesting. Becomes more than just the thing.
>
you're right!....
snobbery is not good, but honesty must sooner or later win out. Isn't
it time realists and abstract artists all begin to confess the good
exists in both as well as the bad??? Let's all savor it together, one
drop at a time!!!! But...let's encourage and help the public understand
what they ought to see...it is a visual communication, and without
knowing, many are blind!
Larry
zi...@interport.net
Larry Seiler <lse...@execpc.com> wrote:
Dear Larry,
I am glad that you have stopped being a wild life artist and have now
been working in painterly terms. But I am afraid I disagree strongly
with your statements on this thread. I also do not believe that it is
better to be brushy than tight, although I am brushy. Tight living
artists whom I approve of are, for example : Marjorie, Portnow,
Stanley Friedman, Richard Chiriani, Susan Walp, Maxwell Hendler [in
the paintings he exhibited in the 22 realists show in 1972 in the
Whitney], Balthus portraits [1936-46], Gerhard Marcks [1930 or so to
40 or so], Bruno Civitico.
First of all there is not such thing as a good modern wildlife artist.
If there was this person would have to be a good artist, not only a
hyphenated one. My standard for such an artist would be the Courbet
painting of deer in the woods no to be seen in the Parisian museum
converted from a train station whose name escapes me. That is great
painting. Stubbs the English horse painter also did some showing
horses attacked by lions. There is a painting of the atelier of rubens
of a wolf hunt. Now we are talking about painting. There is nothing
even approaching the quality of those works in the 20th century. All
wildlife painting fulfills the needs of a specific clientele which has
otherwise been hostile to art.
Then the question of "design" and other ideas taken from the formalist
interpretation of modern abstraction. Modernist abstraction is not
forms without content. The construction of the great modernists such
as Mondrian, Picasso, Arp, Klee, Miro between 1923 and 30, Matisse
Bonnard and Dufy has always been not merely forming for its own sake
but for the sake of an ideal and an ideology of sensibility and
intellect. Thus no ideas of forming can be taken over from them
without gratuitously taking over ideas of metaphor. The thing that
follows taking over "design" concepts from modernist artist is called
pejoratively "semi-abstract painting". The people who -without any
argument- did that were such artists as: Eric Isenburger, Robert
Gwathmey, Abraham Rattner and many other active between 1930 and 60.
Most of the modernists who used to show in the Kennedy Galleries, and
many of the National Academy modernists of the forties and fifties
were in that bag as well. Their work was so universally jumped on in
those days for just these problems I thought it was a dead issue. It
was an American Academic scuptor-the first, as a matter of fact, in
the nineteenth century[Greenough] who coined the phrase "Form follows
function".
To interject a personal and note which you must answer for yourself
and really not to any of us, if it applies.
What function do these abstract forms follow in paintings, now brushy
and designed rather than your previous tight paintings? Why are they
better this way?
Sincerely,
Gabriel Laderman
Larry Seiler
zi...@interport.net wrote:
>
> Larry Seiler <lse...@execpc.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Larry,
>
> I am glad that you have stopped being a wild life artist
I haven't stopped being one entirely...but am taking a creative
sabbatical so-to-speak...I yet will do some "commercial" illustrations
for the purpose of food on the table, but I do not consider those things
I do fine art.
> and have now
> been working in painterly terms. But I am afraid I disagree strongly
> with your statements on this thread. I also do not believe that it is
> better to be brushy than tight,
I like what Clyde Aspevig says, "I believe a painting that suggests
detail yet remains vague will evoke a deeper response than a literal or
detailed interpretation. It's a question of how much to put into the
painting. The trick is to leave in just enough to make the viewer
believe in the place while leaving the rest to be developed by the power
of an individual's imagination."
I have developed realism to such a point that though I have won major
competitions in the midwest, I feel that everything gets overstated, and
becomes stagnant. The point of the picture, or the "ah-hah!" gets lost.
I am rejoicing in learning what detail to not paint, what detail to
paint out, how to "skillfully" suggest detail without actually painting
it literally...and encourage the viewer to read between the lines.
Painting details out and using the elements of design to suggest detail
has brought emotion into my work and evokes more life.
"Brushy" or "tight" doesn't seem to be the issue but "impact" If, for
example you are walking through brown autumn leaves, grayish brown trees
and branches and thick cover looking for ruffed grouse which are
themselves grayish-brown..at the moment of the birds flush, the eyes
blur all unnecessary detail..a mechanism that allows the eye to find the
bird in the air..muting everything unnecessary. Bob Kuhn, Manfred
Schatz are two wildlife artists that have dealt with this aspect of
realism...movement and dynamics that frozen time ignores. These would
be two "modern" wildlife artists from this standpoint.
Carl Brenders working with gouache is perhaps the finest illustrator
artist of wildlife with painstaking detail...and fortunately most adept
at composition. But painstaking rendering ability is no guarantee for
sound composition..but stagnant and lifeless illustration alone.
> although I am brushy. Tight living
> artists whom I approve of are, for example : Marjorie, Portnow,
> Stanley Friedman, Richard Chiriani, Susan Walp, Maxwell Hendler [in
> the paintings he exhibited in the 22 realists show in 1972 in the
> Whitney], Balthus portraits [1936-46], Gerhard Marcks [1930 or so to
> 40 or so], Bruno Civitico.
>
> First of all there is not such thing as a good modern wildlife artist.
> If there was this person would have to be a good artist, not only a
> hyphenated one. My standard for such an artist would be the Courbet
> painting of deer in the woods no to be seen in the Parisian museum
> converted from a train station whose name escapes me. That is great
> painting. Stubbs the English horse painter also did some showing
> horses attacked by lions. There is a painting of the atelier of rubens
> of a wolf hunt. Now we are talking about painting. There is nothing
> even approaching the quality of those works in the 20th century. All
> wildlife painting fulfills the needs of a specific clientele which has
> otherwise been hostile to art.
the potential to make great amounts of money tend as a rule to always
corrupt...but, the sacrifice of a life dedicated to excellence
transcends this. Sure money may be there for the effort, but integrity
goes the full length the artist is aware of that is necessary which may
be much farther than the mediocre market of wildlife art can even
perceive.
I think you sure have a right to honor past master works. I think it is
no major risk to do so, for history always tends to speak better of an
effort after one's death..such as Princess Di as an example. But, I
think even a few past masters would if they could see some of the works
of artists today applaud, encourage and say well done.
Yes...I stand in awe of past works, but I don't think the past has the
copyrights to genious. It inspires new and present work to be sure. I
respect your choices of preferences.
>
> Then the question of "design" and other ideas taken from the formalist
> interpretation of modern abstraction. Modernist abstraction is not
> forms without content. The construction of the great modernists such
> as Mondrian, Picasso, Arp, Klee, Miro between 1923 and 30, Matisse
> Bonnard and Dufy has always been not merely forming for its own sake
> but for the sake of an ideal and an ideology of sensibility and
> intellect. Thus no ideas of forming can be taken over from them
> without gratuitously taking over ideas of metaphor. The thing that
> follows taking over "design" concepts from modernist artist is called
> pejoratively "semi-abstract painting". The people who -without any
> argument- did that were such artists as: Eric Isenburger, Robert
> Gwathmey, Abraham Rattner and many other active between 1930 and 60.
> Most of the modernists who used to show in the Kennedy Galleries, and
> many of the National Academy modernists of the forties and fifties
> were in that bag as well. Their work was so universally jumped on in
> those days for just these problems I thought it was a dead issue. It
> was an American Academic scuptor-the first, as a matter of fact, in
> the nineteenth century[Greenough] who coined the phrase "Form follows
> function".
>
> To interject a personal and note which you must answer for yourself
> and really not to any of us, if it applies.
> What function do these abstract forms follow in paintings, now brushy
> and designed rather than your previous tight paintings? Why are they
> better this way?
Well...after years of work we feel we learn volumes and come to a point
where we seem to grow only inch by inch. But once in awhile a new
breakthrough comes and is a renewal, a breath of fresh air. I am not
celebrating technique for the sake of technique, but that a successful
illusion of the suggestion of such is as valid and perhaps evokes more
life that had each detail been painted.
Where I am at now requires going back to an earlier axiom. I once asked
a painter I respected on his perspective of how one develops a style.
He stated, "do 500 paintings and you'll have a style" I further believe
that one needs to do about 120 bad paintings and get them out of the
way.
Mediocrity having access to convincing marketing found a way to side
step dues to be paid in toil and sacrifice. Excellence says money alone
can not be a determinant. As such, the deception and public duped had
good reason to make the art world hostile...it also caused some wildlife
artists whom held higher goals than money to become hostile as well, for
their efforts were made the object of ridicule because in this case many
bad apples spoiled the whole bunch.
for me personally Gabriel, I celebrate for myself the excitement of
having a new dimension opened to me...not technique for technique sake,
but not worship of detail for detail's sake either. Looking for the
life, the spirit of the essence..the core of what suggests what I'm
looking at as real. Why was I exhilarated by a corner of a field at low
sun...will emphasis on color say more than rendering..and at what point
does rendering detail detract or divert from the realism of the
"ah-hah!"
My favorite contemporary landscape painters are Clyde Aspevig, Richard
Schmid, and wildlife Robert Kuhn, Guy Coleach...
I would compare what is happening to me to a Frans Hals, (one of my
favorites), I saw at the Chicago Art Institute. From about 12 feet
away, this gentleman he painted "alma prima" with a wine glass tipped,
and Dutch hat..etc; had the most perfectly rendered hand. I was amazed
at the anatomy of it. When I came to within a couple feet I saw the
entire hand had been painted in about a dozen brush strokes. I backed
up..*bang* realistic hand....I came in close- carefully placed masterly
controlled strokes of paint..back up- HAND!!!..came in...strokes.
It was awesome. To say the most with the least, to express the most
complex with the simplest terms. Absolute economy. I am learning a
twist of a brush, a smear by a palette knife can create a texture that
says more at 4 feet away than hours of carefully rendered stroke by
stroke detail.
That will all add up to "diddley-squat" for the art world, and since I
am not a god and make no pretense to seek such reknown...I rejoice that
art enriches my life and others....and that for me suffices.
peace to you...
Larry