about painting...
inadream
hello,
after reading some postings on this newsgroup and a visit to the site of
someone named Man de li I had to get something of my chest...
The history of art in the twenthieth century will be re-written and
re-written over the next few hundred years before a really refined look at
it will emerge. In the eighteenth century many thought Rafael was the
greatest painter there ever lived. Though still considered great, we
wouldn't rank him 'above' leonardo da Vinci, or michelangelo nowadays. Who
knows how future centuries will look at those artists.
Picasso is not my favourite artist. indeed, a lot of work by his hand is
mediocre, to consider him ' the greatest artist of the century', seems a bit
foolish to me, because time must have it's effect on the appreciation of his
work before one can say if it's really so. But picasso is important, for at
least a part of his work. And , foolish man de Li, at the age of twelve
picasso could draw as academically perfect as any well trained artist.
But now comes the tricky part...
Bouguereou and a lot of other nineteenth century artist that were considered
'wrong' after the 'victory' of modern art weren't that bad after all. I
actually like some of his work to a certain extent . He just wasn't a really
great artist like f.e. van Gogh. Can someone blame him for that?
I like the work of Walt Disney. I think he actually was an artistic genius.
In fact; I am more attracted to the work of Disney than to the work of
Cezanne.
But piet Mondriaan also loved the work of Walt Disney. Actually ,Mondrian
played his album with the songs of 'snow-white' a lot of times, he actually
sent postcards, which he collaged from magazines with images of the seven
dwarfs,around. Identifying himself and his friend with the characters.
in times like these i think it's not appropriate to 'choose' for the modern
view or the past. Because there are many things that can be happening at the
same time. The art of painting is in a crisis, but this crisis won't be
solved with the foolish opinions expressed on the internet-site of man de
li.
A lot of the painting-techniques of the old masters have been lost with the
changing academic traditions influenced by the modern 'victory'.
But luckily for us artists there are investigations by scholars who try to
find out just how they painted. I can recommend the writings of Ernst van de
Wetering (read his excellent book 'the painter at work' about the painting
techniques of Rembrandt) of the ' Rembrandt Research project'. (You can all
visit their excellent internet-site)
I do not wish to go back to the past;I want to move on.
The succes of the modern school of painting especially in the first half of
the twentieth century was due to the fact that artists like picasso,
mondriaan, Braque and others were well trained academic painters before they
created their important works. From tradition they knew what it takes for an
image to 'work'.
I see many bad painted works by people who think they work in the grand
tradition of the old masters. I think the layered painting technique of the
old masters can be modified into a modern way of working, based on
influences from the computer or other media ,like video ot television. but
with the present day in mind, and not the past...
peter
Bob C
inadream wrote:
>
> The history of art in the twenthieth century will be re-written and
> re-written over the next few hundred years before a really refined look at
> it will emerge. In the eighteenth century many thought Rafael was the
> greatest painter there ever lived. Though still considered great, we
> wouldn't rank him 'above' leonardo da Vinci, or michelangelo nowadays. Who
> knows how future centuries will look at those artists.
We're comparing apples with oranges here, but of those three artists I
personally still prefer the work of Raphael, although my opinion may
simply be based on the number of wonderful works of his displayed nearby
at the National Gallery in DC. In writing the history of art, however,
it may be more relevant to ask how influential these artist were (both
in art and society), how innovative, how reflective of their particular
time and place?
In one of my books I have a copy of a short essay by John Ruskin, from
1869, describing why Bernardino Luini is a superior painter to his
teacher, Leonardo. I'll admit right now that I'd never even heard of
Luini before reading this. And after now seeing some of his works, I
certainly do not agree. But if you read the criticisms of both painters
contained in that essay - the weaknesses of Leonardo and the strengths
of Luini - they are all excellent and well thought out observations.
>
> Picasso is not my favourite artist. indeed, a lot of work by his hand is
> mediocre, to consider him ' the greatest artist of the century', seems a bit
> foolish to me, because time must have it's effect on the appreciation of his
> work before one can say if it's really so. But picasso is important, for at
> least a part of his work. And , foolish man de Li, at the age of twelve
> picasso could draw as academically perfect as any well trained artist.
>
That's one hell of an exaggeration there and it isn't really necessary
for defending Picasso. Why don't we just say that, for his age, Picasso
demonstrated outstanding skills of academic craftmanship. Until, of
course, he stopped doing works which showcased those particular skills.
But no matter what you think of the quality of his work, his place in
art history is more likely to be based on those questions I was asking
in the first paragraph. And right now it seems to me likely he will be
considered an important part of the history of 20th century art well
into the future.
> But now comes the tricky part...
> Bouguereou and a lot of other nineteenth century artist that were considered
> 'wrong' after the 'victory' of modern art weren't that bad after all. I
> actually like some of his work to a certain extent . He just wasn't a really
> great artist like f.e. van Gogh. Can someone blame him for that?
Not that bad? Bouguereau's paintings are beautiful. Not as beautiful, in
my opinion, as a select few artists I could mention, not nearly as
interesting as many, and it does not appear at this point that he was
particularly innovative or influential. But none of this makes him bad.
Not every painter can be Raphael.
>
> I like the work of Walt Disney. I think he actually was an artistic genius.
> In fact; I am more attracted to the work of Disney than to the work of
> Cezanne.
If Disney was a genius, it was as a producer, not as an artist. His own
early cartoons are pretty crude, and after that he always had someone
else doing the art work. Warhol was much more involved in the actual
hands-on creation of the art being produced in his factory, and look
what people say about him...
Anyway, art history as we now know it has never seemed to be much
concerned with popular culture except when dealing with the latter part
of this century. What do you think that the average person living during
the Rennaisance had hanging on their walls - da Vincis? copies of da
Vincis? I doubt it. Yet I don't even have a clue what the answer to this
question is. It's something my classes and readings on Art History have
totally ignored.
Is there some point to all of these ramblings? No, I guess not. Just
some reactions I had to some of the things you wrote.
- Bob C.
mdeli
On Tue, 28 Apr 1998 09:24:01 -0400, Bob C <bob...@erols.com> wrote:
>We're comparing apples with oranges here, but of those three artists I
>personally still prefer the work of Raphael, although my opinion may
>simply be based on the number of wonderful works of his displayed nearby
>at the National Gallery in DC. In writing the history of art, however,
>it may be more relevant to ask how influential these artist were (both
>in art and society), how innovative, how reflective of their particular
>time and place?
--and especially how fine their technique draftsmanship and skill were
to produce the above mentioned effects.
>
>In one of my books I have a copy of a short essay by John Ruskin, from
>1869, describing why Bernardino Luini is a superior painter to his
>teacher, Leonardo. I'll admit right now that I'd never even heard of
>Luini before reading this. And after now seeing some of his works, I
>certainly do not agree. But if you read the criticisms of both painters
>contained in that essay - the weaknesses of Leonardo and the strengths
>of Luini - they are all excellent and well thought out observations.
I figured you would like Ruskin who was a pioneer of modern Artspeak
in English. Similar blow-bags wrote in French. None surpassed the
Germans.
I once wrote an anylisis of Ruskin's unbelievable reasons for
eliminating purple from the artistic pallete. Nobody reads Ruskin
today except those who admire and try to write similar Artspeak. I
once owned a 19th century edition of Ruskin's complete works. I doubt
that there is anyone alive today who got through all that dirahrea of
bone-crunching of words. Ruskin made blow-baggery an artform. His is
inimitable.
> it isn't really necessary
>for defending Picasso. Why don't we just say that, for his age, Picasso
>demonstrated outstanding skills of academic craftmanship.
Because it isn't true
> Until, of course, he stopped doing works which showcased those particular skills.
Because it never happened.
snip
> Bouguereau's paintings are beautiful.
Well we really don't want any of that.
>...not nearly as
>interesting as many, and it does not appear at this point that he was
>particularly innovative or influential. But none of this makes him bad.
>Not every painter can be Raphael.
No Bouguereau looks anything like Raphael.
>If Disney was a genius, it was as a producer, not as an artist. His own
>early cartoons are pretty crude, and after that he always had someone
>else doing the art work.
Disney could draw. Many artists from Dali to Teopolo and Bernini were
producers and ran studios.
> Warhol was much more involved in the actual
>hands-on creation of the art being produced in his factory, and look
>what people say about him...
Warhol with all his producers produced little more than fashionable
repetitive crap. What counts is the quality artwork not how, why or
when it was produced.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod