Question: Is the fine arts becoming an endangered species?
William Smith
-No more paint, paper, museums or galleries?!?<
(snip)
Patrice.....................
The very first thing you will have to do (and this is not a flame)
is attempt to define what art is as WE know it. As you no doubt know
there are an infinitive number of definitions of what ART is. Mine might
very be totally counter to yours.
For example my answer to the above question would go something like this;
"No, since new technologies is beside the point, since art resides not in
technique but in a knowing application of insight and not in the media used".
Question from the 19th century for you to ponder;
"Does photography signal the end of art as we know it?"
The answer to that question is quite different then the answer to yours. ;)
Think about it!
good luck
william
gree...@designlink.com,internet
--
Sent from Designlink, San Francisco. Design, Graphics, Photo, Portfolios Online.
Modem: (510) 933-9676; (510) 845-4187; (415) 241-9927. Voice: 930-6746
Internet Access: Via TCP/IP PORT: 3000; IP: designlink.com or 206.14.15.3
WEB: http://www.designlink.com
Wray Kephart
X Question from the 19th century for you to ponder;
X "Does photography signal the end of art as we know it?"
It defeated portrait painting as documentation of family history;
its created the opportunity within the masses to become their own
documentors of specific human events.
Kephart
Heather Yewall
>It defeated portrait painting as documentation of family history;
>its created the opportunity within the masses to become their own
>documentors of specific human events.
Hi There Y'all,
Those who could afford painted portraits still do and can and
photography is NOT considered a fair substitute to THEM. Then
the question remains: What does photography by the masses
have to do with ART?
--
Bye There Y'all
___________________________________________________
Heather Yewall <Roller over in the clover.>
William Smith
X Question from the 19th century for you to ponder;
X "Does photography signal the end of art as we know it?"
Wray Kephart,kep...@crash.cts.com,Internet then said;
>>It defeated portrait painting as documentation of family history;
its created the opportunity within the masses to become their own
documentors of specific human events.<<
Agreed. Beaten at his own game, the nineteenth-century painter felt the
instant pinch of automation. The painter's time-comsuming craft seemed to be
undermined. Though the artistic pretensions of the sentimental bourgeois
aesthetic helped keep the portrait painter in his servile place, as well as
the painter of more sensational or sentimental subjects, there can be no
denying that the serious visual artist was forced to see things anew. If he
was not to compete with the camera, which could more than adequately convey a
picture of reality conceived as a materially external phenomenon, then he was
forced to consider other models of visual perception. This was not an easy
task, given the emphatically materialistic orientation of society as a whole.
Furthermore, it is extremely difficult, having been imbued in one perceptual
gloss, to even consider the nature of another. Since the camera had usurped
the function of portraying "objective" reality, the serious visual artist was
more than ever forced into his own subjective universe. On the positive
side, this forced the artist to consider nonmatierialistic points of view,
thus promoting the larger transformative process. On the negative side, it
furthered the alienation of the serious artist, who had already been shunted
aside by the prevailing fine-arts aesthetic and by a society that contunued
to adhere to the sentimental, realistic aesthetic that photography had
finally standardized.
The artist, academic or not, immediately sought to defend themselves against
the competition by maintaining that photography could never be a fine art.
At the same time, however, academic painting after the invention of
photography reached new heights of meticulous "photographic" realism,
exemplified by the works of Frederick Edwin Church in America; Repin in
Russia; some of the Pre-Raphaelites in England, whose paintings have a
hallucinatory clarity; and above all, the academic masters in France, such as
Adolphe William Bouguereau, whose highly polished figures have the ludicrous
appearance of photographs of Greek statues come to life. The rise of
photography also had the effect of entrenching the sentimental/anecdotal
aesthetic as the most popular bourgesois aesthetic, one that prevails to the
present day. This is simply because photography, by freezing moments of
time, vindicates the novelistic notion that reality happens in anecdotal
units; the serialized novel and the sentimental visual aesthetic go hand in
hand.
william
gree...@designlink.com
Pd
>on 08 Sep 1995 15:16:54 GMT William Smith (gree...@designlink.com) posted:
>
>X Question from the 19th century for you to ponder;
>X "Does photography signal the end of art as we know it?"
>
>its created the opportunity within the masses to become their own
More importantly, it pushed artists to move beyond superficial renderings. It spawned a whole new realm of exploration in the arts.
So the question for the 20th century to ponder:
How are advances in technology (computers, video, VR, and the Net) impacting the fine arts?
Susan
MDolinsky
On 11 Sep 1995, Heather Yewall wrote:
> Hi There Y'all,
They're baaaaaaaaack!
> Those who could afford painted portraits still do and can and
> photography is NOT considered a fair substitute to THEM. Then
> the question remains: What does photography by the masses
> have to do with ART?
Is this a kodak moment or what? Catch this shot for posteriority.
> Bye There Y'all
> ___________________________________________________
> Heather Yewall <Roller over in the clover.>
But not for long, eh?
-----------------------------------------------------
And we thought you were feeding the clover.
macke...@delphi.com
>More importantly, it pushed artists to move beyond superficial renderings. It spawned a whole new realm of exploration in the arts.
beyond "superficial renderings" long before the photographer came along.
Rembrandt's self-portraits are not superficial renderings--and were not
"pushed" by photography into becoming masterworks. Before the camera, there
were artists who painted fine portraiture and hacks who churned out the pre-
camera equivalent of Polaroids at a family party. And after the camera, those
two types of painters remained--I would venture to guess roughly in the same
ratio. The only thing that changed post-camera, was the creation of two new
groups: photographer-artists who created masterwork photographic prints and
photographic hacks who churned out the equivalent of (and ACTUAL) Polaroids
---Russ M.
Chris ROSSEEL
YO!
>Those who could afford painted portraits still do and can and
>photography is NOT considered a fair substitute to THEM.
Because painted portraits are more exclusive! (higher price - is
valued more...!) Has nothing to do with ART!
>Then the question remains: What does photography by the masses
>have to do with ART?
Nothing at all. The question is (was): can a photo be considered as a
piece of Art? EVERY human expressive-creative action CAN be
considered as Art. The main feature of Art is that it serves no
purpose but to please solely to the author.
Art is conceived by the man (or woman) touched by the piece of Art and
not by the creator of it. Do you know anybody who calles his own work
"a piece of Art?"
I don't.
The posted message reflects only one of several opinions...
Ross Green
[clip]
> Thats it...they just sat down, never hardly looked at/studied art
> before in their lives and boom, they're an artist. (This by the way
> is one comment of my brother in law, along with the comment
> to almost ANY painting/drawings I do that "I could've done that
> in less than half the time it took you on my computer...<laugh>"
> This INFURIATES ME!!! How dare ANYONE who has, as he,
> not studied art or worked for longer than seconds claim they are
> an artist!!!! [clip]
This is part of the mental illness of modern culture: do everything as
fast as possible, with as many shortcuts as you can find (computers,
etc.); otherwise, you're an old-fashioned fool.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
"It takes a lot of time to be a genius, you have to sit around so
much doing nothing, really doing nothing. If a bird or birds fly into
the room is it good luck or bad luck we will say it is good luck."
-- Gertrude Stein --
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
-Ross
Wray Kephart
X >on 08 Sep 1995 15:16:54 GMT William Smith (gree...@designlink.com) posted:
X X Question from the 19th century for you to ponder;
X X "Does photography signal the end of art as we know it?"
X Wray Kephart,kep...@crash.cts.com,Internet then said;
X >>It defeated portrait painting as documentation of family history;
X its created the opportunity within the masses to become their own
X documentors of specific human events.<<
X Agreed. Beaten at his own game, the nineteenth-century painter felt the
X instant pinch of automation. The painter's time-comsuming craft seemed to be
X undermined. Though the artistic pretensions of the sentimental bourgeois
X aesthetic helped keep the portrait painter in his servile place, as well as
X the painter of more sensational or sentimental subjects, there can be no
X denying that the serious visual artist was forced to see things anew. If he
X was not to compete with the camera, which could more than adequately convey a
X picture of reality conceived as a materially external phenomenon, then he was
X forced to consider other models of visual perception. This was not an easy
X task, given the emphatically materialistic orientation of society as a whole.
X Furthermore, it is extremely difficult, having been imbued in one perceptual
X gloss, to even consider the nature of another. Since the camera had usurped
X the function of portraying "objective" reality, the serious visual artist was
X more than ever forced into his own subjective universe. On the positive
X side, this forced the artist to consider nonmatierialistic points of view,
X thus promoting the larger transformative process. On the negative side, it
X furthered the alienation of the serious artist, who had already been shunted
X aside by the prevailing fine-arts aesthetic and by a society that contunued
X to adhere to the sentimental, realistic aesthetic that photography had
X finally standardized.
X The artist, academic or not, immediately sought to defend themselves against
X the competition by maintaining that photography could never be a fine art.
They were wrong in the sense that they were relating photography to painting,
not as separate expressions. They are distinctly different, but with similar
intent, so argued the validity of photography as one would with a 'painted'
medium; one of the main thrusts of debate regarded a lack of 'sensuality'
in a print that exists in paint<ed> expression>. Photography was seen for
what it was at the time; a tool for documentation only.
X At the same time, however, academic painting after the invention of
X photography reached new heights of meticulous "photographic" realism,
X exemplified by the works of Frederick Edwin Church in America; Repin in
X Russia; some of the Pre-Raphaelites in England, whose paintings have a
X hallucinatory clarity; and above all, the academic masters in France, such as
X Adolphe William Bouguereau, whose highly polished figures have the ludicrous
X appearance of photographs of Greek statues come to life.
These painters fell under the catagory of Romantic realists, but Frederick
Churchs time was *prior* to major photographic eras, working in the mid
1800s, as were others; <Albert Bierstadt, Thomas Moran> and werent directly
influenced if at all until the latter part of 1800s. American Romantisism
is as much due to the formation of 'national parks' as painters were then
commissioned to portray those vistas during that time frame. Church was
driven to paint in large part due to a feeling of oncoming war, so
sought out and preserved natural landscape before dessimation.
X The rise of
X photography also had the effect of entrenching the sentimental/anecdotal
X aesthetic as the most popular bourgesois aesthetic, one that prevails to the
X present day. This is simply because photography, by freezing moments of
X time, vindicates the novelistic notion that reality happens in anecdotal
X units; the serialized novel and the sentimental visual aesthetic go hand in
X hand.
I could argue that photography is also a medium that uses human memory as
its most compelling adjunct to the novelness or popularity of 'snapping
away' at moments in time. Painting, particular landscape paintings greatest
strength is in its ability to tug at subconcious memory.
This is one of the finest pieces Ive seen written for r.a.f.
Kephart
Wray Kephart
X In article <DEqzJ...@crash.cts.com>, kep...@crash.cts.com says...
X >It defeated portrait painting as documentation of family history;
X >its created the opportunity within the masses to become their own
X >documentors of specific human events.
X Hi There Y'all,
Someone missed you; but when you were Jaxas, theyd missed the itza
and twinkle identities.
X Those who could afford painted portraits still do and can and
X photography is NOT considered a fair substitute to THEM.
Sears and K-Mart shoppers excluded, <Olin Mills your just kidding
yourself>.
X Then the question remains: What does photography by the masses
X have to do with ART?
Some photographers consider themselves artists. The masses have
the convenience of instantly documenting their lives and surroundings,
so becoming one of the most popular forms of art production there is.
They also have to compose via the viewfinder, and make wild stabs at
lighting conditions. Roy Snopes is looking for you.
Kephart
William Smith
(snip)
>I could argue that photography is also a medium that uses human memory as
its most compelling adjunct to the novelness or popularity of 'snapping
away' at moments in time. Painting, particular landscape paintings greatest
strength is in its ability to tug at subconcious memory.<
(snip)
Paraphasing Wassily Kandinsky; "The artist must have something to
communicate, since mastery over the medium is not the end, but, instead,
the adopting of the medium to internal significance".
william
gree...@designlink.com,internet
Eric@greyhoundtown
>....I once attended a talk where the panel said they refused to use the
>computer, or any other form of technology ie/airbrush because they felt
>they were too mechanical and thus not "art". As I have began to explore
airbrush art, I disagreed with this to some degree, although I see
airbrush art as a technique of masking, not adding...(just a different
skill as in sculpture carving or cutting a way stone is different to the
addition of clay...)
However I did agree with their comment of "computer art". This too I
believe is just a different skill. However, the panel discussed how many
layperson will fiddle on a computer and produce something in some
programme and say they are an artist. Thats it...they just sat down,
never hardly looked at/studied art before in their lives and boom,
they're an artist. (This by the way is one comment of my brother in law,
along with the comment to almost ANY painting/drawings I do that " I
could've done that in less than half the time it took you on my
computer...laugh" This INFURIATES ME!!! How dare ANYONE who has, as
he, not studied art or worked for longer than seconds claim they are an
artist!!!! This I believe is the big problem not only with Computer art
but with Modern art aswell!! Those who have not worked to perfect
themselves through art have no right to call themselves artists!!(I do
however believe everyone starts out as an artist as a child, as children
explore themselves and their surroundings through art, learning things
like perspective, atmosphere etc through their crayons and
fingerpainting...but most adults loose this skill (willingly??).
There's my 2 1/2 cents worth!!
Mel
I have to get my coments in here about this. The first thing is I think that
the panel that you are refering to here are a bunch of nuts, although who am
I to say what they should think I have to admit there are a few things that
people do and call art that drive me crazy. the one thing I realy have to
say is that art is what the artist put into it and not what tools he used to
arive at a finished project. I think that I need to point out that the
computer is a tool and that is all it is. Photoshop and painter are not
going to help you if you don't know any thing about color or compasition
even any of the 3d programs are not going to tell you if you have a good use
of negitave space or any of that artsy fartsy stuff. Painter and photoshop
and any of these programs are just an aid. and the skill part I hate to
burst every ones bubble but every thing you do in art is a skill drawing is
a skill painting is a skill and ANYONE CAN LEARN TO DRAW if they set to it
and work at it
Iam an artist that works with a computer for some of my work, well it is
getting more and more all of the time, I use it to get started and some
things I start with a drawing and scan it and some stuff is all done on the
computer. And no I am not the person who got a computer and bryce and I am
an instant artist. I am 25 and started drwawing when I was about 5 and
started painting in oils when I was 7. I have been raised as an artist. Over
that last 20 years I have worked in every artistic enviornment and almost
every medium out there.
At one time I was close to what the panel in my thought about what is art in
that I did not like it when people painted bronze and stupid things like
that but then it hit me that people can do what ever they like. Do you think
that Eschir or Picaso or any of the great artist if they where working today
would not be useing the computer? if you think this you are a nut also.
Picaso did photography was this not art? was picaso not an artist? I think
all of the masters would have used them if they had computers. they are not
going to do something just because it is the old way or it is the hard way
like it adds some thing to your work. you work is about what you have been
across in your life not what you used to do your work.
so this panel what do they think about the use of phnumatic tools for
sculpture? is it not art because it was done with air tools? do you think
Rodin would not use air tools if he had them? again if you say no you are a
nut as most if not all of the great masters had assistants that actualy did
the grunt work for them do you think they would look at it and say well it
was not done like this 500 years ago so I can not work like this. NO what
made them great was that the looked beond what was here and now and did with
what they had not what others said was art.
I have one last thing to say. The fact on if you are an artist or not is not
determined on how long you have been working or how many art classes you
took of if you know the name of the guy that did the Mona Lisa If you are an
artist then you are an artist and it has nothing to do with anything else if
not then don't try to be. I think the the pannel and any one who is woried
about some one doing a fast piece of art calling them selves an artist has
some sort of complex that being an artist is some big deal you should wory
about what you are doing in your work and not what every one else is doing
art is not a compatition you have to be an artis for your self not for every
one else if you are woried about what people think you should not quit your
day job.
Remember your opinion on your work is the only one that realy matters if you
are doing art for others all of the time you are not an artist.
oh yea and I have to respond to the thing about people giveing up art
willingly I don't think this is true I do think that we are all artistic to
start with it is just who is hard headed enuff to stick with it. The fact is
that art is driven out of people from the start thus would atest to the
people that drive yellow pintos and pink escorts. Art should be reqiered
like english, every one should get the fundamentals of art atleast.
Eric Rider
******************************************
I don't spell bad I spell creative
******************************************
Karen M. Smith
Fascinating. The first time I took a computer class, I wrote my term
paper on this very subject. The arguments haven't changed, but I
wish I could have quoted some of you!!
Happy Creating
Karen Smith
Dale O'Connor
>From: gree...@designlink.com (William Smith)
>Subject: Re: Question: Is the fine arts becoming an endangered species?
>Date: 14 Sep 1995 18:05:51 GMT
>Wray Kephart,kep...@crash.cts.com sez:
>(snip)
>>I could argue that photography is also a medium that uses human memory as
>its most compelling adjunct to the novelness or popularity of 'snapping
>away' at moments in time. Painting, particular landscape paintings greatest
>strength is in its ability to tug at subconcious memory.<
>(snip)
>Paraphasing Wassily Kandinsky; "The artist must have something to
>communicate, since mastery over the medium is not the end, but, instead,
>the adopting of the medium to internal significance".
Has anyone noticed the increasing use of photographic collage?
There is a small town in central Illinois with an intriguing mansion from
1865, lots of railroad tracks and a really ugly Main street (which by the
way isn't called Main Street).
When I shot four rolls of film in June, I was planning to do water colors
for an August town reunion. Instead I started combining the most
interesting sections of the 4 x 6 prints into 11 x 14 collages --
some of which were made into postcards.
The collage captures the town as people would like to think it looks.
Perception vs. reality.
My background. Taking art lessons from age 12 from the nun who taught
the 7th grade who was a professional artist and adored Matisse. Getting
my first camera of my very own at 16 -- black and white box camera --
and getting my current Nikon -- fully manual -- back in 1973.
Making my living for three decades are a writer and editor -- who really
loved double spread photo layouts.
If pictures are worth a thousand words, a collage could be worth about
half a million.
Dale
______________________________________________________________
Life is an adventure in ChicaGO -- city on the GO!!
Tale of Two Cities -- Chicago & Paris -- via postcards
of past 102 years --http://www.paris.org/Expos/Vintage/
Chris ROSSEEL
>IMHO,
>as a fine artist (painter, former musician),
>I think the finer arts are in serious trouble, and it's not trouble from
>the republican dweebs or from the PC socialist realists or whatever.
>I think the actual trouble lies in the perception of the public at
>the hands of the Entertainment Industry. People, by and large,
>don't really look at a painting (especially non-figurative painting)
>with any kind of knowledgability or sophistication. To them, they see
>Abstract Art, and most art in general, as either decorative objects
>to clutter their houses, and or as a source of entertainemnt and
>status totem.
Well....is (A)rt created for them? When I create (produce...?) a
personal feeling into some photo I do it for myself (and the person
on the photo...) NOT for the "masses" or the general public.
Some say: (A)rt is created by an ARTist....
But when is someone becoming an artist....? After following 12 years
of art school? After selling his work for $$$...? After a worldwide
exhibition...? After an exposee in a major talkshow...? After been
nominated for an Oscar...? Or when OTHER people call him (or her)
an artist? Or after his death...?
Maybe some one becomes an artist when he (or she) uses his personal
skills to create some unneccessary work, just for the sake of it....?
...?
>They don't give a rats ass about "what constitutes a
>line?"Symbolism to them can never be subtle. Correspondence and metaphors
>appeal to them as a weird grimore of elitists, and they reject it.
>They don't see art as a conversation or a development of cultural
>interest.
Or like an investment for the "art-added-value" ?
>Most of them would rather watch some crap on the Teee Veee
>than try and understand the obscurities of Moderen Art. The general
>preference runs to amusement with the discussion of "hooters" on
>Married With Children, and not the Alchemical Symbolism employed
>by Marcel Duchamp or Robert Irwin's sensiblities regarding public
>spaces.
??? What's wrong with "Hooters" :)
But hey...what if..?
Who produces (A)rt solely for arts-sake? And NOT for becoming
rich&famous?
>The pathetic part of it all, is that it's really no more difficult
>to understand the convolutions of the conversation of art than it is
>to understand the convolutions of several soap operas. It's not
>like the people are completely stupid, they have been duped by the
>anti-intellectualism so obscenely prevelant in our present society.
Completely obvious!
>There is a non zero probability that the social form of "Fine art"
>may disappear. This will not make such a society a bad one. Many
>societies have existed without such a conversation. BUT we DO have
>such a conversation in our society, and it is of enormous value.
(A)rt (the fine one...with a capital A) will ALLWAYS survive....maybe
for a happy few. But hey...who really cares about THAT?
The artists...?
My personal view: an artist creates art.
>To lose it would be a tragedy, and to lose it to the likes of 90210
>and Cops is an insult to greivious injury.
>(opinions are NOT official Macromedia statements, and are solely my own)
Are you really sure of this? Maybe the Macromedia's opinion is just
the same as yours... :)
Chris ROSSEEL, 41, photographer
HomePage URL: http://www.club.innet.be/~cfgr/
Lichtaart - Belgium - Europe
Chris ROSSEEL
d.
> After an orgasm, creating (A)rt is the next best thing... :)
>
Yes, but do you create your best art after an orgasm?
<rimshot>
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
nort...@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~northcut/no-thing.html
"Today - just ask Barbara Eden to put a wart on her cheek!"
--Ray Dennis Steckler
Chris ROSSEEL
of mind and body. The kind of state after a orgasm....
Marc Servin
>Yeah.
No.
"Design, which by another name is drawing, and consists of it, is the
fount and body of painting, sculpture and architecture and of every
other kind of art, and the root of all sciences.
Let whoever may have attained so much as to have the power of drawing
know that he holds a great treasure." Michelangelo