David Hockney Sucks!!!!
Dr. Slick
I've checked out Hockney's "Secret Knowledge",
and although I'll agree that Vermeer and perhaps
many others have used a camera obscura and other
optical aids, I have to say that this doesn't
mean that these guys didn't have talent.
Hockney himself uses an optical aid to make
some really horrible portraits:
http://www.goodart.org/hockney.htm
And so Hockney ends up proving to
the world that even WITH an optical
aid, he still doesn't draw very well
at all...just look at his shading technique
and the lack of quality in his line. Even
the proportions are off, causing his
portraits to look weird.
He also doesn't mention how he
thought John Singer Sargeant worked,
and never explains how he thought
Bouguereau worked...perhaps he
saw all the pics of Bouguereau with
models and had to admit that he
probably "eyeballed" his stuff.
Bottom line is, I agree with
the author of the above link
that Hockney wrote his book to
try to discredit the great artists
of the past who knew how to draw
realistically very well...something
that Hockney himself cannot do,
even with optical aids and tracing.
This is not a rant against the
abstract, or anything non-realistic,
or non-traditional, as i enjoy
Haring and Warhol as well.
But even as an abstractionist,
Hockney fails in my opinion.
So my conclusion is that
famous artists don't necessarily
get famous because their art is
any good. They often achieve
fame just for having outrageous
personalities.
Dr. Slick
Mani Deli
Check out this month's Scientific American which demolishes Hockney
for technical reasons.
> I've checked out Hockney's "Secret Knowledge",
>and although I'll agree that Vermeer and perhaps
>many others have used a camera obscura and other
>optical aids, I have to say that this doesn't
>mean that these guys didn't have talent.
All any optical aids will get is at most is outlines. Even for that
you have to know how to draw in order to trace the right lines.
Vermeer is about what is in between the lines. No aid will help that.
> Hockney himself uses an optical aid to make
>some really horrible portraits:
>
> http://www.goodart.org/hockney.htm
>
> And so Hockney ends up proving to
>the world that even WITH an optical
>aid, he still doesn't draw very well
>at all...just look at his shading technique
>and the lack of quality in his line. Even
>the proportions are off, causing his
>portraits to look weird.
They would be interesting if they looked weird. They look common
because Hockney has no knowledge or talent.
> Bottom line is, I agree with
>the author of the above link
>that Hockney wrote his book to
>try to discredit the great artists
>of the past who knew how to draw
>realistically very well...something
>that Hockney himself cannot do,
>even with optical aids and tracing.
>
> This is not a rant against the
>abstract, or anything non-realistic,
>or non-traditional, as i enjoy
>Haring and Warhol as well.
Neither of whom could draw well either.
> But even as an abstractionist,
>Hockney fails in my opinion.
>
> So my conclusion is that
>famous artists don't necessarily
>get famous because their art is
>any good. They often achieve
>fame just for having outrageous
>personalities.
>
Wrong, they had the right connections. Most don't have enough talent
to have an outrageous personality.
>Dr. Slick
>
>http://www.drslick.org/
Radio913
>
>All any optical aids will get is at most is outlines. Even for that
>you have to know how to draw in order to trace the right lines.
>Vermeer is about what is in between the lines. No aid will help that.
>
If all it took was tracing a projection
to achieve a Vermeer, then anyone could do it! Hockney proves with his lousy
portraits that this is not the case.
>
>> Hockney himself uses an optical aid to make
>>some really horrible portraits:
>>
>> http://www.goodart.org/hockney.htm
>>
>> And so Hockney ends up proving to
>>the world that even WITH an optical
>>aid, he still doesn't draw very well
>>at all...just look at his shading technique
>>and the lack of quality in his line. Even
>>the proportions are off, causing his
>>portraits to look weird.
>
>They would be interesting if they looked weird. They look common
>because Hockney has no knowledge or talent.
Well, yeah. They aren't even interesting in a non-realistic way. Or
even as caricatures. Really bad work.
>>
>> This is not a rant against the
>>abstract, or anything non-realistic,
>>or non-traditional, as i enjoy
>>Haring and Warhol as well.
>
>Neither of whom could draw well either.
>
Wrong.
Neither of them could draw REALISTICALLY well. But this doesn't
mean that Haring didn't draw extremely well in a graffiti sense. He most
certainly did, and by "well" i mean communicated his ideas well, which is
really what art is all about. And Warhol drew like shit in a realistic sense,
but was a genius for concept design and repetition and color coordination, etc.
And once again, I'm not ranting against non-realism, but in Hockney's
case,
realism is what his book is all about.
>>
>> So my conclusion is that
>>famous artists don't necessarily
>>get famous because their art is
>>any good. They often achieve
>>fame just for having outrageous
>>personalities.
>>
>Wrong, they had the right connections. Most don't have enough talent
>to have an outrageous personality.
>
Well, that's true as well. It's funny how all the famous artists and
musicians hung out in the same circle, eh?
Dr. Slick
Mani Deli
> If all it took was tracing a projection
>to achieve a Vermeer, then anyone could do it! Hockney proves with his lousy
>portraits that this is not the case.
>
>>> This is not a rant against the
>>>abstract, or anything non-realistic,
>>>or non-traditional, as i enjoy
>>>Haring and Warhol as well.
>>
>>Neither of whom could draw well either.
>>
>
> Wrong.
>
> Neither of them could draw REALISTICALLY well.
That says it all. That's why they couldn't draw unrealistically well.
> But this doesn't
>mean that Haring didn't draw extremely well in a graffiti sense. He most
>certainly did, and by "well" i mean communicated his ideas well, which is
>really what art is all about.
name three ideas.
> And Warhol drew like shit in a realistic sense,
and any other sense
>but was a genius for concept design and repetition and color coordination, etc.
if you prefer double talk to fine artwork.
The_Lizard_Accountant
[snip]
> http://www.goodart.org/hockney.htm
[snip]
> Dr. Slick
>
> http://www.drslick.org/
Absolutely brilliant article, thanks for sharing it with the forum.
I myself have been in the rather embarrassing position of defending
Hockney to my wife with little good effect. Not so much defend but
offer the 'wait and see' point of view to her. Maybe enough is enough.
In New York I saw 'The Magic Flute' at the Met a few years ago with a
set designed by Hockney that I thought then and still think now was
brilliant. As a colorist he is (I think anyway) very good. But as a
draughtsman?
I saw a particularly caustic critic on the BBC a few months ago
interviewing Hockney and treating him like a god. What sycophancy! It
really was sickening. The victors really do write history, including
the history of art, alas.
Thur
"Dr. Slick" <radi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1d15af91.04111...@posting.google.com...
and:
"The Lizard Accountant" wrote:
> http://www.goodart.org/hockney.htm
[snip]
> Dr. Slick
>
> http://www.drslick.org/
Absolutely brilliant article, thanks for sharing it with the forum.
##############################################
So this article begins:
"He claims that the Old Masters didn't really know how to draw
and paint realistic images by direct observation, memory, or
imagination. Instead Hockney claims they used the same method
Hockney uses when he wants to create realistic images."
Straw man.
Hockney actually says: (page 14)
"To sugest that artists used optical devices, as I am doing here
is not to diminish their achievements.
For me it makes them even more astounding."
Please supply quotes to support the above claims, and if possible to
support the statements made in the "absolutely brilliant article"
Thur
Dr. Slick
>
> >>> This is not a rant against the
> >>>abstract, or anything non-realistic,
> >>>or non-traditional, as i enjoy
> >>>Haring and Warhol as well.
> >>
> >>Neither of whom could draw well either.
> >>
> > Wrong.
> >
> > Neither of them could draw REALISTICALLY well.
>
> That says it all. That's why they couldn't draw unrealistically well.
>
I disagree. By "well" i mean communicating
well, which Haring certainly did:
http://www.haring.com/
Got money to burn?
>
> > And Warhol drew like shit in a realistic sense,
>
> and any other sense
>
> >but was a genius for concept design and repetition and color coordination, etc.
>
> if you prefer double talk to fine artwork.
Boy, do you have a narrow definition!
Warhol has a unique, modern style that is instantly
recognizable:
http://www.artbrokerage.com/images/warhol/warhol_flowers1970_1.jpg
http://art.box.sk/warhol/img/motyl.jpg
These aren't his best work, but the color coordination
is pure Warhol, and is the repetition.
All the "skill" for realism in the world
will not make your art unique and original.
This is something you need to think about.
Slick
Bill Palmer
[...]
>
> This is not a rant against the
> abstract, or anything non-realistic,
That is good, because reading certain of
the comments in this group, I sometimes
get the feeling that quite a few readers
believe that artists' talent is judged
by who can paint a picture which looks
the most like a photograph. The world
of art would be an incredibly boring
place if everyone was only trying to
paint such pictures. I hasten to add
that I am a great admirer of a number
of artists who have been called "photo-
realists," but in all cases the photo-
realism is just a starting point for
understanding their art, it is not
the be-all and the end-all of it.
> or non-traditional, as i enjoy
> Haring and Warhol as well.
> But even as an abstractionist,
> Hockney fails in my opinion.
There are pictures by Hockney that
I enjoy, but I don't think he is half
the artist Audrey Flack is, and yet
it is Hockney who is the household
word. That being said, I might add
that making it big as an artist
is not so much due to the outrageous
personalities as it is to luck and
good business promotion, including
all that goes with it: being seen in
the right places, hobnobbing with
the right people, cultivating ties
with art dealers, critics, etc.
You can have an outrageous personality,
but if you don't attend to the business
of art, you won't get far. The thing
that people sometimes forget about the
two most famous painters of the 20th
century, Dali and Picasso, is that
both of them (though Dali was far
more the flambouyant personality)
had a genius for the business of
art as well as for the creation of
art.
Giving Hockney credit, I thought that
the little book he did illustrating
Wallace Stevens poem, "The Man with
the Blue Guitar," was outstanding,
one of the better examples I have
seen of an artist-illustrated poem.
Also, Hockney has painted some
pictures of L. A. which I feel have
captured the essence of certain
times and places in that city.
I think he is a much more
authentic artist than Haring was.
Haring was talented, but I would
put him, at best, more in a league
with Peter Max.
Mr. Palmer
Room 314
Bill Palmer
While I never fail to enjoy, and often learn
from, your comments, Mani, sometimes it seems
to me you take the viewpoint that this group
is rec.arts.fine-arts-painting, or something
to that effect, rather than rec.arts.fine.
I am sure you agree that one does not necessarily
need to draw like an Old Master in order to
be an authentic artist. How well could
Joseph Cornell draw, for instance? I have
no idea, since drawing has little or nothing
to do with the assemblages and collages for
which he is so deservedly well regarded. How
well could Lictenstein draw, by the way?
Further, I think Stuart Davis is one of the
great artists of the 20th century. I have
no idea how well he could draw, but he certainly
knew how to paint fascinating pictures.
I hope you do not judge contemporary artists
simply on the basis of who can draw pictures
the most closely suggesting the training and
talent of the Old Masters. Authentic art
can be created without drawing.
Mr. Palmer
Room 314
>
> >Dr. Slick
> >
> >http://www.drslick.org/
Dr. Slick
>
> So this article begins:
> "He claims that the Old Masters didn't really know how to draw
> and paint realistic images by direct observation, memory, or
> imagination. Instead Hockney claims they used the same method
> Hockney uses when he wants to create realistic images."
>
> Straw man.
>
>
> Hockney actually says: (page 14)
> "To sugest that artists used optical devices, as I am doing here
> is not to diminish their achievements.
> For me it makes them even more astounding."
>
That's a patronizing sort of comment
from Hockney, as his whole premise is that
the old masters couldn't have done what they
did without the optical devices.
For Hockney, indeed, they should be
more astounding, as Hockney himself
couldn't do something decent
with the optical devices himself.
S.
The_Lizard_Accountant
> "He claims that the Old Masters didn't really know how to draw
> and paint realistic images by direct observation, memory, or
> imagination. Instead Hockney claims they used the same method
> Hockney uses when he wants to create realistic images."
>
> Straw man.
>
>
> Hockney actually says: (page 14)
> "To sugest that artists used optical devices, as I am doing here
> is not to diminish their achievements.
> For me it makes them even more astounding."
>
> Please supply quotes to support the above claims, and if possible to
> support the statements made in the "absolutely brilliant article"
> Thur
I have not read Hockney's book, only this one review, which I found
quite compelling.
However, your two paragraphs above are not at variance. Let me put it
another way: your two paragraphs above, one quoting the Brian Yoder
article and the other quoting Hockney's book, are entirely without
inconsistency. In fact, the two paragraphs could be patched together
as one, with some minor changes of tense and attribution, without
contradiction.
So, your point is?
I do not think that the capacity to draw is the be all and end all of
art. If you had quoted the rest of my remarks you would have included
my praise of Hockney as a colorist.
So Hockney can't draw particularly well. (Neither, I might add, could
Vincent Van Gogh, on my short list of greatest artists of all time.) I
don't have a problem with that. But if Hockney's book *suggests* (and
here's the real point) that the old masters couldn't draw without the
use of cameras both obscura and lucida then I believe Hockney was
simply wrong. And I think Brian Yoder quite lucidly demonstrates why
he was wrong in the remainder of his article.
Thur
"The_Lizard_Accountant" <the_lizard...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5a3f9de8.04111...@posting.google.com...
My point is this:
When you make the point that an article has some merit, you might at least
have constucted the bare bones of an argument to support it.
To admit you have not read Hockney's book at least allows for honesty,
but also makes any opinion you had useless.
Incidentally the article itself does not make any references and as far
as I have read is full of comment on what Hockney did not say.
> But if Hockney's book *suggests* <
Read it then and come back with references instead of second-hand
misconceptions. I am open to any well constucted arguments.
The main argument against Hockney's book has been run through this
newsgroup before and relies upon the opinion that he cannot draw/paint.
Very little comment directly addresses the worth of the points made in
his book.
I do not care what is thought of Hockney, it is of no relevance to his
arguments that optical devices were used from earlier times than
had generally been thought, and perhaps more widely too.
Thur
Thur
Page ?
Thur
The_Lizard_Accountant
> radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote in message news:<1d15af91.04111...@posting.google.com>...
>
> [...]
> >
> > This is not a rant against the
> > abstract, or anything non-realistic,
>
> That is good, because reading certain of
> the comments in this group, I sometimes
> get the feeling that quite a few readers
> believe that artists' talent is judged
> by who can paint a picture which looks
> the most like a photograph.
Exactly.
Also, that point of view leads to a logical problem if the person who
holds it does not repudiate modern art. In other words, if a piece of
modern art does not require good draughtsmanship to execute, must one
first find out how good a draughtsman the artist is *before* one can
adjudicate the work? A little too much like Schrodinger's Cat for my
taste.
No skill no art? How much skill? Who decides? What is meant by 'skill'
anyway? What is meant by art? If art by definition is skill then is
this not a tautology?
And so on.
Dogma has no place in art. (It has no place in mathematics either. See
where the disciples of N. Bourbaki wound up.)
Nose kill know wart
Dr. Slick
>
> > his whole premise is that
> the old masters couldn't have done what they
> did without the optical devices.<
>
> Page ?
>
"The Whole Premise" of the book
is that the old masters couldn't have done what they
did without the optical devices.
It's really a personal
agenda of Hockney's to show
that he has at least as much
talent as other famous artists.
He ends up doing the opposite.
S.
Dr. Slick
>
> I do not think that the capacity to draw is the be all and end all of
> art. If you had quoted the rest of my remarks you would have included
> my praise of Hockney as a colorist.
>
> So Hockney can't draw particularly well. (Neither, I might add, could
> Vincent Van Gogh, on my short list of greatest artists of all time.) I
> don't have a problem with that. But if Hockney's book *suggests* (and
> here's the real point) that the old masters couldn't draw without the
> use of cameras both obscura and lucida then I believe Hockney was
> simply wrong. And I think Brian Yoder quite lucidly demonstrates why
> he was wrong in the remainder of his article.
Again, Hockney never addresses Singer Sargeant or
Bouguereau.
And your point about Van Gogh is well taken...
Vincent couldn't draw realistically very well
at all. But his paintings are unique color wise
and NO ONE has such a distinctive brush stroke!
Slick
Mani Deli
Palmer) wrote:
>radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote in message news:<1d15af91.04111...@posting.google.com>...
>
>[...]
>>
>> This is not a rant against the
>> abstract, or anything non-realistic,
>
>That is good, because reading certain of
>the comments in this group, I sometimes
>get the feeling that quite a few readers
>believe that artists' talent is judged
>by who can paint a picture which looks
>the most like a photograph.
name three paintings that you would mistake for a photograph.
> The world
>of art would be an incredibly boring
>place if everyone was only trying to
>paint such pictures. I hasten to add
>that I am a great admirer of a number
>of artists who have been called "photo-
>realists," but in all cases the photo-
>realism is just a starting point for
>understanding their art, it is not
>the be-all and the end-all of it.
>
>> or non-traditional, as i enjoy
>> Haring and Warhol as well.
>> But even as an abstractionist,
>> Hockney fails in my opinion.
>
>There are pictures by Hockney that
>I enjoy, but I don't think he is half
>the artist Audrey Flack is, and yet
>it is Hockney who is the household
>word.
He' not a household word.
Mani Deli
Palmer) wrote:
>I am sure you agree that one does not necessarily
>need to draw like an Old Master in order to
>be an authentic artist.
I agree However when one claims someone who doesn't draw well
is on a level with Raphael I claim he is full of crap.
> How well could
>Joseph Cornell draw, for instance? I have
>no idea, since drawing has little or nothing
>to do with the assemblages and collages for
>which he is so deservedly well regarded.
I find him a bore.
>How
>well could Lictenstein draw, by the way?
No evidence that he could do more then copy.
>Further, I think Stuart Davis is one of the
>great artists of the 20th century.
Second rate graphic designer.
> I have
>no idea how well he could draw, but he certainly
>knew how to paint fascinating pictures.
for you.
>I hope you do not judge contemporary artists
>simply on the basis of who can draw pictures
>the most closely suggesting the training and
>talent of the Old Masters. Authentic art
>can be created without drawing.
>
Not without skill. I bet someone who can't draw wrote this.
Mani Deli
>
> Again, Hockney never addresses Singer Sargeant or
>Bouguereau.
Hockney claims are that certain iistruments were used to create
paintings. His claims have been demolished.
> And your point about Van Gogh is well taken...
>Vincent couldn't draw realistically very well
>at all.
Van Gogh could draw very well.
david
The_Lizard_Accountant
> My point is this:
> When you make the point that an article has some merit, you might at least
> have constucted the bare bones of an argument to support it.
> To admit you have not read Hockney's book at least allows for honesty,
> but also makes any opinion you had useless.
I'm afraid I must disagree. Brian Yoder's premise, that Hockney claims
that the old masters used cameras obscura and lucida to reproduce
original works of art and could not have done so otherwise, is either
an accurate representation of Hockney's claim or it is not. I do not
have to read Hockney's book to assertain this. It is perfectly
reasonable for me to proceed as if it's an accurate restatement.
Indeed, if it is not then I would simply expect you to say so in a
clear and meaningful way.
Also, I reach conclusions about things all the time based on never
even considering the evidence offered by proponents of a particular
point of view, and I suspect you do as well. Example: I have never
read a single 'scholarly book on astrology' (if ever there was an
oxymoron!) for me to conclude quite reasonably that astrology is utter
bunk. Also, I have never read anything by claimants that the lunar
landing was a hoax in order for me to reject it out of hand.
That said, I nevertheless intend reading Hockney's book anyway as it
does interest me. But I doubt very much that I will encounter any
surprises in it, that is to say, I doubt very much that Yoder's
article is fraudulent or misrepresentative and I will discover this
upon reading Hokney's book. You seem to hint that it is. You have set
up a considerable burden therefor on yourself. It is therefor
incumbent upon you to discharge that burden. The one and only
paragraph that you quoted, from page 14 of Hockney's book, is (as I
have already stated) not inconsistent at all with Yoder's premise.
>
> Incidentally the article itself does not make any references and as far
> as I have read is full of comment on what Hockney did not say.
I do not have a problem with that. Indirect evidence is perfectly
valid.
>
> > But if Hockney's book *suggests* <
> Read it then and come back with references instead of second-hand
> misconceptions. I am open to any well constucted arguments.
Why must I read an entire book for that? If I have come away with
second-hand misconception, just tell me what they are.
>
> The main argument against Hockney's book has been run through this
> newsgroup before and relies upon the opinion that he cannot draw/paint.
> Very little comment directly addresses the worth of the points made in
> his book.
His inability to draw well I think is established. It does not
directly address his theory but it offers one plausible explanation as
to why he is so keen to advance it.
> I do not care what is thought of Hockney, it is of no relevance to his
> arguments that optical devices were used from earlier times than
> had generally been thought, and perhaps more widely too.
>
> Thur
So what we have here then is a question of degree? That is, you say
that Hockney's thesis is that optical devices were used earlier than
is generally thought? That seems a rather harmless and insubstantial
premise. I expect after reading Hockney's book I will come away with a
much stronger one. But again, I do not have to read it in order to
conclude, quite reasonably I think, that the central message of
Yoder's article is based on accurate and valid reporting. But I will
read it after it's returned at my library.
The_Lizard_Accountant
Van Gogh's drawing was stylistically different, possibly unique. He
could not draw well 'in the conventional sense.' This opinion was held
by his contemporaries, including Mauve.
Actually, IMO Pollock could draw better than Van Gogh, 'in the
conventional sense.' I have seen Pollock's notebook. But then, as I am
not hide bound by a one dimensional criterion for great art I can
state that both Pollock and Van Gogh are great artists without fear of
hypocrisy.
Pardon the pun but you've painted yourself into a corner.
Dr. Slick
> >Vincent couldn't draw realistically very well
> >at all.
>
> Van Gogh could draw very well.
!!!! This is a surprising
statement coming from you!
Van Gogh has a few paintings
that feature really bad perspective
in the traditional drafting sense.
And some portraits that aren't
very good, IMNSHO.
But then he has this one:
http://www.mezzo-mondo.com/arts/mm/vangogh/VGV001.html
The perspective is still kinda skewed,
but the colors are fantastic!
Slick
Dr. Slick
>
> the comments in this group, I sometimes
> get the feeling that quite a few readers
> believe that artists' talent is judged
> by who can paint a picture which looks
> the most like a photograph. The world
> of art would be an incredibly boring
> place if everyone was only trying to
> paint such pictures. I hasten to add
> that I am a great admirer of a number
> of artists who have been called "photo-
> realists," but in all cases the photo-
> realism is just a starting point for
> understanding their art, it is not
> the be-all and the end-all of it.
>
I totally agree. However,
with Hockney, the whole premise
of the book is that the old realism
of the Masters could not have been
done without optical aids. But then
Hockney shows us what HE can do with
these aids, and it ends up being
proof that even with them, you
won't be much of a realist.
Again, he never tells us
what he thinks John Singer Sargeant
or Bouguereau (God, his name is
so Fu**ing hard to spell!) did.
That's because there are too
many photos of Bouguereau painting
with his models, and indeed
"eyeballing" it without optical
aids, as Hockney would have you
believe.
>
> There are pictures by Hockney that
> I enjoy, but I don't think he is half
> the artist Audrey Flack is, and yet
> it is Hockney who is the household
> word. That being said, I might add
> that making it big as an artist
> is not so much due to the outrageous
> personalities as it is to luck and
> good business promotion, including
> all that goes with it: being seen in
> the right places, hobnobbing with
> the right people, cultivating ties
> with art dealers, critics, etc.
>
Agreed. Flack seems to be a
decent photorealist, but like
most photorealists, her stuff
is boring for me.
> You can have an outrageous personality,
> but if you don't attend to the business
> of art, you won't get far. The thing
> that people sometimes forget about the
> two most famous painters of the 20th
> century, Dali and Picasso, is that
> both of them (though Dali was far
> more the flambouyant personality)
> had a genius for the business of
> art as well as for the creation of
> art.
>
You're right. And both these
guys knew how to dazzle people with
showmanship and such.
In a lot of ways, the art has
nothing to do with the fame.
Like Pollock, for example, with
his crazy alcoholic life, etc..
so that the artist him/herself is
the real attraction, not just the
art.
> I think he is a much more
> authentic artist than Haring was.
Haring blew Hockney away!
In terms of conveying message,
on succinct terms, and in a far
more interesting way.
Haring doesn't have to
pretend that he can draw
realistically...
> Haring was talented, but I would
> put him, at best, more in a league
> with Peter Max.
>
Oh, God. Peter Max is another
way overrated artist.
I have to admit that his
color sense is kinda cool, if
a bit too intense.
But i draw the line when
an artist starts painting on
photographs (Dali played with
photomontages and painting photos
too), and then sells them for
thousands of dollars, calling them
works of genius.
Dr. Slick
http://www.drslick.org/
Thur
"The_Lizard_Accountant" <the_lizard...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5a3f9de8.04111...@posting.google.com...
Of course we all do.
Not everyone of us can get to the Uffizzi or the Louvre, and indeed
many of us never do.
However, we must not forget this when we are trying to construct an
argument. We must get the best evidence we can if we want to
provide the best arguments that we can.
I have nothing to reply to the people who refuse to accept it, but
despair of the Internet as a whole when some author is accepted
on face value, especially when it is criticism of such a non academic
type. I would have had less to say if he had truly quoted from the
book or referenced his remarks such as the "conclusions" which I
cannot find. He could also have referenced us to a better text, and
better authors, and perhaps a better scientist.
You will find the book full of excellent reproductions of
beautiful paintings with closeups illustrating his points.
Whatever you may conclude, it surely will be a joy looking at the
pictures.
Thur
Mani Deli
(The_Lizard_Accountant) wrote:
>Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<ja6op09l9rntf6v8e...@4ax.com>...
>> On 17 Nov 2004 12:41:00 -0800, radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote:
>> Van Gogh could draw very well.
>
>Van Gogh's drawing was stylistically different, possibly unique. He
>could not .' This opinion was held
>by his contemporaries, including Mauve.
The point is that there is no such thing as drawing " well 'in the
conventional sense." It is an idea concocted by modern art critics
inferring that the drawing they don't like looks like photography.
This is an idea that so called artists who can't draw keep in their
arsenal of excuses when someone points out their lousy drawing.
Always ask them to name fine artwork which they would mistake for
photographs. You'll rarely get an answer.
>
>Actually, IMO Pollock could draw better than Van Gogh, 'in the
>conventional sense.' I have seen Pollock's notebook.
Pollock couldn't draw well in any sense.
Mani Deli
>Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> Van Gogh could draw very well.
>
>Yes. A few years ago I saw a Van Gogh show that displayed his drawings,
>from his first attempts on. Initially, his drawing was amateurish - he
>made every mistake. In two years he was producing the wonderful work for
>which he is known. It's been said that a measure of genius is the rate at
>which a person learns, and that's certainly the case with Van Gogh.
>
>People who speak nonsense like 'Van Gogh couldn't draw realistically'
>should take some art history courses and pay attention.
Fox who has an impressive pedigree thinks it imperative that art
history courses are necessary to judge art.
> Or else go to joke
>sites like Art Renewal and join up.
or go to Fox's site and see what another 1960 imitation furniture
store abstractionist's failure artwork looks like.
Bill Palmer
>
> >There are pictures by Hockney that
> >I enjoy, but I don't think he is half
> >the artist Audrey Flack is, and yet
> >it is Hockney who is the household
> >word.
>
> He' not a household word.
Well, I meant to restrict my assertion to
households where some people know about
art. I am quite sure that if it is
a household where art is discussed, then
Hockney's name has probably come up now
and then. Ms. Flack's name probably
has not, and that is very sad.
Mr. Palmer
Room 314
The_Lizard_Accountant
> The point is that there is no such thing as drawing " well 'in the
> conventional sense." It is an idea concocted by modern art critics
> inferring
The word you want is 'implying' not 'inferring.' Look them up.
> that the drawing they don't like looks like photography.
That's all very interesting, what modern art critics imply and all. Do
you mind if I set that straw man you just handed me over here in the
so-fucking-what corner? Thanks. Now, I did not know that modern art
critics (all of them, no exceptions) hold photo-realistic drawing in
contempt as a way to dismiss artistic skill. That's great to know. I
don't hold that opinion myself but it's mighty damn fine to know that
they do. But I do know that Van Gogh was considered to be a poor
draftsman by his artistic contemporaries like Mauve and Lautrec and
Gaugin and others. People with real artistic pedigrees. (I forgot to
ask. Yours are?) That said, I happen to disagree with them anyway. I
think his drawings are magical, wonderful. They just would not satisfy
that definition of 'good' that I do not associate with art critics but
more with the 'common man.' Most non-artists ooh and ah over
photo-realistic drawings and paintings and pass over contemptuously
anything that's a little styilistic or impressionistic or even
painterly or even (God forbid!) abstract. Ha ha he he, they seem to
think that draftsmanship as they understand it is the be all and end
all of great art! Haw haw haw. You and I know better, wot?
> This is an idea that so called artists who can't draw keep in their
> arsenal of excuses when someone points out their lousy drawing.
> Always ask them to name fine artwork which they would mistake for
> photographs. You'll rarely get an answer.
How's Ingres, for one? I think his drawings are utterly fantastic,
even better than his paintings. But that's just my opinion. Let me
make myself clear on that point: my opinion. I do not make categorical
pronouncements. I do not reduce Art to one dimensional formulizations.
I have WAY too much respect for Art to do that.