Why I detest Modern Art
John Ng
house with original paintings but I just could not find anything
interesting except a few antique paintings. Although I was willing to
pay good prices, there was nothing in the market here in Australia but
boring degenerated paintings.
Modern art has thrown art into utter disrepute. Talk to people about
Art and they will suggest that it belongs to the domain of the
beret-wearing eccentric.
Modern art has eroded the skills needed to make beautiful art. Fine
paintings is now largely a lost art/skill [strange Art and Skill are
interchangeable words]. Unlike many other types of lost arts, fine
paintings are still sought after and have real demands.
I am not arguing that if one choose to paint modern art. If it makes
you feel good, paint it. I am not arguing against showing off your
modern paintings, or if you think that your splatters are just about
as good as Bouguereau. I am arguing about the museums and the media
suggesting that a Picasso or a Matisse is better than a Bouguereau and
hiding real art forms away from people like me until my discovery of
it some years ago. I dare you to frankly say that a specific Picasso
is distinctively better than ANY Bouguereau. It is tantamount to
saying that a Rap is better than Mozart or even Zeppelin.
The problem with this kind of attitude, ie preference towards the
inferior, is that it is a sinkhole for all the would-be talents. A
Bouguereau-like painting is very difficult to do as well as time
consuming, whereas a Picassso is just a failed Bouguereau ("Make it
lopsided so that no one could imagine that you made a mistake"). It
is little wonder that output minded commercial artists are inclined
towards producing the modern genre; and what more with the support
given by museums and the media.
When I was young, I thought that there were only a few great painter,
Leonardo, Monet and Picasso. Even in secret, my role-model was Dali
and Frank Frazetta and you can see why. And you can see why I lost
interest in painting and took up an IT job... because art is boring.
And you can see why my interest in painting is rekindled when I
discovered the likes of Bougureau... because art is interesting.
John
ART RENEWALIST
http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
will agree they are both art. Fill your house with nicely framed Playboy
pictures. That's art and it's cheep. You can put thick transparent varnish
over the Playboy pictures and call them oil-ettes.
And I further say that any Picasso has more art than either Playboy or
Bougureau's titillating pictures - Bougureau the rich man's version of
Playboy before there was a Playboy.
So your type of people belittle modern art. Big deal. You haven't got the
brains to figure out if your so called people are cultured or just building
up their own egos by putting something down - watch your back they'll put
you down when your not looking.
You will never understand anything about art or life because your brains
are in your pants.
keith
John Ng <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1bb492a.02012...@posting.google.com...
mdeli
>Hang a Playboy picture next to a Bougureau - no difference -
To someone who draws as badly as you do, "no difference."
Name three Bouguereau's that look like Playboy.
> Lots of people
>will agree they are both art. Fill your house with nicely framed Playboy
>pictures. That's art and it's cheep. You can put thick transparent varnish
>over the Playboy pictures and call them oil-ettes.
>
>And I further say that any Picasso has more art than either Playboy or
>Bouguereau's titillating pictures - Bouguereau the rich man's version of
>Playboy before there was a Playboy.
When is the last time you came in your pants while perusing
Bouguereau?
You haven't even got the skill to trace anything much out of Playboy.
I've seen better drawing in a good university Men's room.
I doubt that o'conner has even seen a Bouguereau.
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page UPDATED November, 01!
New address- http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli
silverpoint
"keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com" <scot...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:a1K28.2635$eL....@news1.bloor.is...
> Hang a Playboy picture next to a Bougureau - no difference - Lots of
people
> will agree they are both art. Fill your house with nicely framed Playboy
> pictures. That's art and it's cheep. You can put thick transparent varnish
> over the Playboy pictures and call them oil-ettes.
>
> And I further say that any Picasso has more art than either Playboy or
> Bougureau's titillating pictures - Bougureau the rich man's version of
> Playboy before there was a Playboy.
The Playboy comparison is pretty much right on. Funny, when looking at any
of the thousands of nudes from all across the entire history of art, never
do I ogle the physical attributes of the model, whether the work be the
Venus de Milo, Rembrandt's Bathsheba, Bottecelli's Venus, or even one of
Picasso's 'distorted' nudes. When looking at a Bougereau masterpiece such
as his Cupid and Psyche, all I can think about is what an awesome babe the
model must have been. The big B takes this a step further than Playboy,
though, in his many portrayals of young/adolescent girls, with a
symbolically broken vessel or piece of pottery in the foreground, signifying
that the nymphets' 'virtue' has been lost, a source of great amusement in
the Victorian drawing rooms in which the twisted garbage was then hung....
Note, too, than many fans of the lost Bourgereau think he's great because he
paints things so that they look 'so real,' and are often completely ignorant
of the drastically more serious Renaissance compositions that he weakly
ripped off and painted so photographically with no sense of composition,
weight or form. The antidote to this is immersion in the serious art of the
past, when artists composed out of their imaginations and did more than
hand-painted ray tracings of obviously posed models.
"The model is never the same as the idea one wishes to paint, yet at the
same time it is impossible to do anything without the model." -- J.A.D.
Ingres.
(Ingres, by the way, was a great fan of the Sienese 'Primitives' and others
from barely out of the Gothic period. What he admired in them, about as
much as in his hero Raphael, was their power of expression. This is an idea
impossible for a far, far weaker painter like the Big B, whose use of the
camera and photographic verism makes him, ironically, just another modern
artist, only one who had lost the power to use what the Renaissance painters
termed 'invention' and 'disegno.' Take one look at Ingres, Raphael, or
many others who operated in the turf that B. dreamed he was in, that will
cure you of any admiration for the painter of petty pleasantries and pin
ups.)
Monte Guerdis
"John Ng" <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote a load of bile that had nothing to
do with why he detests modern art.
And I quote from his web page:
>>John Ng, a Software Engineer, lives in Perth, Australia. He has a few
years of informal training earlier in his life but was never a practicing
painter until July 2000 where his paintings are painstakingly crafted out
during his spare time.<<
Note above that John Ng identifies himself as a computer programmer, not a
painter.
He began painting 2 years ago, and already, he's an expert.
Apparently, in Australia you don't have too much to do as a software
engineer, so John Ng finds lots of "spare time" in which to "painstakingly
craft" his paintings which are of immense size: Anywhere from 12x16 inches
to the massive 20x24 inches all on canvas board, er, I mean "panel".
I enjoyed the Ng work present on his site, especially the ass-having merfolk
and the painting of the frog next to this thing with breasts in a pool of
water for no apparent reason. Also fantastic was the Person with the Other
Person entitled Nicole and Claude...One of them is apparently a miniature
person of some sort, I can't be sure. Then there is a painting of a cat
sitting next to this thing with a hat. I can say with certainty that I have
never seen mastery of this magnitude since I made the mistake of browsing
the fan-art at a sci-fi con. Ng even surpasses masters such as Mani de Li in
his treatment of the human figure and his grasp on the medium in general.
I must own these images: I will pay as much as $3.28 US for them if you
throw in the matches.
MG
silverpoint
simply learning to draw. With his vision thus renewed, he will then have
the weight and basis for saying much of anything...
For starters, he can purchase the complete George Bridgman series of books
on figure drawing, Nicolaides, the "Lessons from the Old Masters" series by
Robert Beverly Hale, as well as a pile of paper huge enough to stretch to
planet Jupiter and back 47 times. And maybe visit a museum or two, or even,
like the reviled Matisse, have the utter humility to study and copy dozens
of masterpieces in the Louvre before daring to think he knows much of
anything. Yep, that Matisse, no way the star pupil of a measly lightweight
like Gustave Moreau could have amounted to much.....
It is deeply ironic that in art one gains power through humility. Those who
fail to study, whether they be folks who think that a little Perspective 101
plus the awesome skills needed to photorender make one great, or folks from
the "avant garde" who think that recycling ideas from 1917 makes one so
lofty they practically shit marble, take themselves out of the running....
"Monte Guerdis" <gue...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:a2g77t$kp7$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
Lauri Levanto
Make yourself a favor, however, and study traditional art
before the decline French Academic art.
Proceed carefully. Forget big B for a while. He does not disappear.
Concentrate first on Ingress, it is a small step to a good direction.
The you may develop sense for old Ducth masters.
Even before reaching renaissance, you'll find that you have developed
a taste for impressionism at least.
You said you have plenty of money to spend on art. Take a holiday
and make a study trip to almost any European museum.
Reserve a lot of time, concentrate on max 5 paintings a day.
It does not count how many you see, but how well you look.
I wish you all good.
-lauri
Frida Wails
pigsm...@hotmail.com says...
>
>My distaste for modern art came about
Who the fuck cares! That's as far as I read.
Another undereducated wannabe blowing his
brains out through his arse hole!
Edward
> but then most people arn't great intellctuals - this may explain why
> often when an artist is asked to explain a complex work - He or She
> may find it difficult to explain - which inevitably invites criticism
> and cries of charlatinism.
Quite so. But then again, it depends on PLACE. So-called "artists"
(especially abstract expressionists and "extreme" modernists) as well as
other people driven into creation by emotions - are far from being
intellectuals
or being properly educated. But this sad fact is intrinsic to Western
hemisphere.
However in Europe (Eastern - in particular) artists are quite advanced;
the last
dauber can push very sound theories, brisk explanations
and speeches and can beat you with arguments and facts....
> I do think the art world has been highjacked by curators, critics, and
> the Media but art is art and in time these works will be understood in
> context.
Yes. Sad but true. I don't think it's "in context". There is a chance
for some
art that it would be understood "in future".
> Artist's are often terribly inarticulate at explaining their work -
> this is because most artists work on feelings and perceptions - they
> are very sensitive people who are tuned to the zeitgesit of
> contemporary culture.
(the same as above) +
Not everyone. Some people (myself included) are inclined to provide
proper explanations to help
people to understand [own] art.
I used to explain it so eloquent way that people (who had been
interested in my pictures before) got really scared, puzzled or
depressed. So that I quit this nasty habit.
Besides, in the long run, it often turns out to be just a waste of time.
Many artirts get tired of it quickly and let public to get to the bottom
of everything
or just... pass by [in search for simplier & low-brow art].
------
Edward
Edward
> a taste for impressionism at least.
What's that?
I hope you do not mean that impressionism is a top level of art
development?
Ultimate "High"? The very Perfection?
You let this line hang unfinished and it looks preposterous.
Kenny Danielson
least 20 minutes. The problem for me is that there is so much to see in any
good museum, it's difficult to justify the time spent on only one picture at
the expense of seeing the great variety. So, I visit the museum print shop
and pick up a good reproduction which can be studied at home and then passed
on (sometimes with regrets) to a like-minded art lover. The original then
becomes an old friend when revisited.
Kenny
"Dan Fox" <danf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20020121113021.817$t...@newsreader.com...
> Excellent advice for anyone, Lauri. Concentrating on just a few paintings
> per day is the key. I would add: take a sketchbook and try drawing some of
> the paintings you are studying. Nothing detailed, just the major
> compositional points. The drawings are not important and can be trashed -
> the key is that drawing the paintings forces you to look more closely.
> --
> Dan
>
> 'The self, violent and constant, is the subject of all art.' - Barnett
> Newman http://www.danfoxart.com
>
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
mani: To someone who draws as badly as you do, "no difference."
keith: To someone who thinks as badly as you do "no difference"
mani: Name three Bouguereau's that look like Playboy
keith: name three that don't look like Playboy
mani: When is the last time you came in your pants while perusing
Bouguereau?
keith: I used to know a lesbian who would come in her pants when looking at
paintings - sister of yours?
mani: I doubt that o'conner has even seen a Bouguereau.
keith: wrong again mani: I made the mistake of visiting your site - there
they were - mani's soft porn for priests and other such types.
have a good visit with your big "B's" : keith
mdeli <n...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:3c4b94b5...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
Peter H.M. Brooks
Kenny Danielson <kendan...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> A past curator of the Metropolitan in NYC says to look at a painting
for at
> least 20 minutes. The problem for me is that there is so much to see
in any
> good museum, it's difficult to justify the time spent on only one
picture at
> the expense of seeing the great variety. So, I visit the museum print
shop
> and pick up a good reproduction which can be studied at home and then
passed
> on (sometimes with regrets) to a like-minded art lover. The original
then
> becomes an old friend when revisited.
>
modern ones have problems. The original frequently looks quite
different - some reproductions actually improve the painting! Poor
reproductions, like postcards, are often details and don't give an idea
of scale. A photograph of a six foot square painting cropped to fit a
standard postcard is certainly not doing the original justice.
--
'Thou shalt have one God only; who
Would be at the expense of two?"
The Latest Decalogue - Arthur Hugh Clough
mdeli
>Excellent advice for anyone, Lauri. Concentrating on just a few paintings
>per day is the key. I would add: take a sketchbook and try drawing some of
>the paintings you are studying. Nothing detailed, just the major
>compositional points.
Advice for all those patzers incapable of drawing anything. Just look
at Fox's major compositional points, third rate imitations of 20 year
past has-beens.
>The drawings are not important and can be trashed -
Like all the rest of your drawings.
mdeli
Sure doesn't take much to get an Artzy fartzy into a shit-fit.
Try doing a careful drawing of an asshole, it might just calm you
down. However never show it to Fox!
silverpoint
not possess "banality" outside of the context of the museum or white gallery
cube, they remain the same work of art.
"rob" <rbbe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4e74690a.02012...@posting.google.com...
> This concept is most important because we see the art museum as a
> specific context in which objects exist in their own dimension -
> exclusive of the banality they may or may not posess in the outside
> world.
Andrew Werby
a child, it's simple- the best art reproduces reality as faithfully as
possible. The illustrations in children's books are nearly always realistic
in character- any illustrator of them who wanted to paint like a child (an
attribute often prized in modern art) would have great difficulty in finding
a publisher. Most children get discouraged by the results of their own art,
and decide they can't draw, because the results on the page don't match the
vision in their minds- the one who achieves the greatest verisimiltude will
be most admired by classmates.
As one grows up, ones attention is drawn to the likes of Frank Frazetta,
whose sci-fi illustrations faithfully mirror the fantasies of the typical
adolescent, and such painters as Bouguereau, whose lifelike nudes likewise
appeal to a nascent sense of aesthetics (which is tied, in the back of the
brain, to the perpetuation of the species). For many, this is as far as the
process goes, and they remain fixed in this state, unable to comprehend why
anybody would want to seek any further, since this is so evidently the
pinnacle of artistic achievement.
For others, however, a steady diet of bimbos in torn leopardskins and
voluptuous naked ladies sans pubic hair will eventually pall, and they start
looking elsewhere for their aesthetic kicks. Perhaps they become interested
in the art of other cultures, where the aim seems to be different from a
photographic reproduction of the real. Or they become intrigued by the loose
brushwork and quick studies of the masters, finding something there that is
lost in more finished versions. Others follow the progression of art history
itself, and initially become interested in the experiments of artists like
Cezanne or Van Gogh, who, although they were capable of turning out work
which more closely reflected reality, unaccountably turned their backs on
this, and started making pictures with other aims in view.
At this point, as when one watches a theatrical presentation, a certain
suspension of disbelief is required. One must pretend that there are
alternate aims for art which are just as valid as the faithful
representation of reality. For some, like the person writing below, this is
impossible, and they can't believe it's something anyone would want to do-
in fact they often think it's delusion or fakery. But just as mathematics
was enriched when someone decided, just for the sake of argument, to posit a
system of "imaginary numbers" based on the square root of -1 (although
intuitively one rejects this notion, they turn out to be very useful in
resolving the properties of electromagnetic fields, among other things), so
are vast new possibilities brought into being by the simple act of opening
ones mind to alternate notions of art. Suddenly, the world of art is full of
unexplored possibilities, and one is gradually able to appreciate work which
had never seemed interesting before. This is not a prescription for wealth
and fame, since the majority of potential customers won't be able to
understand what one is up to, but it can increase ones capacity for
enjoyment, which is no small thing.]
Andrew Werby
http://unitedartworks.com
"John Ng" <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1bb492a.02012...@posting.google.com...
Frida Wails
says...
>
>[Most people go through a series of steps in their appreciation of art.
Well, I guess I'm happy not being in the "most people"
grouping.
Let me tell you how I came to appreciate art.
I decided I needed a new hobby and was challenged by
a friend who'd just completed a "first painting."
I bought one of those little sets of oil colors with
a small bottle of mineral spirits, turps and a couple
of cheesy brushes and had at it. I had not an iota
of interest in what was in museums or galleries at
that point. My entire purpose in taking up painting
was just to show my buddy that I could do as well as
he could on a first try.
I painted for several years, reading all the "how to"
books I could check out of my local library. More and
more of my spare time became devoted to painting. In
the meantime, I began exposing myself to art shows,
museums and such and gradually took more interest in
what the art-world-at-large was all about.
Like MANY people - artists and non-artists alike - I had
no liking for "modern art," beginning with Impressionism.
My tastes ran to Norman Rockwell and western artists
of my youth, since I grew up in the southwestern USA.
It took many years of "looking" and "learning" before
I began to develop an appreciation for other than
hokey representational art I gravitated to as an
uneducated-in-the-arts commoner. And it took another five
years or so of art education at the university level
to get me up to speed on art history. I was much too
old to even think I'd have a second career in arts when
I graduated with an MFA, but I've never regretted one
moment of my education in the arts.
John Ng
> Hang a Playboy picture next to a Bougureau - no difference - Lots of people
> will agree they are both art. Fill your house with nicely framed Playboy
> pictures. That's art and it's cheep. You can put thick transparent varnish
> over the Playboy pictures and call them oil-ettes.
That is exactly what I mean by an idiot. I thought you are an owner
of a gallery but you might just as well own a junk shop.
First, Bouguereau paints only a tiny percentage of nude and is never
of the same genre as Playboy.
Second, good painting does not mean nude. Did I refer to nude?
Third, what is the difference between Modern Art and computer
generated? It is cheaper to find a newspaper print!
Idiot!!!! Don't speak a word about Art unless you have even some
basic knowledge! Idiot... I just can't image a person so unexposed to
art, Victorian or Modern as you. I think it is wise to quit from this
NG... you are a total disgrace. It is people like you who give art a
bad name. Idiot.
John
John Ng
Take Keith's advice, go get a Playboy. First of all, I can never
understand how people like you every fine painting nudes so
interesting... maybe you would ogle at National Geographic nude... are
you over 18? Go to a porn shop.
Anyway, the fact that you ogled is indeed a good sign because the
painting takes you by storm just like some of your "shock art" shock
you. Didn't know you appreciate Fine Arts.
John
John Ng
> >>John Ng, a Software Engineer, lives in Perth, Australia. He has a few
> years of informal training earlier in his life but was never a practicing
> painter until July 2000 where his paintings are painstakingly crafted out
> during his spare time.<<
>
> Note above that John Ng identifies himself as a computer programmer, not a
> painter.
>
> He began painting 2 years ago, and already, he's an expert.
It is you who call me an expert. I never did. Thanks.
I wanted to pay good money but no one could give me something decent
so that is why I had do it myself. If only you could paint, please
accept my Visa payment.
Anyway, I went to art and graphic school early in my life and now I am
40. I am still no expert... please don't call me an expert... I feel
the honours is best left to those painters so long ago... (I
definitely don't mean you). Also, I have no former education in
Programming as well... so maybe my software are just vapours as well.
> I must own these images: I will pay as much as $3.28 US for them if you
> throw in the matches.
Certainly this is more than I could pay for yours.
You just don't make sense.
John
John Ng
thing. Their only claim is that you must understand art in order to
like art. Seems a bit strange because the concept of art is for the
people, and especially people like me who understands enough but not
good enough to execute a good piece. Who are the buyers of art?
Artists? Can anyone tell me?
John
John Ng
> Proceed carefully. Forget big B for a while. He does not disappear.
> Concentrate first on Ingress, it is a small step to a good direction.
> The you may develop sense for old Ducth masters.
Lauri, thanks for your suggestion but I am all too familiar with
Ingres and Rembrandt. It is from their work I leap forward to
discover the treasures of the 2D art world like Tissot, Holman Hunt,
Millias, Waterhouse and some 18C like Grueze and Boucher and Van Dyck.
But nevertheless, the greatest painter of all time is Bouguereau.
> Even before reaching renaissance, you'll find that you have developed
> a taste for impressionism at least.
Impressionism before Renaissance were Cave Paintings.
> You said you have plenty of money to spend on art. Take a holiday
> and make a study trip to almost any European museum.
> Reserve a lot of time, concentrate on max 5 paintings a day.
> It does not count how many you see, but how well you look.
Yeah I know, but I don't think the museum would allow me to borrow one
for my walls. It is because of this that I wish to purchase some good
paintings for myself.
Thanks for the advice anyway. Thanks for being not so dumb like the
arty-fartsies.
John
New Potty
is largely irrelevant to the vast majority of the population.
This is in stark contrast to the utter importance that another art
form has with society -- music. Ask someone on the street to name 1
contemporary artist. Then ask that same person to name 10 bands.
Unlike "art", in which one apparently needs years of study and higher
education in order to appreciate its intricate aesthetics (according
to Monte and others), music is thankfully free of such elitist
pretensions. Academic avant garde music aside, the big difference is
that the musically uneducated masses actively appreciate, nurture,
financially support, and create music. Yes, kids can get together,
form a band, cut some MP3's, and post them to a web site... without
criticism from anally retentive "real musicians" admonishing their
lack of education or technical finesse.
If the art community is envious of the music industry's commercial
and/or popular success, I fear that they can only blame the Monte
Guerdises of the art world.
And to John: keep producing art, and keep enjoying what you like. That
should be the real point of art, which many sadly seem to have missed.
"Monte Guerdis" <gue...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<a2g77t$kp7$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>...
John Ng
Anyway Keith, don't place too much emphasis on education, especially
misleading art education. I am a computer programmer for 16 years now
but, as I said, I do not have former education and if I had, I would
have been a programmer today for various reasons. I am, instead, a
trained graphic artist and a BSc in Industrial Engineering. As you
can see, I am a failure where painting is concerned (as you have
pointed out), and I definitely wouldn't be able to cut it managing an
industry. Too many times (in fact very frequently), a person trained
in one field is better at another. This is definitely applicable for
you because I think you have no talent. At least Bouguereau's nudes
turn some simpleton on but your nudes don't. I look at them with
half-closed eyes as Rembrandt did, but in this case I couldn't open
them even if I want to because it bores the hell out of me. I am no
art expert but you must sell a lot of those paintings because some
arty fartsies could probably get turned on by them after some mind
altering drugs.
Thanks for looking at my pictures and giving me a critical analysis.
I have always thought that they were worst but your comments let me
off lightly.
John
silverpoint
> turn some simpleton on but your nudes don't.
Simpleton?....
The Big B's nudes appeal only to very shallow, prurient interests, at best,
and his compositions pale in comparison to the Renaissance and ancient
masters he so slickly knocks off, and compared to immediate French
predecessors like Ingres is totally nowhere. The other point being that the
great art of the past had some important function or statement to make other
than be a giant, hand painted pinup.
Regards,
The Simpleton
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
We can't keep meeting like this any more. My love for you is dying. I know
you don't want to break it up - but we must. You are not the man I once
thought - the fun is gone - you take it too seriously. Maybe some day when
you stop seeing those Bouguereau girls we can reconsider but, it will never
be the same.
good by my love but, I will post again - Ignore me if you can: keith
John Ng <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1bb492a.0201...@posting.google.com...
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
and you have depersonalised your approach then maybe we can talk - you may
be surprised at how much I know or you may never find out.
take care: keith
John Ng <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1bb492a.02012...@posting.google.com...
Kenny Danielson
the best stuff and near actual size. Not good enough to frame but OK to
study and it lets me roam and take in more exhibits instead of standing
fixed in front of one piece.
Kenny
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:a2hpb3$oj2$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
mdeli
>Firstly, to understand much of the work we see in contemporary art
>museums worldwide, we must first understand the Post-modern context of
>the art museum itself.
Everybody drop everything and study the Post-modern context of
the art museum itself.
>The concept of the art museum or indeed The Museum in general is a
>nineteeth century concept- traditionally a place to understand in
>context the artifacts of the world - that is the world outside the
>museum.
>
>Artist's are often terribly inarticulate at explaining their work -
>this is because most artists work on feelings and perceptions
What about those who work on canvas?
>- they
>are very sensitive people who are tuned to the zeitgesit of
>contemporary culture.
Anybody here not tuned to the "zeitgeist of
contemporary culture?" If so leave immediately!
mdeli
>Dear John:
>We can't keep meeting like this any more. My love for you is dying. I know
>you don't want to break it up - but we must. You are not the man I once
>thought - the fun is gone - you take it too seriously. Maybe some day when
>you stop seeing those Bouguereau girls we can reconsider but, it will never
>be the same.
>
>good by my love but, I will post again - Ignore me if you can: keith
>
Poor old fart, guess he's jealous
John Ng
By the way, the difference between my inexperienced art and your
expert art is that:
1. You need to sell to get your dough. My audience is myself.
Therefore you have an interest to keep Art as nebulous as possible so
that your buyers will be all awed by your mystic, much like
Catholicism did in the 17C so that bishops are intermediaries to God.
2. At least you can see my mistakes. There are no mistakes in your
art because everything goes.
John
Ricardo Pontes
exteem that Mani has taken from him. Its funny how he wrote a "review"
belittling Mani art.
> Hang a Playboy picture next to a Bougureau - no difference - Lots of people
> will agree they are both art. Fill your house with nicely framed Playboy
> pictures. That's art and it's cheep. You can put thick transparent varnish
> over the Playboy pictures and call them oil-ettes.
>
> And I further say that any Picasso has more art than either Playboy or
> Bougureau's titillating pictures - Bougureau the rich man's version of
> Playboy before there was a Playboy.
>
> So your type of people belittle modern art. Big deal. You haven't got the
> brains to figure out if your so called people are cultured or just building
> up their own egos by putting something down - watch your back they'll put
> you down when your not looking.
What type of people is that? Naziz? Get over it dude, there are 2
sides to an argument. You think your art is good, well i dont, and
most people on the face of this earth think its crap as well.
>
> You will never understand anything about art or life because your brains
> are in your pants.
>
> keith
>
Keith is getting raped in the ass everyday by Mani, isnt that cute.
How does it feel Keith?
Can i put some of your "art" on my website keith?
Ricardo
www.pileofgarbage.com
GODSTAR
> Hang a Playboy picture next to a Bougureau - no difference - Lots of people
> will agree they are both art.
Especially the Boob Jobs, plastic surgery takes a lot of sculptural
skill.
> Fill your house with nicely framed Playboy
> pictures.
I knew a guy in College of course it was Lips, Barely Legal, and
Swank... Oh hey that guy was me... I especially like tha fact that I
nicely framed all of them.
> That's art and it's cheep. You can put thick transparent varnish
> over the Playboy pictures and call them oil-ettes.
> And I further say that any Picasso has more art than either Playboy or
> Bougureau's titillating pictures - Bougureau the rich man's version of
> Playboy before there was a Playboy.
> So your type of people belittle modern art.
So why belittle bougerough your just enforcing the fight right?
> Big deal. You haven't got the
> brains to figure out if your so called people are cultured or just building
> up their own egos by putting something down - watch your back they'll put
> you down when your not looking.
> You will never understand anything about art or life because your brains
> are in your pants.
ah pants brains, Tha meaning Ov life.
> keith
> John Ng <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d1bb492a.02012...@posting.google.com...
RBrac53660
down. So suck it up and slurp and learn something about
idealzations.
hudson
pigsm...@hotmail.com (John Ng) wrote:
You are angry, aren't you?
Bougureau has rekindled your interest in art. Congratulations. If
Bougureau has been denied his rightful place in art history, you have
chosen the most anonymous of forums to launch a crusade. With an
audience of 200,000 million in cyberspace, less than 50 people have
answered your call to discuss the injustice and half think you're nuts.
The world of informed opinion is not infallible and your percepts may be
right. I do not thing you're paranoid, insecure or cuckoo. If your
beliefs are righteous, prusue them with vigor. Write letters.
Challenge academia. Seek truths.
In the meantime, you might want to read "Ways of Seeing" by John Berger.
There is an interesting essay on the nude and the naked.
Lauri Levanto
If possible, ick the museum catalog in advance,
study it at home -or in yourlocal libray
and then select what to look at during the museum visit.
-lauri
journeyman of sculpture
http://www.netti.fi/~laurleva/
Kenny Danielson wrote:
> A past curator of the Metropolitan in NYC says to look at a painting for at
> least 20 minutes. The problem for me is that there is so much to see in any
> good museum, it's difficult to justify the time spent on only one picture at
> the expense of seeing the great variety. So, I visit the museum print shop
> and pick up a good reproduction which can be studied at home and then passed
> on (sometimes with regrets) to a like-minded art lover. The original then
> becomes an old friend when revisited.
>
> Kenny
>
> "Dan Fox" <danf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:20020121113021.817$t...@newsreader.com...
> > Excellent advice for anyone, Lauri. Concentrating on just a few paintings
> > per day is the key. I would add: take a sketchbook and try drawing some of
> > the paintings you are studying. Nothing detailed, just the major
> > compositional points. The drawings are not important and can be trashed -
> > the key is that drawing the paintings forces you to look more closely.
> >
> >
> >
> > Lauri Levanto <laur...@netti.fi> wrote:
> > > Feel free to detest modern art and art after that.
> > > Make yourself a favor, however, and study traditional art
> > > before the decline French Academic art.
> > >
> > > Proceed carefully. Forget big B for a while. He does not disappear.
> > > Concentrate first on Ingress, it is a small step to a good direction.
> > > The you may develop sense for old Ducth masters.
> > > Even before reaching renaissance, you'll find that you have developed
> > > a taste for impressionism at least.
> > >
> > > You said you have plenty of money to spend on art. Take a holiday
> > > and make a study trip to almost any European museum.
> > > Reserve a lot of time, concentrate on max 5 paintings a day.
> > > It does not count how many you see, but how well you look.
> > >
> > > I wish you all good.
> > > -lauri
> > --
> > Dan
> >
> > 'The self, violent and constant, is the subject of all art.' - Barnett
> > Newman http://www.danfoxart.com
> >
Lauri Levanto
Going from big B backwards to Ingres
can reveal the same shift you know when
baroque music like Bach degerated to the
"gallant style" of Lully.
The aspire of the impressionists
has much common with the17th and 18th century painting.
Some of us meet unsurmountable difficulties
when they try to understand 20th century art,
f.ex. impressionism. I assume that the older art is an easier way
for them.
(impressionism at least) I said because I guess it is one
of the easiest -isms. I cannot see no linear development in art history.
The piece I appreciate most was made a couple of thousands of
years ago. Bouguereau after Ingress is another example
how a trend develops to an unfertile dead end.
-lauri
journeyman of sculpture
Edward wrote:
> > Even before reaching renaissance, you'll find that you have developed
> > a taste for impressionism at least.
>
> What's that?
> I hope you do not mean that impressionism is a top level of art
> development?
>
> Ultimate "High"? The very Perfection?
>
> You let this line hang unfinished and it looks preposterous.
Kenny Danielson
easily distracted. Candy-store syndrome.
Kenny
"Lauri Levanto" <laur...@netti.fi> wrote in message
news:3C4D5C6E...@netti.fi...
Monte Guerdis
> > He began painting 2 years ago, and already, he's an expert.
>
> It is you who call me an expert. I never did. Thanks.
You present yourself as an expert by referring to well-educated
artists as idiots. Does that not tell us you think you are some sort
of master?
> I wanted to pay good money but no one could give me something decent
> so that is why I had do it myself. If only you could paint, please
> accept my Visa payment.
I don't have anything for sale at the moment, but when my next group
of work is done, I'll send you some samples to laugh at. ;)
> Anyway, I went to art and graphic school early in my life and now I am
> 40. I am still no expert... please don't call me an expert...
It was a sarcastic remark, John. I don't really think you're an
expert.
> I feel
> the honours is best left to those painters so long ago...
They're freakin' dead. They WERE experts. Now, they're corpses.
> (I definitely don't mean you)...
He says, having never seen anything I do...
> Also, I have no former education in
> Programming as well... so maybe my software are just vapours as well.
They may be. I don't know much about programming, but I guess if I
called you an idiot programmer I could become an expert just like
that. ;) The thing is, really, that if I tried to pass myself off as a
software engineer, I'd get busted pretty quick as being a fake. The
same applies to art. There are a number of 'bugs' in your artwork,
John. We 'programmers' can spot them from miles away. This is not to
say that you do not display ability. I think you definitely do have
potential, but you will waste it all trying to live up to dead
standards. Being able to represent reality is only the first step.
That's the foundation upon which you must build.
That's something most modern art haters fail to realize, or at least
refuse to accept: Before you can break rules you must learn them, love
them, and master them. Have certain recent famous artists skipped that
stage? Yes, of course. Do not make the mistake of associating media
praise for what is really modern art. There will always be clowns in
every sector of the business. Just look at Thomas Kinkade. Look at
Basquiat. Both total jokes, IMO.
> Certainly this is more than I could pay for yours.
I think you mean "would" pay. If you say "could" pay, you convey that
you are without funds, or at least that you have less than 3.28 at
your disposal.
> You just don't make sense.
I make plenty of sense, John, I have just not yet succeeded in
convincing you of that fact. (Behold the power of the dark side!)
MG
Monte Guerdis
> Monte Guerdis's arrogance perfectly exemplifies why contemporary art
> is largely irrelevant to the vast majority of the population.
It does? I thought it must be because the vast majority of the
population never gets decent art education. Dangit! It's all my fault
after all!
> This is in stark contrast to the utter importance that another art
> form has with society -- music. Ask someone on the street to name 1
> contemporary artist. Then ask that same person to name 10 bands.
It's a shame. If only they could broadcast artwork all over the radio
and TV.
> Unlike "art", in which one apparently needs years of study and higher
> education in order to appreciate its intricate aesthetics (according
> to Monte and others), music is thankfully free of such elitist
> pretensions.
Boy are you right. (Hehe.) Who could argue with this astoundingly
correct position? (Hehe.)
> Academic avant garde music aside...
Oh, but wait...You can't set that aside...It's "Music".
(BTW, that reminds me: Name 10 bands I listen to.)
> the big difference is
> that the musically uneducated masses actively appreciate, nurture,
> financially support, and create music.
Thank goodness for Brittney Spears, too. She rocks. NSYNC, too! A
product of the masses you so love! Thank you, masses!
> Yes, kids can get together,
> form a band, cut some MP3's, and post them to a web site... without
> criticism from anally retentive "real musicians" admonishing their
> lack of education or technical finesse.
That's what you think?
> If the art community is envious of the music industry's commercial
> and/or popular success, I fear that they can only blame the Monte
> Guerdises of the art world.
Does that make sense to you?
> And to John: keep producing art, and keep enjoying what you like. That
> should be the real point of art, which many sadly seem to have missed.
How old are you, 14?
MG
Monte Guerdis
> Isn't it strange. All the arty fartsies in the post says the same
> thing.
The last thing on earth you should wonder is why they do. Secondly,
never assume it's because they're telling the truth, hence the
consistency.
> Their only claim is that you must understand art in order to
> like art.
If you don't understand what you're looking at, you don't like Art,
you like pretty pictures.
> Seems a bit strange because the concept of art is for the
> people...
I don't create for other people. I create to create.
> Who are the buyers of art? Artists? Can anyone tell me?
No idea. I have bought a few pieces, traded for a lot more...Haven't
been actively trying to sell for a couple of years now. I just post
NFS items in a couple of shows here and there. The art market is kind
of a joke. Half of it is dominated by rich fools being duped and the
other half is ignorant members of the unwashed mass buying crap that
looks good in the bedroom. One of these days I might hire some guy to
dupe some rich folks for me, but right now I'm concerned with other
pursuits.
MG
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
Keep away from my ass - this is not prison - your free to get yourself a
woman any time - maybe you have lost your taste for them.
Little Ricardo want to come out and play with the big boys - we won't hurt
you - we'll let you touch our boy things.
keith
p.s. don't "f" around with the master little man.
Ricardo Pontes <ricard...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a989b1ce.02012...@posting.google.com...
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
The problem is that these guys drool over Barbie doll womem - no hips - boy
girls - couldn't bear children. Don't know what it's like to have real
women - hips made to bear kids - talk about ride-em-cow-boy. These guys take
time out for the monthly cycle to end - they don't know the goodies that the
moon ride hides.
Why don't they just come out of the closet and admit they like boys - they
don't like real women.
have a good one godstar: keith
GODSTAR <god...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:5a1f8e9a.0201...@posting.google.com...
mdeli
>Yes, Mr. Ng should shut his trap and begin the 5 to 10 year process of
>simply learning to draw. With his vision thus renewed, he will then have
>the weight and basis for saying much of anything...
I presume what you say carries great weight.
>For starters, he can purchase the complete George Bridgman series of books
>on figure drawing, Nicolaides, the "Lessons from the Old Masters" series by
>Robert Beverly Hale, as well as a pile of paper huge enough to stretch to
>planet Jupiter and back 47 times.
Bridgman is relatively useless. Nicolaides is the reason the so-called
educated draw so badly. Look at their work.
I was in Hale's class once. He was a richy twit who knew very little.
He knew a little anatomy but couldn't draw well or teach drawing.
Remember that doctors know anatomy but few can draw. There are far
better art anatomy books than Hale or Bridgman.
As to paper, if you don't have knowledge you won't get it right and
end up with a pile of dirty paper waiting for the garbage collector.
>And maybe visit a museum or two, or even,
>like the reviled Matisse, have the utter humility to study and copy dozens
>of masterpieces in the Louvre before daring to think he knows much of
>anything. Yep, that Matisse, no way the star pupil of a measly lightweight
>like Gustave Moreau could have amounted to much.....
Yep, just look at his miserable drawings.
>It is deeply ironic that in art one gains power through humility. Those who
>fail to study, whether they be folks who think that a little Perspective 101
>plus the awesome skills needed to photorender make one great, or folks from
>the "avant garde" who think that recycling ideas from 1917 makes one so
>lofty they practically shit marble, take themselves out of the running....
>
from the ARTZY FARTZY MANIFESTO:
We know what art is.
All Modern Academic artists can draw like masters they just don't
choose to.
Anyone who wastes time learning to draw and paint in a classical
manner will produce nothing but a repeat of the past and candy boxes.
mdeli
>The problem is that these guys drool over Barbie doll womem - no hips - boy
>girls - couldn't bear children. Don't know what it's like to have real
>women - hips made to bear kids - talk about ride-em-cow-boy. These guys take
>time out for the monthly cycle to end - they don't know the goodies that the
>moon ride hides.
This should be another reason for you to switch to Bouguereau from
Playboy for your daily jerk-off in the closet.
John Ng
Dear Simpleton,
> The Big B's nudes appeal only to very shallow, prurient interests, at best,
> and his compositions pale in comparison to the Renaissance and ancient
> masters he so slickly knocks off, and compared to immediate French
> predecessors like Ingres is totally nowhere.
Please sir, study your anatomy. It is perhaps the reason why you draw
so badly. A good number of Ingres figures are made up and incorrect,
as plain as day (although I must say that Ingres is the impetus for
Bouguereau and other later painters, and Ingres is one of my own
favourite).
As for the Renaissance and Old Masters, I cannot comment on them
because I do not know who you are referring to and you probably have
no idea anyway.
> The other point being that the
> great art of the past had some important function or statement to make other
> than be a giant, hand painted pinup.
Name me one which is predominantly the function of pre-Victorian art?
Pinup you say... isn't your art a pinup as well. Probaby not...
nobody would want that sort of thing hanging on their wall.
John
John Ng
> You present yourself as an expert by referring to well-educated
> artists as idiots. Does that not tell us you think you are some sort
> of master?
No, but I know a fool when I see one. People buy you art but nobody
buys a copy of your certificate.
> I don't have anything for sale at the moment, but when my next group
> of work is done, I'll send you some samples to laugh at. ;)
You are so unconfident in your art and probably know what the audience
would do. :-)
> It was a sarcastic remark, John. I don't really think you're an
> expert.
Oh so sad... I was feeling so expert until this...
> They may be. I don't know much about programming, but I guess if I
> called you an idiot programmer I could become an expert just like
> that. ;)
Yes, that idiot phrase referred to what he said because I cannot see a
person who is vaguely acquainted with art to say stupid things like
that. Who could say, "why get a painting, get a photograph instead...
it is cheaper". That phrase kills himself. I call a person who sets
the trap to trap himself "an idiot".
> The thing is, really, that if I tried to pass myself off as a
> software engineer, I'd get busted pretty quick as being a fake. The
> same applies to art. There are a number of 'bugs' in your artwork,
> John. We 'programmers' can spot them from miles away. This is not to
> say that you do not display ability.
You are just being jealous. People are buying your art and not copies
of your certificate. Mark my words, very few programmers have a
degree in Computing. You want to run a reliable software and does it
matter who wrote it? Sure, unless you prefer a more buggy software
written by a person with CERTIFICATE.
> I think you definitely do have
> potential, but you will waste it all trying to live up to dead
> standards. Being able to represent reality is only the first step.
> That's the foundation upon which you must build.
Yes, the foundation you said. I am still at the incipent stages in
experimentation. I need to paint reality before I paint anything else
(if I ever get to that). It is not Reality that I am worried about,
but it is the thing captured by Bouguereau that make the real seem so
fake as compared to his paintings. A whole book can be written as to
why that is so, but first you have to look with an open mind.
It is not 19C that I want to copy but a study needs to look into the
elements of the past. I am only 150 painting days old (five months).
> Before you can break rules you must learn them
Yes I did, and there was none... I learned that while in graphic
school. Full of words but no essence.
>(Behold the power of the dark side!)
Dark side you bet
John
John Ng
> Going from big B backwards to Ingres
> can reveal the same shift you know when
> baroque music like Bach degerated to the
> "gallant style" of Lully.
I bet you haven't heard Bach. He is an experimentalist. Although the
father of classical, he is hard to listen to with his repetitive
tunes. If Bach's music haven't given way to new forms, classical
would have died an early death.
Bouguereau took Ingres' art and brought it to perfection. That is why
you there is modern art, to try to better Bouguereau's genre.
However, it is like the Dark Ages improving on the Greek Classical.
> The aspire of the impressionists
> has much common with the17th and 18th century painting.
Well, I would be damned. A new fact.
> Some of us meet unsurmountable difficulties
> when they try to understand 20th century art,
> f.ex. impressionism. I assume that the older art is an easier way
> for them.
>
> Bouguereau after Ingress is another example
> how a trend develops to an unfertile dead end.
I agree. Seriously, Bouguereau was so perfect that it seems
impossible to improve on, and ultimately a dead end. I think this is
why there was a rise in modern art because post-Bouguereau painters
would be a stifled by the greats if they had to carry on in Realism.
That is why a new and uncriticisable form of art had risen. A phoenix
from the ashes... but alas this pheonix is mutated.
John
New Potty
> > is largely irrelevant to the vast majority of the population.
>
> It does? I thought it must be because the vast majority of the
> population never gets decent art education. Dangit! It's all my fault
> after all!
Why does art appreciation require an education, and yet music
appreciation does not? It seems that you believe art is an exclusive
club. It was not always this case. Why did art and music go down such
different paths as artistic genres?
> > This is in stark contrast to the utter importance that another art
> > form has with society -- music. Ask someone on the street to name 1
> > contemporary artist. Then ask that same person to name 10 bands.
>
> It's a shame. If only they could broadcast artwork all over the radio
> and TV.
Yes, impact and relevance to society would be criminal to the art
establishment.
> > Unlike "art", in which one apparently needs years of study and higher
> > education in order to appreciate its intricate aesthetics (according
> > to Monte and others), music is thankfully free of such elitist
> > pretensions.
>
> Boy are you right. (Hehe.) Who could argue with this astoundingly
> correct position? (Hehe.)
It must be lonely being an artist, knowing your profession makes such
little impact, other than to a few wealthy patrons (if you're lucky).
> > Academic avant garde music aside...
>
> Oh, but wait...You can't set that aside...It's "Music".
> (BTW, that reminds me: Name 10 bands I listen to.)
Oh, someone of your intellectual calibre doesn't listen to music that
the plebes would have even heard of. We bow before your superiority.
> > the big difference is
> > that the musically uneducated masses actively appreciate, nurture,
> > financially support, and create music.
>
> Thank goodness for Brittney Spears, too. She rocks. NSYNC, too! A
> product of the masses you so love! Thank you, masses!
If popularity and impact (be it Spears, Bach, Kraftwerk, or Glenn
Gould) indicates that an artform is superficial and vacuous, then I
suppose by your scale, artists (such as yourself?) are the epitomy of
depth and importance. The main point is that music as a genre has
relevance, while your vision of art has little.
> > Yes, kids can get together,
> > form a band, cut some MP3's, and post them to a web site... without
> > criticism from anally retentive "real musicians" admonishing their
> > lack of education or technical finesse.
>
> That's what you think?
Damn straight.
> > If the art community is envious of the music industry's commercial
> > and/or popular success, I fear that they can only blame the Monte
> > Guerdises of the art world.
>
> Does that make sense to you?
Focus, Monte, focus. Thinking might be a new experience for you.
> > And to John: keep producing art, and keep enjoying what you like. That
> > should be the real point of art, which many sadly seem to have missed.
>
> How old are you, 14?
Why do you ask? Are you a pedophile?
Forget Mani Deli's unpublished vanity book. A published book on the
same theme is "The Painted Word" by Tom Wolfe.
NP
John Ng
> With an
> audience of 200,000 million in cyberspace, less than 50 people have
> answered your call to discuss the injustice and half think you're nuts.
I don't know where these figures are coming from especially the "nuts"
part. Not many people would read (let alone write) on discussion such
as this for a simple reason... they is no gain to be obtained. This
sort of discussion needs a nerve of steel and some madness to continue
(maybe you are right about the "nuts" thing).
> Write letters.
> Challenge academia. Seek truths.
Truths is cannot be fought with words (here I go again with the "nuts"
thing)... especially to narrow-minded establishment. They will need
time to find out for themselves.
John
John Ng
> pigsm...@hotmail.com (John Ng) wrote :
> > Their only claim is that you must understand art in order to
> > like art.
>
> If you don't understand what you're looking at, you don't like Art,
> you like pretty pictures.
Sorry I retract. Something got screwed up somewhere.
> buying crap that
> looks good in the bedroom.
I tell you what, Art has to look good but most of all inspire someone
like me to bring out the canvas. I look at real Art and immediately
ask "Nice, how did they do it" while I look at Moderns and say "Nice
but it wouldn't be hard to do". The former inspires me to emulate but
the latter inspires me to play Scrabble.
The trouble is that you look at a painting like a snapshot (and that
is exactly how you slander my wife) and think that they are
interchangeable. Look at the real thing. Real painting isn't all
about content, it is about brush strokes, etc... all those elements
that you were taught in Art school and more... except that this time,
all those principles hang together to form a prose (as opposed to
moderns like Mondrian that who reproduces his Art school
experimentation).
John
Wynnk
John Ng
That is Modern Art's claim to fame as supported by the media... "If
you could only appreciate art from an adult's and superior's point of
view", they say. But art is for humans where humans do not just
compose of the snobbish arty-fartsy class.
I am acqainted with both forms, took on Modern Art in the early
stages, and now threw if out for shams. Am I more superior than the
snobs? I have now gone to a stage beyond what you have said.
John
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
keith
mdeli <n...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:3c4dcaae...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
John Ng
> It took many years of "looking" and "learning" before
> I began to develop an appreciation for other than
> hokey representational art I gravitated to as an
> uneducated-in-the-arts commoner***. And it took another five
> years or so of art education at the university level
> to get me up to speed on art history. I was much too
> old to even think I'd have a second career in arts when
> I graduated with an MFA, but I've never regretted one
> moment of my education in the arts
Yeah, it took me so long to descend to the status of a COMMONER. I
have sinned. I was in graphic art school and I preached Modern Art
and saw things that weren't there. It was always chic to be a
high-and-mighty so that you can always say things to the commoner
like, "If you only understand about art... we saintly artists just
know a lot that you don't".
I am not saying that ALL representational art are good art(certainly
very few in 20C) but have you looked closely at GOOD representational
art, the Art that you so learned to dislike? Don’t tell me
about looking at a magazine picture. If you do, you will find all the
principles that you so enamour in Modern Art are nothing new. It is
there except that they are APPLIED.
John
*** You couldn't have illustrated my point better. See how there Arty
Fartsies believe that only they know what is good?
Lauri Levanto
John Ng wrote:
> I bet you haven't heard Bach. He is an experimentalist.
Please explain. Does that mean that you love experimental art
or do you think Bach was a degenerate artsyfartsy?
* * *
You wanted beautiful art in your home. I try one more time
to help you. Mani has declared here that he id a qualified forgerer.
With his infamous skill he sure can paint you some Bouguereau.
The other option is: Go to Nice, France. A bit north from the town
is a great Art Museum, Foundation Maeght. Dont go there!
Next to it is a pittoresque medieval town Saint-Paul.
It is inhabited with dozens of small galleries, selling
BEAUTIFUL paintings to the tourists. Nudes, landscapes,
stillebens you name it. All garanteed bourgeous,
and perfectly painted in the best Mediterrian Kitsch tradition.
The prices are reasonable. If you buy only few,
you easily save the price of airline ticket.
My quote of the week
JohnNg:
> Although the
> father of classical, he is hard to listen to with his repetitive
> tunes. If Bach's music haven't given way to new forms, classical
> would have died an early death.
bye,
-lauri
P.s. We had here another Aussie, Iian Neill, a couple of years ago.
He too was a big B fan. Quite boring chap, but he was positive.
He have tried to do something for the art he favours, instead of
just blaiming others.
Frida Wails
newp...@hotmail.com says...
>Why does art appreciation require an education, and yet music
>appreciation does not?
Shows how sadly misinformed opinion can pose
as fact. Music appreciation is no different
than art appreciation. Those who are uneducated
in music make the same comparisons that those
uneducated in visual arts make.
To REALLY appreciate
music, I suggest you enroll yourself in a quality
University music appreciation course. Learn the
nitty gritty details of all the various genres
of music composition etc. Learn the history of
music - what a Gregorian Chant is for example.
If you think "music appreciation" is only what you
yourself appreciate, then how is that any different
from someone who only appreciates a Norman Rockwell
or Thos Kincade but slams all the non-representational
art as irrelevant (to THEM!).
New Potty
> In article <737abed1.02012...@posting.google.com>,
> newp...@hotmail.com says...
>
> >Why does art appreciation require an education, and yet music
> >appreciation does not?
>
> Shows how sadly misinformed opinion can pose
> as fact.
Are you referring to my misinformed opinion, or your misinformed
opinion?
> Music appreciation is no different
> than art appreciation. Those who are uneducated
> in music make the same comparisons that those
> uneducated in visual arts make.
>
> To REALLY appreciate
> music, I suggest you enroll yourself in a quality
> University music appreciation course. Learn the
> nitty gritty details of all the various genres
> of music composition etc. Learn the history of
> music - what a Gregorian Chant is for example.
>
> If you think "music appreciation" is only what you
> yourself appreciate, then how is that any different
> from someone who only appreciates a Norman Rockwell
> or Thos Kincade but slams all the non-representational
> art as irrelevant (to THEM!).
Appreciating and valuing music does not require understanding
technical or historical "nitty gritty". I hate country music. Do I
need to earn a doctorate in musicology in order to understand the
history and context of country music, and thus appreciate it? I think
not. Nor do the unwashed hordes who appreciate all sorts of musical
genres out there today. That's not to say that because I don't
appreciate country music, then it's not music. Although I'd still say
that it's crap (as many in this ng say about modern art).
These same music-loving hordes don't give a toss about contemporary
art. The explanation you and other give is that they need to be
educated. Why should this be, when they don't need a similar education
about music? Consider that 99.9% of the listeners of Bach don't know
the formal rules of counterpoint. But what difference should that
make? Are they short-changing themselves, and truly missing out on
some deeper, more valuable understanding? Stuff and nonsense.
NP.
Andrew Werby
news:<ON%28.1339
>
> That is Modern Art's claim to fame as supported by the media... "If
> you could only appreciate art from an adult's and superior's point of
> view", they say.
[That's not what I wrote- what are you quoting here?]
But art is for humans where humans do not just
> compose of the snobbish arty-fartsy class.
[So is TV, but not everybody likes every program. If kiddie cartoons are
what you enjoy, don't pretend to like Masterpiece Theater just so you can
stay up with the adults.]
>
> I am acqainted with both forms, took on Modern Art in the early
> stages, and now threw if out for shams. Am I more superior than the
> snobs? I have now gone to a stage beyond what you have said.
>
>
> John
[If you had actually got to a more advanced stage, instead of just
pretending to:
"I was in graphic art school and I preached Modern Art
and saw things that weren't there. It was always chic to be a
high-and-mighty so that you can always say things to the commoner
like, "If you only understand about art... we saintly artists just
know a lot that you don't". - John Ng
then you might have a basis for making that claim. But instead it makes me
wonder why you didn't stick up for your convictions at the time. As it is,
you're still stuck in an early phase of aesthetic development- you've merely
shed your false colors. If you try not to be too proud of your rudimentary
opinions, keep your eyes and your mind open, and don't pretend to understand
anything you have no clue about, then you might achieve some growth in your
ability to appreciate art. If you don't care about that, that's okay, but
why waste your time (and ours) flaunting your ignorance in writing
(something that obviously isn't your strong suit)?
Andrew Werby
http://unitedartworks.com
Frida Wails
>Are you referring to my misinformed opinion, or your misinformed
>opinion?
I think I see the problem here. We both
type in English but your version is
different than mine, along with your
thinking, feeling, understanding and
inflection. I suspect we are "oceans
apart" in our thinking!
John Ng
> > I bet you haven't heard Bach. He is an experimentalist.
>
> Please explain. Does that mean that you love experimental art
> or do you think Bach was a degenerate artsyfartsy?
Bach had no predecessor to lean on mainly because he started the "new"
music. Because of this, he is quite experimental because there just
wasn't anyone who could show him the ropes.
> P.s. We had here another Aussie, Iian Neill, a couple of years ago.
> He too was a big B fan. Quite boring chap, but he was positive.
> He have tried to do something for the art he favours, instead of
> just blaiming others.
You interprete it as "blame" but I am only picking out the weeds from
the lawn. :-)
John
Monte Guerdis
> Why does art appreciation require an education, and yet music
> appreciation does not?
If you want to be able to tell the difference between good music and
crap, it DOES require education of some sort.
> It seems that you believe art is an exclusive
> club.
ART is not. MAKING Art requires talent and skill.
> It was not always this case.
Actually, it used to be much worse. Nowadays, any goon can up and
declare himself an expert on art and publish an ebook full of expert
opinions. Once upon a time, that person would have been laughed out of
the publisher's office and out of the establishment, to boot (or with
boot)... or was that Mani de Li just the other day?
> Why did art and music go down such
> different paths as artistic genres?
(Artforms...a genre is a sub-type of a form, as in: Music > Rock)
I blame the same thing I blame art's decline upon: The 1960s. Heck,
that decade's the source of the whole of the horribleness of western
culture today. The idea that any pimple-farm with a pawn-shop guitar
can form a band and sell music to nitwits is not an indicator of
music's superiority to art, but it is a clear sign that most people
are equally ignorant as to what's good in either sphere.
> > It's a shame. If only they could broadcast artwork all over the radio
> > and TV.
>
> Yes, impact and relevance to society would be criminal to the art
> establishment.
Er. I think you might have missed the point there, Potty. See, music
is routinely broadcast over easy-to-access airwaves, whereas the
public is rarely exposed to any form of art, good or bad. See? It's
not that art is irrelevant due to its own flaws, but that education
has removed so much art from basic curriculae that nobody knows what
to think about art.
In truth, I only talk the elitist smack just to peeve the nay-sayers,
but my real-life concern is to make art (or see art become) as
relevant as music, and to see the quality of both increase. I'm really
NOT as bad a bastard as you think I am.
You really should change your point of view in regard to education. It
does not force someone to become elitist as much as it intimidates
those who have no education. Education, first and foremost, will
convince you that many more people would benefit from it. Likewise, a
person who sounds as fanatical about music as you do would probably
greatly enjoy formal education in the field.
> It must be lonely being an artist, knowing your profession makes such
> little impact, other than to a few wealthy patrons (if you're lucky).
Art isn't my profession, I just have a BFA in painting and drawing. No
money in the sort of crap I paint. People hate it. It makes them feel
terrible. They want flowers and kittens and trees and all sorts of
other things I hate to paint. I paint por moi! I'm so elite, I'm my
own patron! :)
> Oh, someone of your intellectual calibre doesn't listen to music that
> the plebes would have even heard of. We bow before your superiority.
I appreciate the groveling, but it isn't necessary. ;) I was actually
curious to see if any of the 10 bands you'd think of were any bands I
like. I'm not trying to pull a superiority gag on you.
> > Thank goodness for Brittney Spears, too. She rocks. NSYNC, too! A
> > product of the masses you so love! Thank you, masses!
>
> If popularity and impact (be it Spears, Bach, Kraftwerk, or Glenn
> Gould) indicates that an artform is superficial and vacuous, then I
> suppose by your scale, artists (such as yourself?) are the epitomy of
> depth and importance.
I know full well how irrelevant I am. I consider myself the most
anonymous painter in the world. That makes me famous, but nobody knows
it. Depth? Perhaps, but it doesn't show in the work. Images mean
nothing.
> The main point is that music as a genre has
> relevance, while your vision of art has little.
(Music as an artform). The whole art world can crumble and burn, and
I'll even clap and cheer, for that won't keep me from making
paintings.
> > > Yes, kids can get together,
> > > form a band, cut some MP3's, and post them to a web site... without
> > > criticism from anally retentive "real musicians" admonishing their
> > > lack of education or technical finesse.
> >
> > That's what you think?
>
> Damn straight.
If they get no criticism (criticism is not ONLY negative), that means
nobody's listening to their music. Some power! ;)
> > > If the art community is envious of the music industry's commercial
> > > and/or popular success, I fear that they can only blame the Monte
> > > Guerdises of the art world.
> >
> > Does that make sense to you?
>
> Focus, Monte, focus. Thinking might be a new experience for you.
I'm sorry, Potty, but it should be obvious to you, if you were
originally able to comment on my 'arrogance' that I possess more than
basic cogitational functionality. Let us try to avoid open attempts to
call one another stupid. I don't think YOU are stupid, really, I just
think you lack some polish.
> > > And to John: keep producing art, and keep enjoying what you like. That
> > > should be the real point of art, which many sadly seem to have missed.
> >
> > How old are you, 14?
>
> Why do you ask? Are you a pedophile?
Again, let us rise above the ridiculous morality-based wisecracks.
Implying that I'm a pervert won't change the fact that you made an
after-school-special-esque affirmative remark to Mr. Ng Re his
painting, which is why I made the reference to your possible young
age.
I agree with you that Ng should keep on painting. Of course, he should
draw a lot more than he paints, and from models, not photos, if he
ever wants to approach the magic of his mentors...
> Forget Mani Deli's unpublished vanity book.
Nothing to remember.
> A published book on the same theme is "The Painted Word" by Tom Wolfe.
Does Tom Wolfe paint? Must suck, what with those white suits. I have
no time to read Mr. Wolfe, but I'll look forward to the report that
you plan to post to R.A.F. about it.
MG
Monte Guerdis
> like me to bring out the canvas.
Some work does not inspire others to work. I disagree that works must
produce requisite reactions. Some do, and to that I add that some work
might produce in ME a desire to go get the brushes, but it might not
strike you in the same way, yet it can be considered good work by both
of us were we to examine the work on its true merits as opposed to its
'style'. A Bougereau with its pristine detail and magical
representation can indeed fill me with a burning desire to destroy
everything I've ever made and hate myself for being inept, OR it can
bore the hell out of me, depending upon WHY I'm looking at the
painting.
See, Bougereau has plenty to teach us. YET: YET: YET: Bougereau cannot
teach us what Pablo Picasso knew. Hate his work if you wish, write him
off as a bad Chinese painter, whatever makes you happy. If you do,
though, you will close a very large door. Same thing for Mondrian and
any other painter you negate based upon concept or style. No one is
expecting you to paint LIKE them, but you should study them as a
painter.
I add 'as a painter' because certain others only study the greats as
critics, looking only for more proof that they were right all along. I
tell you that it is no great sin to declare: This Picasso painting is
a huge piece of crap! The man was just like us, he painted a lot of
real losers! We all do! BUT: BUT: BUT: Bougereau made some pieces of
crap, as did Michelangelo, and so on. The difference is, what?
Marketplace. When Picasso made a thing, it was money. Picasso could
buy things with his name on a freaking napkin. This is why so many bad
Picassos made it to market. This does not mean Picasso made ONLY crap.
Much can be learned from the man!
You aspire to be a painter. Therefore, you must maintain a balanced
visual diet. If you learn nothing else from Picasso learn this: A good
artist is a great thief. What you may hate about someone's style can
be made up by his or her economy of line, application of media,
composition, color theory...Ingest it all, assimilate what you find
valuable, and produce what you want to produce. Fear no Art.
> I look at real Art and immediately
> ask "Nice, how did they do it" while I look at Moderns and say "Nice
> but it wouldn't be hard to do".
Note that it's also not hard to think such a thing AFTER something has
been done. This is why concept is indeed important. I can testify to
this: A friend of mine (non-artist) used to always devil me with the
same sort of question...
I was working on a series of texture collages using acrylics,
cardboard and twine, among other things. I had ripped a piece of
corrugated cardboard to expose the ridges and had plastered it onto
the canvas. Across that, where the ridges were exposed, I ran a
parallel pair of twine strands (by coincidence) and covered those with
paint. (If you can't visualize what this looks like, hold on one
sec...)Layers and layers later, my friend came to my studio. He
started in with his complaints about how anybody could do that and
blah blah blah. So I asked him to tell me how I had done it. He
studied the surface for some while and finally declared that all I had
done was glue model train tracks to the canvas and paint on them.
Hehe. Thought about naming the painting along those lines.
Sure, it might be easy to do, but do you really know how it was done,
and is that the most important thing about the image?
> The former inspires me to emulate but
> the latter inspires me to play Scrabble.
Process everything. Assimilate what you feel has value.
> The trouble is that you look at a painting like a snapshot (and that
> is exactly how you slander my wife) and think that they are
> interchangeable.
*I* do? I think that some styles of painting might as well BE
photography, but I will never deny the skill and talent they require.
> Look at the real thing. Real painting isn't all
> about content, it is about brush strokes, etc... all those elements
> that you were taught in Art school and more... except that this time,
> all those principles hang together to form a prose (as opposed to
> moderns like Mondrian that who reproduces his Art school
> experimentation).
I agree. The content of a painting is brushstrokes. I don't assign
meanings to images, and I'm not SO concerned with concept that I think
that's all there is. You should learn more about Mondrian. Much more
to him than squares and primaries. Lots of information about
composition, image as image rather than as 'message', etc. Fear no
Art. Ingest it, take the nutrients you need, shed the rest.
MG
Lauri Levanto
John Ng,
I have tried to treat you with some respect,
give you the benefit of doubt.
John Ng wrote:
(in Bonnard thread)
It is a pity that Art Renewal site has some of Bonnards paintings. I
wish they would take it off
> (and here)
> You interprete it as "blame" but I am only picking out the weeds from
> the lawn. :-)
>
> John
I may be older that you. I have seen Stalin, Hitler , MIlosevich and
ObL do that. If you really mean what you say, I hope the
Australian Immigration Office will take a notice.
-lauri
gaynorgallagher
>
> In the meantime, you might want to read "Ways of Seeing" by John Berger.
> There is an interesting essay on the nude and the naked.
shall one not suggest the essay on oil painting as well?
gaynor
gaynorgallagher
New Potty
>
> > Why does art appreciation require an education, and yet music
> > appreciation does not?
>
> If you want to be able to tell the difference between good music and
> crap, it DOES require education of some sort.
I disagree. And "good" is always in the eye (ear) of the beholder.
> > It seems that you believe art is an exclusive
> > club.
>
> ART is not. MAKING Art requires talent and skill.
Heh, sounds like you agree with Mani after all. :-)
> > Why did art and music go down such
> > different paths as artistic genres?
>
> (Artforms...a genre is a sub-type of a form, as in: Music > Rock)
>
> I blame the same thing I blame art's decline upon: The 1960s. Heck,
> that decade's the source of the whole of the horribleness of western
> culture today. The idea that any pimple-farm with a pawn-shop guitar
> can form a band and sell music to nitwits is not an indicator of
> music's superiority to art, but it is a clear sign that most people
> are equally ignorant as to what's good in either sphere.
There is no absolute measure to what is "good". I hate country music
-- good or bad, I can't tell the difference. There are no doubt
academics who study the genre (seriously!) and could educate me. And
they'll never sway me.
> In truth, I only talk the elitist smack just to peeve the nay-sayers,
> but my real-life concern is to make art (or see art become) as
> relevant as music, and to see the quality of both increase. I'm really
> NOT as bad a bastard as you think I am.
Well, your elitist smack succeeded in drawing me out of a 6+ year span
of lurking on the Usenet and this newsgroup. Congratulations. ;-)
> You really should change your point of view in regard to education. It
> does not force someone to become elitist as much as it intimidates
> those who have no education. Education, first and foremost, will
> convince you that many more people would benefit from it. Likewise, a
> person who sounds as fanatical about music as you do would probably
> greatly enjoy formal education in the field.
I agree absolutely that education is wonderful. But I think that you
and Frida are wrong in the belief that education is some sort of
prerequisite to understanding music, art, or whatever aesthetics at a
deeper and more 'meaningful' level. The vast majority of classical
music fans have no formal music education whatsoever. Yet most
appreciate and understand the music they listen to at the level
intended by the composer. This last point is worth pondering, since
I'm sure you agree that most viewers of the art being dissed in this
forum do not comprehend or appreciate the art at the level or
understanding intended by the artist.
Why do these artists "require" the audience be educated, while their
counterparts in music do not?
> > > > Yes, kids can get together,
> > > > form a band, cut some MP3's, and post them to a web site... without
> > > > criticism from anally retentive "real musicians" admonishing their
> > > > lack of education or technical finesse.
> > >
> > > That's what you think?
> >
> > Damn straight.
>
> If they get no criticism (criticism is not ONLY negative), that means
> nobody's listening to their music. Some power! ;)
They practice the same self-expression as you profess to doing. Many
don't care if the world crashes and burns, they'll keep producing
music.
> I don't think YOU are stupid, really, I just
> think you lack some polish.
Now you are criticizing me for not being eastern European! I am of
Brit/Scot/Irish extraction.
> > Forget Mani Deli's unpublished vanity book.
>
> Nothing to remember.
I think that Mani has valid points, albeit his passion and intensity
is at a level that he'll rarely gain converts. Preaching to the choir.
> > A published book on the same theme is "The Painted Word" by Tom Wolfe.
>
> Does Tom Wolfe paint? Must suck, what with those white suits. I have
> no time to read Mr. Wolfe, but I'll look forward to the report that
> you plan to post to R.A.F. about it.
I can't be bothered. Here's info:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0553380656/
Now I leave for hopefully another 6-year lurk.
The New Potty.
John Ng
> I may be older that you. I have seen Stalin, Hitler , MIlosevich and
> ObL do that. If you really mean what you say, I hope the
> Australian Immigration Office will take a notice.
I think that is the problem with a generation of the early 20C. They
have a bias towards art which Hitler liked. Just because I fight for
inane art to be "weeded out" that it is concluded that I am a Nazi
sympathiser. I don't see the relation although I know such
association live with the oldest living generation.
Relax, weeding out bad paintings is not the same as weeding out
people.
PS: By the way, I do mean what I said, but I cannot understand how
the Immigration Office could get itself involved in paintings :-)
Frida Wails
>Why do these artists "require" the audience be educated, while their
>counterparts in music do not?
Good question. You have posed a rational
and reasoned rebuttal to those of us who
have responded to you, so you deserve no
less in return. It's nice to see someone
who can argue their viewpoint without resorting
to the juvenile name calling,tantrums and
egocentricism so prevalent in this forum.
Okay. Let's define "educated" a bit. When
you had your first taste of beer, or coffee,
or whatever it was that took "acquiring a
taste for," you were being "educated" whether
or not you agree with my application of the
word "education" in that sense.
Art forms are an acquired taste too, wouldn't
you agree? I've mentioned before in this forum
that I came from the "school" that offered up
Norman Rockwell and other illustrator artists
as the "Most Famous" of America's artists. And
they were (are)! Because they appeal to the
broad spectrum of the public who are swayed by
peer pressure into believing, or at least into
seeing only in a limited way.
Speaking ONLY for myself, it was a long time
in coming, but I began really appreciating other
art forms only after I began to really pay attention.
And that led to research on my part. Be that looking
at art in museums or listening to a broader range
of music genres.
I "educated" myself to what was
out there and why others might prefer rock to rap,
opera to orchestra, etc. I still dislike opera, but
I understand the beauty to be found there and why
it has so much appeal to so many. I hate rap music,
but again, I can appreciate the achievements of those
artists who compose (some) of the rap (uhhh-I hesitate
to call it music) music.
When I was a student, I had to take an art
appreciation course as part of the required university
curriculum at the institute I attended. I chose to
take a semester of music education. It went in one
ear and out the other, pardon the pun, but it did at the
time hold me in thrall. Do I think it helped me
appreciate the music I prefer listening to? NO! I've
forgotten virtually everything taught that semester,
meaning I failed at learning. But maybe, if I
had my interest piqued, I might have taken up music
as my preferred form of art expression instead of
choosing to spend my time with the visual arts. And
maybe if I'd taken a semester of Theater studies, I'd
have been swayed to try that form of self-expression.
So education can be more than formal in nature but
it is something we all undergo on a daily basis--I hope.
And I think that people who are visually experessive
have one leg up on those who aren't! My personal bias...