Hobby painters, a common plague ?
christian tangoe
But I´, rather curious - basically because Im getting interviewed for
a danish magazine about this...
Is it the same all around the world, that hobby-painters are a fast
growing specie ?
What explanation would ther be to such a phenomena ?
Should professional artist care about this developement ?
Please let me (and the rest of the world) know....!
Christian Tangoe
- No artist, no art....
Want to get away frot all that nonsense about art ? Go to your studio
right now....
christian tangoe
>No ill-mannered abuse - no Usenet
I am sincerly asking some questions about the phenomena
"Hobbypainters", and maybe I fail by not defining those as "people who
only paints a few paintings in their lifetime or once in a while and
who has no intentions of really becoming an artist, but who
nevertheless hangs their work on the wall or gives it to somebody as a
present".
>x-no-archive: yes
>Hobby, Sunday, Amateur, (not forgetting Watercolourist) whatever
>tag you need to put down someone.
I didnt put down anybody. If you care to read some of my other
postings you will find that I advocate (very strongly) for anybodys
right to call hum or herself an artist
>Although I am still searching
>for how Watercolourist is used as a put down.
>Why does anyone care?
I care because I惴 asked, and because I find it interesting. And I
asked because I wanted to hear others opinion.
>If painting is being taken up by an increasing band of amateurs,
>then the viewers and buyers of art will in general be boosted by
>a more knowledgeable group.
Thats an oppinion. I wonæ„’ argue at this stage, since I wnat to have
some more reactions on this.
>Why do people on Usenet need to find labels to devalue what
>others say?
>Because they are trying to boost their own feeble sense of worth.
>The level of debate tells us that most are not posting to offer a point
>of view for others to weigh, ponder and constructively argue.
>They most often make a statement of conviction, and either ignore
>other contrary statements, or hurl abuse.
>"Reactionary!" - "Bullshitter!" - and so it goes on.
>Of course you would not mean to "OFFEND" anyone, would you?
I cant help that you got offended by my heading. As I扉e explained
allready, there was no such intention.
Christian
No amateurs - nobody to love art.
G*rd*n
It's time for this one again:
15-MINUTE PAINTERS AND THE DECLINE OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION
The fifteen-minute painters of cable television -- why have
these not been recognized as the vanguard of Postmodernism?
I'm talking about those folks who we see on the lifestyle
channels, who, with a few brushes (often including the 3-inch
hardware-store variety), a couple of palette knives, and some
ordinary oil paint, produce a perfectly acceptable landscape
or flower painting in a matter of minutes. None of these
shows run over half an hour.
The art resembles sumi-e in that it consists of a bag of
tricks, or, to be more respectful, a set of established
techniques which produce known effects. These effects can
be modified to cause the painting to harmonize with its
particular environment, i.e. go with the couch, something
your fancy French painter can't do. The effects are
assembled in a highly formal manner, as with rock'n'roll,
van painting, graffiti, pornographic movies, and public
discourse.
"Expression" is of little merit in this art; the subject
matter is already thoroughly known and idealized. This,
again, aligns this form of painting with the culture of
East Asia, where the images exist already and the painter
merely approaches them in a way which has already been
established and tested.
Early postmodernists like Warhol showed that anybody with
access to a Xerox machine or a can of Campbell's soup
could produce high art, but the 15-minute painters show
us that anyone can not only produce art, but make it look
like art -- art that is _art_, if you know what I mean.
Vases full of flowers and mountain ranges in the sunset.
These painters served a long apprenticeship in the flea
markets, parking lots, and suburban malls of yesteryear.
When cable arrived, with something for everyone, they
were ready with art for everyone. Yet they were not rash.
Simple, sober things: mere flowers and mountains were
their first offerings. But it will not always be so.
Even now, standard methods are being developed to paint
tall ships, wistful bug-eyed children, and kittens. And
not by your scraggly bohemian artists in a garret either,
no, indeed. The workshops are the ample and decent
parlors of the matrons of Des Moines, Lakeland, and
Redding. They smile as they work at the task of
simultaneously obsoleting and memorializing Western
Civilization. Who needs Picasso any more?
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/19/03 <-adv't
ADan327830
>Even now, standard methods are being developed to paint
>tall ships, wistful bug-eyed children, and kittens. And
>not by your scraggly bohemian artists in a garret either,
>no, indeed. The workshops are the ample and decent
>parlors of the matrons of Des Moines, Lakeland, and
>Redding. They smile as they work at the task of
>simultaneously obsoleting and memorializing Western
>Civilization. Who needs Picasso any more?
>
>
>
>
>--
>
> (<><>) /*/
> }"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
>{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/19/03 <-adv't
>
Bitter?
What do you have against these people? That maybe their "untrained" work sells
more than yours? If you get no more joy out of your own life than that... it's
time to bring out the valium or the sleeping pills and just medicate yourself
into oblivion.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with an amateur enjoying his/her painting
hobby. I do more than just bland landscapes or uninspired stills... but that's
because I want to do something more true to my heart. I even bother to take the
time to learn how to do it better because that is what makes me happy. It
doesn't make my experience of creating a painting invalid.
Hell, in Shakespeare's day, his works were written and performed for the
general public, which for his contemporaries makes him no better than the
writers at Frasier. (I won't shoot down Will by comparing him to the writers at
Friends... that show makes me shudder)
I would bet a lot of artists who are considered brillant today might have been
indulging in their passion when they were alive, and would be appalled by some
low brow snobbery on their behalf being spewed by a wastrel.
Seagull Manager
"christian tangoe" <ma...@tangoe.dk> wrote in message
news:ccn9ev49jrck1jhbu...@4ax.com...
> Well, I mean...I惴 sorry...wouldn愒 OFFEND anybody....
Really?
> Is it the same all around the world, that hobby-painters are a fast
> growing specie ?
If so, good!
> What explanation would ther be to such a phenomena ?
Increased leisure time?
> Should professional artist care about this developement ?
No, unless of course they are painters themselves, and sufficiently
incompetent that they are at risk of being outdone by hobbyists.
Seagull Manager
>
> I didnt put down anybody.
I suppose "plague" doesn't count as a put-down where you live?
Seagull Manager
"Dandy Walker" <ow...@hurts.daddy> wrote in message
news:MPG.194ebffa...@news-server.bak.rr.com...
>
> Perhaps there's more than one thing I enjoy doing, and am good at. I
> choose to make a living doing one of those things, and for a complete
> break from the "job" of being creative, I paint in my free time for no
> reward other than the enjoyment of doing so.
Keep on right ahead. It is ridiculous for anyone to sneer at the idea of
someone having a creative hobby.
BTW, maybe everyone knows this already, but Winston Churchill was a hobby
painter. His total output was around 500 paintings, which a lot of
professionals would be proud of, and he specialized in impressionist
landscapes, at which he was every bit as competent as some successful
professionals.
Seagull Manager
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:bc316n$hiu$1...@panix3.panix.com...
>
> The art resembles sumi-e in that it consists of a bag of
> tricks, or, to be more respectful, a set of established
> techniques which produce known effects.
Some people's bags are bigger than others', and contain cleverer tricks.
Some people but their bags of tricks to better uses than others do. That's
the difference between good and mediocre art. It is silly to complain that
others are gaining competence, instead of developing one's own competence so
that one stays ahead of the pack.
Chris
"Seagull Manager" <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote in
message news:bc4a2r$kg4$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
man-about-town, stock market player, even had work hung in the Salon while
just a Sunday painter - Gauguin.
Noumenon
In epistle on Mon, 09 Jun 2003 21:23:52 +0200
Christian Tangoe <ma...@tangoe.dk> scribbled:
> Is it the same all around the world, that hobby-painters are a fast
> growing specie ?
Same with literature. Too damn many "writers" as well. People
have nothing to say, have zero ideas about anything, adn often
are not even friendly with grammar, logic or common sense, but
yet they tend to succumb to an itch to express something in
writing. Nightmare!
> What explanation would ther be to such a phenomena ?
Old story. Mostly it happens due to complete misunderstanding of
reality, own nature and on account of lousy upbringing and poor
nourishment. :)
Simply put, some want to express themselves (very bad motivation
for any art! that is why it's in deep s!); some are attracted
by creative aura/atmosphere (and want to feel it); some lull
naive ideas to get a big buck for own daub one day; some just
have a need for creative output but couldn't find what they
really shoud do (visual art is easier: of course! if you need to
write - you have to t_h_i_n_k, for some so-called "artists" and
unripe-but-impatient wannabies it is too much of a task;
spreading cheap paint over cardboard and sqeezing tubes on it -
is a way easier)...
But, if we dig deeper, - it's social tendency begotten by
cultural crisis and spiritual devastation.
[However it is too heavy "line" to develop here].
> Should professional artist care about this developement ?
Only those whose paintings are so deplorably bad can be
upset by the growth of amateur crowd.
The worse and more primitive art - the greater chance
that some greenhorn novice (especially well-connected)
can push you (with all your "master-pieces") off the
professional bench.
Serious artists don't need to bother. Serious art requires
so much diligence, study, time and work so that
hobby-painters/daubers can hardly catch up and compete
with professionals.
Weaving the Conundrum
-=NoumenoN=-
G*rd*n
> >Even now, standard methods are being developed to paint
> >tall ships, wistful bug-eyed children, and kittens. And
> >not by your scraggly bohemian artists in a garret either,
> >no, indeed. The workshops are the ample and decent
> >parlors of the matrons of Des Moines, Lakeland, and
> >Redding. They smile as they work at the task of
> >simultaneously obsoleting and memorializing Western
> >Civilization. Who needs Picasso any more?
adan3...@aol.comnospam (ADan327830):
> Bitter?
>
> What do you have against these people? That maybe their "untrained" work sells
> more than yours? If you get no more joy out of your own life than that... it's
> time to bring out the valium or the sleeping pills and just medicate yourself
> into oblivion.
>
> There is absolutely nothing wrong with an amateur enjoying his/her painting
> hobby. I do more than just bland landscapes or uninspired stills... but that's
> because I want to do something more true to my heart. I even bother to take the
> time to learn how to do it better because that is what makes me happy. It
> doesn't make my experience of creating a painting invalid.
>
> Hell, in Shakespeare's day, his works were written and performed for the
> general public, which for his contemporaries makes him no better than the
> writers at Frasier. (I won't shoot down Will by comparing him to the writers at
> Friends... that show makes me shudder)
>
> I would bet a lot of artists who are considered brillant today might have been
> indulging in their passion when they were alive, and would be appalled by some
> low brow snobbery on their behalf being spewed by a wastrel.
I can't see a trace of bitterness in what I wrote. The
whole business of bitterness, valium, oblivion, wrongness,
snobbery, is something you have projected into it. From
where?
Mike Stengl
> Well, I mean...I´m sorry...wouldn´t OFFEND anybody....
>
> But I´, rather curious - basically because Im getting interviewed for
> a danish magazine about this...
>
> Is it the same all around the world, that hobby-painters are a fast
> growing specie ?
>
> What explanation would ther be to such a phenomena ?
>
> Should professional artist care about this developement ?
>
>
> Please let me (and the rest of the world) know....!
>
>
> Christian Tangoe
I do not feel threatened by "hobby painters" and in fact did not even
know such a phenomenon existed. I don't watch TV and haven't for
decades so I'm out of the loop if that's where it's breaking ground...
I pretty much paint/work/sleep/paint and my view of the art world is
limited to the galleries I walk into now and then. I often see what
looks to me like a hobbyists work hanging there but that's my mind
labling another's efforts. I think I prefer someone who paints on
weekends than the dandy that puts on airs and allows the freedom of
art to exuse their lack of ability/willingness to learn from their
mistakes-hey REALIZE their mistakes... Frankly I am very wary and have
a tough time with people who title themselves 'artists'. It smacks of
the idea that they are more sensitive and creative than all the
NONartists. And getting back to the subject, mediocre and lousy art
personally inspires me to continue painting. If all the galleries were
full of only excellence I would relegate myself to my own mediocrity
and wither away (maybe).
Wynne Ean-Hand
>I am sincerly asking some questions about the phenomena
>"Hobbypainters"
I have no idea why you call it a phenomenon.
Perhaps Danes consider 'hobbies' phenomenal,
but I don't know of any other society that
considers it such.
>those as "people who
>only paints a few paintings in their lifetime or once in a while and
>who has no intentions of really becoming an artist
What do you mean by 'has no intentions?' Do you mean
people who would never rely on their creative ability
to provide them a living?
You apparently have a very narrow view of
what 'hobby art' and 'professional art' is all about.
>I advocate (very strongly) for anybodys
>right to call hum or herself an artist
That seems to contradict the idea you have that a
'hobby artist' is something less than an 'artist.'
Seagull Manager
"Chris" <n...@this.address> wrote in message
news:RjiFa.5252$Gm4.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> And we can't of course forget the patron saint of hobby painters -
flanuer,
> man-about-town, stock market player, even had work hung in the Salon while
> just a Sunday painter - Gauguin.
Of course, and now we have hobby conceptualists, too. Jeff Koons comes to
mind.
Hadley
The primary difference between hobbyists and artists is not quantity
of work, but the talent & dedication involved in its output. Usually
"sunday painters" paint diligently and habitually over many years, but
the work itself determines what kind of artists they may or may not
be. Usually hobbyists "like" painting but not enough to seriously
pursue a career from it. Hence, HOBBYISTS.
Regards,
Hadley
Hadley
Good Lord! You've got to be kidding me. Good art is not about playing
a silly magician's trick at someone's birthday party. By your
definition, in a parallel analogy then, big blockbuster Hollywood
movies with all the special effects would inherently be "good art" as
opposed to anything made on a technically more primitive scale, now,
doesn't it?
Hadley
It sounds to me like you're resentful (and probably jealous) of
visual-oriented thinkers. Writers are a dime a dozen. You can train a
monkey to write using correct grammar. Let's remember that the usage
of correct grammar is not a necessary prerequisite for good
literature, but that the expression of it is. What you're actually
suggesting in equivalent terms is that a vase must be flawlessly made,
with no cracks and no other such visual blemishes (eg, perfect
grammar) in order to be of artistic and intellectual value. However,
what about say, 17th century Edo period ceramics? The surfaces are
sometimes uneven, the form is a bit misbent, there are obvious flaws
and crooked lines on the surface, but in my mind's eye, I think it is
that expression of "imperfection" which sometimes makes a work
paradoxically beautiful.
Regards,
Hadley
Neil Maxwell
<seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Of course, and now we have hobby conceptualists, too. Jeff Koons comes to
>mind.
How does he make his living? I assumed it was through art (which
would make him a professional artist, IMO), but I'm not familiar with
what he does for his daily bread.
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Anastasia
> I do not feel threatened by "hobby painters" and in fact did not even
> know such a phenomenon existed. I don't watch TV and haven't for
> decades so I'm out of the loop if that's where it's breaking ground...
How about people who doodle while bored at work or in class?
Sometimes, I think being in a self-defeating cycle of work, sleep,
work, sleep in an environment that doesn't *excite* an artist can end
up destroying him if he doesn't *get out* This I can say with my own
experience. I've learned that I work best not when I'm alone, but when
I'm surrounded by people whom I respect and who *push* me to be
better.
> I pretty much paint/work/sleep/paint and my view of the art world is
> limited to the galleries I walk into now and then. I often see what
> looks to me like a hobbyists work hanging there but that's my mind
> labling another's efforts. I think I prefer someone who paints on
> weekends than the dandy that puts on airs and allows the freedom of
> art to exuse their lack of ability/willingness to learn from their
> mistakes-hey REALIZE their mistakes...
It seems you are making an unfair assumption here that all artists are
either hobbyists or pretentious hacks. It might depend on where you
live as well. Most urban centres in the US have politicised
avant-garde quasi art which tends to be boring and cliche. I walked
into several San Francisco galleries while I was visiting my fiancee's
parents, and thought most of the works were quite commercial and
catered to the tourist population that also thinks going to Broadway
musicals were indicative of "culture"....Sort of the "popular fiction"
of the art scene.
>Frankly I am very wary and have
> a tough time with people who title themselves 'artists'. It smacks of
> the idea that they are more sensitive and creative than all the
> NONartists. And getting back to the subject, mediocre and lousy art
> personally inspires me to continue painting. If all the galleries were
> full of only excellence I would relegate myself to my own mediocrity
> and wither away (maybe).
What you say leads me to believe that you often like to compare
yourself to others and that their failure gives you confidence to do
what you think is *better* than them. Holier-than-thou-kind of
sentiment. I wonder why you feel that way? Personally speaking, I get
extremely depressed or pessimistic when I see mediocre and lousy art.
It makes me want to crawl back into my shell and not create anything
ever again. I want to numb myself on some kind of drug and forget
about my existence while working my day job. However, when I encounter
something frighteningly beautiful, I become filled with manic energy
and feel I must embody all the ideas in my head into some kind of
visual/aural medium screaming to get out.
Maybe you've never been really inspired by anything...
Regards,
Hadley
Wynne Ean-Hand
vegas_...@hotmail.com says...
>Usually hobbyists "like" painting but not enough to seriously
>pursue a career from it. Hence, HOBBYISTS.
>
>Regards,
>Hadley
Once again an oversimplification.
It would be wonderful if being an artist
guaranteed the same wage as other occupations,
but the fact remains - art is an indulgence.
Earning a liveable wage is a necessity for most
of us.
People who are not willing to live in poverty for the
sake of art, who know that they're capable
of producing a liveable wage in other fields,
will USUALLY opt to live comfortably while
pursuing the art or craft as a 'hobby.'
It would be wonderful if being an artist
guaranteed the same wage as other occupations,
but the fact remains - art is an indulgence.
Earning a liveable wage is a necessity for most
of us.
G*rd*n
> >mind.
Neil Maxwell <neil.m...@nospam.intel.com>:
> How does he make his living? I assumed it was through art (which
> would make him a professional artist, IMO), but I'm not familiar with
> what he does for his daily bread.
There are people who buy his work for fancy prices. In
fact, I've read that he's able to employ other people to
make it. Imagine devoting your talents and energy to
the fabrication of objects for and "by" Jeff Koons....
Brrrr.
Argon3
great painting all of my life that I'd get a box of oil colors and try to find
a little satisfaction and inner peace by painting (whether well or badly...you
gotta try).
And I live in Chicago and spend a lot of time in the Art Institute and my lame
efforts at painting have given me a new appreciation of what great technique
the "old guys" had and has made me look again at things that I had previously
passed over and find a new appreciation of them.
And I LOVE Frank Clarke on PBS...one watercolour landscape in twenty
minutes...just do it...he should get a line of painting shoes from Nike! Once
again, this gives me a whole new appreciation of painting.
If you're one of those people whose idea of art is a gallery full of raw
meat...all power to you...I've enjoyed stuff like that....but what the fuck,
live and let live.
G*rd*n
Hadley
By your same argument, it's an oversimplification to assert with
absolute conviction that to be an artist is to live in poverty for the
rest of one's life.
It would be highly pretentious of me to speak for all artists, but
usually it is to my understanding that the majority of their goals
often do not include buying three expensive sports cars or other such
examples of flagrant overspending on luxury items. Of course, perhaps
I'm really a utilitarian at heart, but the emphasis on material
possessions as a signifier of living above the poverty line is a
ridiculous one. Someone can choose to be an accountant while painting
on the side if that pleases him however, I have to seriously question
the ethics involved in purposely abstaining from a god-given talent
while making oneself miserable in the long run, if you catch what I
mean.
Of course, not everyone has the means to choose to follow her own
path, which is a shame. But if art is an indulgence, then what about
all the other things in the world which are considered indulgences as
well? Shall we ban the United States because it is one big
overindulgent nation, which ironically has the least amount of
reputable artists residing in its country?
Perhaps it is your goal then, to mercilessly feed the machine which
gives you a sense of accomplishment, but for me, it's a kind of cancer
I rather avoid.
Regards,
Hadley
Mike Stengl
> eatn...@humboldt1.com (Mike Stengl) wrote in message news:<45dd5dd.0306...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > I do not feel threatened by "hobby painters" and in fact did not even
> > know such a phenomenon existed. I don't watch TV and haven't for
> > decades so I'm out of the loop if that's where it's breaking ground...
>
> How about people who doodle while bored at work or in class?
What about them? Who doesn't? Big deal?
> Sometimes, I think being in a self-defeating cycle of work, sleep,
> work, sleep in an environment that doesn't *excite* an artist can end
> up destroying him if he doesn't *get out* This I can say with my own
> experience. I've learned that I work best not when I'm alone, but when
> I'm surrounded by people whom I respect and who *push* me to be
> better.
Being home and awake excites me to paint. I can say that at times I
paint better while talking on the phone... kind of like the phone
conversation occupies some part of the mind that conflicts with the
creative process. Sure, I might be able to work in a studio with more
than one artist if we agreed on certain environmental necessities,
then again, not. I get pretty agro sometimes when painting. Turn the
music UP then turn it OFF, etc. Sometimes I must paint nude because
even the clothing on my body is annoying. If that's a little more
than you wanted to know, sorry...
>
> >
> It seems you are making an unfair assumption here that all artists are
> either hobbyists or pretentious hacks.
No, not at all, what I was saying is that some who paints on weekends
is just someone who paints on weekends but posers and wannabe's that
dress up and play the part and put out work that insults my senses,
they bug me.
>It might depend on where you
> live as well. Most urban centres in the US have politicised
> avant-garde quasi art which tends to be boring and cliche. I walked
> into several San Francisco galleries while I was visiting my fiancee's
> parents, and thought most of the works were quite commercial and
> catered to the tourist population that also thinks going to Broadway
> musicals were indicative of "culture"....Sort of the "popular fiction"
> of the art scene.
>
> >Frankly I am very wary and have
> > a tough time with people who title themselves 'artists'. It smacks of
> > the idea that they are more sensitive and creative than all the
> > NONartists. And getting back to the subject, mediocre and lousy art
> > personally inspires me to continue painting. If all the galleries were
> > full of only excellence I would relegate myself to my own mediocrity
> > and wither away (maybe).
>
> What you say leads me to believe that you often like to compare
> yourself to others
Constantly, in more ways than one...
> and that their failure gives you confidence to do
> what you think is *better* than them.
The 'success' of the bad and the mediocre pushes me to be successful.
> Holier-than-thou-kind of
> sentiment.
Call it what you will.
> I wonder why you feel that way?
I don't. There are certain aspects of my workings as an individual
that I do not question. Including such things as "Why do you only
paint women?" Because that's what I'm motivated to paint, no more need
for me to investigate these feelings, I just work with them.
> Personally speaking, I get
> extremely depressed or pessimistic when I see mediocre and lousy art.
> It makes me want to crawl back into my shell and not create anything
> ever again.
You shouldn't let something so crummy have such a strong effect on
your life. Maybe you should do push-ups or something. Feel better
about yourself.
> I want to numb myself on some kind of drug and forget
> about my existence while working my day job. However, when I encounter
> something frighteningly beautiful, I become filled with manic energy
> and feel I must embody all the ideas in my head into some kind of
> visual/aural medium screaming to get out.
>
Yes I enjoy great art but it can be depressing, case in point: WC
Fields was a juggler, had perfected the juggling of 8 balls at one
time, a feat for a juggler. Was on tour in europe when at a particular
show he followed a previous juggler, a midget who juggled 14 balls at
once while standing on the back of a trotting horse.
> Maybe you've never been really inspired by anything...
Well, if that's the case, I certainly look forward to the experience.
>
> Regards,
> Hadley
Regardless,
Mike
Seagull Manager
"Hadley" <vegas_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1eb6d2bc.03061...@posting.google.com...
>
> The primary difference between hobbyists and artists is not quantity
> of work, but the talent & dedication involved in its output.
No, it is whether they do it for a living, or try to, or not. Some hobbyists
are talented, skilled an imaginative. Some professionals are none of the
above.
Seagull Manager
> > On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 00:28:04 +0100, "Seagull Manager"
> > >Of course, and now we have hobby conceptualists, too. Jeff Koons comes
to
> > >mind.
>
> Neil Maxwell <neil.m...@nospam.intel.com>:
> > How does he make his living? I assumed it was through art (which
> > would make him a professional artist, IMO), but I'm not familiar with
> > what he does for his daily bread.
I was being a bit facetious. Koons made his money working in the financial
sector, before turning to "art".
> There are people who buy his work for fancy prices. In
> fact, I've read that he's able to employ other people to
> make it. Imagine devoting your talents and energy to
> the fabrication of objects for and "by" Jeff Koons....
> Brrrr.
You'd be surprised how many artists pay others to make their works for them:
MOST conceptualists, MANY sculptors, and SOME painters.
A lot of well-known sculptors would be at a loss as to how to fulfill their
commissions if their favourite sculpture studio told them to sod off.
A certain well known abstract painter pays people to make paintings to her
very exact specifications. You can imagine it is pretty tedious work.
Seagull Manager
> a silly magician's trick at someone's birthday party. By your
> definition, in a parallel analogy then, big blockbuster Hollywood
> movies with all the special effects would inherently be "good art" as
> opposed to anything made on a technically more primitive scale, now,
> doesn't it?
No. There are tricks to story-telling, tricks to directing, tricks to
photography, tricks to design and tricks to acting. To get the special
effects right, and fail on everything else would be a recipe for failure.
christian tangoe
I basically agree most with the latter. One is tempted to add and
include "and those who strive genuinelyd to be profesionalls" since I
think it would be a little drastic to judge artists only from "how
much money thaey can make on their art". To me
> "Some hobbyists
>are talented, skilled an imaginative"
but actually lack the intention of getting professional, which in the
end includes entering an artmarket, competing with others and all
these "not so nice things".
But basically - that is in common sense - a pro is somebody who lmakes
a living from what he does, do it full time and display all the
qualities listed.
One is really surprised how many artist who - judged by these standars
are totally unpro, allthough some of them bears the finest credentials
(typically given to them a decade ago).
tangoe
Neil Maxwell
<seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:bc7g56$k04$1...@panix2.panix.com...
>> > On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 00:28:04 +0100, "Seagull Manager"
>> > >Of course, and now we have hobby conceptualists, too. Jeff Koons comes
>to
>> > >mind.
>>
>> Neil Maxwell <neil.m...@nospam.intel.com>:
>> > How does he make his living? I assumed it was through art (which
>> > would make him a professional artist, IMO), but I'm not familiar with
>> > what he does for his daily bread.
>
>I was being a bit facetious. Koons made his money working in the financial
>sector, before turning to "art".
I was being a bit facetious (and leading) as well. I'm rather fond of
Jeff Koons' work. I'm OK with people changing their line of work, as
long as it works out well for them (and it apparently did for him).
Someone recently suggested that his Michael and Bubbles sculpture
(which my kids and I were fascinated by at SFMoMA) will become the
21st century Madonna and Child, rendered in various ways by a variety
of artists... It's quite a stunning piece in real life.
>> There are people who buy his work for fancy prices. In
>> fact, I've read that he's able to employ other people to
>> make it. Imagine devoting your talents and energy to
>> the fabrication of objects for and "by" Jeff Koons....
>> Brrrr.
>
>You'd be surprised how many artists pay others to make their works for them:
>MOST conceptualists, MANY sculptors, and SOME painters.
>
>A lot of well-known sculptors would be at a loss as to how to fulfill their
>commissions if their favourite sculpture studio told them to sod off.
>
>A certain well known abstract painter pays people to make paintings to her
>very exact specifications. You can imagine it is pretty tedious work.
I don't think Christo's hiring of workers to construct his pieces or
Goldsworthy's use of construction workers to manipulate big rocks
detracts from the artistic integrity of the work, but lots of people
feel differently, of course.
I'm still not sure what the difference is between Warhol's factory and
Kincade's factory, once you discount stylistic preference.
Seagull Manager
"Neil Maxwell" <neil.m...@nospam.intel.com> wrote in message
news:bjifevcldtb1ugfj2...@4ax.com...
>
> Someone recently suggested that his Michael and Bubbles sculpture
> (which my kids and I were fascinated by at SFMoMA) will become the
> 21st century Madonna and Child, rendered in various ways by a variety
> of artists...
Nah.
> It's quite a stunning piece in real life.
The composition only is due to Koons. The stunningness of the finished work
is not due to him, but to the artists who actually made the piece.
> I don't think Christo's hiring of workers to construct his pieces or
> Goldsworthy's use of construction workers to manipulate big rocks
> detracts from the artistic integrity of the work, but lots of people
> feel differently, of course.
In general, it depends on what claims are made about the work, and on the
extent to which the "auteur" is responsible for those aspects of the work
that are deemed to be its source of value. For instance if an inept
"sculptor" who cannot even make a usable maquette nonetheless wins a
commission, and pays someone else to design and make a monumental sculpture
with nothing more than a crude sketch as a guide, the "sculptor" does not
deserve credit for the result.
> I'm still not sure what the difference is between Warhol's factory and
> Kincade's factory, once you discount stylistic preference.
I believe Kincade claims to have a greater hand in the look of his finished
works. (Whether that matters or not, is another matter.)
Wynne Ean-Hand
>Imagine devoting your talents and energy to
>the fabrication of objects for and "by" Jeff Koons....
>Brrrr.
Happens more often than you might imagine.
After all, everyone has to earn a living,
and earning it working for another artist
beats working digging ditches or worse.
The ultimate artist-who-is-a-'non-artist' title
surely goes to Mark Kostabi, who has based his
career on NOT producing his own art.
Another example: Dave McGary has done well enough
as an artist/sculptor to buy full-page ads
in most art magazines. He has a 'factory' operation
here, where I live, that cranks out his brightly
painted bronzes of Native Americans in various
tribal garb, poses etc. His factory is like an
auto assembly line - each 'artist/employee' performs
one specialty along the assembly line, leading to
the final product which is but one in an often
'unlimited' edition of similar products.
Another local artist with an international reputation
is Luis Jimenez. He too operates a 'factory' that
churns out his monumental polychromed fiberglass
sculptures. Those who work for him consider themselves
fortunate to have their daily employment, I can
assure you, in spite of working with something as
toxic and nasty as fiberglass.
http://www.artcyclopedia.com/artists/jimenez_luis.html
Wynne Ean-Hand
>Perhaps it is your goal then, to mercilessly feed the machine which
>gives you a sense of accomplishment, but for me, it's a kind of cancer
>I rather avoid.
>
>Regards,
>Hadley
I can only assume you're not the principal
in a marriage that requires feeding, sheltering
and clothing several children. Until then...
Neil Maxwell
<seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Neil Maxwell" <neil.m...@nospam.intel.com> wrote in message
>news:bjifevcldtb1ugfj2...@4ax.com...
>> It's quite a stunning piece in real life.
>
>The composition only is due to Koons. The stunningness of the finished work
>is not due to him, but to the artists who actually made the piece.
And this gets back to the definition of art and artist. I would
define Koons as the artist and the people who made the piece as
craftsmen (at least in this capacity). It would be difficult to argue
that someone who creates items to the detailed specifications of
someone else is acting as an artist, IMO. Certainly, they never would
have made the piece on their own; the concept is completely Koons. A
equally beautiful sculpture in the style of Boug's paintings would not
interest me much.
While I agree that skill is important, I feel that inspiration is far
more so. The world is full of technically competent artists,
musicians, writers, etc., who are unable to light a fire in my brain.
I would take 9 parts inspiration and 1 part skill over the opposite
any day. An even balance is always better, of course.
>> I don't think Christo's hiring of workers to construct his pieces or
>> Goldsworthy's use of construction workers to manipulate big rocks
>> detracts from the artistic integrity of the work, but lots of people
>> feel differently, of course.
>
>In general, it depends on what claims are made about the work, and on the
>extent to which the "auteur" is responsible for those aspects of the work
>that are deemed to be its source of value. For instance if an inept
>"sculptor" who cannot even make a usable maquette nonetheless wins a
>commission, and pays someone else to design and make a monumental sculpture
>with nothing more than a crude sketch as a guide, the "sculptor" does not
>deserve credit for the result.
So, who is the artist? The conceiver of the idea who puts the sweat
into winning the commission or the executor of someone else's idea?
>> I'm still not sure what the difference is between Warhol's factory and
>> Kincade's factory, once you discount stylistic preference.
>
>I believe Kincade claims to have a greater hand in the look of his finished
>works. (Whether that matters or not, is another matter.)
And there's the rub. I consider Warhol to be one of the major
milestone artists of the 20th century, while Kinkade is just a hack,
IMO. Why? Inspiration. Warhol broke new ground and helped shift the
direction of art, while Kinkade follows a safe and narrow path, while
demonstrating far better technical skill (by many definitions) than
Warhol.
Try defining that. I keep coming back to Warhol and Kinkade because
it's so difficult to define art/artist in a way that differentiates
them from each other.
Mani Deli
Gee, that's to simple and clear for most of the muddleheaded
Artspeakers here. The rule is OBFUSCATE!
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
G*rd*n
>>>>Of course, and now we have hobby conceptualists, too. Jeff Koons comes to
>>>>mind.
Neil Maxwell <neil.m...@nospam.intel.com>:
>>> How does he make his living? I assumed it was through art (which
>>> would make him a professional artist, IMO), but I'm not familiar with
>>> what he does for his daily bread.
"Seagull Manager":
> I was being a bit facetious. Koons made his money working in the financial
> sector, before turning to "art".
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
>> There are people who buy his work for fancy prices. In
>> fact, I've read that he's able to employ other people to
>> make it. Imagine devoting your talents and energy to
>> the fabrication of objects for and "by" Jeff Koons....
>> Brrrr.
"Seagull Manager":
> You'd be surprised how many artists pay others to make their works for them:
> MOST conceptualists, MANY sculptors, and SOME painters.
No, I wouldn't. I once met a fellow who claimed to have worked
in a sort of shop where he and his fellow artists turned out
stuff for Willem de Kooning. Of course, he could have been
lying, but he seemed to know what he was talking about, and
I saw some of his non-industrial work -- although it was
uninspired (in my opinion) it was reasonably competent. So
I think he could have done it.
Workshops where large paintings were turned out by craftsmen
and apprentices to the specifications of a master were, of
course, a famous feature of the Renaissance. The only thing
that surprises me about de Kooning doing it is that his
cultivation of a loose, "painterly" style doesn't seem to
require all that much hand labor to me. But what do I know?
I don't like de Kooning's work so I never look at it very
closely. Perhaps it contains a great deal of detail
constructed with great finesse.
> A lot of well-known sculptors would be at a loss as to how to fulfill their
> commissions if their favourite sculpture studio told them to sod off.
>
> A certain well known abstract painter pays people to make paintings to her
> very exact specifications. You can imagine it is pretty tedious work.
I don't know -- some people might like it. It sounds sort
of like dentistry.
Mani Deli
<neil.m...@nospam.intel.com> wrote:
>While I agree that skill is important, I feel that inspiration is far
>more so.
It can't be expressed without skill and craftsmanship.
> The world is full of technically competent artists,
That's what they teach you in art school because the teachers have no
skill.
>
>And there's the rub. I consider Warhol to be one of the major
>milestone artists of the 20th century, while Kinkade is just a hack,
>IMO. Why? Inspiration. Warhol broke new ground and helped shift the
>direction of art, while Kinkade follows a safe and narrow path, while
>demonstrating far better technical skill (by many definitions) than
>Warhol.
Warhol was a skilled PR genius. His painting etc. is just an extension
of his professional bullshit.
Mani Deli
>"Seagull Manager":
>> You'd be surprised how many artists pay others to make their works for them:
>> MOST conceptualists, MANY sculptors, and SOME painters.
>
>
>No, I wouldn't. I once met a fellow who claimed to have worked
>in a sort of shop where he and his fellow artists turned out
>stuff for Willem de Kooning. Of course, he could have been
>lying, but he seemed to know what he was talking about, and
>I saw some of his non-industrial work -- although it was
>uninspired (in my opinion) it was reasonably competent. So
>I think he could have done it.
Love to meet the guy even though I very skeptical.
>Workshops where large paintings were turned out by craftsmen
>and apprentices to the specifications of a master were, of
>course, a famous feature of the Renaissance. The only thing
>that surprises me about de Kooning doing it is that his
>cultivation of a loose, "painterly" style doesn't seem to
>require all that much hand labor to me.
It requires a trick rarely taught in art schools. Triply charged
brushes.
> But what do I know?
>I don't like de Kooning's work so I never look at it very
>closely. Perhaps it contains a great deal of detail
>constructed with great finesse.
Its colored cat vomit. Very complex. Especially after a long case of
indigestion. Interesting how some people imagine that a lot of
cacophonous colored schmier contains a great deal of detail
constructed with great finesse. Wonder if they ever took a close look
at a housepaint's drop cloth or assorted brush wipings.
>> A certain well known abstract painter pays people to make paintings to her
>> very exact specifications. You can imagine it is pretty tedious work.
>I don't know -- some people might like it. It sounds sort
>of like dentistry.
I used to do abstract knock-outs with assorted signatures and sold
them to a wholesaler. He must have sold them because he asked for
more.
christian tangoe
wrote:
If there is ANYTHING like modern technology that mr. Delirum is using
I suggest it be taken from him. Punk (thats a darling-name) go back to
the stone-age (thats were we still live in Scandinavia)
Stop using your cellphone. Cause the "skill" aplyed in making it is
not to be recognised by you anyway, so you probably won´t expect it
function. And so on.
This quite happy emotional outlet based on your real clever analasys
of mr. Warhols "skills". Yes. he was a rather bad Painter.
But YES, he possesed a great deal of skill in making screenprinting an
artistic medium. So we are not talking about some silly asshole who
xeroxes his own ego one after another, but the guy who fucking
invented the proces of crashing a canvas through the xeroxmachine.
Now, Mr. delirious, do you paint with your dick or do you use
instruments ? (like a brush ?)
But of course, ....I mean, I´m soprry to be so rude...we should all -
if we call ourwself painters only use the "calssical" remidies...which
by the way is not even paint....But a pencil. Thats right. YES ! We
all go back to PENCILS. ONLY DRAWING IS ALLOWED FROM NOW ONE, says the
SKILLLED artist mr. Delicious. Not even white to be added. ONLY
PENCIL.
And that goes for all communication too. This is why we wont hear from
mr. Delete again for some time. He wont use the computer as a medium
to communicate his thoughts to others any more.
Im sorry for my spelling. Its not all due my bad english and small
brain, but also due to the fact, that I´m refusing - for "skills sake"
to have a spell-control installed....
Tip Tap Tangoe
Seagull Manager
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 07:08:47 +0100, "Seagull Manager"
> <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Neil Maxwell" <neil.m...@nospam.intel.com> wrote in message
> >news:bjifevcldtb1ugfj2...@4ax.com...
>
> >> It's quite a stunning piece in real life.
> >
> >The composition only is due to Koons. The stunningness of the finished
work
> >is not due to him, but to the artists who actually made the piece.
>
> And this gets back to the definition of art and artist. I would
> define Koons as the artist and the people who made the piece as
> craftsmen (at least in this capacity).
Actually, the way I worded that, I gave Koons too much credit. The design of
the piece is based on an MJ PR photograph. Therefore Michael Jackson and his
photographer deserve credit for the composition as such; Koons only gets
credit for the idea of having the thing executed in porcelain.
In that event, Jeff Koons is as much the artist of the piece as Pope Julius
II is the artist of the Sistine Chapel (and Michelangelo is the
"craftsman").
> It would be difficult to argue
> that someone who creates items to the detailed specifications of
> someone else is acting as an artist, IMO.
How detailed? As detailed as giving someone a photo and saying "make a
sculpture that portrays this"? That's not very detailed, and in that case,
anyone who commissions a portrait is an artist. Pure bollocks.
> Certainly, they never would have made the piece on their own;
Not certainly. Do you know what else they've made? If you visit countries
like Austria, Germany, and Belgium, you'll see some pretty interesting and
weirdly inventive stuff made by "craftspeople".
> the concept is completely Koons.
Only and solely the idea of reproducing the picture in porcelain (and
presenting it as "conceptual art") is Koons'.
> A equally beautiful sculpture in the style of Boug's paintings would not
interest me much.
What crap. If Koon's had been able to commission Canova to portray Britney
Spears in marble, you'd have credited the beauty of the result to Koons.
> While I agree that skill is important, I feel that inspiration is far more
so.
Inspiration without skill is extraordinarily common. It generally leads to
the production of crap (unless the inspired commission a skilled artist to
turn their vague ideas into concrete reality).
> The world is full of technically competent artists,
No, the world is full of technically *incompetent* artists - luckily for the
competent ones.
> musicians, writers, etc., who are unable to light a fire in my brain.
> I would take 9 parts inspiration and 1 part skill over the opposite
> any day. An even balance is always better, of course.
>
> >> I don't think Christo's hiring of workers to construct his pieces or
> >> Goldsworthy's use of construction workers to manipulate big rocks
> >> detracts from the artistic integrity of the work, but lots of people
> >> feel differently, of course.
> >
> >In general, it depends on what claims are made about the work, and on the
> >extent to which the "auteur" is responsible for those aspects of the work
> >that are deemed to be its source of value. For instance if an inept
> >"sculptor" who cannot even make a usable maquette nonetheless wins a
> >commission, and pays someone else to design and make a monumental
sculpture
> >with nothing more than a crude sketch as a guide, the "sculptor" does not
> >deserve credit for the result.
>
> So, who is the artist? The conceiver of the idea who puts the sweat
> into winning the commission or the executor of someone else's idea?
When the "someone else's idea" is so vague and sketchy and poorly
communicated that it takes ingeniouty and invention to realize it, then the
credit ought to go to the executor of the piece.
> And there's the rub. I consider Warhol to be one of the major
> milestone artists of the 20th century, while Kinkade is just a hack,
> IMO. Why? Inspiration. Warhol broke new ground and helped shift the
> direction of art, while Kinkade follows a safe and narrow path, while
> demonstrating far better technical skill (by many definitions) than
> Warhol.
What new ground did Warhol break? And why was that particular new ground
worth breaking? I can tell you now, I've seen far more solarized photos of
flowers and Hollywood stars than I ever could wish to see in my entire
lifetime. Boring, boring, boring!
I don't see how Kincaid has broken less new ground than Warhol. Both took
commonly available images as their starting point, put them through the mill
of their respective factories, and created a brand. Each chose a different
area of pop visual culture to exploit, and each exploited their chosen
borrowed imagery in unprecedented ways. Kincaid will have less successful
imitators just as Warhol did.
Seagull Manager
> I once met a fellow who claimed to have worked
> in a sort of shop where he and his fellow artists turned out
> stuff for Willem de Kooning. Of course, he could have been
> lying, but he seemed to know what he was talking about, and
> I saw some of his non-industrial work -- although it was
> uninspired (in my opinion) it was reasonably competent. So
> I think he could have done it.
Basquiat had nothing at all to do with the paintings attributed to him in
his last years, other than a business relationship with the "assistant" who
produced the work.
Mapplethorpe is another "artist" some of whose works were created entirely
without his involvement.
Seagull Manager
"Wynne Ean-Hand" <ha...@dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:3ee8...@news.zianet.com...
> surely goes to Mark Kostabi, who has based his
> career on NOT producing his own art.
>
> http://markkostabi.com/
At least he's up-front about it (as is Jeff Koons, in a way).
Erik A. Mattila
Mani Deli wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 01:05:44 +0100, "Seagull Manager"
> <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>"Hadley" <vegas_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1eb6d2bc.03061...@posting.google.com...
>>
>>>The primary difference between hobbyists and artists is not quantity
>>>of work, but the talent & dedication involved in its output.
>>
>>No, it is whether they do it for a living, or try to, or not. Some hobbyists
>>are talented, skilled an imaginative. Some professionals are none of the
>>above.
>>
>
>
> Gee, that's to simple and clear for most of the muddleheaded
> Artspeakers here. The rule is OBFUSCATE!
Now there's a fancy word: "obfuscate."
Erik
Neil Maxwell
<seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Neil Maxwell" <neil.m...@nospam.intel.com> wrote in message
>news:fv8hevo9brud2o5hi...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 07:08:47 +0100, "Seagull Manager"
>> <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> And this gets back to the definition of art and artist. I would
>> define Koons as the artist and the people who made the piece as
>> craftsmen (at least in this capacity).
>
>Actually, the way I worded that, I gave Koons too much credit. The design of
>the piece is based on an MJ PR photograph. Therefore Michael Jackson and his
>photographer deserve credit for the composition as such; Koons only gets
>credit for the idea of having the thing executed in porcelain.
Interpretation has nothing to do with it? Warhol is not an artist,
since most of his works were simply interpretations of existing
images/items; the Brillo box designer gets the credit? Monet and van
Gogh should have given credit to the farmers who stacked the hay (they
executed the work, but did not create the scene)?
Whom exactly do you consider the artist to be in the case of the Koons
piece? If it's the people who actually crafted it, does this apply to
all pieces crafted by someone besides the artist?
Do you have some consistent definition you can apply to such a
circumstance? It's a grey area, I'll admit, and devilishly difficult
to pin down.
>In that event, Jeff Koons is as much the artist of the piece as Pope Julius
>II is the artist of the Sistine Chapel (and Michelangelo is the
>"craftsman").
Is there documentation that Pope Julius II told him exactly what to
paint and he only crafted it (Mike, move that cherub over a few
fingers, and wipe that smile off its face)? I'd be interested in
references. Did the photographer of the MJ&B original tell him to
change the color and gild it? Did the sculptor suggest the "Banality"
title for the series, or to make it so much larger than life? At what
point do you give a conceptualist any credit for his work?
Is it not to be called art, and the party ultimately responsible not
an artist, just because you don't like it or the techniques used?
>> It would be difficult to argue
>> that someone who creates items to the detailed specifications of
>> someone else is acting as an artist, IMO.
>
>How detailed? As detailed as giving someone a photo and saying "make a
>sculpture that portrays this"? That's not very detailed, and in that case,
>anyone who commissions a portrait is an artist. Pure bollocks.
The sculpture is not an exact copy of the photo, of course. Who's the
artist in the case of a portrait from a photo? The photographer, the
painter, the photo developer?
>> Certainly, they never would have made the piece on their own;
>
>Not certainly. Do you know what else they've made? If you visit countries
>like Austria, Germany, and Belgium, you'll see some pretty interesting and
>weirdly inventive stuff made by "craftspeople".
I'd love to see their other works. Links would be appreciated. As
for the idea that someone else would have decided to have that
particular representation of Michael and Bubbles created in gilded
porcelain, well, given infinity, anything's possible, but it seems
*extremely* unlikely.
This is not to say the craftspeople are not artists in their own
rights when executing their own works; just that the primary artist in
this case is the conceptualist, IMO. YMMV, as always.
>> the concept is completely Koons.
>
>Only and solely the idea of reproducing the picture in porcelain (and
>presenting it as "conceptual art") is Koons'.
Well, we agree on something! But is it art? How about Christo/JC's
works? Andy Goldsworthy?
>> A equally beautiful sculpture in the style of Boug's paintings would not
>interest me much.
>
>What crap. If Koon's had been able to commission Canova to portray Britney
>Spears in marble, you'd have credited the beauty of the result to Koons.
I don't think it would have the impact on me, but I'm particularly
fond of the irony and humor in Koons' work. Now, a Britney statue in
the vein of Murakami's "My Lonesome Cowboy/Hiropon" duo - that would
be something!
The inspiration is what counts for me, as I've said before; anyone can
commission pop stars in various media (it's done frequently), but that
doesn't mean they'll be interesting, or that anyone will care about
who the artist is.
>> While I agree that skill is important, I feel that inspiration is far more
>so.
>
>Inspiration without skill is extraordinarily common. It generally leads to
>the production of crap (unless the inspired commission a skilled artist to
>turn their vague ideas into concrete reality).
Note I didn't say inspiration was all that was important, just that I
believe it's more important than skill. If you prefer skill over
inspiration, that's OK. We'll just like different works. More
Warhols for me, more Kinkades for you.
>> The world is full of technically competent artists,
>
>No, the world is full of technically *incompetent* artists - luckily for the
>competent ones.
It's full of both, of course; they're not mutually exclusive. That
doesn't make the technically competent ones any better at capturing
something that speaks to someone's heart, mind, or soul. Surely
you've seen technically excellent art that is bland and boring?
Have you ever heard a band of studio musicians play (assuming you're
into music)? Technically excellent, but boring. I've seen that, and
I've seen Hendrix play at midnight on the 4th of July, with his guitar
out of tune. There's no question which was more interesting and
memorable to me.
>> musicians, writers, etc., who are unable to light a fire in my brain.
>> I would take 9 parts inspiration and 1 part skill over the opposite
>> any day. An even balance is always better, of course.
>>
>> So, who is the artist? The conceiver of the idea who puts the sweat
>> into winning the commission or the executor of someone else's idea?
>
>When the "someone else's idea" is so vague and sketchy and poorly
>communicated that it takes ingeniouty and invention to realize it, then the
>credit ought to go to the executor of the piece.
That may be. Who decides? The conceiver? The executor? You? Me?
If I pay someone to create something for me and it becomes famous and
sells for a million bucks, can the executor step up and claim that he
should get the money?
>> And there's the rub. I consider Warhol to be one of the major
>> milestone artists of the 20th century, while Kinkade is just a hack,
>> IMO. Why? Inspiration. Warhol broke new ground and helped shift the
>> direction of art, while Kinkade follows a safe and narrow path, while
>> demonstrating far better technical skill (by many definitions) than
>> Warhol.
>
>What new ground did Warhol break? And why was that particular new ground
>worth breaking? I can tell you now, I've seen far more solarized photos of
>flowers and Hollywood stars than I ever could wish to see in my entire
>lifetime. Boring, boring, boring!
Possibly you weren't around when Warhol first started; it wasn't
particularly boring at the time; it was quite controversial. It's
undeniable that he and his peers exerted a major influence in the
direction of Western art development; it was clearly an inflection
point by virtually any definition, regardless of whether you're happy
about it or not. If you're bored with it, well, different strokes and
all that. It would be hard to credit Kinkade with the same amount of
influence (but you could try!).
>I don't see how Kincaid has broken less new ground than Warhol. Both took
>commonly available images as their starting point, put them through the mill
>of their respective factories, and created a brand. Each chose a different
>area of pop visual culture to exploit, and each exploited their chosen
>borrowed imagery in unprecedented ways. Kincaid will have less successful
>imitators just as Warhol did.
You seriously think that Warhol and Kinkade are similar in the
exploitation of pop visual culture? Warhol transformed the original
images into something new and different; the "painter of light"...
well, he painted some soothing pastoral scenes.
I don't see how Kinkade's exploitation is unprecedented, as it looks
pretty mundane to me (but I'll admit I haven't studied it closely more
than a few times, and I'm not much of a fan of traditional
landscapes), but if you find his work groundbreaking, more power to
you. He's quite a bit more affordable than Warhol; luckily for those
who like him.
Erik A. Mattila
> If there is ANYTHING like modern technology that mr. Delirum is using
> I suggest it be taken from him. Punk (thats a darling-name) go back to
> the stone-age (thats were we still live in Scandinavia)
Aw, come on. Everybody knows you Berserkers live in the "Stoned Age."
Erik
Mani Deli
This is the sort of shit artzy fartzies discuss endlessly.
Mani Deli
<neil.m...@nospam.intel.com> wrote:
>>Inspiration without skill is extraordinarily common. It generally leads to
>>the production of crap (unless the inspired commission a skilled artist to
>>turn their vague ideas into concrete reality).
>
>Note I didn't say inspiration was all that was important, just that I
>believe it's more important than skill.
Tell us whether the wheels of a car are more important than the
engine. And how do you feel about about spark plugs?
>You seriously think that Warhol and Kinkade are similar in the
>exploitation of pop visual culture? Warhol transformed the original
>images into something new and different;
What's different? He took photo and added som schmiers or changed the
colors by mechanical process. Warhol without the bullshit would be
garbage.
> the "painter of light"...
>well, he painted some soothing pastoral scenes.
...no skill no art!
Erik A. Mattila
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 23:50:30 +0100, "Seagull Manager"
> <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>"Neil Maxwell" <neil.m...@nospam.intel.com> wrote in message
>>news:fv8hevo9brud2o5hi...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 07:08:47 +0100, "Seagull Manager"
>>><seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>And this gets back to the definition of art and artist. I would
>>>define Koons as the artist and the people who made the piece as
>>>craftsmen (at least in this capacity).
>>
>>Actually, the way I worded that, I gave Koons too much credit. The design of
>>the piece is based on an MJ PR photograph. Therefore Michael Jackson and his
>>photographer deserve credit for the composition as such; Koons only gets
>>credit for the idea of having the thing executed in porcelain.
>
>
> Interpretation has nothing to do with it? Warhol is not an artist,
> since most of his works were simply interpretations of existing
> images/items; the Brillo box designer gets the credit? Monet and van
> Gogh should have given credit to the farmers who stacked the hay (they
> executed the work, but did not create the scene)?
In a way I have to agree with you...but (and a big Butt)...that's why
Pop Art is often poised on the dividing line between Modernism and Post
Modernism. In other words, "Art" became something else when Leo
Castelli raised his eyebrow. One of the best "artspeak theorytalk"
accouts I have read was by Guy DeBord, in an essay in "Post Pop" (Paul
Taylor (ed.) (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1989). DeBord introduces the
concept of "detournement" which simply is that the meaning of things
change with their context. Taking an advertising image out of the
advertising context (where the meaning reduces down to "this product it
good") and placing in in the context of the Art Gallery radically
changes the meaning of the image. No one has to like Pop Art, of
course, but to not acknowledge the provocation Pop Art posed to the idea
of art and society is to be somewhat blind. The ongoing discussion,
often in the form of outright hostility (as we can see here on RAF) is
testimony to this assault. I don't know, but when I consider this
Warhol's statement that he was only interested in "the surface of
things" makes a lot of sense. Modern mass culture is shallow and
oriented to the "surface" of things. You know, as Budweiser sez: "Why
ask why?"
>
> Whom exactly do you consider the artist to be in the case of the Koons
> piece? If it's the people who actually crafted it, does this apply to
> all pieces crafted by someone besides the artist?
My tendency was to regard Koons like I would a film maker - a director
working on a collaborative project. BTW, I've seen that MJ ceramic in
person, and SFMoMA six or seven years ago. I thought it was awesome,
spectacular, humorous and ironic. I loved it. The size of the object
was important, which probably doesn't carry that well in photos.
But another irony here on RAF is the concern some participants have had
with hiding pencil lines in paintings and stuff like that. You know,
obscure all evidence of the artist's hand. So Koons excels at this,
taking it to the limit by using other hands to make his art. Me? I just
let my scribbles shine through. As Bob Ross would say: "Who cares?"
> Do you have some consistent definition you can apply to such a
> circumstance? It's a grey area, I'll admit, and devilishly difficult
> to pin down.
Well, (to butt in) it's a name thing in the final analysis. Is G.W.
Bush really President? Like that.
>>In that event, Jeff Koons is as much the artist of the piece as Pope Julius
>>II is the artist of the Sistine Chapel (and Michelangelo is the
>>"craftsman").
>
> Is there documentation that Pope Julius II told him exactly what to
> paint and he only crafted it (Mike, move that cherub over a few
> fingers, and wipe that smile off its face)? I'd be interested in
> references. Did the photographer of the MJ&B original tell him to
> change the color and gild it? Did the sculptor suggest the "Banality"
> title for the series, or to make it so much larger than life? At what
> point do you give a conceptualist any credit for his work?
Well, look...the Koons MJ piece is not a photograph, even if it was
based on one. The bright metallic yellow & white were added, and the
pose is actually a combination of the actual publicity photo, in which
Jackson is standing up holding Bubbles, and the cover of his "Thriller"
album, which shows a reclining Jackson with another fuzzy victim, a
Kitty Cat all dressed up. So it's not like Koons didn't participate in
the project. And shit, Bubbles punched Jackson in the face shortly
after the photo was take, and was exiled from "Neverland" to a famous
animal shelter in Sylmar as punishment. Koons was probably outraged, yes?
> Is it not to be called art, and the party ultimately responsible not
> an artist, just because you don't like it or the techniques used?
I would call it art whether I liked it or not. I have to ask myself: if
I decided to create a series of art works based on the banality of
comsumerism, how I would approach it. I think Koons did a good job, and
part of it was erasing the "artist's hand" which seems appropriate to
the meaning of the series.
Whew...this is getting too long. I'm bailing out.
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
Mani Deli wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 18:16:06 -0700, "Erik A. Mattila"
> <emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>
>
>>christian tangoe wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 17:36:55 -0400, Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca>
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>If there is ANYTHING like modern technology that mr. Delirum is using
>>>I suggest it be taken from him. Punk (thats a darling-name) go back to
>>>the stone-age (thats were we still live in Scandinavia)
>>
>>Aw, come on. Everybody knows you Berserkers live in the "Stoned Age."
>>
>>Erik
>>
>
> This is the sort of shit artzy fartzies discuss endlessly.
Hmmm...you should try some magical 'shrooms yourself. It might slack-up
that tight-ass of yours. Just trying to help out here...
Erik
Mani Deli
He's a con artist who admits it. Some artzy fartzies love it. Nothing
wrong with giving them what they want.
Anastasia
So you paint in the nude? Do you have any resemblence to Egon Schiele
by any chance? Male subjects happen to be one of my favourite
subjects, as women are yours. I checked out the link you provided. You
seem to be an accomplished painter; it occurs to me that you like to
paint repeated thick layers onto your subjects accentuating their form
in mainly primary colours. It has an unusual melancholy effect.
> what I was saying is that some who paints on weekends
> is just someone who paints on weekends but posers and wannabe's that
> dress up and play the part and put out work that insults my senses,
> they bug me.
I can't agree with you more. When art is marketed a certain way, then
the artists themselves are marketed to have a certain persona &
appearance which I'm rather not fond of. Usually they're supposed to
be ugly, deformed and/or down-to-earth, have some sort of childhood
trauma or they are immoral womanisers, are from some politically-torn
country and/or also wear outrageous clothes & glasses, etc, etc...The
marketing of artists bore me to say the least. Although I have to
admit here that I'm boyishly handsome, and that all I do in the
morning is wash my face, brush my teeth and throw on the same t-shirt
that I had worn the day before. To my amazement, most women find me
irresistible despite the fact that I do absolutely nothing to my
appearance and usually I am surrounded by at least 6 women at all
times, so it might be very difficult to talk with me one on one unless
I'm waiting in a queue in front of the loo. Needless to say, I don't
exactly fit in with the marketing people and they never know exactly
what to do with me since I'm not *trendy*
> There are certain aspects of my workings as an individual
> that I do not question. Including such things as "Why do you only
> paint women?" Because that's what I'm motivated to paint, no more need
> for me to investigate these feelings, I just work with them.
Perhaps women are a subject of intense fascination for you because you
like to dissect them on a canvas. I paint men primarily because I like
expressing myself, my own personality though them. I made some
autobiographical self-portraits which I have a hard time exhibiting
just because I feel it's too personal for public scrutiny. I really
have to trust someone before I can reveal myself completely. Of
course, trust is always earned. I'm rather picky about the people who
I allow to view my work.
> > Personally speaking, I get
> > extremely depressed or pessimistic when I see mediocre and lousy art.
> > It makes me want to crawl back into my shell and not create anything
> > ever again.
>
> You shouldn't let something so crummy have such a strong effect on
> your life. Maybe you should do push-ups or something. Feel better
> about yourself.
Oh, you got me there! I do have sort of a complex about being too thin
sometimes. At my worst, I think women must prefer those muscular men
(or something or another) who I always see at the gym. Everytime I
feel down about my appearance I think maybe I should go lift weights,
but nahhhhhh....I have enough activities to do in my day and I much
rather play my guitar than hang out with a bunch of steroid addicted
drones.
> Yes I enjoy great art but it can be depressing, case in point: WC
> Fields was a juggler, had perfected the juggling of 8 balls at one
> time, a feat for a juggler. Was on tour in europe when at a particular
> show he followed a previous juggler, a midget who juggled 14 balls at
> once while standing on the back of a trotting horse.
There you go again. "He's better than I am because he has accomplished
more." But according to your example, would you really want to be a
midget? Let's say the midget made more money, could juggle more balls
than you could, etc etc, would you still want to be a midget??? 15
minutes of fame might bring you easy money, but let's face it, there's
more to life than that.
Regards,
Hadley
______________
"She framed me, then hung me up on the walls of her bedroom, as if I
were some kind of art she fancied looking at from time to time."
---Anastasia
Hadley
HAHAhahahahahaaHAHAHAHAhahahahha!
And you are, my dear Handy? I must admit that I adore spending time
with my little niece, but I am very far off from having any children
of my own any time soon, although I wouldn't mind a little mini-me in
the future whom I can spoil & adore. I suppose from your response that
you're not a hot bachelor living it up in Southern California, now are
you?
XOXO,
Hadley
Hadley
I think you've been reading too many of Mani's posts. She doesn't know
what she's talking about. Let's face that fact.
Sure there are tricks, usually though, people nowadays just call them
trompe de l'oeil. However you seem to be referring to some other kind
of "tricks" which I rather not know at this time.
Regards,
Hadley
Neil Maxwell
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>I would call it art whether I liked it or not. I have to ask myself: if
>I decided to create a series of art works based on the banality of
>comsumerism, how I would approach it. I think Koons did a good job, and
>part of it was erasing the "artist's hand" which seems appropriate to
>the meaning of the series.
This is ultimately my point. People here are all too ready to state
"This is art, but *this* is not", when what they really mean is "I
like this, but I think this is crap". There are infinite approaches
to any concept and execution of something. Nobody had to make this
piece, but Koons did (or caused it to be executed, or whatever).
I don't really see why people get so bent out of shape about it. For
those who don't like it, well, don't buy it. Close your eyes when you
get to that section of the museum.
>Whew...this is getting too long. I'm bailing out.
You cannot kill the Undead Thread so easily, foolish mortal.
Neil Maxwell
wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 17:39:55 -0700, Neil Maxwell
><neil.m...@nospam.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>>Note I didn't say inspiration was all that was important, just that I
>>believe it's more important than skill.
>
>Tell us whether the wheels of a car are more important than the
>engine. And how do you feel about about spark plugs?
The car won't work at all without the wheels, the engine, or the spark
plugs, and becomes a conceptual piece ;-). The balance between skill
and inspiration in art is a personal choice in a subjective matter,
and does not have a hard dividing line.
>>You seriously think that Warhol and Kinkade are similar in the
>>exploitation of pop visual culture? Warhol transformed the original
>>images into something new and different;
>
>What's different? He took photo and added som schmiers or changed the
>colors by mechanical process. Warhol without the bullshit would be
>garbage.
Regardless, it holds an important place in 20th century art history,
whether you approve of the work or not. Maybe unjustifiable, but it's
a fact. None of us will know how history will ultimately treat him,
or Damien Hirst, or Jackson Pollock; they may be footnotes by the 22nd
century. I bet our choices for the finest 18th century art would
surprise the art critics who were alive at the time.
christian tangoe
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
Thanks Erik. Your posting below is one of the most serious attempts to
get back into a sber discussion-line here at the RAF.
I am quite astonished that especially mr. Deli, Neil and Seagull all
seem to be very narrowminded in their taste.
Quite frankly, I don´t understand such attitude. there a som many
great masters, that I admire and respect, and still I can - wiht any
most of them - criticise their work in several ways.
So I don´t expect everyone to LOVE everybody, but I think a common
respect for other peoples work would be a nicer outfit for all
artists.
The only exception I make for this "rule" is my objection to fake-art,
which is art, that is produced only to make money, promoted as such,
and which fails to show any qualkities from ANY standard of
artcritique.
Tangoe
Paul Mesken
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>Whew...this is getting too long. I'm bailing out.
What's this?
The tireless rebutter giving in? You're getting old Erik ;-)
Wynne Ean-Hand
>And you are, my dear Handy?
I married at 17, had a daughter when I
was barely 18, and two sons followed.
I'm now a great-grandfather! And there
is no way in hell that I'd have deprived
my three kids (and wife) of the lifestyle
they did enjoy as I worked my butt off
to provide for them! NO WAY that I would
'indulge' an artistic inclination. In fact,
for what it's worth, I didn't even begin
pursuing art as a hobby until I was 32.
I hope when you are my age you'll have
as much to be proud of!!!
Erik A. Mattila
Yes, I see that you are right.
Adding to your "bent out of shape about it" thought, why do we always
feel that we need to have an opinion on everything? I started
questioning this when I read Mark Twain:
"George Wasington was a wonderful man. I talked to him once, at his
funeral. Some said he was dead, some said he was not. I said nothing.
I had no opinion. It was none of my business."
We don't really have to have an opinion - one can just take it as it
comes, and opine on whatever is interesting, leaving the remainder in a
grey area of like/dislike, good/bad, pro/con, yes/no...or any other
denizen of our bipolar disorders.
Erikula
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
news:3EEA5789...@oco.net...
and a level of both humanity and humility that is very rare indeed.
People who are close to this level of the sublime would be well advised to
read Ecclesiastes.
Few points have been made in this forum that have even approached this level
of profundity.
With all due respect, Erik, I would suggest that this might have been a
mistake - a happy one, indeed, but a mistake none the less.
How could anybody answer this point in apposition and maintain any
credibility whatsoever?
--
The decades-long debate over the consistency of personality and the
existence of character traits has now been settled. - Race, Evolution and
Behaviour p22 J. Phillippe Rushton 1995
Paul Mesken
Everyone has opinions about everything by default. It's only later in
life we start to doubt them :-)
IMO r.a.f. is not so much dealing with opinions when it comes to
clashes but with convictions which are much stronger emotionally
entrenched in the ego and defended quite vigorously. In some cases
convictions are even promoted to a kind of religion (I suspect Maack
of this ;-)
Neil Maxwell
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>How could anybody answer this point in apposition and maintain any
>credibility whatsoever?
LOL! And what would they be doing hanging around this madhouse
anyway?
I like to argue things that I've spent some time thinking through. I
find it exercises the grey cells, sharpens my logic, and exposes me to
arguments I hadn't thought of. I even change my mind occasionally.
It's good to have worthwhile opponents, and there are some in this NG.
There's a fair share of village idiots, too, but that's the nature of
usenet.
The downside is it consumes time that certainly could be spent better,
but I'll end with a bit of wisdom from someone with a sharper wit than
mine:
Observation - Dorothy Parker
If I don't drive around the park,
I'm pretty sure to make my mark.
If I'm in bed each night by ten,
I may get back my looks again.
If I abstain from fun and such,
I'll probably amount to much;
But I shall stay the way I am,
Because I do not give a damn.
Neil Maxwell
wrote:
>I am quite astonished that especially mr. Deli, Neil and Seagull all
>seem to be very narrowminded in their taste.
followups set to rec.arts.fine.pot.kettle.black.black.black
>The only exception I make for this "rule" is my objection to fake-art,
>which is art, that is produced only to make money, promoted as such,
>and which fails to show any qualkities from ANY standard of
>artcritique.
Case closed!
I get my jollies from the R.A.F. follies!
Erik A. Mattila
>>We don't really have to have an opinion - one can just take it as it
>>comes, and opine on whatever is interesting, leaving the remainder in a
>>grey area of like/dislike, good/bad, pro/con, yes/no...or any other
>>denizen of our bipolar disorders.
>>
>
> Arriving at the point where you have no opinion requires a level of maturity
> and a level of both humanity and humility that is very rare indeed.
>
> People who are close to this level of the sublime would be well advised to
> read Ecclesiastes.
>
> Few points have been made in this forum that have even approached this level
> of profundity.
>
> With all due respect, Erik, I would suggest that this might have been a
> mistake - a happy one, indeed, but a mistake none the less.
>
> How could anybody answer this point in apposition and maintain any
> credibility whatsoever?
It's like Gorbechev said: "True communism is impossible to attain, but
we should nevertheless keep striving for it."
So is it hypocracy to have a goal or standard that one continually fails
to reach?
Erik
Peter H.M. Brooks
having - those that can be easily achieved aren't worth much.
What has that to do with the price of fish, though?
--
The decades-long debate over the consistency of personality and the
existense of character traits has now been settled. - Race, Evolution and
Behavour p22 J. Phillippe Rushton 1995
Mike Stengl
> eatn...@humboldt1.com (Mike Stengl) wrote in message news:<45dd5dd.03061...@posting.google.com>...
>
> So you paint in the nude? Do you have any resemblence to Egon Schiele
> by any chance?
I don't believe so, he's pretty weasly.
> Male subjects happen to be one of my favourite
> subjects, as women are yours.
Prhaps we should show together, males/females, make everyone happy...
> Perhaps women are a subject of intense fascination for you because you
> like to dissect them on a canvas.
When I am painting I am primarily appreciating the uniqueness of each
figure. I am generally filled with respect, awe and thankfulness
toward the model I am painting. No shit. I have to remind myself
sometimes that as reference material I can do what I like with it.
Recently, as mentioned in other threads I have been distorting the
figures but only in what I find as a pleasant form, not Picasso's
malice for which I'm not suited.
> I paint men primarily because I like
> expressing myself, my own personality though them.
Perhaps in some absolutely heterosexual manner, I do the same...
> I made some
> autobiographical self-portraits which I have a hard time exhibiting
> just because I feel it's too personal for public scrutiny. I really
> have to trust someone before I can reveal myself completely. Of
> course, trust is always earned. I'm rather picky about the people who
> I allow to view my work.
Understandable. My self portrait with the gerbils always sets the
crowd to chattering.
>
> > > Personally speaking, I get
> > > extremely depressed or pessimistic when I see mediocre and lousy art.
> > > It makes me want to crawl back into my shell and not create anything
> > > ever again.
> >
> > You shouldn't let something so crummy have such a strong effect on
> > your life. Maybe you should do push-ups or something. Feel better
> > about yourself.
>
>
> Oh, you got me there! I do have sort of a complex about being too thin
> sometimes. At my worst, I think women must prefer those muscular men
> (or something or another) who I always see at the gym. Everytime I
> feel down about my appearance I think maybe I should go lift weights,
> but nahhhhhh....I have enough activities to do in my day and I much
> rather play my guitar than hang out with a bunch of steroid addicted
> drones.
>
I like you just the way you are!
> > Yes I enjoy great art but it can be depressing, case in point: WC
> > Fields was a juggler, had perfected the juggling of 8 balls at one
> > time, a feat for a juggler. Was on tour in europe when at a particular
> > show he followed a previous juggler, a midget who juggled 14 balls at
> > once while standing on the back of a trotting horse.
>
>
> There you go again. "He's better than I am because he has accomplished
> more." But according to your example, would you really want to be a
> midget? Let's say the midget made more money, could juggle more balls
> than you could, etc etc, would you still want to be a midget??? 15
> minutes of fame might bring you easy money, but let's face it, there's
> more to life than that.
>
It's not a jealosy thing, it's a reality check. I love art. Art turns
me on. But when you see someone with more natural talent than you it's
just a little sobering sometimes.
> Regards,
> Hadley
>
> ______________
>
> "She framed me, then hung me up on the walls of her bedroom, as if I
> were some kind of art she fancied looking at from time to time."
> ---Anastasia
Sounds kinda kinky.
Erik A. Mattila
>>It's like Gorbechev said: "True communism is impossible to attain, but
>>we should nevertheless keep striving for it."
>>
>>So is it hypocracy to have a goal or standard that one continually fails
>>to reach?
>>
>
> No, it isn't hypocrisy either. It is indeed the only sort of goal worth
> having - those that can be easily achieved aren't worth much.
>
> What has that to do with the price of fish, though?
To tell you the truth, Pete, I don't know. I was only pretending that I
knew what you were talking about - I took a shot at it, and
unfortunately missed.
Not a critique of you or your writing, of course. It just went by me
somehow.
Erik
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
>
> >>It's like Gorbechev said: "True communism is impossible to attain, but
> >>we should nevertheless keep striving for it."
> >>
> >>So is it hypocracy to have a goal or standard that one continually fails
> >>to reach?
> >>
> >
> > No, it isn't hypocrisy either. It is indeed the only sort of goal worth
> > having - those that can be easily achieved aren't worth much.
> >
> > What has that to do with the price of fish, though?
>
> To tell you the truth, Pete, I don't know. I was only pretending that I
> knew what you were talking about - I took a shot at it, and
> unfortunately missed.
>
>
> Not a critique of you or your writing, of course. It just went by me
> somehow.
>
--
The story of the human race is war. Except for brief and precarious
interludes there has never been peace in the world; and long before history
began murderous strife was universal and unending." - Winston Churchill
Hadley
Aw...that's so sweet. It reminds me of my dear mother. Although I'm
not quite certain what you mean by 'artist's inclination' Lots of
artists have great children. I hope to have a few myself when I'm your
age, although I suspect that you're not that old!
;)
Hadley
Seagull Manager
>
> Interpretation has nothing to do with it? Warhol is not an artist,
> since most of his works were simply interpretations of existing
> images/items; the Brillo box designer gets the credit?
Warhol's Brillo boxes are sculptural trompe l'oeil. They're a bit crap, but
he earns credit for his choice of subject matter.
> Monet and van
> Gogh should have given credit to the farmers who stacked the hay (they
> executed the work, but did not create the scene)?
Obviously not. They made their paintings, and the look of their paintings is
due to them. Someone else could have painted the same subject matter better
or worse.
> Whom exactly do you consider the artist to be in the case of the Koons
> piece? If it's the people who actually crafted it, does this apply to
> all pieces crafted by someone besides the artist?
It is a question of who is responsible for the piece looking as it does, and
to what extent. I would suggest that perhaps Koons could be credited as
"designer", and the makers of the piece as makers. But the facts that would
allow a precise carving up of credit for authorship may never become
available to the public.
The thing is, in these situations, the maker and the conceptual "artist" who
commissions the work, usually enter into an contractual arrangement in which
the maker will not claim any credit for the work, or publicise their
involvement, or seek royalties from the work.
Legally, then, the conceptual "artist" is the artist. Morally, he or she is
often no such thing.
> Do you have some consistent definition you can apply to such a
> circumstance? It's a grey area, I'll admit, and devilishly difficult
> to pin down.
It is not so devillishly difficult, if you don't insist on accepting at face
value the claims made by conceptualists to be the authors of "their" works,
which they are often in fact not.
> >In that event, Jeff Koons is as much the artist of the piece as Pope
Julius
> >II is the artist of the Sistine Chapel (and Michelangelo is the
> >"craftsman").
>
> Is there documentation that Pope Julius II told him exactly what to
> paint and he only crafted it (Mike, move that cherub over a few
> fingers, and wipe that smile off its face)?
There would have been some pretty specific instructions, as there often are
with commissions, though there were periods when Julius II left Michelangelo
unsupervised.
> Did the photographer of the MJ&B original tell him to
> change the color and gild it?
The gilding and the mostly white colour are traditional. We should assume
that choice is the sculptor's.
> Did the sculptor suggest the "Banality"
> title for the series, or to make it so much larger than life?
Those aspects would probably be down to Koons.
> At what point do you give a conceptualist any credit for his work?
It is usually not a question of giving the conceptualist credit for his work
(the conceptualist has already claimed it, after all), but of asking *how
much* credit is deserved?
Anyway, we weren't talking only about conceptualists, but about big-name
artists who take credit for work executed by others with little or no
participation from themselves - regardless of whether they consider
themselves to be conceptualists.
> Is it not to be called art, and the party ultimately responsible not
> an artist, just because you don't like it or the techniques used?
I didn't say anything about whether it was art or not.
> Who's the
> artist in the case of a portrait from a photo? The photographer, the
> painter, the photo developer?
The person who made the painting, to the extent that it is a work of art, is
the artist who made the painting. The person who took the photograph, to the
extent that the photograph is a work of art, is the artist who took the
photograph. The person who commissioned the painting from the photo is the
customer.
> Now, a Britney statue in
> the vein of Murakami's "My Lonesome Cowboy/Hiropon" duo - that would
> be something!
Oops, you're a conceptual artist! (Jeff Koons, look out - this guy's got
inspiration!)
> The inspiration is what counts for me...
>
> Note I didn't say inspiration was all that was important, just that I
> believe it's more important than skill. If you prefer skill over
> inspiration, that's OK.
Both look pretty scarce, when I visit galleries. Everyone acknowledges the
need for inspiration, but many reject outright the need for skill. This is
the wrong way around. Most people are fairly unimaginative, and nothing much
can be done about that. However, if they learned a bit of skill, they could
make things that were *nice*, instead of execreable. That would be an
improvement.
> We'll just like different works. More
> Warhols for me, more Kinkades for you.
Neither, thanks. (Though I do give Kinkade credit for pissing on the art
world from a great height!)
> >> The world is full of technically competent artists,
> >
> >No, the world is full of technically *incompetent* artists - luckily for
the
> >competent ones.
>
> It's full of both, of course; they're not mutually exclusive.
That's not what I see.
> If I pay someone to create something for me and it becomes famous and
> sells for a million bucks, can the executor step up and claim that he
> should get the money?
Depends on what kind of contract you had with the person who made the piece.
> Possibly you weren't around when Warhol first started; it wasn't
> particularly boring at the time; it was quite controversial.
No doubt. Kinkade is controversial, too.
> It would be hard to credit Kinkade with the same amount of
> influence (but you could try!).
We'll have to wait and see how many imitators Kinkade spawns over the next
decade or three.
> You seriously think that Warhol and Kinkade are similar in the
> exploitation of pop visual culture? Warhol transformed the original
> images into something new and different; the "painter of light"...
> well, he painted some soothing pastoral scenes.
They both transformed commonplace imagery into big business. The big
difference between them, apart from subject matter, is that Warhol presented
his stuff to the "art world" of New York, and Kinkade ignores that world.
> I don't see how Kinkade's exploitation is unprecedented, as it looks
> pretty mundane to me (but I'll admit I haven't studied it closely more
> than a few times, and I'm not much of a fan of traditional
> landscapes), but if you find his work groundbreaking, more power to
> you. He's quite a bit more affordable than Warhol; luckily for those
> who like him.
What is unprecedented about Kinkade is the way he has exploited the
technology of reproduction, and modern marketing methods.
Anastasia
> Anas...@ivebeenframed.com (Anastasia) wrote in message news:<fdaf1b0d.03061...@posting.google.com>...
> > eatn...@humboldt1.com (Mike Stengl) wrote in message news:<45dd5dd.03061...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > So you paint in the nude? Do you have any resemblence to Egon Schiele
> > by any chance?
>
> I don't believe so, he's pretty weasly.
Really? Most artists I know think him pretty damn handsome.
> > Male subjects happen to be one of my favourite
> > subjects, as women are yours.
>
> Prhaps we should show together, males/females, make everyone happy...
Well certainly that would make *us* happy. I love intimate little
showings minus the publicity people; I'm usually even my own DJ. :)
>
> > Perhaps women are a subject of intense fascination for you because you
> > like to dissect them on a canvas.
>
> When I am painting I am primarily appreciating the uniqueness of each
> figure. I am generally filled with respect, awe and thankfulness
> toward the model I am painting. No shit. I have to remind myself
> sometimes that as reference material I can do what I like with it.
> Recently, as mentioned in other threads I have been distorting the
> figures but only in what I find as a pleasant form, not Picasso's
> malice for which I'm not suited.
Picasso seemed to me to have a love/hate relationship with women;
under their control and controlling them at the same time. I think
it's interesting how the intent of an artist always shines through in
his work.
> > I paint men primarily because I like
> > expressing myself, my own personality though them.
>
> Perhaps in some absolutely heterosexual manner, I do the same...
>
>
> > I made some
> > autobiographical self-portraits which I have a hard time exhibiting
> > just because I feel it's too personal for public scrutiny. I really
> > have to trust someone before I can reveal myself completely. Of
> > course, trust is always earned. I'm rather picky about the people who
> > I allow to view my work.
>
> Understandable. My self portrait with the gerbils always sets the
> crowd to chattering.
LOL! I made a highly personal thesis project about thirteen years ago
when I had just graduated from college, and had promised this one girl
that I had been interested at the time that I would show it to her,
but for some reason, the thought of her witnessing my most intimate
confessions sent me into a panic. She was someone whom I had a lot in
common, but I was just getting to know her and I wasn't sure if I
wanted her to know so much about me *all at once*....Ah, the plague of
youth.
> >
> > > > Personally speaking, I get
> > > > extremely depressed or pessimistic when I see mediocre and lousy art.
> > > > It makes me want to crawl back into my shell and not create anything
> > > > ever again.
> > >
> > > You shouldn't let something so crummy have such a strong effect on
> > > your life. Maybe you should do push-ups or something. Feel better
> > > about yourself.
> >
> >
> > Oh, you got me there! I do have sort of a complex about being too thin
> > sometimes. At my worst, I think women must prefer those muscular men
> > (or something or another) who I always see at the gym. Everytime I
> > feel down about my appearance I think maybe I should go lift weights,
> > but nahhhhhh....I have enough activities to do in my day and I much
> > rather play my guitar than hang out with a bunch of steroid addicted
> > drones.
> >
> I like you just the way you are!
Thanks...the feeling is mutual, although I must say that I'm
constantly reinventing myself and trying to improve upon my skills &
knowledge. Sometimes though, I fall into a certain *mood* which
results into a drastic change in my hair colour. I suppose I like
trying out *roles* I really should've been an actor.
>
> > > Yes I enjoy great art but it can be depressing, case in point: WC
> > > Fields was a juggler, had perfected the juggling of 8 balls at one
> > > time, a feat for a juggler. Was on tour in europe when at a particular
> > > show he followed a previous juggler, a midget who juggled 14 balls at
> > > once while standing on the back of a trotting horse.
> >
> >
> > There you go again. "He's better than I am because he has accomplished
> > more." But according to your example, would you really want to be a
> > midget? Let's say the midget made more money, could juggle more balls
> > than you could, etc etc, would you still want to be a midget??? 15
> > minutes of fame might bring you easy money, but let's face it, there's
> > more to life than that.
> >
> It's not a jealosy thing, it's a reality check. I love art. Art turns
> me on. But when you see someone with more natural talent than you it's
> just a little sobering sometimes.
Natural talent always turn me on. As for those self-critical voices, I
think that's why having a repetoire with other artist friends are so
important. Your friends are the ones who understand and inspire you to
work, even when you get horrible reviews by the press.
Regards,
Hadley