Rockwell as Fine Art?
mdeli
over time, a long time. This does not mean that what is or isn't liked
today will be preserved as art.
As time passes works of art are collected and cared for and what is
considered great art makes up the finest collections. I think that as
we look further back in time few would argue about what is considered
a classic masterpiece. They may disagree about ranking, like I prefer
Holbein to Rembrandt etc. but their rank as art is well assured.
Now I don’t particularly like Corot and I think in the long run
Rockwell will be seen as a better artist than Degas. But I consider
them all artists. However I don’t consider someone like Pollock,
Twombly, Mondrian or Rothko artists in the same sense.
Why? Because there skill doesn’t exceed that of an average towel
designer and I’ve seen better wallpaper.
But there is more to this opinion. I have classic art in mind.
I can’t define what art is but one can determine some of the
Characteristics which are constant in all the art of the past like:
-master draftsmanship and technique
-it conveys a feeling to the viewer that he is seeing something
unique.
- it attracts the viewers for long time.
The so called art which is considered great (Modern Academic Art)
which inhabits our museums today, for the most part lacks all these
characteristics except perhaps for the last. But I believe that even
where this last characteristic is apparent while the others are absent
it does so because of fashion and when fashion changes these works
will even fail to attract the viewer.
That is why I believe that Modern academic art will eventually be
reassessed and other work will in future replace it on museum and
collectors walls.
...no skill no art
Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
RBrac53660
both into self promotion. Number two your both into repeatition although
Warhol is more interesting.
www.geocities.com/winston53660/wbphotog.html
Ulrich Osterloh
that all art has something to do with 'Draughtsmanship'. Yes, some great
paintings are figurative, some even realistic, but to force this 'standard'
onto all art is like forcing onto music the standard: 'The sounds in your
music should sound recognizably like the sounds in the physical world'. Das
ist doch Quatsch !
Art is Abstraction, it's communication, it's moving us and inspiring us in
many ways.
I also don't like the way Mani constantly derides Rothko. There are some
very deep emotions clearly recognizable in his work, and many of his works
have incredible Presence which is all that matters in art. It's actually
very hard to arrive at such a language and to be able to truly communicate
this way. If one looks at Rothkos artistic history, one can actually see the
progression towards that language.
Pollock aslo has some good pieces, they do say something, things that can
only be said this way. I really don't understand why Mani has such a problem
with these artists. there is no 'right' or 'wrong'. It's a fact that many
people actually love Rothko and Pollock, some people even love Conceptual
art. I think as an artist you create for a certain audience, and we have to
accept that. If it's in your work to appeal to 'the masses' then this will
happen eventually. I fonly a few people love your stuff, that's cool too.
One can't change the much-hated modern scene by constantly proclaiming it's
'stupidity' etc. People aren't the 'idiots' one thinks they are. Maybe there
is stupidity, but there are also people who are genuinely behind the art out
there. I think some people happen to love the Emperors New Clothes (i.e. the
'nothing') in art, and one shouldn't worry too much why they do and how to
change them. Just get on with your work, and the right echo will come
eventually. No truly great artist has ever gone unrecognized. Just give
yourself, and the world, a break.
Ulrich Osterloh
RBrac53660
>Some of Mani's points are good, but what I don't understand is this idea
>that all art has something to do with 'Draughtsmanship'. Yes,
cudìc'
<Ulr...@uosterloh.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
I can agree with many of your points, but this one seems
me exceedingly naive:
> No truly great artist has ever gone unrecognized.
It remembers me a common citation:
==============================================
As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error.
==============================================.
[Weisert]
Tracy Miller
<Ulr...@uosterloh.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Some of Mani's points are good, but what I don't understand is this idea
>that all art has something to do with 'Draughtsmanship'. Yes, some great
>paintings are figurative, some even realistic, but to force this 'standard'
>onto all art is like forcing onto music the standard: 'The sounds in your
>music should sound recognizably like the sounds in the physical world'. Das
>ist doch Quatsch !
>Art is Abstraction, it's communication, it's moving us and inspiring us in
>many ways.
>
>I also don't like the way Mani constantly derides Rothko. There are some
>very deep emotions clearly recognizable in his work, and many of his works
>have incredible Presence which is all that matters in art. It's actually
>very hard to arrive at such a language and to be able to truly communicate
>this way. If one looks at Rothkos artistic history, one can actually see the
>progression towards that language.
Very interesting thoughts, Ulrich. Thanks for posting this. Putting
that Prescence in your Art is probably one of the most ephemeral
things, no?
>
>Pollock aslo has some good pieces, they do say something, things that can
>only be said this way. I really don't understand why Mani has such a problem
>with these artists. there is no 'right' or 'wrong'. It's a fact that many
>people actually love Rothko and Pollock, some people even love Conceptual
>art. I think as an artist you create for a certain audience, and we have to
>accept that. If it's in your work to appeal to 'the masses' then this will
>happen eventually. I fonly a few people love your stuff, that's cool too.
>One can't change the much-hated modern scene by constantly proclaiming it's
>'stupidity' etc. People aren't the 'idiots' one thinks they are. Maybe there
>is stupidity, but there are also people who are genuinely behind the art out
>there. I think some people happen to love the Emperors New Clothes (i.e. the
>'nothing') in art, and one shouldn't worry too much why they do and how to
>change them. Just get on with your work, and the right echo will come
>eventually. No truly great artist has ever gone unrecognized. Just give
>yourself, and the world, a break.
One could only hope.
Tracy
Ricardo Pontes
produced great works of art that can express something. I would never
consider anyone an artist if they did not know how to draw very
proficiently. In much the same way a musician learns the scales to play
music, there has to be a foundation. Usually in a foreign languange class
you are taught the verbs before you can start putting sentences together,
that is the same basis for creating art. Modernists usually have a hippie
attitude towards art, as if everything done is art. It seems to me that
people have fallen in love with the character of "artists" like pollock
dispite his awful "art", they have been suckered in on the descriptions of
the images and the philosophical artsy babble that is spewed by critics and
students alike. The emotions you feel when looking at pollock, rothko or any
other clown are the emotions that have been written and spoken about their
"art". they are symbols. I went to the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fien
Arts, and you could tell the people who were really into art and the people
who were there because their parents paid for themt o be there. Modern art
seems to me the stuff that does not require any skills at all to produce,
and if someone is an ordinary person with obsolutely no talent for anything
they can perhaps take up modern art and photography as a hobby. That way
they can think of their life as not being a wasted.
I like to think as pollock and other clowns like him as Con Artists.
I was watching an episode of Columbo with Peter Falk, in which he went to a
modern art gallery. He was puzzled by all of the garbage there. The dealer
was explaining all of this artzy stuff to him, he didnt get it, he went
around the room pointing to works and the dealer explained, he finanlly
pointed to the ventilator that was in the room only to find out that it
wasnt art. But it just looked like any other garbage in that room. It looked
more appealing to him than the other crap in the gallery thou.
RIcardo Pontes
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/free_video/
"Ulrich Osterloh" <Ulr...@uosterloh.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9alnnu$e7e$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
mdeli
>Some of Mani's points are good, but what I don't understand is this idea
>that all art has something to do with 'Draughtsmanship'. Yes, some great
>paintings are figurative, some even realistic, but to force this 'standard'
>onto all art is like forcing onto music the standard: '
You are confusing drawing with what one chooses to draw (subject
matter). Drawing expresses three dimensions whatever the subject
matter. Abstraction is the quality of the pattern. There is a large
difference between drawing and dirty paper.
>I also don't like the way Mani constantly derides Rothko. There are some
>very deep emotions clearly recognizable in his work, and many of his works
>have incredible Presence which is all that matters in art.
Name three "emotions" that you find all should see as "clearly
recognizable." and tell us how this differs from similar designs on
bed sheets.
> It's actually
>very hard to arrive at such a language and to be able to truly communicate
>this way.
What "language" is that?
> If one looks at Rothkos artistic history, one can actually see the
>progression towards that language.
See?
>Pollock aslo has some good pieces, they do say something, things that can
>only be said this way. I really don't understand why Mani has such a problem
>with these artists.\
I have no problem whatever. I've seen their work ad-nauseum. Without
their coveted signature their work would rank as student garbage.
> there is no 'right' or 'wrong'. It's a fact that many
>people actually love Rothko and Pollock, some people even love Conceptual
>art.
...and some people love Norman Rockwell and Dali. Its also a fact that
some people are taken in by charlatans.
>One can't change the much-hated modern scene by constantly proclaiming it's
>'stupidity' etc.
Agreed. However I predict that when fashions change people will see
the stupidity for what it is.
William Engell
Let's say that someone working at the arts, toward being a painter,
understands and has capacity to manipulate color, contrast, composition,
etc.. Let's say that person has a lot of the capabilities usually found in
a fine artist. Except one: this person can't draw a likeness. So as a
result they project a few images and trace them out on canvas. Could be
anything: old chairs, old automobiles, a nude woman from the rear, a handful
of phallic symbols (among the few things which do not, in fact, resemble
anything in particular that might have been used to create a likeness), a
pale translucent image of Nefertiti, anything at all, tossed together in
some reasonably original manner to create a composition to which, then, is
added color and texture. Relationships are established; the thing is
tweaked, punched up, finished. You have a picture.
So, this person takes the picture to a gallery that sells art (according
to its business plan, at least). The gallery shows the work and someone
decides to buy it. Unless they've watched the painter work, or unless the
painter has told them his method, they don't really notice that the painter
can't draw. But, the piece is interesting. They find it evocative.
They believe it's art. Are they wrong?
Someone else comes in and says, look at Nefertit! You can see right
through her. And the eye's not right. And what are these things (pointing
to the phallic symbols)? They don't resemble anything! What in in blazes
was this guy trying to draw? This isn't art, the guy can't draw! Oh, sure
the colors are interesting, and the composition is sound, but the guy can't
draw! This critic also assumes that the drawing was done without
projection.
Assuming the drawing was done without projection, which he did, is this
guy correct?
Another person comes into the gallery and stands before the painting,
shaking her head. When the gallery owner asks, she says, this doesn't make
any sense at all. It's nonsense. I don't know how this thing is supposed
to communicate to people when it's a weird jumble of irrelevant stuff thrown
together in a way that doesn't mean anything to anybody living in the real
world. Lookit (pointing)! Nefertiti here is bigger than that old car! And
there's these rock textures on this thing up here floating in space of
looking like it's sitting on the translucent head of the gigantic Nefertiti!
And where in the world did these giant horn things come from? And this edge
of the desert here, it kinda rolls up and there's a purple place and this
little black and white woman is down there with what might be a squash on
her head. What's with that? I've heard of black and white people before,
but nothing like this except in old photographs! Hey, there's nothing wrong
with that nude over there, except it's in here with all this other
unrealistic refuse. Oh, maybe those cars, I kinda like them. So the guy
can draw. He's just not sane. There's nowhere in the world that looks like
that except the inside of an insane persons nightmare! This absolutely is
not art!
Is she correct?
On the way in to work that morning, the gallery owner, taking the back
way into the city, passed a dead cat lying in the middle of the road. He
liked cats, and always felt bad when he saw one killed on the road. He
mentioned it to his secretary. She said that she hated seeing cats on the
road, that cats should be kept indoors. That evening, on his way back home,
the gallery owner pulled off the road and stopped the car. He'd decided to
move the poor thing off the road. He waiting until there were no cars
coming and walked to the middle of the road where, standing over the little
body, he realized that it wasn't a cat at all. It was a monkey.
The next day he told his secretary, but she knew he'd made that up.
mdeli
excerpt from a junk yard is art, wrote:
>Likeness? use a camera, take a photo, glue the photo on the painting,
>paint over it. 19th century artists did this alot.
I suppose Marion believes that when Bouguereau painted carefully
composed life sized figures in a complex landscape he just did it on
glued photos. I advise Marilyn to hang up her panties take a photo
them and try painting over it. I also suggest she show us how far she
gets.
No photo will help getting the technique and poses in Bouguereau. I
doubt that Marilyn has ever seen any 19th century art besides perhaps
Manet and Degas etc. (both used photos but not the way Marilyn said).
I even doubt that Marilyn knows anything much about photography and
how Picasso used them.
>
>Mani, if you are reading this no need to respond, I'll just post your
>mantra here right now:
>
>"What is primarily lacking is the ability to create the illusion of the
>third dimension because students don't learn anything much about
>drawing." M.D.
I suspect you are a perfect example.
mdeli
>
> Let's say that someone working at the arts, toward being a painter,
>understands and has capacity to manipulate color, contrast, composition,
>etc.. Let's say that person has a lot of the capabilities usually found in
>a fine artist. Except one: this person can't draw a likeness. So as a
>result they project a few images and trace them out on canvas.
...like Picasso!
> Could be
>anything: old chairs, old automobiles, a nude woman from the rear, a handful
>of phallic symbols (among the few things which do not, in fact, resemble
>anything in particular that might have been used to create a likeness), a
>pale translucent image of Nefertiti, anything at all, tossed together in
>some reasonably original manner to create a composition to which, then, is
>added color and texture. Relationships are established; the thing is
>tweaked, punched up, finished. You have a picture.
It depends what people think of what,s on the wall doesn't it.
> So, this person takes the picture to a gallery that sells art (according
>to its business plan, at least). The gallery shows the work and someone
>decides to buy it. Unless they've watched the painter work, or unless the
>painter has told them his method, they don't really notice that the painter
>can't draw. But, the piece is interesting. They find it evocative.
> They believe it's art. Are they wrong?
What's on the wall is what counts not how it was done. If you think
just painting over a photo will get you a fortune, do it, I suspect
you'll be disappointed. The average patzer here hasn't even skill
enough to copy a part of a photograph.
> So the guy
>can draw. He's just not sane. There's nowhere in the world that looks like
>that except the inside of an insane persons nightmare! This absolutely is
>not art!
> Is she correct?
Bosch anyone? Dali?
> On the way in to work that morning, the gallery owner, taking the back
>way into the city, passed a dead cat lying in the middle of the road. He
>liked cats, and always felt bad when he saw one killed on the road. He
>mentioned it to his secretary. She said that she hated seeing cats on the
>road, that cats should be kept indoors. That evening, on his way back home,
>the gallery owner pulled off the road and stopped the car. He'd decided to
>move the poor thing off the road. He waiting until there were no cars
>coming and walked to the middle of the road where, standing over the little
>body, he realized that it wasn't a cat at all. It was a monkey.
> The next day he told his secretary, but she knew he'd made that up.
>
All the gallery owner gives a damn about is whether he can sell it.
Now paint over your favorite photo and try to sell it.
William Engell
The thing about the cat on the road was really meant to illustrate the
complexity of presumptions.
Actually, I quite give up on this whole thing. Mani's responses are
limited to a set of formulaic cliches trotted out to respond to absolutely
any proposition, but are only ocassionally and coincidentally, pertinent.
He seems to feel very strongly that the world is small enough that his idea
set should pretty well define it. In another century he might have been a
flat-earth geographer.
It seems this group has no other function than to serve as a podium for
the ultra-reactionary element in the art world.
Just before I unsub, I thought I'd tell you that the images in that post
were all derived by a quick reading (can I say that?) of one of Mani's
paintings. To be fair, I did not mean to suggest that he can't draw
freehand. Actually, I have no idea how his works are cobbled together.
To better discussions....
we
RBrac53660
>just painting over a photo will get you a fortune, do it, I suspect
>you'll be disappointed. The average patzer here hasn't even skill
>enough to copy a part of a photograph.
I feel pity for you Mani and the small world you live in. Some people can
enjoy both Picaso and DaVinci. And some people consider photography an art
form just as valid as drawing. May you some day wake up and learn to live with
others and enjoy there differences. But that will most likely never happen so
I'll just have to call you a asshole.
mdeli
>Two words for you Mani
>begins with an 'f' and ends with an 'f'
>
This is the sort of answer one can expect from a twit who believes
modern academic art mythology and never questions anything she has
been told. Art schools are full of similar twits, students and
teachers spreading the line of five generations of baloney which
guarantees ignorance and failure.
Imagine how stupid and gullible one has to be to believe what Marilyn
believes. For years now Marilyn has claimed that she "understood"
artists like Rothko etc. Of course when asked no answer other than the
usual excuse like, "you'll never understand," was forth coming.
Any student here should ask himself how many twits like Marilyn are my
instructors?
mdeli
>>What's on the wall is what counts not how it was done. If you think
>>just painting over a photo will get you a fortune, do it, I suspect
>>you'll be disappointed. The average patzer here hasn't even skill
>>enough to copy a part of a photograph.
>
>I feel pity for you Mani and the small world you live in.
What part of the day does this disturbing feeling overcome you?
> Some people can
>enjoy both Picaso and DaVinci.
I have always enjoyed both, Picasso for his utter stupidity and
Leonardo for his universal brilliance.
> And some people consider photography an art
>form just as valid as drawing. May you some day wake up and learn to live with
>others and enjoy there differences. But that will most likely never happen so
>I'll just have to call you a asshole.
>
Hope that makes you feel better and somewhat relieves the pressure on
your cerebral Hemorrhoids. Perhaps you'll even pray for me.
Andrew D
<Ulr...@uosterloh.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
+Some of Mani's points are good, but what I don't understand is this idea
+that all art has something to do with 'Draughtsmanship'. Yes, some great
+paintings are figurative, some even realistic, but to force this 'standard'
+onto all art is like forcing onto music the standard: [snip]
But what Mani opposes (I believe) is the current academic view that good
draughtsmanship is apparently not required at all. This is just as
one-eyed as any requirement of good draughtsmanship.
+Art is Abstraction, it's communication, it's moving us and inspiring us in
+many ways.
+I also don't like the way Mani constantly derides Rothko. There are some
+very deep emotions clearly recognizable in his work, and many of his works
+have incredible Presence which is all that matters in art.
Define "presence".
[snip]
+Pollock aslo has some good pieces, they do say something, things that can
+only be said this way. I really don't understand why Mani has such a problem
+with these artists. there is no 'right' or 'wrong'.
That's the problem. Traditional "realist" art is derided in Modern Art
Schools (and ignored by museums). They are teaching right and wrong - with
draughtsmanship apparently being wrong. Mani is perhaps at the pinnacle of
opposition to this elitism. Like all movements or lobbies, there always
has to be an extreme because without the extremes, the moderates would be
perceived as the radicals.
When modern museums start hanging contemporary, realist/representational
works to the extent they hang unfathomable abstracts, opposition to
"modern art" will fade. While a significant imbalance remains, so too will
the opposition.
Andy.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
RBrac53660
>draughtsmanship is apparently not required at all.
This is abolute BS. In any of the better art schools a student must first take
at least one year of drawing no matter there major. And if your going into
illustration a lot more drawing . A illustrater friend of mine took anatomical
drawing learning the way the Masters learned. That is by disecting a cadaver.
What mani is is a little man w/ a Napoleonic complex and know little of
Modern Academic Art, since by his own admission he was kicked out of a Bau Haus
Monastary.
Fanny Whyde
says...
>This is abolute BS. In any of the better art schools a student must first take
>at least one year of drawing no matter there major.
In fact, I'd like for someone to name those
schools (College and University level) that
DO NOT require fundamental courses in order
to advance to the degree level. I guarantee
the list will be a very short one!
I'm talking about REQUIRED prerequisite courses
such as: Life Drawing I-II, Design I-II, Painting I-II, etc.
mdeli
>>But what Mani opposes (I believe) is the current academic view that good
>>draughtsmanship is apparently not required at all.
>
>This is abolute BS. In any of the better art schools a student must first take
>at least one year of drawing no matter there major. And if your going into
>illustration a lot more drawing .
You can take drawing courses until you are blue in the face. If you
think that the dirty paper produced by most students is drawing, may
the farce be with you. Having seen the results of many schools I can
only conclude that drawing wasn't taught in spite of the name of the
course.
> A illustrater friend of mine took anatomical
>drawing learning the way the Masters learned. That is by disecting a cadaver.
Every doctor worked on a cadaver few can draw.
>What mani is is a little man w/ a Napoleonic complex and know little of
>Modern Academic Art, since by his own admission he was kicked out of a Bau Haus
>Monastary.
>
Are you still attending one?
RBrac53660
RBrac53660
and more before I could learn more. So stuff a sock in your crap and stop
prostilizing about the shit that you think is the end all to be. Unless you
want to be the one that ends all.
Heavy huh
mdeli
>**** off.
&
the talented (RBrac53660) wrote:
> So stuff a sock in your crap and stop
>prostilizing about the shit that you think is the end all to be. Unless you
>want to be the one that ends all.
>Heavy huh
&
>You are so full of shit mr. mani.
>
>www.geocities.com/winston53660/wbphotog.html
This web sit shows as much talent as possessed by an average toilet
attendant. Check it out.
RBrac53660
little talent of what you speak so much about.
Get off your friggen high horse or soap box and join the rest of us in the real
world. Ohh by the way you should learn to draw from masters like most modern
academic artists have done before you.
Then you can promote yourself as a godsend to art. Otherwise you are just a
bad folk artist that thinks they know what there doing.
And people should fight your self worship at any chance they get.
*PLONK*
Ricardo Pontes
Can you provide some pictures of the drawings your friend made. They sound
neat. I hate to tell you that 1 year in drawing is simply not enough. You
see artists were trained from an early age, perhaps the average started at
12, by 15 years old many entered academies etc.. Today with the bad drawing
teachers out there teaching drawing it does not matter if you enter it at 5
years old or 90 years old. You are screwed an education. You see, its hard
to put together the right stuff when you are sorrounded by crap.
If you think one year old drawing is enough, then you are mistaken. As an
artist, you must draw all the time, before you graduate, during school,
after you graduate. Another thing about art schools, is that they have so
many teachers teaching so many different techniques that it just confuses
the students. One teacher tells you that you must have 10 colors in your
pallette, the other 6. One uses a different medium, another likes flat
brushes. Another is an impressionists, another likes sight size. Etc.. Its
better to stick to a great artist if you can find one. If you are over 20
years old, do not bother to learn art, you cannot teach an old dog new
tricks my friend. If you really suck at drawing then you can take up
photography or modern art (kidding) :)
By the way Winston, where was this school in which they disected a cadaver?
I disected one at the university of penn, but it was not an art class.
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/free_video/
"RBrac53660" <rbrac...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010410015033...@ng-xa1.aol.com...
Winston, mani is just having a bit of fun. The only one that seem to have a
napoleonic complex is you buddy. Chill out
Ricardo Pontes
Ricardo Pontes
I dont think anyone is saying that there are no prerequisites. What I am
saying is that those teachers teaching drawing, painting, design suck. You
cannot learn from a teacher who cannot do it himself. I have asked teachers
to help me by drawing during class, and they cannot! Most teachers keep
quite, or they try to do many gesture drawings in which they move allot and
act kinda crazy, that gets the class kinda hyper and makes the teacher seem
like he knows what he is doing. In reality he is a joke :)
No real artist would care for a degree anyway, a fine arts degree is a joke.
Get a graphic design degree, it means more. And is more related to abstract
art than anything, but at least you can learn to make pleasing astheticly
pleasing images.
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/free_video/
"Fanny Whyde" <fa...@noemailever.com> wrote in message
news:3ad30...@oracle.zianet.com...
Xena
Ricardo Pontes wrote:
> Fanny,
>
> I dont think anyone is saying that there are no prerequisites. What I am
> saying is that those teachers teaching drawing, painting, design suck. You
> cannot learn from a teacher who cannot do it himself. I have asked teachers
> to help me by drawing during class, and they cannot! Most teachers keep
> quite, or they try to do many gesture drawings in which they move allot and
> act kinda crazy, that gets the class kinda hyper and makes the teacher seem
> like he knows what he is doing. In reality he is a joke :)
Why is he a joke? Too bad *you* are the only one who *gets* it. Everyone is
unenlightened but you, of course.
>
>
> No real artist would care for a degree anyway, a fine arts degree is a joke.
Based on what reasoning?
I can't go on! This is even more moronic than making farting noises with my hand
under my armpit.
What an amazing idiot you are
I bet you have no lips
mdeli
to judge artwork through the Modern Art Theologian's filter of
artificially evangelized art history. Until this changes, some people
will continue to judge artwork by what they are told to imagine,
rather than what they really see in front of them. However, I am sure
that some day a rebel critic who is deemed important will want to step
outside of the mold and beckon people as I have to take a close look
and compare. He will probably suggest in many more words than I have,
that people simply ask themselves, is this artwork deemed a
masterpiece, really any better than very under-average?
Cézanne was indeed a progressive, the chosen founding father of one of
the two major directions of Modern Academic Art, namely
NO-SKILL-REALISM. Before Cézanne's critical rise to fame all his work
would have simply been laughed at. But in the time since Cézanne had
been proclaimed a modern master, really good drawing, new ideas, good
composition and technical excellence has slowly slipped away from much
of anything that hangs in the modern sections of museums.
Fanny Whyde
>I have asked teachers
>to help me by drawing during class, and they cannot!
Where in the world did you go to school anyway?
Please tell us the name of the school and where
it is located? I think you should tell everyone
here so that anyone thinking of attending that
school might be alerted.
When you paint all teachers, or
anyone else for that matter, with the
same broad brush you only display your own lack
of education, worldliness, experience, etc.
Why don't you do some traveling, visit all the
major art museums around the world, and then
come back here and dispense your words of
wisdom to us. Maybe then you'll have learned
something - I for one won't be holding
my breath waiting.
RBrac53660
a freelance illustrater. I have one of his old t shirts that he sold before he
got out of Pratt Institute. But I have not been in touch w/ him in a while.
>If you think one year old drawing is enough, then you are mistaken. As an
>artist, you must draw all the time, before you graduate, during school,
>after you graduate.
I my self was a photo major but we still had to do the drawing thing for a
year. It was figure drawing and yes the models were nude. I do not draw I
take pictures. Because my father was a animator and I did not want to sit over
a light table flipping animation cells all day long.
>Another thing about art schools, is that they have so
>many teachers teaching so many different techniques that it just confuses
>the students. One teacher tells you that you must have 10 colors in your
>pallette, the other 6. One uses a different medium, another likes flat
>brushes. Another is an impressionists, another likes sight size. Etc.. Its
And all this difference helps a student down there path. It is not a cut and
dry system and learning different approaches from diff people is a good idea at
any stage of life wether you want to be a pro artist or not. However By the
third year of your education a since of direction is established then you
graduate and get to work for peanuts for other artist.
> If you really suck at drawing then you can take up
>photography or modern art
Or be a Sunday Artist ;-)
www.geocities.com/winston53660/wbphotog.html
Ricardo Pontes
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/free_video/
"RBrac53660" <rbrac...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010411040213...@ng-xa1.aol.com...
> Mani you are still full of crap Since your website of your own work shows
> little talent of what you speak so much about.
> Get off your friggen high horse or soap box and join the rest of us in the
real
> world. Ohh by the way you should learn to draw from masters like most
modern
> academic artists have done before you.
Winston, upload some of your great master drawings on your web site. Id like
to see them so i can weep. When are you going to finish your web site?
Ricardo Pontes
Ricardo Pontes
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/free_video/
"Xena" <nom...@never.com> wrote in message
news:3AD5E6D0...@never.com...
> Another loser who flunked out of art school...
>
> Ricardo Pontes wrote:
>
> > Fanny,
> >
> > I dont think anyone is saying that there are no prerequisites. What I am
> > saying is that those teachers teaching drawing, painting, design suck.
You
> > cannot learn from a teacher who cannot do it himself. I have asked
teachers
> > to help me by drawing during class, and they cannot! Most teachers keep
> > quite, or they try to do many gesture drawings in which they move allot
and
> > act kinda crazy, that gets the class kinda hyper and makes the teacher
seem
> > like he knows what he is doing. In reality he is a joke :)
>
> Why is he a joke? Too bad *you* are the only one who *gets* it. Everyone
is
> unenlightened but you, of course.
>
Im hardly the only one. If you read some of my other posts you will see that
i believe that the general public does know what art is. They are just being
belittled by idiots like you into keeping quiet and alienated from art
galleries or else they will sound stupid to the so called elite. An artist
is a man/woman of the people. If you think you are above it then you are no
artist.
> >
> >
> > No real artist would care for a degree anyway, a fine arts degree is a
joke.
>
> Based on what reasoning?
Have you looked at your "art" lately????
>
> I can't go on! This is even more moronic than making farting noises with
my hand
> under my armpit.
>
> What an amazing idiot you are
> I bet you have no lips
>
Maybe that is why i flunked out of art school. I have no lips to bullsh*t
the public into making them believe i have talent.
Ricardo Pontes
Ricardo Pontes
> >to help me by drawing during class, and they cannot!
>
> Where in the world did you go to school anyway?
> Please tell us the name of the school and where
> it is located? I think you should tell everyone
> here so that anyone thinking of attending that
> school might be alerted.
>
> When you paint all teachers, or
> anyone else for that matter, with the
> same broad brush you only display your own lack
> of education, worldliness, experience, etc.
>
Fanny, i dont quite understand what you mean above. When i paint all
teachers?? Painting portrait of teachers?
> Why don't you do some traveling, visit all the
> major art museums around the world, and then
> come back here and dispense your words of
> wisdom to us. Maybe then you'll have learned
> something - I for one won't be holding
> my breath waiting.
>
>
Fanny, perhaps you have a bit more money than me. I would like to travel and
visit all the major art museums around the world but I cannot. Perhaps one
day I will. What leads you to this conclusion anyway? That I somehow have
not seen what art has to offer? I have been to the Louvre, Tate, Uffuzi,
National Gallery DC, Walters, MOMA... Those are perhaps the largest I have
visited. But apparently because I have these opinions you believe that you
are above me, you believe that your opinion is greater than mine. I am
suggesting that perhaps your education is lacking. Perhaps not in language,
you seem to have learned enough artsy talk, but your lack of art education.
Where you have been fanny does not matter to me, to me what matters is what
you make out of art. Degrees, certificates, diplomas do not mean anything to
me, you show me a great work and I will perhaps see you with clarity. But im
definatly not going to hold my breath for that
Ricardo Pontes
paolo beneforti
mdeli scripsit
However, I am sure
>that some day a rebel critic who is deemed important will want to step
>outside of the mold and beckon people as I have to take a close look
>and compare.
Why should them listen to him?
He will probably suggest in many more words than I have,
>that people simply ask themselves, is this artwork deemed a
>masterpiece, really any better than very under-average?
I can hear their yawns already
>Cézanne was indeed a progressive,
He had a good father's inheritance
RBrac53660
drawings? I'm certian your farts do not stink.
I do not draw. I work with cameras, slides, projections and manufactured
materials. You are just trying to bait people into a crap ass argument.
mdeli
much color to his schmiers. He now scrawls Twombly scratches on top of
his large white schmiered canvas in hopes that the paupers who can't
afford the work of a genuine successful high priced charlatan might
fall for a much smaller sized loss leader. Dan's problem is that he
never took a good look at the fine modern abstraction one can see at a
better MacDonald's. It probably wouldn't help much as Dan has no
originality and probably never had an idea in his life. Check out his
web site at http://www.danfoxart.com and tell us about it.
Fox is a hack fashion conformist who still has to exhibit in out of
town boon dock galleries because he apparently never got a chance to
AK the proper New York hotshots. The quality of his schmiering
reminds me of a long forgotten artist whose story below has close
similarities.
From my book,
"Many quirks lie behind success and the lack of success in MAA. An
opening of an exhibition of paintings by an artist named Vera is a
good example. She could certainly draw better then Pollock but lacked
his skill and experience in promotion, socializing and other matters.
She just was not old enough to have been in the right place at the
right time. Her work did show more than usual promise and certainly
was not inferior to what was being shown at that time in "better"
uptown galleries, and Vera had more than a few well-positioned
friends. But she was not a handsome woman and among other things, by
an awful coincidence, her name rhymed with schmierer and worse
everyone knew it; not good for getting on in the chi-chi world of MAA
Her paintings conformed to any laws proscribed by the holy critics. It
could be classified as no-skill realism peering through an abstract
expressionist scaffolding. All were of a proper immensity and
unframed. Each contained just the right dose of contrived sloppiness
for an immediate critical affidavit of impeccable sincerity. All could
be said to exude abrasive emotion and experimental exuberance. They
were executed in a purist schmier technique with bold touches of
cutting impastos jutting well beyond the surface of the canvas or, as
they used to say in artsy surroundings, they passed the Buffet
"dangerous surface test." They were bound to draw blood if one
carelessly rubbed a bare arm across one of them.
The colors were predominately whitish impastos with a few bold bravely
placed snatches of primary colors on dusty puce dominated,
chop-suey-like backgrounds. Quite a bit of subject matter could be
made out in this murk, which might have been considered a mistake for
such a youthful artist. Fuzzy images of grossly overweight, nude
ladies inhabited most of these works. These images easily perceived by
anyone willing to make the effort of squinting, as the gallery was too
small for a spectator to stand very far back.
Some of the works had suggestions of extra sets of huge eyes, and one
striking canvas was dominated by a rotund, very Picassoid
bloody-looking foot cut at the ankle; the inside of which seemed
filled with organic chroma which was running down its side. It had an
effective addition in the guise of a particularly dangerously looking
impasted big toe. There was something entirely peculiar and
artistically counter-intuitive about this show. It was so utterly
forgettable that to this day it sticks tenaciously in my mind.
Her paintings sold poorly if at all, caused no critical ripples and
were all well forgotten long before the official closing. When it was
over, the paintings returned to wherever Vera stored her large
permanent collection of Vera paintings.
Vera could, but for a few quirks, have made it to the stables of the
better galleries. Her name could easily substitute for the multitudes
of more successful non-entity Modern Artists who have inhabited the
MAA magazines of the last thirty years. Success in MAA greatly depends
on the peculiarities of probabilities."
Guerdis
> Can you provide some pictures of the drawings your friend made. They sound
> neat. I hate to tell you that 1 year in drawing is simply not enough. You
> see artists were trained from an early age, perhaps the average started at
> 12, by 15 years old many entered academies etc..
Many entered academies...The predecessors of today's art schools and
colleges. Interesting. I suppose those academians were not inept like
today's? Education formerly produced great masters, yet sadly now, it
produces hacks and casts out retentive anachronisms (bitter feebs) like Mani
DeLi and other like-minded (and like-untalented) runts?
Another interesting item...I've been drawing and painting since I was able
to hold a Crayola in my fist (around 3 years of age). These age-of-old
greats only started drawing at age 12? What underachievers these idols of
yours were! Of course, since I went to college in the 1980's/90's, I guess
I've totally ruined all that hands-on experience, since I obviously can't
think or work of my own free will, but only via the lackluster and evil
Modern Art brainwashing my heretical professors wrought upon me.
> Today with the bad drawing
> teachers out there teaching drawing it does not matter if you enter it at
5
> years old or 90 years old. You are screwed an education.
I'm interested to learn why you stayed in a school with such terrible
teachers. You and Mani DeLi must have gone to the same place. Of course, he
was martyred to the Lost Cause when he was kicked out by the Philistines
into the cold cruel art world sans degree. (Of course, I personally believe
his Hitlerian disdain for art education is due to his utter failure to
produce anything of significance or artistic worth. He therefore seeks to
twist back the clock until work as weak as his seems progressive.)
I'd hate to think you have a similar tale of mock woe. Your work DOES
support your claims, right?
> You see, its hard
> to put together the right stuff when you are sorrounded by crap.
Not if you have the right stuff to begin with.
One doesn't go to art school to learn to draw, sir. Didn't you know that?
If you don't know how to draw, you have no business in a collegiate art
program.
The most predominant problem with art education is the low entrance
standards allowed by the institutions which they must tolerate in order to
admit enough students to stay financially afloat. Even the greatest
professor on Earth can't bestow talent where it was not before.
> If you think one year old drawing is enough, then you are mistaken. As an
> artist, you must draw all the time, before you graduate, during school,
> after you graduate.
You don't say.
> Another thing about art schools, is that they have so
> many teachers teaching so many different techniques that it just confuses
> the students.
Only the completely stupid and useless ones. Do you suggest that it's better
to learn only ONE way of doing things the entire time you're in school?
> One teacher tells you that you must have 10 colors in your
> pallette, the other 6. One uses a different medium, another likes flat
> brushes. Another is an impressionists, another likes sight size. Etc..
Oh my LORD! How can anyone cope with THAT? I mean, first I'm using a pencil,
then, a brush, then a camera, then a computer...I mean, if you're not
careful you might screw up and expose yourself to everything that exists!
Then, you might be able to work in ANY MEDIUM! I see your point now. Art
school is terrible.
> Its better to stick to a great artist if you can find one.
You've just contradicted yourself.
I'll let you figure out how.
> If you are over 20
> years old, do not bother to learn art, you cannot teach an old dog new
> tricks my friend.
21 isn't quite 'old dog' territory. Talent exists in the individual from
birth to death. If unused or undiscovered, it doesn't vanish, it merely lies
dormant.
> If you really suck at drawing then you can take up
> photography or modern art (kidding) :)
If you suck at drawing, you'll suck at everything else, too. Drawing
(Visualization, Composition) is the foundation skill for all visual art.
Anyone who scoffs at formal education lives in darkness.
Like most anything, one gets out of it what one puts into it.
Art school is not there to make a non-artist into an artist.
The student should already BE an artist seeking to expose him or herself to
new methods, materials and techniques. The role of the professor is not to
work magic, but to point at a path for the student to try walking. It is the
student's reponsibility to walk it.
Hutto
mdeli
>"Ricardo Pontes" <Ricard...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>> Can you provide some pictures of the drawings your friend made. They sound
>> neat. I hate to tell you that 1 year in drawing is simply not enough. You
>> see artists were trained from an early age, perhaps the average started at
>> 12, by 15 years old many entered academies etc..
>
>Many entered academies...The predecessors of today's art schools and
>colleges. Interesting. I suppose those academians were not inept like
>today's? Education formerly produced great masters, yet sadly now, it
>produces hacks and casts out retentive anachronisms (bitter feebs) like Mani
>DeLi and other like-minded (and like-untalented) runts?
Hutto's back. Bitter indeed. A graphic hack like you should talk.
>Another interesting item...I've been drawing and painting since I was able
>to hold a Crayola in my fist (around 3 years of age).
Seen your drawing nothing helped!
>I'm interested to learn why you stayed in a school with such terrible
>teachers.
I went to a Bauhaus Monastery where I learned first hand about the
demise of teaching and what to avoid. You can read about it in great
amusing detail in my book.They expelled me to my great delight after I
bugged the teachers to an extent where even some of the students
started catching on. This makes patzers like Fox very happy and causes
him to effuse lots of psychobabble, a lot more than you.
I next attended the Art Student's League where I had a few excellent
teachers and won scholarships. This makes Fox bitter enough never to
mention it. Art has been good to me ever since.
> You and Mani DeLi must have gone to the same place. Of course, he
>was martyred to the Lost Cause when he was kicked out by the Philistines
>into the cold cruel art world sans degree. (Of course, I personally believe
>his Hitlerian disdain for art education is due to his utter failure to
>produce anything of significance or artistic worth. He therefore seeks to
>twist back the clock until work as weak as his seems progressive.)
I like the "Hitlerian distain" schtick. I believe you exhibit a
moron's distain for sensibility.
>
>I'd hate to think you have a similar tale of mock woe. Your work DOES
>support your claims, right?
Why hate?
>One doesn't go to art school to learn to draw, sir. Didn't you know that?
That's what I have been saying all along, stupid. So why are there
courses labeled Drawing?
>If you don't know how to draw, you have no business in a collegiate art
>program.
...That usually includes the teachers booby.
>Anyone who scoffs at formal education lives in darkness.
Most art schools are the antithesis of formal education.
> The role of the professor is not to work magic, but to point at a path for the student to try walking. It is the
>student's reponsibility to walk it.
>
That's like telling kids to figure arithmetic out for themselves.
Everyone needs far more than some jerk who teaches because he can't
make a living from his lack of knowledge to, " point at a path for the
student to try walking." Students who can't walk need medical
attention. Your artwork shows that you never got past stumbling.
Ricardo Pontes
> Another interesting item...I've been drawing and painting since I was able
> to hold a Crayola in my fist (around 3 years of age). These age-of-old
> greats only started drawing at age 12? What underachievers these idols of
> yours were! Of course, since I went to college in the 1980's/90's, I guess
> I've totally ruined all that hands-on experience, since I obviously can't
> think or work of my own free will, but only via the lackluster and evil
> Modern Art brainwashing my heretical professors wrought upon me.
>
No doubt that if you were that young when you started drawing then you are
very good. Could you be so good to us to show us some examples. I dont care
much for crayola's but if you do have some student work from age 3-21 then
please upload it. Did you do any master copies? How do you feel about
artists making master copies in order to progress?
> I'm interested to learn why you stayed in a school with such terrible
> teachers. You and Mani DeLi must have gone to the same place. Of course,
he
> was martyred to the Lost Cause when he was kicked out by the Philistines
> into the cold cruel art world sans degree. (Of course, I personally
believe
> his Hitlerian disdain for art education is due to his utter failure to
> produce anything of significance or artistic worth. He therefore seeks to
> twist back the clock until work as weak as his seems progressive.)
>
I started art school at the Corcoran school of art, i actually made
abstract, found art stuff. Any of the figurative artists that came there
were soon made into abstractionists because all of the assignments they gave
you were abstract. They told us to try not to make it figurative, use your
imagination and such horse crap. Anyone that produced figurative art was
usually laughed at, and for good reason, there were no training excersises
for these students. The only realistic painters on site was a photorealist,
which is something i really dislike. I studies with him for a while and
learned an imprimatura technique that i have learned to love. I did not stay
long at the Corcoran, i then attended the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine
Arts. I really liked PAFA, but i believe i was in search for something else.
I did have a show there, and sold a few pieces i believe i have a better
chance with one on one instruction with someone that i can admire. I am
studying at the Art League in Alexandria, there are few great artists there.
> I'd hate to think you have a similar tale of mock woe. Your work DOES
> support your claims, right?
>
What claims do i make about my work? I believe i uploaded a bunch of
drawings and master copies to the yahoogroups lifedrawing. You can see some
of the things i have done. The drawings look better in real life, but at
least its something to look at.
> > You see, its hard
> > to put together the right stuff when you are sorrounded by crap.
>
> Not if you have the right stuff to begin with.
> One doesn't go to art school to learn to draw, sir. Didn't you know that?
> If you don't know how to draw, you have no business in a collegiate art
> program.
No i did not know that. What do you go to art school for? I have had a woman
tell me that drawing is nothing but a parlor trick. She insisted that after
telling me that she started to draw when she was 2 years old, she won
numerous awards, she got straight a's through school, took advanced classes
etc.. I was very curious to know what she meant by saying that she was an
excellent draftsman. She never showed me any work..
>
> The most predominant problem with art education is the low entrance
> standards allowed by the institutions which they must tolerate in order to
> admit enough students to stay financially afloat. Even the greatest
> professor on Earth can't bestow talent where it was not before.
>
I agree with you there. While i studied at the pennsylvania academy there
were many students who had no aptitude towards art. But in order not to hurt
anyones feelings everyone would remain quiet. I suspect many of those went
on the path of installation art, abstraction, chicken scratching etc..
because it requires no artist skill. Im happy being an amateur/hobby
"artist". Anyone know of Gammel's philosophy towards art students??
While i was in school i learned many methods of creating art. Its not really
the medium that makes the art, an artist can make art with paint or with a
stick of charcoal. Art schools should consider training artists eyes and
hands. If an art student knows what he wants, then perhaps he can narrow
down his medium. Many artists just sculpt even thou they are great painters.
Some artists just do pencil drawings, it really does not matter the medium.
Im currently studying with a great artist BTW. The art league in alexandria
has a couple of great painters and sculptors.. Murray, Liberace, Weaver
etc..
.
>
> 21 isn't quite 'old dog' territory. Talent exists in the individual from
> birth to death. If unused or undiscovered, it doesn't vanish, it merely
lies
> dormant.
>
I really believe art should be taught young. 20 years old is very old for an
artist. By 20, you should be creating works of art. Like you mentioned, you
started at 3 years. I would expect you to be a great artist. How old are
you?
> If you suck at drawing, you'll suck at everything else, too. Drawing
> (Visualization, Composition) is the foundation skill for all visual art.
>
Many contemporary artists did not draw very well. They are considered some
of the greats. Van Gogh, Pollock etc.. for example.
Im dying to see your drawings.
>
Ricardo Pontes
Ricardo Pontes
>
> hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
> > Dan fox fired his chimpanzee assistant some years ago for adding too
> > much color to his schmiers.
>
>
> .......
>
Dan,
You need an assistant to make that stuff??? Wow, hard work... Let me find
out that Winston has an assistant too. What both of you need is some Glitter
and Zippers in your work, it will make it a bit more meaningful that way the
public can see the pains you have been through. :)
Ricardo Pontes
mdeli
>Envy is usually a sad thing to see - but here, it's fun!
Envy indeed? What no psychobabble Dan?
Check out his web site at http://www.danfoxart.com and tell us about
it.
I noticed that even the most case hardened artzy fartzy here hasn't
made a peep about Dan's masterpieces. I guess even they feel his work
might just be on a crap level which even embarrasses them into
silence. Fox should realize that artzy fartzies are sensitive enough
to distinguish the ordinary run-of-the -mill schmier from an acclaimed
museum schmier.
>Being trashed by a guy who puts down every great artist from Cezanne
>to Matisse to Pollock puts me in pretty good company, I think.
Well Fox has a point. If Cezanne and Matisse are on top of the
mountain,especially in relation to the price tag, than Fox is on the
bottom of a Chasm in a puddle of manure. True, he is at an end of a
continuous landscape.
>> Dan fox fired his chimpanzee assistant some years ago for adding too
>> much color to his schmiers.
>
><snip ... blah, blah>
Here's the whole thing Dan... (not from my book for the benefit of our
favorite cackle hen Marilyn)
Dan Fox fired his chimpanzee assistant some years ago for adding too
much color to his schmiers. He now scrawls Twombly scratches on top of
his large white schmiered canvas in hopes that the paupers who can't
afford the work of a genuine successful high priced charlatan might
fall for a much smaller sized loss leader. Dan's problem is that he
never took a good look at the fine modern abstraction one can see at a
better MacDonalds. It probably wouldn't help much as Dan has no
originality and probably never had an idea in his life.
Fox is a hack fashion conformist who still has to exhibit in out of
town boon dock galleries because he apparently never got a chance to
AK the proper New York hotshots.
RBrac53660
400 color and then I want??????????????? amazing pulchritude. :(
Tracy Miller
>(Dan Fox) wrote:
>
>>Envy is usually a sad thing to see - but here, it's fun!
>
>Envy indeed? What no psychobabble Dan?
>
>Check out his web site at http://www.danfoxart.com and tell us about
>it.
>
>I noticed that even the most case hardened artzy fartzy
WHICH is what Mani Deli is. Look at his work.
here hasn't
>made a peep about Dan's masterpieces. I guess even they feel his work
>might just be on a crap level which even embarrasses them into
>silence. Fox should realize that artzy fartzies are sensitive enough
>to distinguish the ordinary run-of-the -mill schmier from an acclaimed
>museum schmier.
>
>>Being trashed by a guy who puts down every great artist from Cezanne
>>to Matisse to Pollock puts me in pretty good company, I think.
>
>Well Fox has a point. If Cezanne and Matisse are on top of the
>mountain,especially in relation to the price tag, than Fox is on the
>bottom of a Chasm in a puddle of manure.
Which is where Mani Deli is. Look at his work.
True, he is at an end of a
>continuous landscape.
>
>>> Dan fox fired his chimpanzee assistant some years ago for adding too
>>> much color to his schmiers.
>>
>><snip ... blah, blah>
>Here's the whole thing Dan... (not from my book for the benefit of our
>favorite cackle hen Marilyn)
>
>Dan Fox fired his chimpanzee assistant some years ago for adding too
>much color to his schmiers. He now scrawls Twombly scratches on top of
>his large white schmiered canvas in hopes that the paupers who can't
>afford the work of a genuine successful high priced charlatan might
>fall for a much smaller sized loss leader. Dan's problem is that he
>never took a good look at the fine modern abstraction one can see at a
>better MacDonalds. It probably wouldn't help much as Dan has no
>originality and probably never had an idea in his life.
>
>Fox is a hack fashion conformist who still has to exhibit in out of
>town boon dock galleries because he apparently never got a chance to
>AK the proper New York hotshots.
Which is what Mani Deli is.......a hack fashion conformist.
Tracy Miller
>Dan fox fired his chimpanzee assistant some years ago for adding too
>much color to his schmiers. He now scrawls Twombly scratches on top of
>his large white schmiered canvas in hopes that the paupers who can't
>afford the work of a genuine successful high priced charlatan might
>fall for a much smaller sized loss leader. Dan's problem is that he
>never took a good look at the fine modern abstraction one can see at a
>better MacDonald's. It probably wouldn't help much as Dan has no
>originality and probably never had an idea in his life.
MAni certainly doesn't have any original ideas. Who is he to talk?
Check out his
>web site at http://www.danfoxart.com and tell us about it.
>
>better galleries. Her name could easily substitute for the multitudes
>of more successful non-entity Modern Artists who have inhabited the
>MAA magazines of the last thirty years. Success in MAA greatly depends
>on the peculiarities of probabilities."
Non-Entity Modern Artist - that is exactly what Mani Deli is!
Tracy Miller
mdeli
> Someone put me onto this: Mani
>submitted a piece to the MOMA website. MOMA! Artsy Fartsy Central!
I'm on other sites also Dan.
>
>Sellout! What would Walt Disney and the Boog think?
I guess Dan is worried that my work might appeal to some of the same
schmucks his does.
>I can only recall Roy Cohen and J. Edgar Hoover, who bashed gays while
>being gay themselves. Shame.
This is a good example of artzy fartzy logic. Hey Dan I also won a
scholarship to Europe doing better schmiers than you. I'll also sell
any sized schmier to any species of idiot who buys your sort of crap.
I hope you and the others here feel this is a "shame" and spend lots
of time worrying about it. After all an abstract schmierer like you
can't spend all his time AK-ing potential customers.
>
>The site:
>
>http://home.att.net/~allanmcnyc/moma.freeweb.html
Check it out. I also wrote an essay on that site. Read it.
Tracy Miller
>On 27 Apr 2001 15:30:50 GMT, danf...@yahoo.com(Dan Fox) wrote:
>
>> Someone put me onto this: Mani
>>submitted a piece to the MOMA website. MOMA! Artsy Fartsy Central!
>
>I'm on other sites also Dan.
He's just trying to distract you from the point. What a pitiful
attempt.
>>
>>Sellout! What would Walt Disney and the Boog think?
>
>I guess Dan is worried that my work might appeal to some of the same
>schmucks his does.
You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel now for comebacks.
And comebacks are the only thing you're worried about. But you
don't really have any.
>
>>I can only recall Roy Cohen and J. Edgar Hoover, who bashed gays while
>>being gay themselves. Shame.
>
>This is a good example of artzy fartzy logic. Hey Dan I also won a
>scholarship to Europe doing better schmiers than you. I'll also sell
>any sized schmier to any species of idiot who buys your sort of crap.
I thkn his analogy is exactly RIGHT. You don't even have artsy fartzy
logic, you have no logic at all. Apparently you can and DO sell
"Modern Art" to these "idiots". What does that say about you?
What does that say about what you really think of yourself?
You're so full of SHIT. If anything you've said had any meaning at
all, you'd practice what you preach.
>I hope you and the others here feel this is a "shame" and spend lots
>of time worrying about it. After all an abstract schmierer like you
>can't spend all his time AK-ing potential customers.
You'd do much better to concern yourself with your own mental
problems.
>
>>
>>The site:
>>
>>http://home.att.net/~allanmcnyc/moma.freeweb.html
>
>Check it out. I also wrote an essay on that site. Read it.
>...no skill no art
Neither skill nor art on Mani Deli's site!
>
>Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
Mani Deli is incompetence chasing its tail in a circle.
>
>Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
Sure! See more Dribble of the artsy fartzy kind!
Tracy Miller
>"Guerdis" AKA Hutto wrote:
>
>>"Ricardo Pontes" <Ricard...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> Can you provide some pictures of the drawings your friend made. They sound
>>> neat. I hate to tell you that 1 year in drawing is simply not enough. You
>>> see artists were trained from an early age, perhaps the average started at
>>> 12, by 15 years old many entered academies etc..
>>
>>Many entered academies...The predecessors of today's art schools and
>>colleges. Interesting. I suppose those academians were not inept like
>>today's? Education formerly produced great masters, yet sadly now, it
>>produces hacks and casts out retentive anachronisms (bitter feebs) like Mani
>>DeLi and other like-minded (and like-untalented) runts?
>
>Hutto's back. Bitter indeed. A graphic hack like you should talk.
My your brave. Bravely Stupid, rather, you hypocrite.
>
>>Another interesting item...I've been drawing and painting since I was able
>>to hold a Crayola in my fist (around 3 years of age).
>
>Seen your drawing nothing helped!
Rude Boorish Hypocrite. HYPOCRITE!
>
>>I'm interested to learn why you stayed in a school with such terrible
>>teachers.
>
>I went to a Bauhaus Monastery where I learned first hand about the
>demise of teaching and what to avoid. You can read about it in great
>amusing detail in my book.They expelled me to my great delight after I
>bugged the teachers to an extent where even some of the students
>started catching on. This makes patzers like Fox very happy and causes
>him to effuse lots of psychobabble, a lot more than you.
>
>I next attended the Art Student's League where I had a few excellent
>teachers and won scholarships. This makes Fox bitter enough never to
>mention it. Art has been good to me ever since.
>
>> You and Mani DeLi must have gone to the same place. Of course, he
>>was martyred to the Lost Cause when he was kicked out by the Philistines
>>into the cold cruel art world sans degree. (Of course, I personally believe
>>his Hitlerian disdain for art education is due to his utter failure to
>>produce anything of significance or artistic worth. He therefore seeks to
>>twist back the clock until work as weak as his seems progressive.)
>
>I like the "Hitlerian distain" schtick. I believe you exhibit a
>moron's distain for sensibility.
She has a distain for the sensibility of MORONS like you.
>>
>>I'd hate to think you have a similar tale of mock woe. Your work DOES
>>support your claims, right?
>
>Why hate?
His work does NOT support his claims!
>
>>One doesn't go to art school to learn to draw, sir. Didn't you know that?
>
>That's what I have been saying all along, stupid. So why are there
>courses labeled Drawing?
>
>>If you don't know how to draw, you have no business in a collegiate art
>>program.
>
>...That usually includes the teachers booby.
>
>>Anyone who scoffs at formal education lives in darkness.
>
>Most art schools are the antithesis of formal education.
An you didn't get any either.
>
>> The role of the professor is not to work magic, but to point at a path for the student to try walking. It is the
>>student's reponsibility to walk it.
>>
>That's like telling kids to figure arithmetic out for themselves.
>Everyone needs far more than some jerk who teaches because he can't
>make a living from his lack of knowledge to, " point at a path for the
>student to try walking." Students who can't walk need medical
>attention. Your artwork shows that you never got past stumbling.
Again, you have no business criticizing other's work when your own
shows what a HYPOCRITE you are.
>...no skill no art
Chant it real fast, 2000 times, and the aliens will come get you.
>
>Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
YOU are incompetence in search of an idea.
>
>Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
See the Mani-DREK!
RBrac53660
>
And wow I'm in rec.arts.fine. Geees I'd hate to be "artzy fartzy" in a arts
news group. It might mean the end of the world. Ohh god now I have to go and
cut a ear off or kill myself. PFFFFFFFFT
Ricardo Pontes
> Again, you have no business criticizing other's work when your own
> shows what a HYPOCRITE you are.
>
>
Tracy, who then can criticize art work? If you think that only people who
have nice things to say about someone's else's stuff can criticize work then
you are living in a dream land. The real world is filled with people with
different opinions, if you close yourself in that modernist world in which
people will lie to you regarding your artwork in order to make you feel
better, then you will never accomplish anything because you are being
sheltered. Most people tend to just compliment each other's work for the
sake of being nice, but what is there to learn from that?? If you cannot
take criticism then you are not in the right place. May I suggest a user
group for you, www.yahoogroups.com look up ARTMOBILE , they are a group of
like minded, equally worthless abstract artists that talk about everything
but art, you can be more at home there. I had a bit of a confrontation there
regarding art, I was banned. :(.
Ricardo Pontes
ljrobins
Ricardo Pontes wrote:
> >
> > Again, you have no business criticizing other's work when your own
> > shows what a HYPOCRITE you are.
> >
> >
>
> Tracy, who then can criticize art work?
Anyone can criticize art work. It's what they say or how they it that makes a
difference. Calling certain kinds of art CRAP and generalizing about a period
of art making are not what I would qualify as valid critiques (which you and
Mani do a lot).
> The real world is filled with people with different opinions, if you close
> yourself in that modernist world in which people will lie to you regarding
> your artwork in order to make you feel better, then you will never accomplish
> anything because you are being sheltered.
Really, this is an example of the kind of generalizations that I just can't
stand. Why do you assume everyone in the *modernist world* (especially funny
since WE DON'T actually live in a modernist world now ...) lies to one another?
I beg to differ. But then, your idea of truth is telling someone there stuff is
crap without ever having to qualify your statement. THAT is not critiquing.
It's pretty much a cop out if you ask me. You do not confront art Ricardo. In
fact, I am pretty sure you don't really know what art is.
lissa
Tracy Miller
<Ricard...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Again, you have no business criticizing other's work when your own
>> shows what a HYPOCRITE you are.
>>
>>
>
>Tracy, who then can criticize art work?
So, are you saying that one has to be a hypocrite to be an art critic?
Or to have any opinion about art at all? Interesting!
I guess that would be totally consistent with your (Ricardo/Mani)
behavior.
>If you think that only people who
>have nice things to say about someone's else's stuff can criticize work then
>you are living in a dream land. The real world is filled with people with
>different opinions, if you close yourself in that modernist world in which
>people will lie to you regarding your artwork in order to make you feel
>better, then you will never accomplish anything because you are being
>sheltered. Most people tend to just compliment each other's work for the
>sake of being nice, but what is there to learn from that?? If you cannot
>take criticism then you are not in the right place. May I suggest a user
>group for you, www.yahoogroups.com look up ARTMOBILE , they are a group of
>like minded, equally worthless abstract artists that talk about everything
>but art, you can be more at home there. I had a bit of a confrontation there
>regarding art, I was banned. :(.
Yes, I'm sure you were.
>
>
>Ricardo Pontes
>
>
Tracy Miller
<Ricard...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Tracy, who then can criticize art work? If you think that only people who
>have nice things to say about someone's else's stuff can criticize work then
>you are living in a dream land. The real world is filled with people with
>different opinions, if you close yourself in that modernist world in which
>people will lie to you regarding your artwork in order to make you feel
>better, then you will never accomplish anything because you are being
>sheltered.
If you think about it carefully, you'll realize that I've never
criticized you for being aginst Modern Art. I just don't like YOU.
Erik A. Mattila
Good points, Lissa. I like to say "When Kant wrote "The Critique of Pure Reason" he wasn't really knocking 'reason,' or saying "I don't like reason at all." but he was writing about where our ideas of reason came from." Such is a 'critique' in the sence of philosophy and art criticism. But in the modern vernacular "to criticize" means to evaluate negatively (and we have our "constructive criticism" as an opposite.) What I see in many of these sorts of debates is a flip-flop between the two meanings of the term. It would probably be better, in arttalk, to use "criticism" for the older, formal meaning, and 'evaluation' for the contemporary usage. In a formal critique, it would be meaningless to say something is 'crap.'
Erik
ljrobins
Lissa
mdeli
>Two words for you Mani
>begins with an 'f' and ends with an 'f'
Marilyn Welch calls a minor excerpt from a junk yard, "installation
ART." I suspect that in her yokel habitat she never took a good look
at a well designed store widow. She claims I'm ill informed and wrote
the following stupidity:
>Likeness? use a camera, take a photo, glue the photo on the painting,
>paint over it. 19th century artists did this alot.
I suppose Marion believes that when Bouguereau painted carefully
composed life sized figures in a complex landscape he just did it on
glued photos. I advise Marilyn to hang up her panties take a photo
them and try painting over it. I also suggest she show us how far she
gets.
No photo will help getting the technique and poses in Bouguereau. I
doubt that Marilyn has ever seen any 19th century art besides perhaps
Manet and Degas etc. (both used photos but not the way Marilyn said).
I even doubt that Marilyn knows anything much about photography and
how Picasso used it.
...no skill no art
Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com)
thought I'd drop over.
You haven't changed - still putting
words in peoples mouths - then arguing
against the very words you put there -
that can be dangerous, I'd recommend
some therapy. I see you are talking
about girls panties again, Maybe I
had the correct "perspective" when I
included woman's underware catalogues
in my analysis.
your humble servant
keith (the By Town gentleman)
mdeli
>You haven't changed - still putting
>words in peoples mouths - then arguing
>against the very words you put there -
Like exactly what words?
>that can be dangerous, I'd recommend
>some therapy.
I recommend you learn to draw.
>I see you are talking
>about girls panties again, Maybe I
>had the correct "perspective" when I
>included woman's underware catalogues
>in my analysis.
Give us your analytical perspective on Picasso when he draws assholes
and attaches naughty parts here and there.
mdeli
>> > >Two words for you Mani
>> > >begins with an 'f' and ends with an 'f'
>
>Talk about stuck in the past.
I keep all messages which reveal how ill informed you are.
>> > Marilyn Welch calls a minor excerpt from a junk yard, "installation
>> > ART." I suspect that in her yokel habitat she never took a good look
>> > at a well designed store widow. She claims I'm ill informed and wrote
>> > the following stupidity:
>>
>You are referring to a well-known Canadian artist who uses organic
>materials in her installation work. As for store widows, I haven't noticed
>widows in stores recently,
I'm sure of that.
>> > >Likeness? use a camera, take a photo, glue the photo on the painting,
>> > >paint over it. 19th century artists did this alot.
>> >
>> > I suppose Marilyn believes that when Bouguereau painted carefully
>> > composed life sized figures in a complex landscape he just did it on
>> > glued photos. I advise Marilyn to hang up her panties take a photo
>> > them and try painting over it. I also suggest she show us how far she
>> > gets.
>At first I thought B. used an airbrush but that would be anachronistic.
It was stupid and ill informed.
>> > No photo will help getting the technique and poses in Bouguereau. I
>> > doubt that Marilyn has ever seen any 19th century art besides perhaps
>> > Manet and Degas etc. (both used photos but not the way Marilyn said).
>> > I even doubt that Marilyn knows anything much about photography and
>> > how Picasso used it.
>
>Right on, B.'s people are devoid of humanity.
I presume Picasso's colored cement nudes are dripping with "humanity."
as are rooms full of garbage which you call art.
>They are idealized fantasy
>figures. Try looking at Egon Shiele's figures beside them. No one is
>stopping you from adoration at the feet of Bougereau but stop trying to
>get everyone else to kneel before him. It won't work.
Haven't noticed any kneeling in front of anybody. Why don't you just
say you hate Bouguereau even though you've never seen one.
>to put down and insult with infantile remarks every person who does not
>buy your theory.
Hey toots you wrote: "Two words for you Mani begins with an 'f' and
ends with an 'f'. Then you assured us that you kill filed my messages.
I guess your curiosity got the better of you and you got bored of all
those "I love so-and -so messages."
>You've been prosletizing for years, how many converts do you think you
>have made to your religion?
You've been writing stupidity for years I have lots in my collection.
I couldn't care less whether anyone here agrees with me. I enjoy
reading all opinions and find them informative in relation to my
writing.
>Yes you are like Rush Limbaugh, fueled by hatred and using slogans.
>
>There's only one true slogan:
>
>"All slogans are false."
Like, "Two words for you Mani begins with an 'f' and ends with an 'f'"
Bob & Dale Ford
a frustrated draftsman.
Dale
Marilyn Welch
Since you put up 50% of the posts here, they appear in other peoples'
posts when they tell you off. That's how I have the misfortune to read
them.
Toy Story sucks. I had to see both of them with the kids and thought it
was a bunch of corporate propaganda and the animation was slick and
commercial.
Marilyn
Yo! Picasso
Oui! Cezanne
Yes! Twombly/Newman/Pollock/Agnes Martin/Anne Hamilton/Jessica Stockholder
RBrac53660
>Your obsession with panties and toilets for example
>demonstrates that you are still at an infantile stage
>which most people get over by
>the time they are three years old.
>
Peter H.M. Brooks
Marilyn Welch <wq...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.1010531191811.2704A-100000@vtn1...
> >
> Toy Story sucks. I had to see both of them with the kids and thought
it
> was a bunch of corporate propaganda and the animation was slick and
> commercial.
>
>
art work, the film was an absolute delight. The 'Nightmare before
Christmas' wasn't bad either.
--
"Reflect with a clear mind, man by man for
himself," Zoroaster
Ricardo Pontes
Its number one because it produces results. And its the first step to
creating art. Its easy to tell someone that has not learned to draw
properly. It amazes me to hear people say that drawing has no relation to
art today. What do you consider number 1??
RIcardo Pontes
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/free_video/
"Bob & Dale Ford" <bdf...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3B16B9E9...@mb.sympatico.ca...
ljrobins
> Its number one because it produces results. And its the first step to
> creating art. Its easy to tell someone that has not learned to draw
> properly. It amazes me to hear people say that drawing has no relation to
> art today. What do you consider number 1??
I tend to agree that the principles of "drawing" or rather the 2-D model of
understanding space, form and line are integral to producing good art work.
The problem for me though lies in the recognition that "understanding space,
form and line" is not necessarily based (nor should it be based) in Western
(Renaissance) Linear Perspective. The key to "understanding space, form, and
line" is more about recognizing the multidimensionality of the world or
worlds (inner and outer; abstracted or representational) that we are
depicting. So for me then the nature of an artist's work really lies in the
philosophical or scientific model from which they draw their formal
principles. The mathematical Renaissance model for *drawing* is a construct
and it would be wise for more artists to recognize this. There are some
brilliant writings on this very matter and I would encourage those who are
interested to read them. One of those writers is Robert D. Romanyshyn and
his book is entitled _Technology as Symptom & Dream_. It's a brilliant read.
During the Renaissance the technology of perspectival drawing was a tool for
rational, commercial, military, religious, and political power. It also
changed the cultural perspective of our western world. The world became a
window/ spectacle and humanity a distant observer/spectator. The use of
linear perspective was characteristic of the Renaissance ideal of man's
power over nature, which depended on illusion. While perspective is an
incredibly valuable technology that was largely responsible for an
extraordinary explosion of human development, it is also curtailed by
limitations. Nina Joblon, in her essay discussing the above matters (Power,
Illusion and the Technology of Perspective in the Renaissance), asserts that
"the sky poses a limitation to the power of perspective's three- dimensional
grid, thus serving as a symbolic example of technology's subordination to
nature." An excerpt from her essay:
"But perspective could not fully describe the physical world around the
Renaissance artists, just as it still cannot today. The sky posed a great
challenge to perspectival projection; it will not fit into a neat
three-dimensional grid to be transposed into two-dimensions onto paper. As
Hashim Sarkis explains, "Two major phenomena that perspective explains
cannot be detected in the sky, namely occlusion and foreshortening."26"
In conclusion, Joblon claims that the "sky's insubordination to perspectival
representation is symbolic of technology's (and man's) inevitable deference
to nature. First, the technology of perspective allowed Renaissance man to
measure and manipulate the three-dimensional world around him. Later, the
technology actually changed the nature of the design process and the
three-dimensional space created. As such, perspective was a driving
technology. But even a most powerful space created with it, such as St.
Peter's Plaza, was still canopied by the sky, which defies obedience to
man's illusionary construct. The sky represents nature's power over man
despite his technologies; perhaps it is like our mortality, which awaits us
in the heavens."
A kick ass essay and an incredible insight into the development of
perspective as a cultural construct.
Lissa
Peter H.M. Brooks
ljrobins <ljro...@cadvision.com> wrote in message
news:3B192B05...@cadvision.com...
> . The sky represents nature's power over man
> despite his technologies; perhaps it is like our mortality, which
awaits us
> in the heavens."
>
wait for anybody anywhere even in a metaphorical sense.
A god-botherer might claim that immortality awaited people in the
heavens, a daft enough thing to say, but to claim that mortality waits
there is considerably dafter.
ljrobins
> ljrobins <ljro...@cadvision.com> wrote in message
> news:3B192B05...@cadvision.com...
> > . The sky represents nature's power over man
> > despite his technologies; perhaps it is like our mortality, which
> awaits us
> > in the heavens."
> >
> This is a little daft. Our mortality is with us on earth - it doesn't
> wait for anybody anywhere even in a metaphorical sense
> A god-botherer might claim that immortality awaited people in the
> heavens, a daft enough thing to say, but to claim that mortality waits
> there is considerably dafter.
Is this all you could add? You sure like to flaunt your
psuedo-superiority. Yawn. It's getting rather tired don't you think? But
I must thank you anyway because your thinking patterns are a perfect
example of the limitations in a linear perspective.
Mortality makes reference to our "mortal nature". Mortal means both
"subject to death" or "being human". In a poetic sense Joblon is
suggesting that perhaps our true nature (outside the boundaries of
linear, material truth) awaits us in the heavens (or rather in the spaces
which have failed to conform to rational mathematics). It must be rather
frustrating living in that box.
Lissa
Peter H.M. Brooks
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
>
> > ljrobins <ljro...@cadvision.com> wrote in message
> > news:3B192B05...@cadvision.com...
> > > . The sky represents nature's power over man
> > > despite his technologies; perhaps it is like our mortality, which
> > awaits us
> > > in the heavens."
> > >
> > This is a little daft. Our mortality is with us on earth - it
doesn't
> > wait for anybody anywhere even in a metaphorical sense
>
> > A god-botherer might claim that immortality awaited people in the
> > heavens, a daft enough thing to say, but to claim that mortality
waits
> > there is considerably dafter.
>
> Is this all you could add? You sure like to flaunt your
> psuedo-superiority. Yawn. It's getting rather tired don't you think?
But
> I must thank you anyway because your thinking patterns are a perfect
> example of the limitations in a linear perspective.
>
do you think?
>
> Mortality makes reference to our "mortal nature". Mortal means both
> "subject to death" or "being human". In a poetic sense Joblon is
> suggesting that perhaps our true nature (outside the boundaries of
> linear, material truth) awaits us in the heavens (or rather in the
spaces
> which have failed to conform to rational mathematics). It must be
rather
> frustrating living in that box.
>
ljrobins
> >
> You seem easily bored - is the short attention span plebvision induced,
> do you think?
Again, that line is all your *brilliant little mind* can come up with?
Yawn.
> It must be rather
> > frustrating living in that box.
> >
> Yes, I suppose it must be. I sympathise.
Actually my "box* is rather cute and furry little package. Sometimes it's
been likened to a pretty little flower.
You can't keep up with me even when you try.
Lissa
Bob & Dale Ford
wasn't working in two dimensions he doesn't think in 2 dimensions. I told him
I didn't see the point. So is he less of an artist?
Drawing isn't always the most powerful aspect in a work of art. Rothko's
fuzzy squares are not very good drawings. They are very good paintings. Hmmm
but I bet you think they are shit.
Look I draw all the time. Like it. Probably one of my strongest talents. But
I can also show you blobs of paint which merge and create wonderful
recognizable images.....no "drawing" involved.
Drawing is great for showing off. Every time some one says you're shit you
show them a study from a "master" and then my God you are talented. You can
draw. And most of the time they turn around and say well hey you do know what
you are doing then. :-)
Drawing is a very important element for creating certain works of art but it
isn't the most important element in every piece of work nor should it be.
Dale
Peter H.M. Brooks
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
>
> > >
> > You seem easily bored - is the short attention span plebvision
induced,
> > do you think?
>
> Again, that line is all your *brilliant little mind* can come up with?
> Yawn.
>
unlikely in Yankland.
>
> > It must be rather
> > > frustrating living in that box.
> > >
> > Yes, I suppose it must be. I sympathise.
>
> Actually my "box* is rather cute and furry little package. Sometimes
it's
> been likened to a pretty little flower.
>
>
> You can't keep up with me even when you try.
>
ljrobins
>
> Where do I try? Why would I wish to shorten my attention span?
>
Then why bother responding to my posts? Bug off pesky flea.
lissa
Peter H.M. Brooks
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
>
> >
> > Where do I try? Why would I wish to shorten my attention span?
> >
>
> Then why bother responding to my posts?
>
I also found your defensiveness amusing.
ljrobins
> I also found your defensiveness amusing.
I am curious, the only contributions you seem to make are posts
correcting or making meaningless critiques about another person's use
of the english language (an area which you seem to think you reign
supreme--even after you have been corrected). You either correct or
insult other people's posts but never contribute anything very
original or rigorous yourself. It's really not defensive on my part,
just annoyance.
lissa
Peter H.M. Brooks
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
>
> You either correct or
> insult other people's posts but never contribute anything very
> original or rigorous yourself
>
interesting to debate, then I am certainly keen to debate it.
Now, since you consider it irritating for people not to contribute
something original, what about an original contribution from you?
ljrobins
> ljrobins <ljro...@cadvision.com> wrote in message
> news:3B19D763...@cadvision.com...
> > "Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
> >
> > You either correct or
> > insult other people's posts but never contribute anything very
> > original or rigorous yourself
> >
> You haven't been around for very long then! Whenever there is something
> interesting to debate, then I am certainly keen to debate it.
Have yet to see it ...
>
>
> Now, since you consider it irritating for people not to contribute
> something original, what about an original contribution from you?
>
I have.
lissa
Peter H.M. Brooks
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
>
> > ljrobins <ljro...@cadvision.com> wrote in message
> > news:3B19D763...@cadvision.com...
> > > "Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
> > >
> > > You either correct or
> > > insult other people's posts but never contribute anything very
> > > original or rigorous yourself
> > >
> > You haven't been around for very long then! Whenever there is
something
> > interesting to debate, then I am certainly keen to debate it.
>
> Have yet to see it ...
>
>
> >
> >
> > Now, since you consider it irritating for people not to contribute
> > something original, what about an original contribution from you?
> >
>
> I have.
>
Marilyn
(pun intended). And for that she gets nitpicked?
It's been my experience making art work, knowing artists and reading art
history that being an artist requires having an open mind. Anyone who can't
demonstrate an open mind with a willingness to be impressed, delighted, or
convinced by new ideas is not recognized by other artists.
Marilyn
Peter H.M. Brooks
Marilyn <mwe...@islandnet.com> wrote in message
news:3B1A7EB4...@islandnet.com...
> In one wonderful post, Lissa elevated the reading of this newsgroup
sky high.
>
> (pun intended). And for that she gets nitpicked?
>
>
> It's been my experience making art work, knowing artists and reading
art
> history that being an artist requires having an open mind. Anyone who
can't
> demonstrate an open mind with a willingness to be impressed,
delighted, or
> convinced by new ideas is not recognized by other artists.
>
So, what are the new ideas that are there to do one of the above?
Peter H.M. Brooks
> >
>
>
> A kick ass essay and an incredible insight into the development of
> perspective as a cultural construct.
>
Why is it that, of all the people in this group, I was the only one who
commented on, and engaged in discussion on the essay that you quoted?
Wouldn't one have thought that all these artists, anyone who can't
demonstrate an open mind with a willingness to be impressed, delighted,
or
convinced by new ideas is not recognised by other artists? As she said?
Yet none did, not even a little bit?
Isn't it unfortunate that, when there is a good opportunity for
discussion, investigation, disagreement, learning and moving forward, so
few people seem up to grasping it?
If I hadn't commented on it, what you wrote might have been unnoticed as
the pearl of purest ray serene in the Elergy.
mdeli
>I tend to agree that the principles of "drawing" or rather the 2-D model of
>understanding space, form and line are integral to producing good art work.
Prespective is the only model there is.
> The key to "understanding space, form, and
>line" is more about recognizing the multidimensionality of the world or
>worlds (inner and outer; abstracted or representational) that we are
>depicting.
And what is that supposed to mean?
>So for me then the nature of an artist's work really lies in the
>philosophical or scientific model from which they draw their formal
>principles.
The scientific model is perspective. There is no "philosophical
model."
> While perspective is an
>incredibly valuable technology that was largely responsible for an
>extraordinary explosion of human development, it is also curtailed by
>limitations. Nina Joblon, in her essay discussing the above matters (Power,
>Illusion and the Technology of Perspective in the Renaissance), asserts that
>"the sky poses a limitation to the power of perspective's three- dimensional
>grid, thus serving as a symbolic example of technology's subordination to
>nature." An excerpt from her essay:
Sounds like utter stupidity.
> The sky posed a great
>challenge to perspectival projection; it will not fit into a neat
>three-dimensional grid to be transposed into two-dimensions onto paper.
Neither will your view while standing inside a glass of cream, so
what?
>
>A kick ass essay and an incredible insight into the development of
>perspective as a cultural construct.
>
It sure has kicked you in the ass.
ljrobins
> On Sat, 02 Jun 2001 12:06:03 -0600, in rec.arts.fine you wrote:
>
> >I tend to agree that the principles of "drawing" or rather the 2-D model of
> >understanding space, form and line are integral to producing good art work.
>
> Prespective is the only model there is.
In your world maybe. But your world isn't THE world.
>
>
> > The key to "understanding space, form, and
> >line" is more about recognizing the multidimensionality of the world or
> >worlds (inner and outer; abstracted or representational) that we are
> >depicting.
>
> And what is that supposed to mean?
Your lack of understanding the above just demonstrates how tightly you are
squeezed into that little square box of yours.
>
>
> >So for me then the nature of an artist's work really lies in the
> >philosophical or scientific model from which they draw their formal
> >principles.
>
> The scientific model is perspective. There is no "philosophical
> model."
In your opinion. But I don't recall your opinion being the *word* of the
universe.
>
>
> > While perspective is an
> >incredibly valuable technology that was largely responsible for an
> >extraordinary explosion of human development, it is also curtailed by
> >limitations. Nina Joblon, in her essay discussing the above matters (Power,
> >Illusion and the Technology of Perspective in the Renaissance), asserts that
> >"the sky poses a limitation to the power of perspective's three- dimensional
> >grid, thus serving as a symbolic example of technology's subordination to
> >nature." An excerpt from her essay:
>
> Sounds like utter stupidity.
Gee ... good critique (gag). Why don't you try using logical thought to create
an argument for your point of view? Oh yeah. I forgot. You can't!
> > The sky posed a great
> >challenge to perspectival projection; it will not fit into a neat
> >three-dimensional grid to be transposed into two-dimensions onto paper.
>
> Neither will your view while standing inside a glass of cream, so
> what?
So it transcends the laws of perspective stupid. Get it?
>
> >
> >A kick ass essay and an incredible insight into the development of
> >perspective as a cultural construct.
> >
> It sure has kicked you in the ass.
I sure with I could kick you in the ass.
Come back when you actually have some material to present an argument.
Lissa
Marilyn
"Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
> Marilyn <mwe...@islandnet.com> wrote in message
> news:3B1A7EB4...@islandnet.com...
> > In one wonderful post, Lissa elevated the reading of this newsgroup
> sky high.
> >
> > (pun intended). And for that she gets nitpicked?
> >
> Is there such a word?
Only a nitpicker would ask that question. We can make a verb of anything we
want. Language is a living thing.
>
> >
> > It's been my experience making art work, knowing artists and reading
> art
> > history that being an artist requires having an open mind. Anyone who
> can't
> > demonstrate an open mind with a willingness to be impressed,
> delighted, or
> > convinced by new ideas is not recognized by other artists.
> >
> Perfectly true. Who could doubt it?
>
> So, what are the new ideas that are there to do one of the above?
>
> --
> "Reflect with a clear mind, man by man for
> himself," Zoroaster
The new idea to me is expressed in my subject line. This idea of our power
over nature brought to mind another idea being presented today, that is,
that the alphabet was the beginning of our alienation from nature.
Not only did Lissa present her ideas, but she expressed it brilliantly and
gave us a follow-up. You were not the only one who responded to her. You
would be amazed at the people who read posts here and respond by email. Is
it because they don't recognize many of the posters on raf as artists?
Marilyn
Xena
What a dilemma!
Sorry folks, just thinking out loud.
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com)
I would interpret your comment below, as
a backhanded way of saying I am sorry,
if I was a bit of a brute, but really in
my own clumsy way, I helped you. Which
summarizes to " I'm sorry for being a
brute, but I deserve your forgiveness",
because I am really a nice person.
In my opinion, which mealy reiterates
what has been said in some postings, and
that is, you tend to view language as
communicating ideas only, which is very
intellectual, but many of the people
hear have creative minds, and they tend
to use text, both as carrier of ideas,
and as poetic rhythms, with no ideas
just the music of words, as well as
throwing in some metaphors.
This can become very confusing to a
person who needs the security of the
intellectual side only.
your humble servant
keith (the Bytown gentleman)
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
>
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
>
> > Marilyn <mwe...@islandnet.com> wrote in message
> > news:3B1A7EB4...@islandnet.com...
> > > In one wonderful post, Lissa elevated the reading of this
newsgroup
> > sky high.
> > >
> > > (pun intended). And for that she gets nitpicked?
> > >
> > Is there such a word?
>
> Only a nitpicker would ask that question. We can make a verb of
anything we
> want. Language is a living thing.
>
language that it is not normally necessary, elegant, or helpful to
communication, to try to create arbritrary verbs. Of course, Yank is
different and probably needs them.
>
> >
> > >
> > > It's been my experience making art work, knowing artists and
reading
> > art
> > > history that being an artist requires having an open mind. Anyone
who
> > can't
> > > demonstrate an open mind with a willingness to be impressed,
> > delighted, or
> > > convinced by new ideas is not recognized by other artists.
> > >
> > Perfectly true. Who could doubt it?
> >
> > So, what are the new ideas that are there to do one of the above?
> >
> > --
> > "Reflect with a clear mind, man by man for
> > himself," Zoroaster
>
> The new idea to me is expressed in my subject line. This idea of our
power
> over nature brought to mind another idea being presented today, that
is,
> that the alphabet was the beginning of our alienation from nature.
>
it particularly novel, though it is an interesting point, I agree.
>
> Not only did Lissa present her ideas, but she expressed it brilliantly
and
> gave us a follow-up. You were not the only one who responded to her.
You
> would be amazed at the people who read posts here and respond by
email. Is
> it because they don't recognize many of the posters on raf as artists?
>
deliberately wish to keep it that way be keeping the interesting
conversation off the group. I would certainly hope that most artists had
more sense!
I am aware that people do reply to posts by e-mail. Unless it is a
response to a particular query, I usually discourage it.
I wonder who these posters are who worry so much more about form than
content who might not 'recognise posters as artists'. Surely the poor
lass who suffered most from this chip on the shoulder left us ages ago.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Dan Fox <danf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20010603230233.427$8...@newsreader.com...
> Marilyn <mwe...@islandnet.com> wrote:
> .
> > You would be amazed at the people who read posts here and respond by
> > email. Is it because they don't recognize many of the posters on raf
as
> > artists?
>
> Marilyn
>
> they're afraid of getting flamed by mdeli, which always amazes me.
Others
> don't say so, but I suspect it. Pity.
>
I suggest that they will find plenty of sympathy if they are attacked.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Xena <nom...@never.com> wrote in message
news:3B1AD633...@never.com...
>
> Sorry folks, just thinking out loud.
>
I am sorry that you have been put to such pain. Lets hope that you don't
need to try to think for some considerable time to come!
Your apology is accepted.
Peter H.M. Brooks
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com) <ke...@tinmangallery.com> wrote in
message news:3B1AE6ED...@tinmangallery.com...
>
> [nice charitable interpretation deleted from modesty]
>
> In my opinion, which mealy reiterates
> what has been said in some postings, and
> that is, you tend to view language as
> communicating ideas only, which is very
> intellectual, but many of the people
> hear have creative minds, and they tend
> to use text, both as carrier of ideas,
> and as poetic rhythms, with no ideas
> just the music of words, as well as
> throwing in some metaphors.
>
poetic rhythm. The difficulty is where an attempt is made to communicate
an idea, but it fails because the metaphors mislead or give rise to
false images.
Of course, I agree with you, if all the communication were possible
through text, then there would be no need for painting or sculpture and
the blind would have lost nothing by not being sighted.
I thought that the article quoted was actually meaning to express some
fairly concrete ideas. If I have misunderstood that, then it would
explain some of the discussion. However, I doubt it really because quite
a lot of the article made sense - it was just woolly round the edges,
which, as you explain, is understandable, and excusable.
>
> This can become very confusing to a
> person who needs the security of the
> intellectual side only.
>
I think that the security argument goes both ways - if you wish to make
it.
The important thing is communication - whichever way you wish to argue
the point.
Still, thank you, that was an interesting post!
ljrobins
> This was the subject of the article she quoted from, yes. I don't think
> it particularly novel, though it is an interesting point, I agree.
Um ... the point of my post may have been missed if one thinks that I was
simply addressing the "nature vs man" issue. Although that is one aspect of
the perspective discussion it is not where the crux of my interest lies. I
am much more fascinated with the idea of "perspective as cultural tool"
(thanks Marilyn). It would seem to me that the heart of Joblin's essay is
to use the space of the sky to point out the "holes" in linear perspective.
Although this problem can be viewed as a nature vs man issue, it also does
it a disservice by simply generalizing it as such. There is poetics in what
she as saying as much as there is science. I think it is fine to say it the
article is "woolly around the edges" but it would be much more constructive
to point out where you or why you think this is the case. To be fair, I
only posted a few quotes from the article so I thought I should post the
link to give everyone a chance to read it (or not).
http://www.stanford.edu/group/STS/techne5.html
On another note, I think it is easy for people to cast Joblin's article
aside as nonsense because otherwise they would be forced to challenge their
own ideas about the privileged position of western linear perspective. No
one really ever likes to pull the foundation out from underneath the
building.
Lissa
Peter H.M. Brooks
particular as more of an architectural point of view.
>
> On another note, I think it is easy for people to cast Joblin's
article
their
> own ideas about the privileged position of western linear perspective.
No
> one really ever likes to pull the foundation out from underneath the
> building.
>
forward, all of which appear to make a contribution.
I must say that, when I visited the Parthenon, I was indeed vastly
impressed by the level of care that had been applied to the details of
making the illusion so complete.
Interestingly, though, reading the whole article, makes the conclusion
all the more surprising. It seems to come from nowhere, with little
argument (even emotional argument) leading to it - as if it was tagged
on to the essay from somewhere else.
I would also dispute the conclusion that claims an inevitability of a
projection not being able to render the sky accurately - even if one
doesn't now, this would be no argument for one not being found in
future. As, for example, Penrose discovered tilings in the plane that
weren't known even twenty years ago - a mathematical problem quite akin
to the problem of a perspective rendering of the sky even if not
actually isomorphic to it.
Marilyn
"I would also dispute the conclusion that claims an inevitability of a
projection not being able to render the sky accurately - even if one
doesn't now, this would be no argument for one not being found in
future."
This reminds me of the Republicans assuring us that their Star Wars program
is going to work. Also a discussion on the radio yesterday talked about
technology being so great that one day it will be able to navigate the human
soul. That far fetched confidence in our technology was shot down by a
native woman who stood up and said with vehemence:
"Why do white people have to go EVERYWHERE?"
If you accept that the universe is infinite there is no way the sky can be
rendered in perspective. Although we have an atmosphere we earthlings do not
live under a dome.
Catch you later when after I read the article.
Marilyn
Peter H.M. Brooks
Marilyn <mwe...@islandnet.com> wrote in message
> Peter wrote, in part and I think was the crux of his post:
>
> "I would also dispute the conclusion that claims an inevitability of a
> projection not being able to render the sky accurately - even if one
> doesn't now, this would be no argument for one not being found in
> future."
>
> This reminds me of the Republicans assuring us that their Star Wars
program
> is going to work. Also a discussion on the radio yesterday talked
about
> technology being so great that one day it will be able to navigate the
human
> soul. That far fetched confidence in our technology was shot down by a
> native woman who stood up and said with vehemence:
> "Why do white people have to go EVERYWHERE?"
>
Well, it doesn't sound much of an answer to me.
The point isn't that I am saying that technology is inevitably going to
find an answer - I am rather objecting to the closed minded suggestion
that it definately isn't, which the article makes.
If you read the paragraph of mine you post above, you will see that I
don't argue for an answer being found, only that there is no argument
for one not being found. A subtle, I know, but important distinction.
>
> If you accept that the universe is infinite there is no way the sky
can be
> rendered in perspective. Although we have an atmosphere we earthlings
do not
> live under a dome.
>
Well, the universe is bounded, and finite. However, what this has to do
with rendering the sky in perspective isn't clear. Have a look at the
article http://www.fm/7-sphere/finite.htm which discusses this in a
nicely approachable way.
We do not live under a dome, this is true. This is why the question
explored was the depiction of the stars, where the non-domelike nature
of the sky is more apparent. However, the visible stars (and surely a
sensible artistic rendition of the night sky wouldn't work with
invisible stars) are all a finite distance away.
mdeli
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>
>I would also dispute the conclusion that claims an inevitability of a
>projection not being able to render the sky accurately -
If the sky has anything in it its in perspective, The sky is a blend
this is also due to perspective. I guess that if you are totally blind
then there is no perspective. That is why the vast population of black
on black paintings excite artzy fartzies. They can then close their
eyes and see that as subject matter without perspective and launch
vast useless discussions on it.
Complaining about perspective is about as stupid as complaining about
the scales in music. Of course most patzers here hardly know any
perspective and then spout a line of excuses as to why their stuff
looks so lousy. They always claim that they use two dimensionality,
distortion, etc. etc and tell you that their look of utter
incompetence is really something new due to a language of modern art
that you don't understand. They then blow fuses when I answer what
amounts to, "Bullshit."
>. As, for example, Penrose discovered tilings in the plane that
>weren't known even twenty years ago - a mathematical problem quite akin
>to the problem of a perspective rendering of the sky even if not
>actually isomorphic to it.
It has nothing to do with rendering sky. It was answered a classic
question about tessellations.
Erik A. Mattila
>
> This reminds me of the Republicans assuring us that their Star Wars program
> is going to work. Also a discussion on the radio yesterday talked about
> technology being so great that one day it will be able to navigate the human
> soul. That far fetched confidence in our technology was shot down by a
> native woman who stood up and said with vehemence:
> "Why do white people have to go EVERYWHERE?"
hehhehheh....allow me to indulge your canadiocentrism a bit, Marilyn.
Remember Jarmusch's "Dead Man" flick? (If not, you should...). Well,
Canada's own Gary Farmer had this great line:
"I was then taken east, in a cage. I was taken to Toronto. Then
Philadelphia. And then to New York. And each time I arrived at another
city, somehow the white men had moved all their people there ahead of
me. Each new city contained the same white people as the last, and I
could not understand how a whole city of people could be moved so quickly."
Erik
Marilyn
Whatever the correct quote, it was a paradox. I'm open-minded enough to
realize that technology is not infinite. And I like standing in the middle
of a paradox and being comfortable there.
Marilyn
"Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
Where are your vanishing points in the sky?
Marilyn