Degas? Could it be?
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Rick Piacenti" <rwp...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:39B85BE5...@flash.net...
> I'm thinking it may be worth the
> chance that it's a limited print by Degas. Does anyone out there have
> any information that might be helpful; or even an opinion on possible
> authenticity? I don't plan to let on that I think it may be more
> valuable than the price they have on it. I'll just casually ask them
a
> few questions.
>
Do you feel comfortable with being so dishonest?
--
I knew that she would be beautiful in her
sleep, waiting for me.
Richard Brautigan - In Watermelon Sugar
Rick Piacenti
expert. For all I know it may be a fraud for the purpose of selling the
frame! I'm not going there to give them advice about what I think they
should sell it for. Even if it is a sketch by Degas, it may not be
verifiable and therefore the value would not be that great.
Glenda
Marilyn Welch
by Ingres he was an expert draughtsman. I have studied his work very carefully
and have never found anything crude in even the smallest, quickly executed
drawings. Then to top it off, why would he have something crude printed? It
would not have been done in charcoal or pastel, it would have been lithographic
pencil. Degas did some monoprints from his pastels (pastel paintings) and there
possibly could be some studio throw aways from that experimentation and
process.
Degas also did what some would describe as "crude" in sculpture. A small
ballerina which has been faked to the nth degree.
Also Degas had a good dealer who catalogued all his work.
The only way you could be really sure, would be to take the print to an expert
and that would cost you.
Marilyn
Marilyn Welch
complete works of Degas.
They will have a thumbnail beside the information so you could do some of your own
sleuthing.
Marilyn
Alison A Raimes
If you are serious about checking out the authenticity of Degas
(pronounced *de-garre*, incidentally), you need to write to Richard
Kendal in the UK. He is the leading expert. I can't give you his Email
address, but if you contact the art history department at Manchester
Metropolitan University (do a search for their site) and have them
forward a letter from you. He is a wonderful man and I am sure he will
reply. I don't know whether you have read any of his books on Degas?
When we were at University, we did a workshop with him for six weeks. We
had to learn to draw as Degas would, and our work was then taken and
used in a BBC Omnibus documentary on the artist. One of the things we
did learn, was that Degas' drawings were very *loose* and that he did
hundreds of sketches which might be considered *not finished*.
That workshop changed the way I draw - before that, I had very little
interest in his work.
Good luck
Alison A Raimes
http://www.raimes.com
In article <39B85BE5...@flash.net>, Rick Piacenti
<rwp...@flash.net> writes
>I was browsing in an antique store today. I was told by one of the
>workers there that the owner of the shop, buys from European estates.
>While browsing I saw a charcoal or black pastel sketch of a ballerina
>with a crude profile also drawn in the upper right of the piece. Other
>pictures in the shop I had observed would say "print" when the picture
>was a print. This one said #4 of 12 on the store tag. It was in an old
>guilded frame. I'm going to go back tomorrow to ask them what they can
>tell me about it. I want to see the back of the picture. I have
>already been to the library to see what his signature looks like. Most
>of the time he capitalized his name, but not always. This signature is
>not capitalized and is in the lower right. The price on it was 100
>something. I think it was like $120. I'm thinking it may be worth the
>chance that it's a limited print by Degas. Does anyone out there have
>any information that might be helpful; or even an opinion on possible
>authenticity? I don't plan to let on that I think it may be more
>valuable than the price they have on it. I'll just casually ask them a
>few questions.
>
>Glenda
Alison A Raimes
Alison
In article <vYe1cYA8...@raimes.com>, Alison A Raimes
<ali...@raimes.com> writes
>had to learn to draw as Degas would, and our work was then taken and
>used in a BBC Omnibus documentary on the artist. One of the things we
>did learn, was that Degas' drawings were very *loose* and that he did
>hundreds of sketches which might be considered *not finished*.
>
Alison A Raimes
<wq...@victoria.tc.ca> writes
>What makes me sceptical is the phrase "crude sketch" since Degas was influenced
>by Ingres he was an expert draughtsman. I have studied his work very carefully
>and have never found anything crude in even the smallest, quickly executed
>drawings.
Just out of curiosity, which drawings have you studied so closely and in
what museum? The information you have posted is badly informed. Degas,
like most any artist, produced hundreds of fast *action* drawings which
could certainly be considered *crude*. How on earth do you imagine he
worked on his dancing figures? I am wondering who you studied his work
under?
Rick Piacenti
Thanks for the info. This sketch is a loose, quick type rendering as you
describe. As it turns out I went to the shop today. It is a print. The
notation on the store tag mean that it was one of a set of 4. I'm not
sure what the # 12 meant. The clerk at the store told me that she has one
of the other ones and that a customer was angry with her because she
wanted the complete set. I bought the picture because it really looks
great. The frame is substantial and heavy, though they told me it was new
it looks, feels and smells kind of old (which may be from being in an
antique shop). My daughter who is soon to be 22 took ballet for 12 years
and her favorite artist is Degas. I bought it for her for Christmas.
She'll love it. So after all that discussion, it really has no more value
than I paid for it. I felt it was a good looking print and frame and was
worth $139, especially considering that my daughter will think it is "so
cool". Thanks again for the info.
Glenda
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Alison A Raimes" <ali...@raimes.com> wrote in message
news:vYe1cYA8...@raimes.com...
> Hi Glenda
>
> If you are serious about checking out the authenticity of Degas
> (pronounced *de-garre*, incidentally
>
Peter H.M. Brooks
> > Just out of curiosity, which drawings have you studied so closely
and in
> what museum? The information you have posted is badly informed.
Degas,
> like most any artist, produced hundreds of fast *action* drawings
which
> could certainly be considered *crude*. How on earth do you imagine he
> worked on his dancing figures? I am wondering who you studied his
work
> under?
>
Chris
Up to your old tricks - leading the lambs astray?
Alison A Raimes wrote:
>
> Hi Glenda
>
> If you are serious about checking out the authenticity of Degas
> (pronounced *de-garre*, incidentally),
That's a curious pronunciation of it; after all, it's pretty standard
French. Though check any dictionary if you like! And for those who are
dictionarily challenged, or maybe just spent too much time in
Manchester, here's a useful link re. the pronunciation of artist's
names... http://www.nga.gov/education/vgt_pronun.htm
> you need to write to Richard
> Kendal in the UK. He is the leading expert. I can't give you his Email
> address, but if you contact the art history department at Manchester
> Metropolitan University (do a search for their site) and have them
> forward a letter from you. He is a wonderful man and I am sure he will
> reply. I don't know whether you have read any of his books on Degas?
> When we were at University, we did a workshop with him for six weeks. We
> had to learn to draw as Degas would,
It took you that long to learn how to hold the pencil? LOL... or are you
saying it only took 6 weeks to learn to draw as well as Degas? Curious
minds want to know.
> and our work was then taken and
> used in a BBC Omnibus documentary on the artist. One of the things we
> did learn, was that Degas' drawings were very *loose* and that he did
> hundreds of sketches which might be considered *not finished*.
>
Yes, but there's a huge difference between *crude* (as it is generally
applied to art) and *unfinished* or *loose*. Someday you'll understand
the difference (we hope, it'll certainly lighten the internet
traffic...).
Back to Glenda:
I know there are many prints floating around attributed to Mary Cassatt
that were supposedly done from her plates, and frankly look just
terrible. I assume that this was because the plates were reworked to
bring them back to a usable state (they wear out), by by a less expert
hand. This wouldn't happen if she had destroyed the plates after their
initial runs, but otherwise seems to be the case.
I only mention that because Degas & Cassatt worked quite closely
together, particularly in printing, and one might assume that many of
the habits were similarly shared. So the print may be from Degas'
plates, but not really of his hand. Frankly this all just supposition.
A good place to follow this up is at:
http://frank.mtsu.edu/~art/printmaking/wwwboard/wwwboard.html
It's a printmaker's bulletin board, and you'll find many knowledgeable
people there.
But in any case, I hope you & you daughter enjoy the print.
Cheers;
Chris
--
"Art is the supreme manifestation of individualism" - Oscar Wilde
Artwork: http://www.gammarat.com/
New Work: http://www.gammarat.com/Hommasse/Current.jpg
Alison A Raimes
<pe...@new.co.za> writes
>
>"Alison A Raimes" <ali...@raimes.com> wrote in message
>news:vYe1cYA8...@raimes.com...
>> Hi Glenda
>>
>> If you are serious about checking out the authenticity of Degas
>> (pronounced *de-garre*, incidentally
>>
>'De-ga', actually. But let it rest - you tried.
In many cultures GA would have a heavy pronouncement on the A and stop
the rolling undertone of the *r* that is indicated in the French use of
the *s* on the end. But I am sure you really knew that and couldn't
resist to exert your superiority to this group.
Alison A Raimes
<rwp...@flash.net> writes
>Alison;
>
>Thanks for the info. This sketch is a loose, quick type rendering as you
>describe. As it turns out I went to the shop today. It is a print. The
>notation on the store tag mean that it was one of a set of 4. I'm not
>sure what the # 12 meant. The clerk at the store told me that she has one
>of the other ones and that a customer was angry with her because she
>wanted the complete set. I bought the picture because it really looks
>great. The frame is substantial and heavy, though they told me it was new
>it looks, feels and smells kind of old (which may be from being in an
>antique shop). My daughter who is soon to be 22 took ballet for 12 years
>and her favorite artist is Degas. I bought it for her for Christmas.
>She'll love it. So after all that discussion, it really has no more value
>than I paid for it. I felt it was a good looking print and frame and was
>worth $139, especially considering that my daughter will think it is "so
>cool". Thanks again for the info.
>
>Glenda
Well at least you bought it for all the right reasons, Glenda, and those
are the only reasons anyone should buy art. If it had been a set of
four, and it was a limited edition - one of twelve for instance, that
would have made it interesting. But the antiques dealer would have know
that. Unfortunately this group isn't the most educated arena and you are
getting a lot of bad information as a result - I would strongly suggest
to anyone seriously interested in Degas and how he worked, to read
Richard Kendall's works - that would be a nice additional present for
your daughter.
Enjoy
Peter H.M. Brooks
> > In many cultures GA would have a heavy pronouncement on the A and
stop
> the rolling undertone of the *r* that is indicated in the French use
of
> the *s* on the end. But I am sure you really knew that and couldn't
> resist to exert your superiority to this group.
>
would be wrong there. I most certainly wouldn't wish to claim
superiority
over the group as a whole. If it did exist over members of the group,
why should I bother to demonstrate something so clearly obvious?
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> that. Unfortunately this group isn't the most educated arena
>
you are a regular contributor to the group, so you should know.
Alison A Raimes
<bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> writes
>It took you that long to learn how to hold the pencil? LOL... or are you
>saying it only took 6 weeks to learn to draw as well as Degas? Curious
>minds want to know.
I realise that studying drawing is something that you have never done,
Christine, but in all honesty, it would do you a lot of good to do so.
It might help to rid your paintings of that awful static, chocolate box
feeling. I guess that is why an art education is so valuable - it
exposes you to projects like the BBC Omnibus one
http://www.scorer.co.uk/show.html
and contributes a vital part of the learning process that is so
transparently missing in those who claim they are self taught *artists*.
The workshops lead by Richard Kendall did exactly that - they stopped my
own drawing from being *static* which was something I found hard to deal
with in that medium, especially as my paintings are so wet on wet and
fluid. Compare my life drawings before those workshops at
http://raimes.homestead.com/StudentWork.html
and then look at the charcoal drawings on my website at
http://www.raimes.com
Those workshops taught us to respond to the delicate, but necessary
strokes needed to bring the drawing to life - so the bather is not
sitting posing and the dancer is flexing and moving always. Have you
ever done life drawing classes, Christine? Warming up involves a series
of very fast and *crude* drawings which, because they are done without
the pressure of a finished product, are often seen later as some of the
artists best work. I suspect that the prints of Degas being discussed
here are exactly that.
One artist worth checking out who was involved in the BBC Omnibus
production and whose work was used as props can be seen here
http://www.ghislainehoward.com/gallery.htm
She discusses how Degas has influenced her own drawing practise at
http://www.ghislainehoward.com/work.htm
Chris
after the ad hominem attack - guess that's all that's left when you are
just simply wrong, isn't it?
But even there, you miss the boat - I do have formal art training (both
in school and in an atelier), and in fact by the time I was 18 (in
1969) I had paid my own way to Europe on paintings that I sold....As
for life drawing, I still do it - though this year it's down to only 4
hours a month, from approximately 20, over the last couple years.
As for your student work; yes it looks like student work from someone
learning the basics of charcoal (dark, heavy, "draumatic") - what can I
say? we all did that stuff at some point - & I checked for more
charcoals at your main site but only found one involving a few squiggles
and no sense of drawing whatsoever - perhaps you would be happy to
provide some more? Where are these Degasian "delicate strokes" of yours
that bring the drawings to life? Lets see what you can do (besides
blather, that is..). Aside from apparently watching too much TV, that
is...
As for Degas printing warm up drawings - this is an interesting theory!
I'd love to know how this was done - loads of quick sketches with the
drypoint needle on cooper plates perhaps? Or maybe just dashed of a few
dozen aquatints before getting ready for the real work? LOL...
Cheers;
Chris
-
"Art is the supreme manifestation of individualism" - Oscar Wilde
Artwork: http://www.gammarat.com
New Work: http://www.gammarat.com/Homasse/Current.jpg
-
SJAMES684
having any comments/suggestions as to how it might be structured, for example,
interests, expertise, artistic merit, ego-boosting, sales, or any other aspects
of her work and contibutions to the cause of art.
Comments/contributions please.
S. James
Alison A Raimes
That's a great idea S.James - it will give you a purpose in life.
Alison
http://artlives.homestead.com
SJAMES684 <sjam...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000910055338...@nso-fo.aol.com...
Alison A Raimes
Chris <bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:39BA2501...@ns.sympatico.ca...
> LOL Alison...Let me see, you've avoided the main issues in order to go
> after the ad hominem attack - guess that's all that's left when you are
> just simply wrong, isn't it?
Sorry about that - I must have fallen asleep before gettintg to the end of
your post.
I see you are doing paintings of Rwanda. Wow! I didn't know you had been
out there and experienced the atrocities and dreadful circumstances in
which those people are suffering. Well, kudos to you - I imagine those
images must be very hard to transfer to canvas. God knows how many poor
attempts there are by would-be artists whose images come from TV
pictures they see while eating their supper. Or artists whose work is so
weak they choose some sociological horror to draw attention to their so
called seriousness. It generally fails, because their images are
constructed from glancing at newspapers and TV and work like that can
only be powerful when it comes from the guts - from personal experience.
I know you will agree, Christine, because of your love of Wilde's quote
- individualism certainly doesn't come from artificially induced
emotions, does it? Good luck in transferring your experiences from your
time in Rwanda and I hope it isn't too painful.
pinksy
"Alison A Raimes" <alison...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Chris <bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:39BA2501...@ns.sympatico.ca...
> > LOL Alison...Let me see, you've avoided the main issues in order to
go
> > after the ad hominem attack - guess that's all that's left when you
are
> > just simply wrong, isn't it?
>
> Sorry about that - I must have fallen asleep before gettintg to the
end of
> your post.
joining discussions, but had no real luck at decent discussions. This
discussion did start out as fairly interesting, but seems to have
turned into a slagging of session not dissimilar to events in a school
playground. Alison you talk about emotions and how paintings are
painted from the guts: sensitive comments, yet how can the same person
attack someone's work so insensitively and with such venomous
sarcasm.
PLEASE tell me, anyone out there, where can I go for a decent down to
earth chat about art, painting and what it means to me!!! PLEASE HELP!
> I see you are doing paintings of Rwanda. Wow! I didn't know you had
been
> out there and experienced the atrocities and dreadful circumstances in
> which those people are suffering. Well, kudos to you - I imagine those
> images must be very hard to transfer to canvas. God knows how many
poor
> attempts there are by would-be artists whose images come from TV
> pictures they see while eating their supper. Or artists whose work is
so
> weak they choose some sociological horror to draw attention to their
so
> called seriousness. It generally fails, because their images are
> constructed from glancing at newspapers and TV and work like that can
> only be powerful when it comes from the guts - from personal
experience.
> I know you will agree, Christine, because of your love of Wilde's
quote
> - individualism certainly doesn't come from artificially induced
> emotions, does it? Good luck in transferring your experiences from
your
> time in Rwanda and I hope it isn't too painful.
>
> Alison
> http://artlives.homestead.com
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Chris
avoid putting up the links to you're Degasian drawings?
Since you want to discuss the painting, I'll put a link to it so any one
else can feel free to join in.
http://www.gammarat.com/Job/
The painting is called "Job and his Children" and was sparked by two
events - a discussion I was having with a Christian friend about the
Book of Job, and reports (at the time the painting was started, early
this summer) concerning General Romeo Dallaire. I am not surprised that
you missed the point of the painting (which is not directly about
Rwanda); since to understand it would require some basic literary
grounding and a moderate knowledge of current events.
But to recap very briefly Re. Dallaire - he was in charge of the UN
forces in Rwanda at the time of the slaughter; despite a number of pleas
put forward by him, he was denied authorization to prevent it or put an
end to it; the moral suffering he has to endure since then is quite well
known, at least to Canadians. It is very convenient for westerners to
write this "error" to poor management on the part of the UN; but if you
dig a little deeper I think you'll find that the fault lies primarily in
us as individuals and the governments we choose.
Re. the book of Job; I suppose it is never to late for you to read it;
it is not particularly difficult. And when you do, ask yourself where
were his friends - the elite of his society, the people he helped and
protected, when his time of crisis came. And where would you be, given
the same situation? (That's rhetorical.)
As to whether one is painting what one knows - again, in your urge to
try and save some face, you are wrong again. I come from family with
strong military ties; I work for the military; I live in what was until
recently a "garrison town", and I have met Gen Dallaire. I grew up in
DC, and I am not unfamiliar with pointless death. Unlike some people, I
am not ashamed to have that as part of my life - nor will I (like some
people) try and hide from current realities in pretentious decorations
of "nothingness".
Cheers;
Chris
--
"Art is the supreme manifestation of individualism" - Oscar Wilde
Artwork: http://www.gammarat.com/
New Work: http://www.gmmarat.com/Homasse/Current.jpg
Chris
Don't worry about it, it's not really important (but thanks for the
concern)..but if you have something, feel free to speak up, there's
actually alot of people looking for interesting discussions. Are you a
painter or otherwise engaged in the arts? Personally I'm fascinated by
political and social art, and self-taught painters, and the role of
education, etc.. (and though I have to run out for a few hours now) I'd
wouldn't mind following up on such topics. Even politely LOL :)
Cheers;
Chris
Alison A Raimes
news:8pgbsp$mcv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > I'm a new comer to this forum and have had several attempts at
> joining discussions, but had no real luck at decent discussions.
Perhaps you could let us know which discussions you have attempted to join?
there is no evidence of any in your posting history .
This
> discussion did start out as fairly interesting, but seems to have
> turned into a slagging of session not dissimilar to events in a school
> playground. Alison you talk about emotions and how paintings are
> painted from the guts: sensitive comments, yet how can the same person
> attack someone's work so insensitively and with such venomous
> sarcasm.
Oh please - get your mummy to give you some mushed up rusks and milk.
> PLEASE tell me, anyone out there, where can I go for a decent down to
> earth chat about art, painting and what it means to me!!! PLEASE HELP!
You coul;d start by telling the truth?
Alison A Raimes
> Hey Alison - Sinking even further, are you? LOL...Or still trying to
> avoid putting up the links to you're Degasian drawings?
Christine: you decided to attach that label to my drawings - not I. There
are four charcoal drawings, one pastel and three ink and bleach drawings on
my website which have been done in the last three years. I don't expect them
to be of your liking any more than your artificial and affected paintings
get my approval. My comments were that the workshop changed the way I draw -
not that they have any comparison to Degas'. From the dark lines of the
typical student drawings, I was taught that Degas would leave old drawings
showing through and that he would build up layers and layers by working over
lines again and again. I was taught to rub back the image and then to draw
over the top of it. We were also shown how he would take a tracing of a work
and produce as many as forty individual images from it. The reason for this
was that his drawings had to be done very fast. Richard Kendall had the life
model stand in one of Degas' dancing poses and as we drew the figure
constantly moved as she tried to hold the pose. This is evident in many of
Degas' drawings - where the arm has dropped or the leg moved and he had to
redraw it over the top leaving the underdrawing showing through. I don't
know how you produce your etchings but Degas, like most artists, worked from
his drawings - often tracing the image to capture that essence of figure in
constant motion.
pinksy
> news:8pgbsp$mcv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > > I'm a new comer to this forum and have had several attempts at
> > joining discussions, but had no real luck at decent discussions.
>
> Perhaps you could let us know which discussions you have attempted to
join?
> there is no evidence of any in your posting history .
plus visited the forum on a regular basis so as to check out any
interesting debates.
>
> This
> > discussion did start out as fairly interesting, but seems to have
> > turned into a slagging of session not dissimilar to events in a
school
> > playground. Alison you talk about emotions and how paintings are
> > painted from the guts: sensitive comments, yet how can the same
person
> > attack someone's work so insensitively and with such venomous
> > sarcasm.
>
> Oh please - get your mummy to give you some mushed up rusks and milk.
>
> > PLEASE tell me, anyone out there, where can I go for a decent down
to
> > earth chat about art, painting and what it means to me!!! PLEASE
HELP!
>
> You coul;d start by telling the truth?
discussions.
pinksy
Chris <bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Hi pinksy;
>
> Don't worry about it, it's not really important (but thanks for the
> concern)..but if you have something, feel free to speak up, there's
> actually alot of people looking for interesting discussions. Are you a
> painter or otherwise engaged in the arts? Personally I'm fascinated by
> political and social art, and self-taught painters, and the role of
> education, etc.. (and though I have to run out for a few hours now)
I'd
> wouldn't mind following up on such topics. Even politely LOL :)
>
> Cheers;
>
> Chris
concerned (and these forums)...But a very passionate novice who is
eagerly learning all the time. I am studying Art Therapy at present
and beginning a dissertation on the work of Rothko. I do paint (I
paint to please myself) and it is something that gives me an incredible
buzz. I paint or sketch on a daily basis and during term time I attend
life drawing on a weely basis. I'm no great painter and don't proclaim
to be an artist....but I get something from art.
Chris
I don't know much about him (other than the fact I am intrigued with his
work); I think Marilyn & Erik can fill you in on lots though. Dan Fox
(an AE painter who used to post here regularly), also knew quite a bit
about him, if I remember correctly. Mani Deli, another frequent poster,
isn't exactly fond of Rothko...FWIW, didn't Rothko say something along
the lines that all his work was representative, and that the only really
valid subject of great art was tragedy? There's something worth
following up.
I see you mention you are new to these forums - here's some free
pointers (if you don't mind.) Most Usenet newsgroups such as this are
essentially unmoderated, which makes them somewhat chaotic, and perhaps
subject to the tragedy of the commons. They are also stuck with a touch
of the "old west" syndrome, the oddballs who see themselves as "big
players on the newsgroup", rather like gunslingers from the Tucson of
yore...
A bigger worry for many is that anything you post will be archived and
available to anyone who wants, whenever. (For example, you'll notice
that Alison uses the nicknames "Chrissy" and "Christine" for me, which
she picked up last year when she was learning how to search the
deja-news archives. It's rather amusing, since they were given to me by
some of our local neo-fascists who objected to my support of a local
feminist, so I am rather proud of them. But that's another story :). But
in any case, just remember whatever you say or do here is very public,
and very permanent. And under recent court rulings, perfectly traceable
(at least in the US. I realize you are posting from GB, but I imagine
the same will be in effect there soon, if it isn't already.)
But back to art - you said you like to sketch everyday - that's an
effort I make sometimes successfully, and often not! I tend to prefer
figure work - for example, I have a son on the younger edges of skater
culture; so one of our favourite sketching haunts is the "pit" where
roller bladers & skateboarders strut their stuff...I also like drawing
in bars, & in parks; where ever people congregate. Life classes are
great too; there's six examples at
http://www.gammarat.com/Drawings/index.html (four models, two of other
artists). Alas , they are expensive, since I have to hire a sitter for
my son when I go out at night.
I've also prefer working in pen - not because I'm good enough to knock
them off error free, but because by working in pen I have to learn to
accept mistakes and move on.
As Alison learned Degas did - and like most figure artists have always
done -it is really useful to retrace work. It is a wonderful way to
learn about your own strengths and weaknesses, and to explore the large
effects of small perturbations. The ink drawing at the top of the page I
just mentioned (of the old man, the boy and the woman) was one of those,
of which I did perhaps a dozen.
How about you?
Regards;
Chris
--
"Art is the supreme manifestation of individualism" - Oscar Wilde
Artwork: http://www.gammarat.com
New Work: http://www.gammarat.com/Homasse/Current.jpg
Chris
when chided for spending six weeks learning how to hold a pencil, you
got quite hot under the collar. And yet what you list below is simply an
aggregation of techniques to hold that pencil, which should (in fact)
been taught to you in first year drawing class, or even a foundation
year class. Personally I think that it is a good example of why students
- if they are sufficiently motivated - should look outside the classroom
for instruction, such as by working with practicing artists. It
encourages learning by experimentation and observation. But, then again,
many paths lead to the same destination.
As for the etchings - I love to play with the materials. The joy of
etchings is that you get to get filthy, play with sharp objects (& even
toxic ones!) and people think you are doing Good Things LOL...The one I
am working on now is a (sort of) mezzotint and drypoint; but having
gotten sick of the rocker I've found a slightly bent, broken drill bit
on the end of a highspeed drill generates a wonderful complex surface to
work on...As for transferring drawings to the plate, there are dozens of
ways to do this. But unless you use something like a photo transfer,
what appears on the plate is the effect of deliberate processes, not a
quick sketch.
Chris
--
"Art is the supreme manifestation of individualism" - Oscar Wilde
Artwork: http://www.gammarat.com/
New Work: http://www.gammarat.com/Homasse/Current.jpg
Alison A Raimes
> Uhhh Alison - you did say that you learned to draw like Degas did, and
> when chided for spending six weeks learning how to hold a pencil, you
> got quite hot under the collar. And yet what you list below is simply an
Confused again, Christine. I refer you to the post of mine from which you
sprung off:
*That workshop changed the way I draw - before that, I had very little
interest in his work.*
Alison
Alison A Raimes
> year class. Personally I think that it is a good example of why students
> - if they are sufficiently motivated - should look outside the classroom
> for instruction, such as by working with practicing artists. It
> encourages learning by experimentation and observation. But, then again,
> many paths lead to the same destination.
Weird and weirder! I don't know what sort of life drawing classes you
attend, but all the ones that I went to were run by practising artists - in
fact all my art education was with prcatising artists. Richard Kendall is,
by the way, a practising artist as well as an expert on Degas.
Alison A Raimes
writes
>eagerly learning all the time. I am studying Art Therapy at present
>and beginning a dissertation on the work of Rothko. I do paint (I
Have you read James Breslin's biography on Rothko?
Alison A Raimes
<bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> writes
>
>A bigger worry for many is that anything you post will be archived and
>available to anyone who wants, whenever. (For example, you'll notice
>that Alison uses the nicknames "Chrissy" and "Christine" for me, which
>she picked up last year when she was learning how to search the
>deja-news archives. It's rather amusing, since they were given to me by
>some of our local neo-fascists who objected to my support of a local
>feminist, so I am rather proud of them. But that's another story :). But
Oh please, don't flatter yourself! terminal boredom from reading you is
restricted for periods when the only alternative is preparing tax
returns (like now). Good god, I have never searched deja news for more
of the same. However, I find it amusing and somewhat annoying that
someone else already is using my nickname for you - has anyone else
stolen my title of the Bore Broebeck? If not, I will copyright it
immediately.
Back to the taxes ....
pinksy
pinksy
Alison A Raimes <alis...@SPAMraimes.com> wrote:
trying to use as a base to my dissertation.
Alison A Raimes
writes
>but u did check my postings: so a little obsessive.
Nothing obsessive at all. I intensely dislike cowards who won't post
under their real name and tend to check out their authenticity before
engaging in any form of conversation with them. One of our regulars
makes a performance of posting in pseudonyms - his game is to get his
characters to make him look good - I find it pathetic that anyone on
this forum should need any help to stand their ground in debate. You
decided to enter into a mud slinging contest that had nothing to do with
you - and you claimed that you had tried to debate here without success.
I have never noticed you before and was curious to find out who I was
engaging with. From that, I found out that actually you had never tried
to debate here on rec.arts.fine and concluded you to be yet another
whinging lurker who complains but never attempts to contribute. So far
you have done nothing to disprove that. You have the material to start a
good debate but you make no attempt. Don't complain about others - get
off your ass and do something to start a debate - start by saying
something useful about Rothko for instance.
I used the Breslin book as the base of my dissertation on Rothko and got
badly criticised for focusing on one biography too much. In a
discussion with another student who was writing a dissertation on
Rothko, I gave him the following advise - it may, or many not be useful
to you (or anyone else here). Do not be tempted to
make any assertions about the personality of the artist as being
relevant to the discussion on his work - stick to an evaluation of the
work and to what the artist had to say himself and then only in context.
Rothko himself said many times that his work was not about his personal
life. In a lecture he gave at the Pratt Institute in 1958 he explained
that "Painting a picture is not a form of self expression. It is, like
any other art, a language by which you communicate something about the
world". That for me, is probably the most important and revealing
statement he made.
There are some interesting parallels in Rothko's preoccupation with
tragedy and death and the relevance to what he perceived as *beauty*,
particularly in relation to Nietzsche's _Birth of Tragedy_. Julian
Young wrote a short and concise paper called _Nietzsche's philosophy of
art_ published by Cambridge University Press, 1992 ISBN 052145575/8
which often discusses *beauty* and might be worth trying to get hold of.
Other books work checking out:
_Mark Rothko: Works on paper_ B. Clearwater - Hudson Hills, NY
_About Rothko_ by Dore Ashton - Oxf. Univ. Press, 1983
_The art of Mark Rothko: into an unknown world_ Edit by Marc Glimcher -
Barrie and Jenkins, London 1992
............ still getting nowhere fast with the taxes .....
Alison A Raimes
lies too! What is all this about *author profile* for goodness sakes?
BTW we showed long ago that putting your *code* at the top does nothing.
Lots of people have pointed this out to Marilyn, but she just doesn't
get it.
Alison.
In article <39BD1E3D...@victoria.tc.ca>, Marilyn Welch
<wq...@victoria.tc.ca> writes
>x-no-archive:yes
>Someone once privately emailed her with an 'aside' comment and she posted
>that private email (which is now a copyright violation) to embarrass the
>person.
Nonsense! if a coward posts and tell me not to engage in a debate with
Mani then I will certainly respond to the list - as I did. Copyright
violation!!!!!!!!!!! hahahahaha. Good old Marilyn! She sure livened up
my tax day!
Alison
Chris
"When we were at University, we did a workshop with him for six weeks.
We
had to learn to draw as Degas would,...."
To me that implies something a little more sophisticated than learning
how to use an eraser. Guess I was wrong LOL..
Cheers;
Chris
--
"Art is the supreme manifestation of individualism" - Oscar Wilde
Artwork: http://www.gammarat.com/
Alison A Raimes
<bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> writes
>yes Alison; but you also posted :
>
>"When we were at University, we did a workshop with him for six weeks.
>We
>had to learn to draw as Degas would,...."
>
>To me that implies something a little more sophisticated than learning
>how to use an eraser. Guess I was wrong LOL..
Its really does seem futile continuing with this because your motives
are not for discussing Degas' work, nor have they ever been. Degas had a
very specific way of drawing which Richard Kendall studied and for
purposes of the documentary, taught a group of second year art school
degree students to work in the same way. I happened to be one of them
and thought it worthwhile to pass on my experiences. Several of those
students perfected the techniques enough that they were then paid when
their work was used as props in the show. I provided a link to someone
who explained the technique fully and showed how she has used it in her
own work. I pointed you to my student work before that workshop and then
to my charcoal drawings after - there is a significant change in my own
work which is a result of those workshops. I don't think it takes that
much intelligence to work out the rest. Something you don't seem to be
capable of.
Goodbye.
pinksy
Alison A Raimes <alis...@SPAMraimes.com> wrote:
> writes
>
> >but u did check my postings: so a little obsessive.
>
> Nothing obsessive at all. I intensely dislike cowards who won't post
> under their real name and tend to check out their authenticity before
> engaging in any form of conversation with them. One of our regulars
> makes a performance of posting in pseudonyms - his game is to get his
> characters to make him look good - I find it pathetic that anyone on
> this forum should need any help to stand their ground in debate. You
> decided to enter into a mud slinging contest that had nothing to do
with> you
- and you claimed that you had tried to debate here without success.
> I have never noticed you before and was curious to find out who I was
> engaging with. From that, I found out that actually you had never
tried
mmmm I have, but hey ho
> to debate here on rec.arts.fine and concluded you to be yet another
> whinging lurker who complains but never attempts to contribute. So far
> you have done nothing to disprove that. You have the material to
start a
> good debate but you make no attempt. Don't complain about others - get
> off your ass and do something to start a debate - start by saying
> something useful about Rothko for instance.
As I have said I'm pretty much a novice and only just getting going.
so here goes!
>
> I used the Breslin book as the base of my dissertation on Rothko and
got
> badly criticised for focusing on one biography too much. In a
> discussion with another student who was writing a dissertation on
> Rothko, I gave him the following advise - it may, or many not be
useful
> to you (or anyone else here). Do not be tempted to
> make any assertions about the personality of the artist as being
> relevant to the discussion on his work - stick to an evaluation of the
> work and to what the artist had to say himself and then only in
context.
that would be an angle, but the nature of what I am studying I have to
disagree completely with stating that the personality of an artist is
not relevant to the discussion of their work. I would say that it is
virtually impossible for any artist to complete any peice of work
without leaving some trace of their own personality on the canvas.
> Rothko himself said many times that his work was not about his
personal
> life. In a lecture he gave at the Pratt Institute in 1958 he explained
> that "Painting a picture is not a form of self expression. It is, like
> any other art, a language by which you communicate something about the
> world". That for me, is probably the most important and revealing
> statement he made.
Yes I can't disagree with that of course a communication is being made
about the world. But isn't this communication the artist's perception
of the world? how did the artist aquire their perception of the world?
through their own unique experience of life. You could argue that this
is all strongly linked to their personality, after all how does an
individual construct their personality, it could be argued that this is
done through their own unique life experiences and it goes on....
>
> There are some interesting parallels in Rothko's preoccupation with
> tragedy and death and the relevance to what he perceived as *beauty*,
> particularly in relation to Nietzsche's _Birth of Tragedy_. Julian
> Young wrote a short and concise paper called _Nietzsche's philosophy
of
> art_ published by Cambridge University Press, 1992 ISBN 052145575/8
> which often discusses *beauty* and might be worth trying to get hold
of.
>
> Other books work checking out:
>
> _Mark Rothko: Works on paper_ B. Clearwater - Hudson Hills, NY
>
> _About Rothko_ by Dore Ashton - Oxf. Univ. Press, 1983
>
> _The art of Mark Rothko: into an unknown world_ Edit by Marc Glimcher
-
> Barrie and Jenkins, London 1992
Cheers, I shall be of to the library tomorrow and see if the books are
of use.
Pinksy, by the way I wouldn't say that this sn't my real name.
>
> ............ still getting nowhere fast with the taxes .....
> Alison
> http://www.raimes.com
> http://artlives.homestead.com
>
Kenny Danielson
shouldn't be posting anything at all.
Kenny
"Marilyn Welch" <wq...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message news:39BD90A1...@victoria.tc.ca...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> I don't think I was that clear about posts being archived so here are the
> instructions
> from Deja.com:
>
> How can I prevent my messages from being archived by Deja.com, Inc.?
>
> In order to prevent messages from being archived by Deja.com you can use the
> X-no-archive option supported by the Deja.com X-header field and some web
> browsers.
>
> In the X-header field type: x-no-archive: yes
>
> If you are not posting through Deja.com OR if your browser does not support
> x-headers, then you can still employ the x-no-archive option by typing it in as
> the first line of your message's text body. There must not be any other text
> besides the x-no-archive: yes on that line or it will not work.
>
>
> from <www.deja.com>
>
>
>
Alison A Raimes
Kenny Danielson <ken...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>But, if you are trying to hide or are ashamed of your posts, you probably
>shouldn't be posting anything at all.
>
>Kenny
I think Marilyn has just substantiated why she needs to do that. Its a
cowards weapon. She has made unfounded accusations about me to a public
audience with no evidence - I presume she has some sort of ulterior
motive for doing this as it can't be simply because I commented that she
is incapable of voicing an independent opinion. Or perhaps she is intent
on driving me off her group? Well, she doesn't read me, so I have no way
of challenging her on it and asking her to provide the public forum with
evidence. For what it is worth, anything that I have ever done here is
a result of provocation and in counter attack to abuse on me - if
Marilyn wants to put up evidence of her claims then I will prove this.
All's fair in rec.art.fine but Marilyn's frustration is that I actually
enjoy the little game here! Unfortunately in Marilyn's books, there is
one rule for her and another for others and I am a constant thorn in her
side ;-) Still, I shouldn't be a worry to her as she has me on her kill
file - which is what anyone who can't handle another can do. Its your
power to censor and Marilyn chooses to !
Alison A Raimes
writes
>that would be an angle, but the nature of what I am studying I have to
>disagree completely with stating that the personality of an artist is
>not relevant to the discussion of their work. I would say that it is
>virtually impossible for any artist to complete any peice of work
>without leaving some trace of their own personality on the canvas.
Yes of course, you are doing Art Therapy not Fine Art. In that case, I
can understand where you are coming from. But Pinksy, isn't it
impossible for any individual to leave some trace of their personality
on anything they do? Why is art any different to say cooking or making
jigsaws?
>Yes I can't disagree with that of course a communication is being made
>about the world. But isn't this communication the artist's perception
>of the world? how did the artist aquire their perception of the world?
>through their own unique experience of life. You could argue that this
>is all strongly linked to their personality, after all how does an
>individual construct their personality, it could be argued that this is
>done through their own unique life experiences and it goes on....
I don't agree with Rothko's statement at all - I did find it most
revealing about him though and has often lead me to think that it was
the reason for his dissatisfaction which eventually lead to his suicide.
There is certainly plenty of evidence that Rothko was disillusioned by
the ability of his work to communicate. Just before his death, when he
sent the Seagram murals paintings to London to hang next to Turner in
the Tate, he expressed his deep concern that the British public would
not understand the works. He committed suicide before they arrived.
Were Rothko's experiences particularly unique? Why were they more unique
than any other artist? Millions of people around the world were being
displaced at that time - many of them living in misery as a result.
Thousands of them arrived in New York during that time. Being separated
from family and homeland is hardly a unique twentieth century
experience. Did he have a specific religious *vision*? or was he
projecting something that had already been discussed by philosophers and
theologians? Perhaps Rothko's *subject matter* was not in fact his own
unique experience, but drawn from contemporary thought using
contemporary tool. Was he performing to the masses, perhaps? Was he
really looking to express something beyond his reach? something that
deeply disturbed him. Or was he playing the game in New York? using the
tools available to be seen to be producing something that is paramount
to propaganda. Was he the first performance artist?
Those are the sort of questions that should be asked of Rothko.
Kenny Danielson
Kenny
"Marilyn Welch" <wq...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.1000912080432.22878E-100000@vtn1...
>
> Do I look like I'm hiding?
>
> I'm talking about misuse of posts, and publishing emails.
> Forgot about reading miscomprehension like yours.
>
> Marilyn
Chris
>
> But, if you are trying to hide or are ashamed of your posts, you probably
> shouldn't be posting anything at all.
>
important issue. A more typical example is what Alison did in order to
prove that she was somehow "better" than a painter who used to post here
(since she certainly couldn't do it artistically - the guy's had shows
across the US and Japan) - she found out by digging through Deja-news
that he was a member of a religious sect she didn't like, and then
proceeded - with the help of a friend - to post tiresomely long screeds
about it.
Similarly, if you do a search on the poster "Quo Vadis" (an alias of
Alison's) you'll find quite a long series of attacks with the stated aim
of making usenet extremely uncomfortable for one of the regular posters
here, no matter where she goes; while posting under another account
name, she accused me of pederasty for the following painting :
http://www.gammarat.com/Paintings/Construction_50.html . Go figure.
Certainly it is possible to filter out that kind of school-girl
stupidity, but unfortunately many (especially new) posters react to
these sorts of things in the same way that they would if another kook
had done the same thing in real life. It's compounded by the fact that
any discussion about you will be archived and available to anyone, which
some people find intimidating. That's especially true for posters who
weren't born with the silver spoon in their mouths, who don't have
family law offices to hang their paintings in, and who may find
fragments of on-line harassment surfacing in their day-to-day
activities.
The net result is that we lose the input from alot of good artists; and
even more we lose contact with people who are posting & reading here
because they share an interest and a love of fine arts.
Regards;
Chris
--
"Art is the supreme manifestation of individualism" - Oscar Wilde
Artwork: http://www.gammarat.com/
New Work : http://www.gammarat.com/Homasse/Current.jpg
> Kenny
Kenny Danielson
extra sensitive are not sufficiently protected by "no-archive" and they
would be well advise to stay away.
Incidentally, your painting looks quite pleasant to this non-artist. Spare
me the details of the out-of-context paraphrase, please. I am easily
bored by cat fights. But, it's a nice picture.
Kenny
"Chris" <bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:39BE53EC...@ns.sympatico.ca...
Alison A Raimes
<bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> writes
>
>The net result is that we lose the input from alot of good artists; and
>even more we lose contact with people who are posting & reading here
>because they share an interest and a love of fine arts.
Well I am not going to waste my time answering any of this drivel. It
obviously makes you feel better so hey, get it out of your system. I
must say that the level of hypocrisy has reached a new time high this
week - congratulations! You carry on Chrissy - it will make you feel
better. I'll just chuckle at you in the side lines ;-)
pinksy
Alison A Raimes <ali...@raimes.com> wrote:
> In article <8pjjkn$dpu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, pinksy <pin...@my-deja.com>
> writes
>
> >that would be an angle, but the nature of what I am studying I have
to
> >disagree completely with stating that the personality of an artist is
> >not relevant to the discussion of their work. I would say that it is
> >virtually impossible for any artist to complete any peice of work
> >without leaving some trace of their own personality on the canvas.
>
> Yes of course, you are doing Art Therapy not Fine Art. In that case, I
> can understand where you are coming from. But Pinksy, isn't it
> impossible for any individual to leave some trace of their personality
> on anything they do? Why is art any different to say cooking or making
> jigsaws?
throughout our daily lives Mmmmm why is art so different....well I
guess you know for yourself why Art is so different and I can only
speak from my own personal experience (of course I could get my text
books out and qoute from them....but naaa). For me painting is very
different from say making my mark whilst baking a cake. Painting
accesses me as a complete individual it reveals aspects of myself that
perhaps aren't evident whilst baking a cake. I find painting a highly
personal and sensitive experience and when someone views my work I feel
as though I am revealing myself for all to see. Somehow nothing else
seems to be as revealing in showing my complex self, not even baking a
cake or making a jigsaw.
Yes good questions but I think the truth is that we will never really
know what Rothko's intentions were after all only Rothko himself truly
knew and it seems that he was quite cautious in what he divulged. All
that I know is that I was something of a Rothko virgin before seeing
his Retrospective last year. Previously I had seen his work in books
but knew little of what his work was about, and wasn't particularly
interested. Happened to be in Paris whilst the Retrospective was there
and went to view it (and at the time was still completely unaware about
his work), and all I can say is that if an artist can make an Art
novice (as I was and still am to a certain extent) feel the way that I
did on viewing his work then he certainly was no performance artist or
playing the game in New York, but thats just my opinion. I am still in
search of another artist who can flick the switches that Rothko's
Retrospective did. Pollock came close
Pinksy.
>
> Alison
> http://www.raimes.com
> http://artlives.homestead.com
>
Chris
was another just yesterday LOL; but in the meantime, enjoy the
sidelines, if that's where you are comfortable.
Cheers;
Chris
"Well, she tried to be Breton; but for us she's just crackers."
Artwork: http://www.gammarat.com/
---------
John Haber
> recognition - know what their intentions are. That is what
>drives them.
I like that a lot. I don't know the third artist you mentioned ...
Miyajima, was it?
John
pinksy
> writes
>
> >Yes true, of course we leave our own individual marks on many things
> >throughout our daily lives Mmmmm why is art so different....well I
> >guess you know for yourself why Art is so different and I can only
> >speak from my own personal experience (of course I could get my text
> >books out and qoute from them....but naaa). For me painting is very
> >different from say making my mark whilst baking a cake. Painting
> >accesses me as a complete individual it reveals aspects of myself
that
> >perhaps aren't evident whilst baking a cake. I find painting a
highly
> >personal and sensitive experience and when someone views my work I
feel
> >as though I am revealing myself for all to see. Somehow nothing else
> >seems to be as revealing in showing my complex self, not even baking
a
> >cake or making a jigsaw.
>
> jigsaw, or any other creative achievement that man is capable of. But
> why do we think it is, is the question. I suppose it depends what
> approach you have to art. I get no feeling that my own work reveals
> anything about me in the holistic term, nor do I ever try and analyse
> someone's work based on what I think I know about them (because very
few
> people do know anything the artist). I have a very *formal* approach
to
> my own painting - very much involved in aesthetics and process. No
> statements are being made and when I exhibit I don't in any way feel
it
> is revealing anything about me. They are abstract exercises in
something
> that I feel a need to work through ideas. The result is an image - it
> could have been a book, or a piece of music, or even a cooked meal.
> Contrary to popular belief here, I do not strive for fame and make no
> efforts to move towards it! In that sense, I feel a particular
freedom
> in what I do - no pressure of performance and no need for my work to
> have any great *reason*. Yet I am obsessed and fanatical about art.
What
> you speak of above, I can't help putting this into the neat little
> package that has been built around the artist as this complex figure
who
> stands aside from society - and I can't help thinking these days, that
> too many artists play out the role as an excuse - usually for bad art!
> Until an artist can really explain what this complex self is - that
> stands aside from others - then I remain unconvinced!
>
> >Yes good questions but I think the truth is that we will never really
> >know what Rothko's intentions were after all only Rothko himself
truly
> >knew and it seems that he was quite cautious in what he divulged.
All
> >that I know is that I was something of a Rothko virgin before seeing
> >his Retrospective last year. Previously I had seen his work in books
> >but knew little of what his work was about, and wasn't particularly
> >interested. Happened to be in Paris whilst the Retrospective was
there
> >and went to view it (and at the time was still completely unaware
about
> >his work), and all I can say is that if an artist can make an Art
> >novice (as I was and still am to a certain extent) feel the way that
I
> >did on viewing his work then he certainly was no performance artist
or
> >playing the game in New York, but thats just my opinion. I am still
in
> >search of another artist who can flick the switches that Rothko's
> >Retrospective did. Pollock came close
> >Pinksy.
>
> except those who strive for fame and recognition - know what their
> Rothko, after reaching fame and finding it had no relevance to his
life
> as an artist, found he could not focus on his reasons for making art.
> Pollock certainly found himself at that junction. But if you step
back a
> couple of decades, to when Rothko was not *famous*, his interests and
> writings are fascinating. He shows all the interest in contemporary
> philosophy that you find in so many artists and a general concern with
> the *state of the world*. I know an artist who was in NYC at the same
> time as Rothko, who stepped out of the scene and focused solely on his
> own work. He showed only once or twice a year and rarely even
attempted
> to sell his work, choosing to work a teaching job instead. In his
70's,
> he works every day - obsessively - on recurring ideas and themes, in
> abstract, that consistently drive him and still excite him enough to
> take him to the canvas every single day of his life. There is no such
> thing as retiring, in his world, and no interest in being in the
public
> eye. Yet his work is accomplished and certainly *sellable*. But for
> Pollock and Rothko they reached a no going further point. The pinnacle
> of their career was based not on their own art agenda but on public
> attention. Have you ever read Albert Camus' essay about the artist
Jonus
> in _Exile and the Kingdom_? Camus was an artist.
>
> There are three other artists who flicked the switch for me over the
> last few years. Lucio Fontana; Anish Kapoor and Tatsuo Miyajima. Do
you
> know them? If not, I can direct you to some publications where there
> work is shown.
>
> Best regards
Even though when you exhibit you don't feel that it is revealing
anything about you, it would surely be naive to say that it doesn't,
wouldn't it? how can it not reveal nothing of you as an individual,
surely this is an impossible task. The one thing that I have learnt
about myself and painting is the fact that they are strongly linked, I
cannot view my own paintings and state that they do not reveal my
"self", or an aspect of it.
I think you have mis understand what I have been trying to say and
putting it "into the neat little package" I'm not setting aside the
artist as a complex figure who stands aside from society, I don't agree
with this statement at all, this would be stating that the
artist/painter is special or different to the rest of society. Surely
all individuals are complex individuals whether they are artists or
not. All I meant was that the artist/painter reveals the coplexity of
humans and human nature through their work, as do musicians through
their work and writers, dancers and actor's. I certainly do not see
the artist as some kind of prophet or genius, aren't they just
accessing what is within us all?
I understand what your saying about fame and yes I agree that reaching
fame surely does have an affect on a painters work. Mmmm my heads
beginning to swim with lot's of questions! did Pollock and Rothko set
out for fame I'm not sure that they did or am I just being naive? Isn't
the fact that their paintings are still much debated and the fact that
their work touches people from all walks of life an illustration of how
they had touched on something and not just jumped on the fame and
stardom band wagon?
No I haven't read the essay, I shall try to get hold of it!
Also the artists you mentioned I haven't heard of, I'm afraid to say.
Where can I view their work?
Many Thanks
Pinksy.
Alison A Raimes
<bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> writes
>Well, I've heard these good-byes too often to believe them - jeez, there
>was another just yesterday LOL; but in the meantime, enjoy the
>sidelines, if that's where you are comfortable.
>
Clearly you have a lot of pent up anger and a dire need for revenge that
must be fulfilled. Go right ahead! Its not healthy to have all that
rumbling inside you - that's the sort of stuff that school gunmen
contain within them. I am just saying that I won't prevent you from
your ranting, nor will I object to your fabricated stories - in fact, it
amuses me watching you and Marilyn getting all hot under the collar. Its
even more amusing to see how you manipulate the truth and stoop as low
as to invent a *profile* for me. Well done! I taught you well. Still, I
am sure the good Lord will excuse you from your sins, after all, you are
an artist!
BTW, for anyone who is concerned about people being *driven off* this
newsgroup by me, I suggest they do what I did and set up an Egroups
discussion list and invite folks to join .... so they can get away from
me! Ours has 28 professional artists on it - many of them were driven
from here by me ;-)
http://www.egroups.com/group/artlives
We have around 500 posts a month - sometimes as many as 20 a day, so it
is a list for those who enjoy lively debate not for lurkers with nothing
to contribute. I don't allow anyone to join who isn't posting in their
own name, or anyone who will not put up their work for the group to see.
Most of our members are on our website so that those joining know who
they are conversing with
http://artlives.homestead.com
Cheers!
Alison
http://www.raimes.com
Alison A Raimes
>Yes true, of course we leave our own individual marks on many things
>throughout our daily lives Mmmmm why is art so different....well I
>guess you know for yourself why Art is so different and I can only
>speak from my own personal experience (of course I could get my text
>books out and qoute from them....but naaa). For me painting is very
>different from say making my mark whilst baking a cake. Painting
>accesses me as a complete individual it reveals aspects of myself that
>perhaps aren't evident whilst baking a cake. I find painting a highly
>personal and sensitive experience and when someone views my work I feel
>as though I am revealing myself for all to see. Somehow nothing else
>seems to be as revealing in showing my complex self, not even baking a
>cake or making a jigsaw.
Pinksy: I think to *us*, art is different to baking a cake or making a
jigsaw, or any other creative achievement that man is capable of. But
why do we think it is, is the question. I suppose it depends what
approach you have to art. I get no feeling that my own work reveals
anything about me in the holistic term, nor do I ever try and analyse
someone's work based on what I think I know about them (because very few
people do know anything the artist). I have a very *formal* approach to
my own painting - very much involved in aesthetics and process. No
statements are being made and when I exhibit I don't in any way feel it
is revealing anything about me. They are abstract exercises in something
that I feel a need to work through ideas. The result is an image - it
could have been a book, or a piece of music, or even a cooked meal.
Contrary to popular belief here, I do not strive for fame and make no
efforts to move towards it! In that sense, I feel a particular freedom
in what I do - no pressure of performance and no need for my work to
have any great *reason*. Yet I am obsessed and fanatical about art. What
you speak of above, I can't help putting this into the neat little
package that has been built around the artist as this complex figure who
stands aside from society - and I can't help thinking these days, that
too many artists play out the role as an excuse - usually for bad art!
Until an artist can really explain what this complex self is - that
stands aside from others - then I remain unconvinced!
>Yes good questions but I think the truth is that we will never really
>know what Rothko's intentions were after all only Rothko himself truly
>knew and it seems that he was quite cautious in what he divulged. All
>that I know is that I was something of a Rothko virgin before seeing
>his Retrospective last year. Previously I had seen his work in books
>but knew little of what his work was about, and wasn't particularly
>interested. Happened to be in Paris whilst the Retrospective was there
>and went to view it (and at the time was still completely unaware about
>his work), and all I can say is that if an artist can make an Art
>novice (as I was and still am to a certain extent) feel the way that I
>did on viewing his work then he certainly was no performance artist or
>playing the game in New York, but thats just my opinion. I am still in
>search of another artist who can flick the switches that Rothko's
>Retrospective did. Pollock came close
>Pinksy.
Your first statement is very revealing. I don't think any artist -
Best regards
Chris
boils down to - really - despite the projection, the adolescent name
calling, the protestations, and the transparent pretensions to moral
outrage, is that this information is all available on Deja-news (or
supernews, which I understand ignores delete requests), for anyone who
wants to bother to take the time.
As for me, I'm just happy to let readers know it's there.
Cheers;
Chris
PS. I knew you couldn't say good-bye :)
--
"Art is the supreme manifestation of individualism" - Oscar Wilde
Artwork: http://www.gammarat.com/
===================================
Alison A Raimes
writes
>Even though when you exhibit you don't feel that it is revealing
>anything about you, it would surely be naive to say that it doesn't,
>wouldn't it? how can it not reveal nothing of you as an individual,
>surely this is an impossible task. The one thing that I have learnt
>about myself and painting is the fact that they are strongly linked, I
>cannot view my own paintings and state that they do not reveal my
>"self", or an aspect of it.
When an artist exhibits he is putting himself on *show*. He invites the
audience to participate in his world, to react and hopefully to enter
into some sort of debate. The latter is what makes *new* work so
exciting - controversy makes for lively exchanges (as I like to
demonstrate here ;-) As an artist, *revealing my self* is not high on
the agenda - why would anyone want to do that? I doubt there are many
professional artists who even consider this. I think we need to move
away from that idea. Let's just accept that everything we do is somehow
or other revealing of the *self*, shall we? An artist makes a choice in
subject matter and content which is inevitably influenced by that
personalities interest in life - just as most choices in life are - and
art is as much about making decisions as anything.
>I think you have mis understand what I have been trying to say and
>putting it "into the neat little package" I'm not setting aside the
>artist as a complex figure who stands aside from society, I don't agree
>with this statement at all, this would be stating that the
>artist/painter is special or different to the rest of society. Surely
>all individuals are complex individuals whether they are artists or
>not. All I meant was that the artist/painter reveals the coplexity of
>humans and human nature through their work, as do musicians through
>their work and writers, dancers and actor's. I certainly do not see
>the artist as some kind of prophet or genius, aren't they just
>accessing what is within us all?
Ok! well we are in agreement on that one, Pinksy. Being an artist
doesn't *make* you a special person - especially today when calling
yourself an artist is as easy as buying a loaf of bread. It is just one
of the many, many ways that humans express themselves. What exactly do
you think *is* within us?
Actually I think it is a crazy way to express ourselves! Have you seen
the latest advertisements for the sports channel? They are claiming that
watching soccer is a way to *release your emotions*!! How can we
compete with that idea!
For the last few weeks I've been involved in writing a paper which is
sponsored by the government, in which we are putting a case to them for
artists inclusion in the regeneration programme in East London. If we
are to stand on the outside declaring that we are not understood and
that we are special then how can we ever be included in society? If we
can't be included in society then we must forever be struggling to
afford to make art. I'm not advocating an easy ride by any means because
I believe that the resilience and determination of artists to make art
despite their struggle marks out a strength that when transferred to the
work has a significant impact on the art. Having said that, I am fed up
with the struggle to try and survive against the elements. So I advocate
a change in attitudes and a new form of communication with those who
make the policy decisions - who don't have the same ideas and visions of
the possible power of art.
>I understand what your saying about fame and yes I agree that reaching
>fame surely does have an affect on a painters work. Mmmm my heads
>beginning to swim with lot's of questions! did Pollock and Rothko set
>out for fame I'm not sure that they did or am I just being naive? Isn't
>the fact that their paintings are still much debated and the fact that
>their work touches people from all walks of life an illustration of how
>they had touched on something and not just jumped on the fame and
>stardom band wagon?
I can go for that, I think. But something that niggles me constantly
about the audience is their inability to make their own decisions and
their willingness to be lead by what they are told. Do you know what I
mean? Did you see that Robert Hughes documentary a few weeks ago? He
discussed this and talked about the Mona Lisa and how the average
audience viewing time was around one minute. That would mean that a vast
number of the audience spent a lot less than one minute in front of the
work. And wasn't there a Rembrandt that was put in show for everyone to
ooooooh and ahhhhhhh at, and then rapidly removed and re-labelled after
discovering it was done by the *school* of Rembrandt and not him
personally?
A huge amount of resources were pumped into NY art during the 1950's -
they used the same marketing ploys you would expect of launching a
Hollywood movie. It was a power take over - shifting the centre of the
art world from bankrupt Paris to New York which was prospering from the
war. So the artists got to make huge work and had their faces in the
papers and on the screens! With financial backing and superstar
profiles, it was inevitable that history would be written as it was
being made. Jean Baudrillard has written some great essays on this
incidentally.
>No I haven't read the essay, I shall try to get hold of it!
>Also the artists you mentioned I haven't heard of, I'm afraid to say.
>Where can I view their work?
>Many Thanks
>Pinksy.
Lucio Fontana should be available to you in your college library - he
does the *slash* paintings. Anish Kapoor shows regularly - do you get
the Guardian on Saturday? That has an exhibition guide and no doubt you
will spot his name regularly. I'm not sure where Tatsuo Miyajima is. I
believe he may be overseas on a residency. However, both he and Kapoor
have work in the Tate Modern - actually I would assume that Fontana does
too. Have you visited it yet?
Oh BTW, it might be helpful to folks if you edited your replies to get
rid of text other than that which you are responding to.
Cheers!
Alison A Raimes
<bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> writes
>As for me, I'm just happy to let readers know it's there.
That makes me glow ;-) You are happy, and all those bored readers get to
spend hours ploughing through archives placing all your
misrepresentations in context, which makes me happy too! See how it can
be possible to be happy together with a little work?
Alison A Raimes
<jha...@haberarts.com> writes
>I like that a lot. I don't know the third artist you mentioned ...
>Miyajima, was it?
He does the LCD installations - sometimes just walls and walls of
numbers that light up randomly. The room is dark and the viewer becomes
mesmerised by the numbers. Zero never appears.
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Alison A Raimes" <ali...@raimes.com> wrote in message
news:gERJ6KAi...@raimes.com...
> > Clearly you have a lot of pent up anger and a dire need for revenge
that
> must be fulfilled. Go right ahead
>
--
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the
unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
GBS
pinksy
> the agenda - why would anyone want to do that? I doubt there are many
> professional artists who even consider this.
Yes I agree I'm sure that revealing your self is not on the agenda of
any artist, it's the nature of my studies that continually highlights
this and inturn many other aspects of painting and art that probably
don't enter into painters heads. Someimes it would be good to have
that freedom and not feel that I have to continually analyse myself and
my paintings, which is what I am aiming for and seemed to reach towards
the end of the last academic year. I thoroughly enjoyed saying to
myself "I don't give a shit"!
>
> Ok! well we are in agreement on that one, Pinksy. Being an artist
> doesn't *make* you a special person - especially today when calling
> yourself an artist is as easy as buying a loaf of bread. It is just
one of the many, many ways that humans express themselves. What exactly
do you think *is* within us?
That's a big question that I'm not sure I can come near answering
completely! But a hell of a lot of pent up and forgotten emotions?
past experiences that have left their marks? existential stuff? psychic
polarities...... it's endless and I'm not sure we are anywhere near
understanding human nature. But hey ho, You could send your head into
a perpetual spin if you constantly considered all this whilst
painting....I know I've been there, so I say just go with it and enjoy
>
> Actually I think it is a crazy way to express ourselves! Have you seen
> the latest advertisements for the sports channel? They are claiming
that watching soccer is a way to *release your emotions*!! How can we
> compete with that idea!
I know I've seen them
>
> For the last few weeks I've been involved in writing a paper which is
> sponsored by the government, in which we are putting a case to them
for artists inclusion in the regeneration programme in East London.
Sounds interesting! what kind of inclusion exactly?
If we are to stand on the outside declaring that we are not understood
and
> that we are special then how can we ever be included in society? If we
> can't be included in society then we must forever be struggling to
> afford to make art. I'm not advocating an easy ride by any means
because
> I believe that the resilience and determination of artists to make art
> despite their struggle marks out a strength that when transferred to
the
> work has a significant impact on the art. Having said that, I am fed
up
> with the struggle to try and survive against the elements. So I
advocate
> a change in attitudes and a new form of communication with those who
> make the policy decisions - who don't have the same ideas and visions
of
> the possible power of art.
What are your ideas and visions of the possible power of art? and what
policy decisions would you change or implement?
>
> I can go for that, I think. But something that niggles me constantly
> about the audience is their inability to make their own decisions and
> their willingness to be lead by what they are told. Do you know what I
> mean?
Yes I think so, but the novice that I am recalls that I was very
fortunate before I came to university in that I had a tutor who knew
how to teach me how to make my own decisions and to point me in the
right direction to look for painings and artist's that were significant
to me for what ever reason, how to paint for myself and to look at
things differently. not everybody is fortunate enough to meet someone
who understands art in that way and so half the time people just don't
understand. Surely education is where to begin, the Arts are neglected
and very misunderstood to a large extent.
Did you see that Robert Hughes documentary a few weeks ago? He
> discussed this and talked about the Mona Lisa and how the average
> audience viewing time was around one minute. That would mean that a
vast
> number of the audience spent a lot less than one minute in front of
the
> work. And wasn't there a Rembrandt that was put in show for everyone
to
> ooooooh and ahhhhhhh at, and then rapidly removed and re-labelled
after
> discovering it was done by the *school* of Rembrandt and not him
> personally?
>
> A huge amount of resources were pumped into NY art during the 1950's -
> I have to be honest and say that this is a side of art that I should
really brush up on.
>
> Lucio Fontana should be available to you in your college library - he
> does the *slash* paintings. Anish Kapoor shows regularly - do you get
> the Guardian on Saturday? That has an exhibition guide and no doubt
you
> will spot his name regularly. I'm not sure where Tatsuo Miyajima is. I
> believe he may be overseas on a residency. However, both he and Kapoor
> have work in the Tate Modern - actually I would assume that Fontana
does
> too. Have you visited it yet?
Thanks for that info! and no I have to confess I haven't been to the
Tate Modern as yet, but I have been dreaming of the day since it
openened (that's how sad I am) and as soon as my loan cheque arrives at
the uni office I shall be going. It better be worth this build up I'm
giving it!
>
> Oh BTW, it might be helpful to folks if you edited your replies to get
> rid of text other than that which you are responding to.
> Thanks for that, I didn't realise
Pinksy
> Cheers!
>
> Alison
> http://www.raimes.com
> http://artlives.homestead.com
>
>
Alison A Raimes
writes
>That's a big question that I'm not sure I can come near answering
>completely! But a hell of a lot of pent up and forgotten emotions?
>past experiences that have left their marks? existential stuff? psychic
>polarities...... it's endless and I'm not sure we are anywhere near
>understanding human nature. But hey ho, You could send your head into
>a perpetual spin if you constantly considered all this whilst
>painting....I know I've been there, so I say just go with it and enjoy
That is a good point and I agree about being nowhere near understanding
human nature. As you have probably gathered, I oppose the comfort zone
in art and certainly in ideas. Pleasant and nice are not in my
vocabulary. For me, beauty in art can only be successful when
accompanied by an underlying discomfort that makes the viewer uneasy.
When discussing art with artists you will continually find out that they
say that the thinking process stops when they make art and that
intuition takes over. That is why I question some artist's motives -
trying constantly to distinguish between intuitive and sensitive
application to their own practise, and demonstrative, where they playing
out someone else's ideas. In particular, I'm deeply suspicious of
artists who suddenly change their way of working when faced with
criticism. I suggest that criticism should never be a determining factor
in making art - that the artist is the only person capable of making
criticism. That is why I am a tad suspicious of Rothko ... and certainly
Pollock. They seem to come to a dead end which was induced by the
critics and not themselves.
>Thanks for that info! and no I have to confess I haven't been to the
>Tate Modern as yet, but I have been dreaming of the day since it
>openened (that's how sad I am) and as soon as my loan cheque arrives at
>the uni office I shall be going. It better be worth this build up I'm
>giving it!
I've snipped the *power of art* section - I knew you would pounce on it.
The paper I wrote is being proof read at the moment and is about to go
to publication - I'll be posting a copy on my website to read soon and
will be interested in your thoughts. But it is a political paper as
opposed to any sort of mystical stuff. Stand by!
The Tate Modern building is amazing - I think they still have to sort
out some teething problems and suspect they will rehang within the year.
The experience of walking into the Turbo hall is awesome. The battle to
look at the work is tiring. Make sure you go into the paying exhibition
though _Between Cinema and the Hard Place_. And if you have time, get
the free bus over to Tate Britain and see the show there too
_Intelligence: New British Art 2000_. That makes for an expensive day,
unfortunately, but if you intend to get to the any of the four Tate
museums regularly then it is worth becoming a *friend*. If you join at
the Tate Modern the cost is only 24 pounds per year and includes four of
their magazines worth around 12 pounds. You can get into all the paying
shows free with a membership (which will save you around 5 pounds as a
student) and use the friends room, which has amazing views across the
Thames. But I know how 24 pounds seems an awful lot of dosh to a
student. Where are you at uni? Hope it isn't too far out of London.
John Haber
protest singer, that if he had wanted to send a message he'd have
hired Western Union. I bet there'd be better ways to reveal oneself
than painting or writing creatively -- or at least there'd be an awful
lot of entirely distinct ways with nothing much in common, from
undressing to posting one's primary-school homework.
I could live with the somewhat cliched line that the idea is to
fulfill oneself. Or just that darned feeling that if we don't do it,
then it won't get done.
John
Maharat1
John Haber
Me, too.
John
pinksy
>
> That is a good point and I agree about being nowhere near
understanding
> human nature. As you have probably gathered, I oppose the comfort zone
> in art and certainly in ideas. Pleasant and nice are not in my
> vocabulary. For me, beauty in art can only be successful when
> accompanied by an underlying discomfort that makes the viewer uneasy.
> When discussing art with artists you will continually find out that
they
> say that the thinking process stops when they make art and that
> intuition takes over. That is why I question some artist's motives -
> trying constantly to distinguish between intuitive and sensitive
> application to their own practise, and demonstrative, where they
playing
> out someone else's ideas. In particular, I'm deeply suspicious of
> artists who suddenly change their way of working when faced with
> criticism. I suggest that criticism should never be a determining
factor
> in making art - that the artist is the only person capable of making
> criticism. That is why I am a tad suspicious of Rothko ... and
certainly
> Pollock. They seem to come to a dead end which was induced by the
> critics and not themselves.
I can understand what your saying, but I really got something from the
retrospective and pollock last yeat at the Tate, so I can't really
agree with you, anyway I don't think it was entirely induced by the
critics alone.
>
>
>
> I've snipped the *power of art* section - I knew you would pounce on
it.
> The paper I wrote is being proof read at the moment and is about to go
> to publication - I'll be posting a copy on my website to read soon and
> will be interested in your thoughts. But it is a political paper as
> opposed to any sort of mystical stuff. Stand by!
look forward to it!
>
> The Tate Modern building is amazing -
Cheers for that info on the tate modern, I hadn't thought about
becoming a freind....sounds like a good idea. I should have done it
earlier as I went to the Tate St Ives last week. I'll hopefully be
going in a couple of weeks, not too far or expensive it will cost
approx 8 squid. I'm beginning to panic about my dissertation, I've got
to come up with another artist to include, I guess for contrasting
ideas etc... my lecturer suggected patrick Heron, what do you think?
Thanks Pinksy.
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Maharat1" <maha...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000915150018...@ng-fs1.aol.com...
> I caught the Rothko exhibit in DC. I was deeply moved.
>
Alison A Raimes
writes
>approx 8 squid. I'm beginning to panic about my dissertation, I've got
>to come up with another artist to include, I guess for contrasting
>ideas etc... my lecturer suggected patrick Heron, what do you think?
>Thanks Pinksy.
Don't panic! sounds like you've got some good ideas floating around
there. I don't know much about Heron, except for his work in the Tate St
Ives - I should do some research though, as he is about to become a
patron of a new art charity that I am going to be a trustee of. So if
you can lead me to anything on him, I would be very grateful.
Take care
pinksy
> >
>
>
> Look in some art mags and you will find loads of similar trash. Rothko
> is a Modern Academic Art put-on. His big canvas nothings are a foil
> for endless Artspeak gas. If any Rothko were signed R. Mutt it would
> be wothless trash.
>
> Rothko is an economic phonomonon. His work is of no aesthetic
> interest.
Well I guess it isn't to you (aren't you the person who imitates Dali's
work?)
Hmmmm I'll say no more.
>
> Mani DeLi
>
> Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
> ...no skill no art
I guess from this statement you haven't a clue about art, modern art or
skill, never mind.
> Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
> http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
I think I already have, you do imitate Dali don't you!
pinksy
> Ives - I should do some research though, as he is about to become a
> patron of a new art charity that I am going to be a trustee of. So if
> you can lead me to anything on him, I would be very grateful.
>
> Well I guess I'll have to got down to the library and see what I can
find. Have you heard of wilamina (sp) Barnes-Graham (also from St
Ives)?
By the way whose this Mani person?
Do they know what their talking about?
Alison A Raimes
writes
>> Well I guess I'll have to got down to the library and see what I can
>find. Have you heard of wilamina (sp) Barnes-Graham (also from St
>Ives)?
Sorry I can't help you with this, but if you are serious about your
research, I recently met the *lover* of one of the St Ives painters - he
is in his seventies (I won't name him publicly) and lives in St Ives. My
new friend lives in London. We had a chance meeting when I was taking
care of a sick friend and she happened to live in the same building (I
was playing chef in residence for the week). I did one of those ready-
steady-cook meals and produced plaice stuffed with salmon in a vermouth
sauce, and in return, over a bottle or two of wine, and in return she
gave me all the low down on the St Ives painters over the years. Lots of
fun! We did the same the next day over beef wellington! The tales I
heard about Ben Nicholson and Barbara Hepworth!! Gossip, gossip! It was
funny listening to her talking about these people the same way we chat
about rec.arts.fine people (well almost). I can get some information for
you next week on the artist you are asking about - do you pick up mail
at the deja.com address?
>By the way whose this Mani person?
>Do they know what their talking about?
Mani is to be loved and cherished - and occasionally given a blow job
but only by me so be warned ;-) No, not to be taken seriously. Treat him
as you would a tamagoochi thingy! Push a couple of buttons occasionally
to stop his batteries dying. He doesn't like Rothko too much - even
though according to his description they sound like one and the same.
However, a huge difference, Pinksy. Rothko left behind an amazing legacy
- edges that glow and vacuums that suck you into the floating voids. The
only thing Mani is likely to leave behind him is a wet patch ;-)
Cya
mdeli
>
>"Maharat1" wrote:.
>> I caught the Rothko exhibit in DC. I was deeply moved.
>>
>I would recommend more roughage.
>
I sense laziness, self delusion, boredom and bitterness in Rothko. All
human emotions. However this adds nothing to the merit of Rothko's
stuff or makes it any better than the design on a below average bed
sheet.
Look in some art mags and you will find loads of similar trash. Rothko
is a Modern Academic Art put-on. His big canvas nothings are a foil
for endless Artspeak gas. If any Rothko were signed R. Mutt it would
be wothless trash.
Rothko is an economic phonomonon. His work is of no aesthetic
interest.
Mani DeLi
Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
...no skill no art
jeff_l...@my-deja.com
I've read this thread with interest. Isn't the artist someone who tries
to reveal something of others and so the revalation of themself becomes
an inevitable byproduct? I find it endlessly fascinating to watch
people's reactions to art, just as much as the work itself. Is the idea
of the artist as genius an attractive but outmoded one that persists in
cliche?
Jeff (real name - not quite sure what to make of the alias bit!)
Votes:-
http://website.lineone.net/~jeff_lee/Submit/index.html
Brave New World site:-
http://website.lineone.ne
mdeli
pinksy writes:
>>By the way whose this Mani person?
>>Do they know what their talking about?
Apparently many artsy fartzies believe that anyone who doesn't agree
with their views can't know what they are talking about. They live in
a vacuum in which their religion has never been criticized.
Alison A Raimes wrote:
>Mani is to be loved and cherished - and occasionally given a blow job
>but only by me so be warned ;-) No, not to be taken seriously.
I thought you were off the blow job kick several months ago and
concentrating your venom against Marilyn. I guess Alison's hemorrhoids
are out again. They used to cause her to have sexual phantasies about
those who disagree with her.
> Treat him
>as you would a tamagoochi thingy! Push a couple of buttons occasionally
>to stop his batteries dying. He doesn't like Rothko too much - even
>though according to his description they sound like one and the same.
>However, a huge difference, Pinksy. Rothko left behind an amazing legacy
>- edges that glow and vacuums that suck you into the floating voids. The
>only thing Mani is likely to leave behind him is a wet patch ;-)
You can check out Alison's incompetence and lack of skill on her web
site. All Alison will really leave is a large behind.
mdeli
I wrote:
>> Look in some art mags and you will find loads of similar trash. Rothko
>> is a Modern Academic Art put-on. His big canvas nothings are a foil
>> for endless Artspeak gas. If any Rothko were signed R. Mutt it would
>> be wothless trash.
>>
>> Rothko is an economic phonomonon. His work is of no aesthetic
>> interest.
>Well I guess it isn't to you (aren't you the person who imitates Dali's
>work?)
>Hmmmm I'll say no more. Mani DeLi
No, please do. Point out a few of my paintings and which Dali work you
claim they imitate. Be specific.
>>
>> Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
>> ...no skill no art
>
>I guess from this statement you haven't a clue about art, modern art or
>skill, never mind.
I doubt that you have a clue beyond the Modern Academic Art allowed
into museums. Modern art isn't only the repetitive antiquated crap
hanging in the modern sections of museums.
pinksy
>
> No, please do. Point out a few of my paintings and which Dali work you
> claim they imitate. Be specific.
To do this I would have to visit your website again and I can't be
bothered. All I recollect from my last visit nearly two months ago is
that Dali just popped straight into my head when I viewed your
page....I didn't make this comment as an insult I was just asking. I
find it slightly amusing that you can slate modern art, and I guess it
is a sweeping statement that you are making concerning modern art in
that you view it all as "trash". Whats your idea of skill? that art
does not progress, that it stays stagnant and lives within the past, I
have no objections to your work everyone is entitled to make their own
choices concerning their work. But isn't art (and hasn't it always
been) to do with the state of the world. I would say that art has to
develop, progress and change if it didn't it would become completely
irrelevant. The world has changed since the existence of Dali that's
all I want to say.
>
>
> I doubt that you have a clue beyond the Modern Academic Art allowed
> into museums. Modern art isn't only the repetitive antiquated crap
> hanging in the modern sections of museums.
Oh dear!!!
pinksy
asking about - do you pick up mail at the deja.com address?
Yes I do pick up mail at deja.com and it would be much appreciated ,
thanks!
>
> only thing Mani is likely to leave behind him is a wet patch ;-)
>
>Get the message, cheers!
Pinksy
Alison A Raimes
writes
>I've read this thread with interest. Isn't the artist someone who tries
>to reveal something of others and so the revalation of themself becomes
>an inevitable byproduct?
I'm not sure about that, Jeff. I suppose every artist motives differ,
don't they? If you are specifically talking about artists who exhibit,
then it could be for one of several reasons. Revealing something of
others may well be the intention, but I don't think we can take it as
absolute, can we. But I still don't see how it can be a revelation of
themselves.
Did you read the review in the Guardian yesterday on Gillian Wearing's
retrospective at the Serpentine Gallery? He slated her latest work
saying that Wearing had become a *slave to her career*. Throughout the
review he accuses her of deliberating meaning in her work in trying to
be dark and violent. _Drunk_ shows a down and out woman rather the worst
for drinking meths, but the review accuses it of being *slick* and
having nothing to say about *poverty, homelessness, or even being
drunk*. He accuses Wearing of exploitation. In comparison to her
playful and rough style videos that won her the Turner Prize in 1997,
its easy to see how such a leap into the world of misery could be
greeted with such suspicion. I'm always wary of artists who suddenly
change from *cutsy*, or chocolate box art, to deep and seemingly
meaningful *statements* with no evidence of a natural progression. Its
the sort of thing we used to do on Foundation course before we had any
idea about where we wanted to go.
>I find it endlessly fascinating to watch
>people's reactions to art, just as much as the work itself.
So do I! I do a lot of invigilating at shows and love to watch them. I
also hate the dumb remarks they make. But every so often you will see a
viewer deeply engrossed by a work. Or they will start to make all sorts
of remarks that open up debate with those around them - often me.
Discourse has become a primary reason for art today and being seduced by
the idea of worshiping a masterpiece no longer seems to have any place
in art.
>Is the idea
>of the artist as genius an attractive but outmoded one that persists in
>cliche?
I think is has become something that artists aspire to because so many
want to make their mark in the world. We are all so insignificant and
helpless in the greater scheme of things that getting your name in
lights or the history books seems to satisfy this need. Yet there is
little evidence that it is a formula for happiness, so why do people
aspire to it? The geniuses of the past, as we now know them, were
largely unaware that they were geniuses and would have such a world wide
impact in the history books. And what good did it do them anyway? I'm
not big on clichés, especially when people can't actually define them so
I don't believe that there is such a thing as a genius in art.
>
>Jeff (real name - not quite sure what to make of the alias bit!)
Oh it's an American thing! Like kids who come along and ring the
doorbell and then run off. Mostly they are scared of saying what they
really think or feel, so hide behind a mask. How many actually stand
their ground here? Well Mani ... but it doesn't matter how low you stoop
with him, he will always stoop lower. Then again, he uses an alias!
Interesting sociological study here. Did you follow Big Brother? What a
difference between the fun loving Brits and all their pranks, and the
sad, screwed up Yanks who genuinely projected hate through the screens.
pinksy
> >pinksy writes:
> >To do this I would have to visit your website again and I can't be
> >bothered.
>
> The usual cop-out.
So I take it you've been here before?
>
>
> I'm influenced by Dali and I feel that Dali is the best in the fusion
> of classical technique with modern subject matter. But to say as you
> did that I just imitate Dali is as silly as saying that someone who
> paints portraits is just imitating Holbein.
O.K perhaps imitate was the wrong word. Let's try it from a different
angle, who else are you influenced by and then I can take a fresh look
at your work without immediately thinking of Dali!
>
>
> I DO NOT believe all modern art is trash. There is as much fine work
> produced today as ever. I believe that most of the work in the modern
> sections of museums which only represents one side of the art spectrum
> allowed into museums, certainly is trash..
So enlighten me what is the other side of the spectrum?
>
>
> Skill is something most Modern Academic artists don't have. Modern
> Academic is stagnant and hasn't essentially changed since the demise
> of Dada in 1923.
Oh come on you can't be serious!
>
> Name two Paintings by Rothko that have anything which relates to, as
> you say, "with the state of the world." Bet you can't answer. Art
> school baloney has no limits.
I wouldn't know anything about art school baloney....I'll leave that to
you.......as for Rothko, I do not proclaim to know the b all and end
all concerning his work and yes your right I'm not going to name two
paintings. All I can say is that I have not viewed any other work by
any other artist that has affected me in the way that Rothko's work
has.....and yes I am expecting you to rip this to shreds.....but then
art school baloney has no limits.
I'm no expert, I can't defend what I say with high faluted art jargon.
I know what I enjoy and I know why I enjoy it.
I'm fascinated by creativity and art (and that is all aspects and
traditions of art). So try dropping the art school baloney jargon and
perhaps we can talk!
>
> No kidding. The world has changed! Very profound. The world has
> changed since Picasso and Pollock. It doesn't make their work any
> better.
Oh come on, do you know what your talking about or are you just trying
to wind me up?
>
> T ra,
Pinksy.
Sharon Barcone
"pinksy" <pin...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8q3fnb$gpp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Excuse me for interupting and I not at all intent on ripping you to shreds
but...
Pick one Rothko work and explain in what way it has affected you. I would
really, really like to know because I just don't get anything out of him,
no emotional or intellectual response. I realize this may be my own problem
and not his. Thus I ask, what do you get from him.
sharon
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
mdeli
>> claim they imitate. Be specific.
>To do this I would have to visit your website again and I can't be
>bothered.
The usual cop-out.
> All I recollect from my last visit nearly two months ago is
>that Dali just popped straight into my head when I viewed your
>page....I didn't make this comment as an insult I was just asking.
I'm influenced by Dali and I feel that Dali is the best in the fusion
of classical technique with modern subject matter. But to say as you
did that I just imitate Dali is as silly as saying that someone who
paints portraits is just imitating Holbein.
> I
>find it slightly amusing that you can slate modern art, and I guess it
>is a sweeping statement that you are making concerning modern art in
>that you view it all as "trash".
I DO NOT believe all modern art is trash. There is as much fine work
produced today as ever. I believe that most of the work in the modern
sections of museums which only represents one side of the art spectrum
allowed into museums, certainly is trash..
> Whats your idea of skill? that art
>does not progress, that it stays stagnant and lives within the past,
Skill is something most Modern Academic artists don't have. Modern
Academic is stagnant and hasn't essentially changed since the demise
of Dada in 1923.
>I
>have no objections to your work everyone is entitled to make their own
>choices concerning their work. But isn't art (and hasn't it always
>been) to do with the state of the world .
Name two Paintings by Rothko that have anything which relates to, as
you say, "with the state of the world." Bet you can't answer. Art
school baloney has no limits.
> I would say that art has to
>develop, progress and change if it didn't it would become completely
>irrelevant. The world has changed since the existence of Dali that's
>all I want to say.
No kidding. The world has changed! Very profound. The world has
changed since Picasso and Pollock. It doesn't make their work any
better.
>>
>>
>> I doubt that you have a clue beyond the Modern Academic Art allowed
>> into museums. Modern art isn't only the repetitive antiquated crap
>> hanging in the modern sections of museums.
>
>Oh dear!!!
Indeed!
mdeli
>Oh it's an American thing! Like kids who come along and ring the
>doorbell and then run off. Mostly they are scared of saying what they
>really think or feel, so hide behind a mask. How many actually stand
>their ground here? Well Mani ... but it doesn't matter how low you stoop
>with him, he will always stoop lower.
I never stooped lower than our Ms. Raimes. About 15 times in the past
Ms. Raimes who claims that I repeat myself said, I quote:
>"Hey ! I charged you 500 bucks for that blow job, you cheap skate..."
How low did you have to stoop for that?
> "and then paid me with a check that bounced....ungrateful old bastard - doesn't he realize it was his last chance to ever have one ? "
Alison stoops lowest in her imagination the lack of which is so
apparent in her work.
John Haber
I don't know if there's a formula like that. Artists may want to
escape from others, to push their creative will over on what others
see, to go about their business, any number of things. But sure, it's
an "inevitable byproduct," as you put it, that works reflect the
world, just because none of us exist apart from others.
>and so the revalation of themself becomes an inevitable byproduct?
Again, fine, but be careful. It could be taken to mean something that
you don't mean, I bet -- that every artist is out for self-expression,
that the creative act and product alone are not essential to the
artist's life and thus a major revelation apart from any hidden
meaning, and so on.
>I find it endlessly fascinating to watch people's reactions to art,
>just as much as the work itself.
Of course, while I learn something either way, I sure like it better
when it's a reaction I can value.
>Is the idea of the artist as genius an attractive but outmoded
>one that persists in cliche?
We hear that a lot, and I fear it's a bit overstated. It's been
really valuable to be taught that it IS a cliche and comes with lots
of baggage. But as long as we just go on using it as a short-hand for
"the stuff's really cool," I don't feel upset.
John
mdeli
>> I'm influenced by Dali and I feel that Dali is the best in the fusion
>> of classical technique with modern subject matter. But to say as you
>> did that I just imitate Dali is as silly as saying that someone who
>> paints portraits is just imitating Holbein.
pinksy wrote:
>O.K perhaps imitate was the wrong word.
It was the wrong word. But I have little argument as to what I think
you were driving at. I can fully understand why my work makes you
think of Dali. This is because the subject matter in your experience
of surreal work all harks back to its major master Dali. I have
similar experiences seeing Modern Academic art and can trace it
through former painters who I am familiar with. Most all artwork harks
back to someone.
>Let's try it from a different
>angle, who else are you influenced by and then I can take a fresh look
>at your work without immediately thinking of Dali!
I'm influenced by classical technique which can be seen in the work of
well known masters. So was Dali. I do not claim that this alone has
any bearing on the merit or demerit of my work. You can see a list of
some modern artists I like on my web site.
>
>>
>> I DO NOT believe all modern art is trash. There is as much fine work
>> produced today as ever. I believe that most of the work in the modern
>> sections of museums which only represents one side of the art spectrum
>> allowed into museums, certainly is trash..
>
>So enlighten me what is the other side of the spectrum?
You'll have to enlighten yourself. For starters go to the library and
look at the Illustrator's Annual. Check out Parrish. Disney, Tamara,
the best comic book artists, Art Deco and Nouveau artist, who you and
most here have never heard of, etc.
>> Skill is something most Modern Academic artists don't have. Modern
>> Academic is stagnant and hasn't essentially changed since the demise
>> of Dada in 1923.
>
>Oh come on you can't be serious!
>
>>
>> Name two Paintings by Rothko that have anything which relates to, as
>> you say, "with the state of the world." Bet you can't answer. Art
>> school baloney has no limits.
>
>I wouldn't know anything about art school baloney....I'll leave that to
>you.......as for Rothko, I do not proclaim to know the b all and end
>all concerning his work and yes your right I'm not going to name two
>paintings. All I can say is that I have not viewed any other work by
>any other artist that has affected me in the way that Rothko's work
>has.....and yes I am expecting you to rip this to shreds.....but then
>art school baloney has no limits.
>I'm no expert, I can't defend what I say with high faluted art jargon.
You won't find "high faluted art jargon" in my statements. You made a
clear point that you believe that good art has to do "with the state
of the world." If you believe that to be correct I would expect that
you could defend your point in plain English.
I mentioned art school in that context because I find that art
teachers babble off hundreds of similar statements which sound
profound to students who lost the ability to think for themselves
about the meaning of this sort of talk. Lots of similar indefensible
babble is to be found in this conference.
>I know what I enjoy and I know why I enjoy it.
>I'm fascinated by creativity and art (and that is all aspects and
>traditions of art). So try dropping the art school baloney jargon and
>perhaps we can talk!
I'm not saying this with any wish to change your opinions. I have no
doubt that you enjoy what you claim. I was brought up on Modern Art
and I enjoyed it until I was exposed to really fine work. I also
gained additional pleasure when I found I could paint similar work. In
hind site I now prefer the displeasure I sometimes get from not being
able to do anything close to the quality of so many works which I
really like.
Maharat1
what I want to do with my art beyond the canvass, but as far as intention in
the canvass, I don't know if intention applies. When I am in my studio, and
everything is going well, intention ceases and it becomes experiential. I
can't really say the experience is my intention, either. Now that I think
about it, my intentions are flexible and sometimes contrary. I find my
intentions existing in multiplicity and simultainously contradictory. And
then, not really. Does a liquid concept of intention exclude intention as a
concept? Hum...
David
Maharat1
>> doesn't *make* you a special person - especially today when calling
>> yourself an artist is as easy as buying a loaf of bread.
someone has had a drastically different experience in the art world than I
have. I have found, in my experience in different academic disclipines, artist
to be the nost brutal, selfish, cold, callous, and mercenary brand of student.
I have yet to find a group as backstabbing, arrogant, kiss-up or just down
right bitter. This comes from being an artist. This doesn't include all
artist, but if you are going to call yourself an artist, you had better be
ready to back yourself up. If you wanna do something with your art other than
have it collect dust, you better be ready to take some serious heat. It's just
a fact. Calling oneself an artist is not easy. Unless you do it in the dark
and don't tell anyone.
David
jeff_l...@my-deja.com
tries
> >to reveal something of others and so the revalation of themself
becomes
> >an inevitable byproduct?
>
> don't they? If you are specifically talking about artists who exhibit,
> then it could be for one of several reasons. Revealing something of
> others may well be the intention, but I don't think we can take it as
> absolute, can we.
Well, I suppose not.
>
> Did you read the review in the Guardian yesterday on Gillian Wearing's
> retrospective at the Serpentine Gallery? He slated her latest work
> saying that Wearing had become a *slave to her career*. Throughout the
> review he accuses her of deliberating meaning in her work in trying to
> be dark and violent. _Drunk_ shows a down and out woman rather the
worst
> for drinking meths, but the review accuses it of being *slick* and
> having nothing to say about *poverty, homelessness, or even being
> drunk*. He accuses Wearing of exploitation. In comparison to her
> playful and rough style videos that won her the Turner Prize in 1997,
> its easy to see how such a leap into the world of misery could be
> greeted with such suspicion. I'm always wary of artists who suddenly
> change from *cutsy*, or chocolate box art, to deep and seemingly
> meaningful *statements* with no evidence of a natural progression. Its
> the sort of thing we used to do on Foundation course before we had any
> idea about where we wanted to go.
>
Oh yup, I've just done that! At my age I've had the honour of doing it
before too. Dare say I'll open the choccy box again one day. Perhaps mix
the two. I sometimes get the impression from the forums that there's
supposed to be 2 diametrically opposite worlds. One is figurative, and
riles those concerned with seriuos conceptualism. The other is serious
conceptualism, riled by figuritiveness. Of course, I'm oversimplifying.
> >I find it endlessly fascinating to watch
> >people's reactions to art, just as much as the work itself.
>
> So do I! I do a lot of invigilating at shows and love to watch them. I
> also hate the dumb remarks they make. But every so often you will see
a
> viewer deeply engrossed by a work. Or they will start to make all
sorts
> of remarks that open up debate with those around them - often me.
> Discourse has become a primary reason for art today and being seduced
by
> the idea of worshiping a masterpiece no longer seems to have any place
> in art.
>
It's funny, there's been so much talk about the worship thing since the
Tate Modern opened. Probably journos picking up on Scott's 'cathedral'
windows. I quite like the honesty of people's reactions there, you know,
the laughing and shaking of heads. At the other end of the scale is the
furrowed brow. It's always nice to see some visitors just smiling or
conversing. Enjoying their day perhaps?
> >Is the idea
> >of the artist as genius an attractive but outmoded one that persists
in
> >cliche?
>
> I think is has become something that artists aspire to because so many
> want to make their mark in the world. We are all so insignificant and
> helpless in the greater scheme of things that getting your name in
> lights or the history books seems to satisfy this need. Yet there is
> little evidence that it is a formula for happiness, so why do people
> aspire to it? The geniuses of the past, as we now know them, were
> largely unaware that they were geniuses and would have such a world
wide
> impact in the history books. And what good did it do them anyway? I'm
> not big on clichés, especially when people can't actually define them
so
> I don't believe that there is such a thing as a genius in art.
>
> >
> >Jeff (real name - not quite sure what to make of the alias bit!)
>
> Oh it's an American thing! Like kids who come along and ring the
> doorbell and then run off. Mostly they are scared of saying what they
> really think or feel, so hide behind a mask. How many actually stand
> their ground here? Well Mani ... but it doesn't matter how low you
stoop
> with him, he will always stoop lower. Then again, he uses an alias!
> Interesting sociological study here. Did you follow Big Brother? What
a
> difference between the fun loving Brits and all their pranks, and the
> sad, screwed up Yanks who genuinely projected hate through the
screens.
>
> Cheers!
> Alison
> http://www.raimes.com
> http://artlives.homestead.com
>
>
Haven't seen much of BB but read and heard about. How can one escape? I
think it's quite fun. It'll probably end up part of Media Studies
curriculum next year. Oh well, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em...
http://website.lineone.net/~jeff_lee/Submit/index.html
Mani isn't backwards in coming forward alright. He comes across as very
concerned about his career, and eaten up with hate.
Tak