Why is crap in now?
Richard
Why do a lot of people favor crappy "art" produced by people with no
training and no talent? I just got through finishing a 2d design
course taught by some lazy bastard who is one of those airy fairy
types that think modern art is so great and blathers on with
subjective interpretations of art, which is all bullshit. Meanwhile,
he didn't teach us jack shit about 2d design. He also had this belief
that he shouldn't tell us much about techniques and strategies. He
just wanted to let us experiment and figure things out for ourselves.
Then he'd critique everybody's work with his subjective bullshit
interpretations. Man I hate that guy! I don't ever want another
teacher like this again. I came to learn how to be a top notch artist
so I could get a job, not waste my time with bullshit. One woman with
zero artistic talent and skills made a project which looked like a big
mess put together by some retarded child, and he said it really
"worked well."
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
Noumenon
crap, crap and more crap.
Incompetence and ignorance are common things in our life now.
Alas!
Probably you need to be more careful in choosing place/teachers to study
in/with.
Don't go in some school because it's cheap, or you have a deal,
or somebody told you it's cool, or school people tell everyone how great
they are...
Look for REAL stuff.
If a teacher waves hands and talks too damn much nonsense, but can not
really show anything
himself(!), only keeps on "shaking air" - stay away from it.
Talks are cheap. There are too many idiots around are saying right things,
anyway.
Look for a teacher with impressive and interesting works of HIS own, with
solid portfolio,
for teacher, whose students produce something noteworthy,
whose pupils did achieve something in the field after graduation.
[in other words: for one who can create (!) and can teach (!) as well;
one ability is not enough - both are required,
whereas one so-called "teacher" you described has neither of these]
Weaving the Conundrum
-=| NOUMENON |=-
Richard
On 23 Aug 2002 05:44:22 GMT, Noumenon <ArtE...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
>Probably you need to be more careful in choosing place/teachers to study
>in/with.
I only took two art classes so far. I'm just beginning.
There are definitely at least a few very good art teachers in my
school. The guy I hate is a new guy fresh out of school.
But I had a really great teacher for my Drawing 1 class.
His name is Mr. Goffredo. He was a professional fine artist at one
time. He had experience in the real world, not just some guy who came
out of college. He's very dedicated. He teaches Life Drawing 1 to 4,
and I'm going to take all four classes from him. I love the guy. All
the serious art majors like him, but the people who are not art majors
hate him. They just want somebody easy they can slack off with. But
the art majors like him because we know that you better be fucking
good if you want to get paid and we appreciate that he's trying to
make us stretch our abilities and grow our skills. He is stern,
demanding, and strict, but he teaches you a lot and he's really
dedicated. I'm going to ask him who the good art teachers are and who
are the ones I avoid. If I ever end up in another class with an airy
fairy teacher who's a fan of modern art, I'm going to drop it
immediately and enroll in another class.
Dagnytgrt
>teacher like this again.
Reminds me of my high school teacher - it amuses me still and friends I tell
(who've known me as an artist forever) that my only failing grade in h/s was in
art class....
Sally Milo
http://www.milodesign.com
Tucson, Arizona
Richard
On 23 Aug 2002 15:55:57 GMT, dagn...@aol.comnocrap (Dagnytgrt)
wrote:
>Reminds me of my high school teacher - it amuses me still and friends I tell
>(who've known me as an artist forever) that my only failing grade in h/s was in
>art class....
Well I may not get an A in the class I'm complaining about because I
gave the teacher a piece of my mind about how he was conducting the
class. Ever since then, he's been hostile to me. I also wrote my
comments on a teacher evaluation form. I may go to whoever is in
charge and make some serious complaints. Mr. Goffredo's Drawing 1
class was actually a lot more demanding and I was the very best
student in it and got an A.
I take it as a personal threat to my future financial well-being if an
art teacher teaches bullshit instead of serious skills, because I know
there are more artists than there are jobs, and I don't plan to have
to go back to doing horrible customer service jobs that make me want
to blow my brains out. I want to make a living doing something that I
like. Right now I guess I'll be an illustrator, unless there's
something better I can do.
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Richard" <cool_a...@z.com> wrote in message
news:5g0dmu8idsp9jg9t4...@4ax.com...
>.
>
> I take it as a personal threat to my future financial well-being if an
> art teacher teaches bullshit instead of serious skills, because I know
> there are more artists than there are jobs, and I don't plan to have
> to go back to doing horrible customer service jobs that make me want
> to blow my brains out. I want to make a living doing something that I
> like. Right now I guess I'll be an illustrator, unless there's
> something better I can do.
>
illustration a day job doing customer service doesn't prevent you from doing
it.
It is utterly indulgent to think that the world owes you a living and you
can do what the fuck you like and expect to be looked after.
If you are good at illustration then, given time, you may make your money
from it. There is no need to demand that you are supported doing that ab
initio.
Why not contemplate those who have the ambition to have enough to eat
tomorrow or live until December and see if you can arrive at a more
reasonable view of your place in the universe.
--
I am afraid that you have got no further in dissuading me from my
floccinaucinihilipilification of deconstruction, semiotics and
structuralism. If anything you have strengthened it.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> heard it's popular. Talk about a charlatan. Basically he's just famous
> for being famous.
>
Why not see if you can do better - try being more famous for being famous.
Now, there's an ambition.
Mani Deli
>Hi, Richard -
>
>I see from your email address that you are a 'cool artiste.' Well, you've
>come to the right place - a lot of people here just hate modern art so much
>it makes their feet swell.
>
>The man you want to talk to is also here: Mani de Li. Mani hates modern art
>with an all-consuming passion. He has a website -
>
>http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Dan Fox like many here, thinks Modern Art consists of the majority of
crap in the modern sections of museums. That's why he imagines that I
hate modern Art. Dan hates all the modern art that you can't see in
museums because it isn't allowed in. This is because only his type of
modern art is considered acceptable by the pseudo intellectuals who
presently control the system.
Take a look at Fox's work http://www.danfoxart.com. Would you want
someone like that as your teacher? There are millions Foxs out there.
You are free to choose.
>has written an entire book that explains why modern art is 'crap' (he even
>uses the same analytic vocabulary as you), and how all modern artists are
>charlatans.
Dan of course hasn't read my book.
> You'll like it. He also posts here very frequently - search
>for his posts under 'mdeli.' He writes 'serious posts' containing
>instruction for students (that's you!) to prevent them from being conned by
>modern artists (that's me!).
Well Dan isn't always wrong. Dan is a Modern Academic Artist.
>Another site for you is www.artrenewal.org. It is run by an engineer whose
>mission is to promote art of the 19th century academy, and the work of
>current artists who pretend that the last 100 years never happened. It is a
>hoot. Enjoy.
Take a look at it and compare it to Dan's incompetence and total
inability to draw.
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page
Richard
On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 16:33:38 -0400, Mani Deli <mani...@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
>Take a look at Fox's work http://www.danfoxart.com. Would you want
>someone like that as your teacher? There are millions Foxs out there.
>You are free to choose.
Hell no. I puke puddles of vomit that are prettier than that.
NightMist
wrote:
>>I don't ever want another
>>teacher like this again.
>
>Reminds me of my high school teacher - it amuses me still and friends I tell
>(who've known me as an artist forever) that my only failing grade in h/s was in
>art class....
Is it my imagination or does it seem that instructors who teach
classes called 'Design in 2 and 3 dimensions' and that type of thing
(first or second semester only) have a tendancy to try and bullshit
their way through the class? I'm sure that not all of them do, but it
seems from my own experience and from hearing other people gripe, that
this particular type of class is just more prone to teachers who
haven't a clue. The one I had back when, just assigned "clever"
projects and graded them without giving any instruction of any kind,
other than a definition of certain terms in the first week of
class(dictionary type thing). We never knew why we were making "a
large papier-mache sculpture of any inanimate object" or a "portrait
of a famous person, from a photograph, in unnatural colors". I can
see where such exercises could foster useful skills and techniques.
It would however, have been lovely to know that, as well as what
skills we were supposed to be developing, as a lowly clueless
freshman.
Barbara
--
everybody is somebodys chew toy
Richard
On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 21:22:38 +0200, "Peter H.M. Brooks"
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>Why not see if you can do better - try being more famous for being famous.
>Now, there's an ambition.
Maybe I could do it by sucking off gay modern art museum curators.
Then they'd promote me. Maybe that's what warhol did.
Richard
On Sat, 24 Aug 2002 00:37:10 GMT, nigh...@uir.zzn.com (NightMist)
wrote:
>Is it my imagination or does it seem that instructors who teach
>classes called 'Design in 2 and 3 dimensions' and that type of thing
>(first or second semester only) have a tendancy to try and bullshit
>their way through the class? I'm sure that not all of them do, but it
>seems from my own experience and from hearing other people gripe, that
>this particular type of class is just more prone to teachers who
>haven't a clue. The one I had back when, just assigned "clever"
>projects and graded them without giving any instruction of any kind,
>other than a definition of certain terms in the first week of
>class(dictionary type thing). We never knew why we were making "a
>large papier-mache sculpture of any inanimate object" or a "portrait
>of a famous person, from a photograph, in unnatural colors". I can
>see where such exercises could foster useful skills and techniques.
>It would however, have been lovely to know that, as well as what
>skills we were supposed to be developing, as a lowly clueless
>freshman.
>
>Barbara
I think you're onto something. I have a 3d design class starting in
one week. The teacher I heard was good. I met him briefly and he looks
like a practical person with good character and integrity, not an airy
fairy pseudointellectual. I'll see how differently he conducts the
class.
Mani Deli
>
>"Richard" <cool_a...@z.com> wrote in message
>news:5g0dmu8idsp9jg9t4...@4ax.com...
>>.
>>
>> I take it as a personal threat to my future financial well-being if an
>> art teacher teaches bullshit instead of serious skills, because I know
>> there are more artists than there are jobs, and I don't plan to have
>> to go back to doing horrible customer service jobs that make me want
>> to blow my brains out. I want to make a living doing something that I
>> like. Right now I guess I'll be an illustrator, unless there's
>> something better I can do.
>>
>Why be so angry? Life is long and there is plenty of it. If you love art and
>illustration a day job doing customer service doesn't prevent you from doing
>it.
What's wrong with being angry if you have a charlatan teacher that
teaches nothing and wastes your time and money? Most art schools teach
failure. If you want to learn your craft being a bit pissed off might
just mean that unlike the usual automaton student you might actually
do something in order to obtain the knowledge you need.
>
>It is utterly indulgent to think that the world owes you a living and you
>can do what the fuck you like and expect to be looked after.
Look who's angry! Where did the guy say the world owes him a living?
Mani Deli
wrote:
>Is it my imagination or does it seem that instructors who teach
>classes called 'Design in 2 and 3 dimensions' and that type of thing
>(first or second semester only) have a tendancy to try and bullshit
>their way through the class?
Its not your imagination. These so called courses are 95% bullshit.
The other 5% can best be learned from books in a tenth the time. Its
all a substitute in order to take up time and not teach the necessary
drawing skills which these teachers don't have.
> I'm sure that not all of them do, but it
>seems from my own experience and from hearing other people gripe, that
>this particular type of class is just more prone to teachers who
>haven't a clue. The one I had back when, just assigned "clever"
>projects and graded them without giving any instruction of any kind,
>other than a definition of certain terms in the first week of
>class(dictionary type thing). We never knew why we were making "a
>large papier-mache sculpture of any inanimate object" or a "portrait
>of a famous person, from a photograph, in unnatural colors". I can
>see where such exercises could foster useful skills and techniques.
>It would however, have been lovely to know that, as well as what
>skills we were supposed to be developing, as a lowly clueless
>freshman.
>
Sounds like your school might be the usual Bauhaus Kindergarten. The
best test is to take a look at the work of the senior students. Ignore
the gimmicks. Can they draw? Can they produce professional looking
work?
If you feel that they fail at this try to find an art school that
isn't a scam. A school that teaches produces professionals not
failures.
Nerd Gerl
I hate to sound like Mani... but why go to school at all?? (unless you're being
forced to.)
I, like thousands and thousands of others, are self taught. So was Da Vinci, I
think. (not sure - don't care either).
==========
Naked Angel Art: http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl
See In Person @ MatrixArts Space | Sacramento, CA
Biz Opp: http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/affiliate.htm
Alison A Raimes
>being
>forced to.)
You go to art school to learn about working with other artists and to become
part of the peer group and for critical discourse between other students and
practicing artists. Art school will expose you to practicing artists - visiting
lecturers - and will open up a number of avenues which you are probably unaware
exist. It is in art school that you start to develop contacts with other
artists at the same stage as you, and where you find, inevitably, that if there
are dynamic personalities amongst them then after art school things will start
to become interesting. Trying to go it alone in the *art world* is a lonely
business and few succeed but many graduate groups succeed. You also use art
school for the facilities, especially access to the library, because once out
you will soon find out that the local libraries idea of art is *how to paint a
vase of flowers*. The computer suites and printing facilities are also
important to many of today's students. Oh and you get cheap materials, and
concessionary entry to exhibitions and talks ;-)
Alison A Raimes
http://raimes.com
Todd Strickland
> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
>
> Why do a lot of people favor crappy "art" produced by people with no
> training and no talent?
I guess we lack the imagination and deep aesthetic sense that breeding
obviously engendered in you...
> I just got through finishing a 2d design
> course taught by some lazy bastard who is one of those airy fairy
> types that think modern art is so great and blathers on with
> subjective interpretations of art, which is all bullshit.
'...subjective interpretations of art, which is all bullshit.' Am I the
only one who smells irony here?
Would you mind giving me an 'objective' interpretation of art?
> Meanwhile,
> he didn't teach us jack shit about 2d design. He also had this belief
> that he shouldn't tell us much about techniques and strategies. He
> just wanted to let us experiment and figure things out for ourselves.
> Then he'd critique everybody's work with his subjective bullshit
> interpretations. Man I hate that guy! I don't ever want another
> teacher like this again. I came to learn how to be a top notch artist
> so I could get a job, not waste my time with bullshit.
You had one bad teacher, therefore Modern art is pure crap? Yeah, I guess I
can see the logic of that...
So, you want to get a 'job' as an artist? Hey, the world can always use
another storybook illustrator! If you really work hard and hone your skills
maybe you can airbrush photorealistic large breasted women in lingerie for
men's magazines! Now THAT'S work for a REAL artists!!!
Have you read any of the bile from mdeli, the most bitter person in
rec.arts.fine? That's you, pal, in 30 more years.
Todd Strickland
Richard
On 24 Aug 2002 06:24:01 GMT, nerd...@aol.combounces (Nerd Gerl)
wrote:
>I hate to sound like Mani... but why go to school at all?? (unless you're being
>forced to.)
Well Mr. Goffredo, who I trust, said it's easier if you go to school
(as long as you have good teachers, of course). School makes me be
disciplined and do more work. Plus I want a college degree for
personal satisfaction. And I get to meet lots of girls at school,
especially in art classes, and that's extremely important. That aspect
is like life or death to me. Plus I like being with people rather than
being home alone. Another thing is, at school every piece of artwork I
do gets critiqued by the teacher and students. I get lots of feedback.
I also like to compare my artwork to other peoples'. It's good to know
where you stand. Lastly, a lot of art books really don't teach you
very much. I don't know why that is.
Richard
On Sat, 24 Aug 2002 22:13:59 +0900, "Todd Strickland"
<ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp> wrote:
>You had one bad teacher, therefore Modern art is pure crap? Yeah, I guess I
>can see the logic of that...
You're the one who has no logic, because that's not what I said.
>So, you want to get a 'job' as an artist? Hey, the world can always use
>another storybook illustrator! If you really work hard and hone your skills
>maybe you can airbrush photorealistic large breasted women in lingerie for
>men's magazines! Now THAT'S work for a REAL artists!!!
Both of those are infinitely better than modern art. The fact that you
care more about the subject matter than the quality of artistic
techniques used shows that you're missing the point, because you're
stupid and a snobbish snot. My favorite types of artwork are fantasy,
surrealism, and really good classical stuff like Bouguereau's. I just
discovered him yesterday and he is my new GOD. I want to emulate his
techniques and work ethic. I think he's been deliberately forgotten
because he really puts modern "artists" (scammers) to shame more than
anyone else. It must be humiliating to suck so much.
>Have you read any of the bile from mdeli, the most bitter person in
>rec.arts.fine? That's you, pal, in 30 more years.
I don't know if he's bitter, but if he is, it's more than justified.
I'm definitely not bitter, because I spend my time working on my
personal goals rather than trying to change the world. On the other
hand, it's good that someone else did make a web site and a book
exposing modern art for the fraud that it is and promoting real art.
Dan Fox's paintings look like my toilet paper after I whipe my ass.
I think you should stop pretending that you're intelligent, because
your thinking is very superficial and biased.
You and your minions are just evil despoilers of the world.
You live to make a mockery of everything good.
Nerd Gerl
>Well Mr. Goffredo, who I trust, said it's easier if you go to school
>(as long as you have good teachers, of course). School makes me be
>disciplined and do more work.
Ok... so when you're out of school with no one telling you what to do, what
will be your motivation to be "disciplined and do more work"?
>Plus I want a college degree for
>personal satisfaction.
I have no problem with that. I sorta wish I stuck it out for one of these
things too, although I must admit I get a kick out of having "success" without
one. (It's a rebellion thing).
>And I get to meet lots of girls at school,
>especially in art classes, and that's extremely important. That aspect
>is like life or death to me.
<hee hee>
>Plus I like being with people rather than
>being home alone.
Making art is a lonely profession. Will you be making art around other people
after college?? More likely not. Better get used to it. Personally, I can't
*stand* people around me when I'm making art. Drawing or painting or even just
_thinking_ about it is an extremely personal thing to me. My motto is "Get the
hell away from me - I'm working." LOL
>Another thing is, at school every piece of artwork I
>do gets critiqued by the teacher and students. I get lots of feedback.
Yes, that is important. After you leave school, who will critique your work?
Customers, gallery owners, art dealers, etc. These, IMO, are the critics that
matter - the ones that will pay your bills - not the ones that give you a
letter grade, pat on the back, and a smile.
>I also like to compare my artwork to other peoples'. It's good to know
>where you stand.
That's very important too. Galleries, museums, magazines, and damn near
anything "art-like' will give this opportunity. And a *lot* of them are *not*
in school.
>Lastly, a lot of art books really don't teach you
>very much. I don't know why that is.
I have a very strange story about this... but first, I want you to understand
that I'm not advocating that you dump school. I just want you to consider the
extreme possibility that you may end up teaching yourself what you need to know
*while* you pay for someone else to teach you things you *don't* want to know.
I say, stick it out if you can for the degree and the girls. The rest can be
done on your own. And you know what? I think it should! It's like religion or
something. You must find your own path. I, unfortunately, have figured this out
at almost 35 years of age. Hopefully you will take my words to heart at your
age now.
Now about that story... in another post perhaps. I want you to tell me that you
will consider teaching yourself what you really want to do, while you listen
with a deaf ear, what you're being taught. You tell me that, then I'll tell you
how I taught myself (it's funny).
Nerd Gerl
>You go to art school to learn about working with other artists and to become
>part of the peer group and for critical discourse between other students and
>practicing artists. Art school will expose you to practicing artists -
>visiting
>lecturers - and will open up a number of avenues which you are probably
>unaware
>exist. It is in art school that you start to develop contacts with other
>artists at the same stage as you, and where you find, inevitably, that if
>there
>are dynamic personalities amongst them then after art school things will
>start
>to become interesting. Trying to go it alone in the *art world* is a lonely
>business and few succeed but many graduate groups succeed.
Now I agree with the "contact" part of your response. Personally, I didn't have
much luck with that. Like I mentioned in another post, for some reason I was
treated as an outcast in school. (Opportunities given [in secret mind you] to
others - I don't know *what* was up with that.) Maybe these opportunities are
available for people with more outgoing personalities. Never-the-less, a good
point.
You also use art
>school for the facilities, especially access to the library, because once out
>you will soon find out that the local libraries idea of art is *how to paint
>a
>vase of flowers*.
It's been my experience that most libraries carry all kind of art books.
Regular book stores too (Barnes and Noble, etc.).
>The computer suites and printing facilities are also
>important to many of today's students. Oh and you get cheap materials, and
>concessionary entry to exhibitions and talks ;-)
Hm... never got to experience any of that at my school. Oh wait (hitting head)
are you talking about student discounts?? Yeah. A slight benefit I guess.
>
>Alison A Raimes
>http://raimes.com
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
being famous is not famous.
keith
Peter H.M. Brooks <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:ak621v$m5d$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
Todd Strickland
> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
> On Sat, 24 Aug 2002 22:13:59 +0900, "Todd Strickland"
> <ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp> wrote:
>
> >You had one bad teacher, therefore Modern art is pure crap? Yeah, I
guess I
> >can see the logic of that...
>
> You're the one who has no logic, because that's not what I said.
Sorry. What was it you said again?
> >So, you want to get a 'job' as an artist? Hey, the world can always use
> >another storybook illustrator! If you really work hard and hone your
skills
> >maybe you can airbrush photorealistic large breasted women in lingerie
for
> >men's magazines! Now THAT'S work for REAL artists!!!
>
> Both of those are infinitely better than modern art. The fact that you
> care more about the subject matter than the quality of artistic
> techniques used shows that you're missing the point,
The fact that you would praise such work simply because of 'the quality of
artistic techniques' with no consideration of what the subject matter is
shows that you are missing the point. Works which are considered great are
generally believed to have some cultural importance, not just 'Wow! That
breast sure looks real!' Museums aim not to collect the 'most skilled'
works, but the most important.
Take Vargas, for example. I'll be the first to admit he has a certain
amount of 'skill.' He can depict the human form better than most, and I'm
sure he worked hard to gain the necessary 'skills' for this kind of work.
But after gaining such skills, what did he use them for? To paint
half-naked woman for magazine covers! Hey, whatever, if it paid the bills
and helped him get his rocks off. But now we should hang these in museums
and admire them for their 'artistic importance?' I think not, and if you
can't see why then it's you who is missing the point.
> because you're
> stupid and a snobbish snot.
"Modern art is crap. Pure crap. I hate it."
That's very intelligent, and not at all snobbish, I suppose?
> My favorite types of artwork are fantasy,
> surrealism, and really good classical stuff like Bouguereau's. I just
> discovered him yesterday and he is my new GOD. I want to emulate his
> techniques and work ethic. I think he's been deliberately forgotten
> because he really puts modern "artists" (scammers) to shame more than
> anyone else. It must be humiliating to suck so much.
Please try to get an education while in college! I know you're there to
pick up girls, but crack open an art history book once in a while!
Bouguereau AIN'T classical by a long shot! He has NOT been forgotten! In
fact he was highly respected by a number of Impressionists and
Post-impressionists (he was despised by as many more, NOT because they
thought him unskilled, but because his views on art were extremely
conservative, and the Academie de beaux-arts, which he dominated for some
time, had become an elitist enclave with a stranglehold on the Paris art
scene). I, too, have quite a lot of respect for Bouguereau, not just
because of his 'skill' (after all, I don't see 'skill,' I see images) but
also as an artist. But since I care about the various ways in which a
painting expresses IDEAS and MEANINGS, rather than just how it looks, I do
have my criticisms of Bouguereau, as well.
> >Have you read any of the bile from mdeli, the most bitter person in
> >rec.arts.fine? That's you, pal, in 30 more years.
>
> I don't know if he's bitter, but if he is, it's more than justified.
> I'm definitely not bitter, because I spend my time working on my
> personal goals rather than trying to change the world. On the other
> hand, it's good that someone else did make a web site and a book
> exposing modern art for the fraud that it is and promoting real art.
Yeah, you're not a snob at all...
> Dan Fox's paintings look like my toilet paper after I whipe my ass.
You must have very lovely shit! and vomit, too!
> I think you should stop pretending that you're intelligent, because
> your thinking is very superficial and biased.
Thanks for pointing that out. It really means a lot to me coming from one
as open minded and intelligent as you...
> You and your minions are just evil despoilers of the world.
> You live to make a mockery of everything good.
I sincerely hope that by the time you get your degree you will have at least
half a clue, about good and evil, as well as art. Good luck!
Todd Strickland
Richard
On Sat, 24 Aug 2002 04:46:30 GMT, "keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com"
<scot...@rogers.com> wrote:
>'famous for being famous' - is that like two no's make a yes - famous for
>being famous is not famous.
It makes perfect sense when you know that modern artists are selected
and promoted by influential people. So they become famous for no valid
reason. Then they really are famous for being famous. They're not
famous for being great artists, that's for sure. andy warhol just made
some simple, worthless crap.
Todd Strickland
> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
> On Sat, 24 Aug 2002 04:46:30 GMT, "keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com"
> <scot...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> >'famous for being famous' - is that like two no's make a yes - famous for
> >being famous is not famous.
>
> It makes perfect sense when you know that modern artists are selected
> and promoted by influential people. So they become famous for no valid
> reason. Then they really are famous for being famous. They're not
> famous for being great artists, that's for sure. andy warhol just made
> some simple, worthless crap.
The system you are describing was never truer than Paris under the Academie
de beaux-arts (with their Salons) during the mid and late 19th century. Yet
Bouguereau, the epitome of that system, is your new-found 'god?' And what
about Italy during the Renaissance? Talk about artists being 'selected' and
'promoted' by influential people!
Todd Strickland
Peter H.M. Brooks
"keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com" <scot...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:GcE99.
> 'famous for being famous' - is that like two no's make a yes - famous for
> being famous is not famous.
>
You have it exactly! Fame is an illusion and the illusion is no less for
being the illusion of an illusion.
Being famous for being an enemy of fame is the real trick.
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Todd Strickland" <ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp> wrote in message
> > You and your minions are just evil despoilers of the world.
> > You live to make a mockery of everything good.
>
> I sincerely hope that by the time you get your degree you will have at
least
> half a clue, about good and evil, as well as art. Good luck!
>
degree without even half a clue. Interestingly, though, those with the least
ability who have learned nothing are the proudest of their degree. Odd,
isn't it?
Maybe the should just sell degrees to 'want to be' types an let them get on
with it.
Mind you that seems to be the status quo.
We shouldn't be hard on those who have paid for their degrees, after all it
is obviously important to them. Lets all be nice for a change!
Mani Deli
>I hate to sound like Mani... but why go to school at all?? (unless you're being
>forced to.)
I would say that with the state of art schools at present and their
consistent production of failures it is little wonder why many here
have this impression.
However, one goes to school in order to learn the known not to
rediscover it for oneself; which is a waste of time and effort.
Indeed most art schools are for imbeciles. Drawing which is the
foundation of all the visual arts is taught by incompetent patzers who
learned from the same. Instead of the five hundred years of
accumulated knowledge one learns kindergarten stuff accompanied by
vacuous slogans.
>I, like thousands and thousands of others, are self taught. So was Da Vinci, I
>think. (not sure - don't care either).
>
Da Vinci Like most all greats had the finest of teachers and
communicated whith other great artists. Read about it. It pays to know
art history.
I suppose Fox and Strickland will warn you that what follows is bitter
negative etc. Judge for yourself.
Looking at your web page shows that you have raw talent, some ideas
and a craving for skill.
I won't go into detail. But you lack the skill and craft to do
professional work. You could obtain it if you found good teachers.
Many here, who have natural abilities complain because the modern
art academy which they attend is ruined by teachers who teach a creed
instead of a craft, because they simply don't know their craft, They
usually not only teach the talented student almost nothing but
criticize them for trying to learn. I've seen this often.
Mani Deli
>>"Richard" wrote: . Man I hate that guy! I don't ever want another
>> teacher like this again. I came to learn how to be a top notch artist
>> so I could get a job, not waste my time with bullshit.
>
>You had one bad teacher, therefore Modern art is pure crap? Yeah, I guess I
>can see the logic of that...
This is a good of example of Strickland's lame logic. The guy doesn't
happen to like modern art Strickland. Would he like it better if he
had a teacher he liked?
>
>So, you want to get a 'job' as an artist? Hey, the world can always use
>another storybook illustrator! If you really work hard and hone your skills
>maybe you can ! Now THAT'S work for a REAL artists!!!
Or you can spend your life imitating Modern Academic Art and try to
get beyond the millions of starving artists and achieve Fox like
furniture store success or sprout pseudo intellectual double talk
about it like Strickland. What does a "REAL" artist do, Strickland?"
Provincial boobs like Strickland think illustration mainly consists of
"airbrush photorealistic "large breasted women in lingerie for men's
magazines." Instead he thinks Picasso schmiers of "large breasted
women" with elephantiasis constructed with colored cement are
beautiful great art along with Pollack's mega-dribbles which he claims
are surreal.
>
>Have you read any of the bile from mdeli, the most bitter person in
>rec.arts.fine? That's you, pal, in 30 more years.
>
>Todd Strickland
Or of course you could become a outwardly merry pseudo intellectual
prick like Strickland who thinks that any criticism of what he happens
to like and Modern Academic Art academies is bile. I wonder if what he
thinks of "large breasted women in lingerie for men's magazines" is
also "bile?"
Nerd Gerl
>I suppose Fox and Strickland will warn you that what follows is bitter
>negative etc. Judge for yourself.
I *always* judge for myself.
>Looking at your web page shows that you have raw talent, some ideas
>and a craving for skill.
Hey gimmie a break!! I've got what?? 50-60 more years to perfect
this "craft". LOL - Hm... raw talent, ideas, and a craving for skill.
I've heard worse from you, so I'll take that as a compliment. Thanks.
>I won't go into detail. But you lack the skill and craft to do
>professional work. You could obtain it if you found good teachers.
Oh, I get work m'dear. ;-) I just put 4 prints in the mail today. But
yes, I do fantasize about doing perfect artwork and finding that
perfect teacher. Even if s/he ends up being my own self.
>Many here, who have natural abilities complain because the modern
>art academy which they attend is ruined by teachers who teach a creed
>instead of a craft, because they simply don't know their craft, They
>usually not only teach the talented student almost nothing but
>criticize them for trying to learn. I've seen this often.
Reason #300-something of why I dropped out of college.
>Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page
>
>http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Richard
On Sun, 25 Aug 2002 03:07:28 +0900, "Todd Strickland"
<ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp> wrote:
>But now we should hang these in museums
>and admire them for their 'artistic importance?' I think not, and if you
>can't see why then it's you who is missing the point.
Yes, Vargas paintings should be in museums. People like you don't want
them there because you're asshole snobs, that's all. All you care
about is feeling superior to the masses, and the way you do that is by
praising things that are not liked by the masses. To people like you,
anything that is popular is bad, because it can't be used to set you
apart from the masses. People like you act this way about movies,
music, books, and basically all types of art forms. You go for things
most people don't like, so you can feel special and elite, as if your
knowledge and taste were superior to most people's.
Liking a crappy painting because it makes some kind of social
commentary is just bulllshit.
WoN ereH
like you don't want
>them there because you're asshole snobs, that's all. All you care
>about is feeling superior to the masses, and the way you do that is by
>praising things that are not liked by the masses. To people like you,
>anything that is popular is bad, because it can't be used to set you
>apart from the masses. People like you act this way about movies,
>music, books, and basically all types of art forms. You go for things
>most people don't like, so you can feel special and elite, as if your
>knowledge and taste were superior to most people's.
You probably admire the work of Thomas Kinkade too. Loved by the masses as he
is. And maybe you buy art for your walls at Walmart, great prints of realistic
and pretty things, and cheap enough to buy by the dozen to boot. Little clue:
that stuff is for people too lazy to visit museums, too lazy to travel the
world, too lazy to try things just to learn something new, in a word,
unsophisticated. If I'm a snob to have bothered to *educate my eye*, then I'm
proud to be a snob.
I can draw and paint super *realistically*. So what? That easily impresses
the unsophisticated, but I know anyone that makes an effort can draw
realistically. You don't need a teacher to learn that. It helps to have some
guidance if you can find it and afford it, but it's not as important as just
practicing, training your eye hand coordination. Not waiting for it to be
handed to you for the price of tuition, but doing the work. That said, I can
assure you that it is far harder to go beyond just copying as carefully as you
can to designing your own version of art. That takes imagination, creativity,
zest, desire.....artistic vision, not just dexterity.
I agree, just sloshing paint on a canvas is laziness, not art. And not
bothering to learn how to draw is a really stupid and lazy way to approach
being an artist.
Going to college to be an artist? Pretty lame if you ask me. Going to college
is for learning skills in a protective atmosphere (away from home for the first
time for those who need and can afford that buffer zone). It's a place to party
your head off and puke your guts out a couple times. If your school is
teaching you rhetoric and philosophy but neglecting the skills, then you're
just a sucker for paying them for that.
Debra
Todd Strickland
"Mani Deli" <mani...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:86rfmusnu08qfhfn8...@4ax.com...
> "Todd Strickland" our favorite pseudo intellectual wrote:
>
> >>"Richard" wrote: . Man I hate that guy! I don't ever want another
> >> teacher like this again. I came to learn how to be a top notch artist
> >> so I could get a job, not waste my time with bullshit.
> >
> >You had one bad teacher, therefore Modern art is pure crap? Yeah, I
guess I
> >can see the logic of that...
>
> This is a good of example of Strickland's lame logic. The guy doesn't
> happen to like modern art Strickland. Would he like it better if he
> had a teacher he liked?
Don't know, don't care. But Richard's conflating Modern art 'crap' with
this 'airy fairy' boob of a teacher was his own doing. I fail to see any
connection at all with Richard's personal educational experience and the
merits of Modern art.
>>So, you want to get a 'job' as an artist? Hey, the world can always use
>>another storybook illustrator! If you really work hard and hone your
skills
>>maybe you can airbrush photorealistic large breasted women in lingerie for
>>men's magazines! Now THAT'S work for REAL artists!!!
>
> Or you can spend your life imitating Modern Academic Art and try to
> get beyond the millions of starving artists and achieve Fox like
> furniture store success or sprout pseudo intellectual double talk
> about it like Strickland. What does a "REAL" artist do, Strickland?"
They make art. It doesn't matter if it's photorealistic or abstract,
artists make art.
Fine, you want to call storybook illustrators and Playboy illustrators
artists; well, as a job description sure, why not. You want to argue that
they can be just as skilled in their field as any other kind of 'fine'
artist is in their's; well, that's obvious. You say that many so-called
'fine' artists also do illustration; I know, nothing wrong that. But if you
want to argue that this kind of illustration deserves to hang on the walls
of the Louvre, then you're just embarrassing yourself with your ignorance of
the term FINE ART.
Sometimes, works which were intended simply as illustration rise to the
level of cultural importance deemed necessary for inclusion in a fine art
museum; I'm thinking of some Civil War journalistic illustrations I've seen,
as well as Medieval illuminated manuscripts. But an artist like Vargas, as
skilled as he is, does not rise to that level. His works are not considered
culturally important. If drawing that kind of distinction makes me a snob
then so be it...
> Provincial boobs like Strickland think illustration mainly consists of
> "airbrush photorealistic "large breasted women in lingerie for men's
> magazines." Instead he thinks Picasso schmiers of "large breasted
> women" with elephantiasis constructed with colored cement are
> beautiful great art along with Pollack's mega-dribbles which he claims
> are surreal.
Never claimed Pollock was surreal.
Never said there was anything wrong with illustration, or wanting to do it
for a living, or prefering it to Modern art.
But the argument that you and Richard seem to make, that since Vargas can
draw a nude body more 'skillfully' than Pollock that simple fact proves he
is the 'better' artists is just bone-head stupid, IMHO. Disagree if you
like...
> >Have you read any of the bile from mdeli, the most bitter person in
> >rec.arts.fine? That's you, pal, in 30 more years.
> >
> >Todd Strickland
>
> Or of course you could become a outwardly merry pseudo intellectual
> prick like Strickland who thinks that any criticism of what he happens
> to like and Modern Academic Art academies is bile.
No, your bile is just bile. It has nothing to do with whether you agree
with me or not. There are a few other people here who often disagree with
me whom I still respect. You're just not one of them.
> I wonder if what he
> thinks of "large breasted women in lingerie for men's magazines" is
> also "bile?"
It is what it is. What it's NOT is fine art.
Todd Strickland
Todd Strickland
> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
> On Sun, 25 Aug 2002 03:07:28 +0900, "Todd Strickland"
> <ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp> wrote:
>
> >But now we should hang these in museums
> >and admire them for their 'artistic importance?' I think not, and if you
> >can't see why then it's you who is missing the point.
>
> Yes, Vargas paintings should be in museums. People like you don't want
> them there because you're asshole snobs, that's all.
What I think about Vargas (and what you think) hardly matters. What the
curators of the Louvre, the Prado, the Hermitage, the Metropolitan, MoMA,
etc. think is what determines whether Vargas 'deserves' to hang in these
museums. So far, they don't seem to think so. What a bunch of asshole
snobs, huh?
> All you care
> about is feeling superior to the masses, and the way you do that is by
> praising things that are not liked by the masses. To people like you,
> anything that is popular is bad, because it can't be used to set you
> apart from the masses.
"The masses are asses." I think Alexander Hamilton said that, or something
like it ;-)
> People like you act this way about movies,
> music, books, and basically all types of art forms. You go for things
> most people don't like, so you can feel special and elite, as if your
> knowledge and taste were superior to most people's.
I like McDonald's but haute cuisine it's not. I enjoy a good John Woo movie
but Shohei Imamura he's not. I can be entertained by a Stephen King story,
but when I feel up to something a little more intellectually challenging I
prefer Don DeLillo (or, heaven forbid, Shakespeare! I must be a snob, I
actually read Shakespeare sometimes!).
Inside your head there's a grey organ called a 'brain.' As incredible as
this may sound to you, some people enjoy using their's.
> Liking a crappy painting because it makes some kind of social
> commentary is just bulllshit.
I don't like crappy paintings anymore than you, I suppose. And just because
a painting makes 'some kind of social commentary' is certainly no guarantee
that I'll like it. Rockwell's paintings quite definitely make social
commentary, a very particular view of America as he felt it should be. But
I'm no fan of Rockwell.
But I guess it never would have crossed your mind that even Rockwell's
paintings express ideas...
'A mind is a terrible thing to waste...'
Todd Strickland
Fidel Faddle
says...
>Little clue:
>that stuff is for people too lazy to visit museums, too lazy to travel the
>world, too lazy to try things just to learn something new, in a word,
>unsophisticated.
I know people who are widely traveled
who would be considered 'sophisticated'
EXCEPT they still have no taste when
it comes to the stuff they collect as
'art.' Just last evening I was being bored
to tears listening to a lady friend who
has just returned to the USA from her
third trip to Ireland. She was goo-gooing
on and on about one of our local NM artists
who paints on porcelain as 'his thing.'
In the same conversation she mentioned
that she knows little of other artists
in the same locale, doesn't attend gallery
openings or annual art events, etc etc.
Fidel Faddle
>Rockwell's paintings quite definitely make social
>commentary, a very particular view of America as he felt it should be. But
>I'm no fan of Rockwell.
You 'probably' didn't grow up with Saturday Evening Post
on your reading table every week. I admire Rockwell for what
he was - America's pre-eminent illustrator
at a time when TV didn't dominate the evening relaxation
hours. I understand your remark above in regards
to Rockwell idealizing the American scene, but he
was probably MORE appreciated because he depicted
scenes every American could relate to. You would
have to have lived those years when he was illustrating
to understand what daily life was REALLY like at
the time, pre-TV days, WWII years, etc. Patriotism
was the dominant mood of American culture 'back then.'
And Sunday school and church still played a huge
part in many American's lives. Looking back from
our current times at Rockwell's depictions - with our
now-jaded, demoralized etc viewpoints of today - does
make his illustrations seem idealistic and even trite.
But they weren't seen that way 'back then.' Rockwell
brought a LOT of humor into the everyday workaday
with his illustrations - that, to me, was his forte.
Mr. Tudball
what makes art acceptable and what looks like vomit to you; you need to
finally come to terms with the fact that we are all different and all
make different art.
Maybe you feel like your art is better than someone's because you
have superior technique. Positively, someone feels that way about your
painting skills.
Perhaps conceptually, your ideas are superior to my ideas. Perhaps
monitarily, my ideas have proven more successful on the basis of sales
to collectors.
We all have different ideas about what should constitute an
exquisitely perfect painting.
Do you want a painstakingly smooth finish over glazes over
underpainting?
Do you want emotional impact on the basis of
texture/color/image/disturbing/terrifying/ piles of paint?
Who cares?
If we all thought the same and painted the same we'd suffer the same
fate of the 19th century Salon.
Academic painting is appreciated by connoisseurs of academia.
Conceptual/abstract painting is appreciated by another market.
"impressionistic" slop has it's crowd.
pure slop has it's crowd.
bad idea, great marketing has it's crowd.
good idea, great marketing has it's crowd.
no idea, no marketing, is a useful stage to go through as quickly as
possible.
I personally chose the route I chose because I appreciated academic
tradition and spent years in museums copying paintings by who I thought
were the best painters.
I make a very good living painting what I paint.
You chose your route. Maybe you don't consider money and sales a good
measure of success.
That's fine.
Maybe you do.
great.
I get tired of the same arguments (no i don't) about who's right and
who's wrong and what's right and what's wrong.
I do what I do and I do it well.
I like to see others succeed at what they do.
just fucking paint.
when it all comes down to it that's what matters.
-j
Mani Deli
>Fine, you want to call storybook illustrators and Playboy illustrators
>artists; well, as a job description sure, why not. You want to argue that
>they can be just as skilled in their field as any other kind of 'fine'
>artist is in their's; well, that's obvious.
Gee, really? Check that out with Fox.
> You say that many so-called
>'fine' artists also do illustration; I know, nothing wrong that. But if you
>want to argue that this kind of illustration deserves to hang on the walls
>of the Louvre, then you're just embarrassing yourself with your ignorance of
>the term FINE ART.
I said the modern sections of museums.
If you want to call Pollock, de kooning and Rothko "fine art, do so. I
just say hang those illustrators you mention next to them and let the
public decide what's FINE ART.
>Sometimes, works which were intended simply as illustration rise to the
>level of cultural importance deemed necessary for inclusion in a fine art
>museum; I'm thinking of some Civil War journalistic illustrations I've seen,
>as well as Medieval illuminated manuscripts. But an artist like Vargas, as
>skilled as he is, does not rise to that level. His works are not considered
>culturally important. If drawing that kind of distinction makes me a snob
>then so be it...
>
>But the argument that you and Richard seem to make, that since Vargas can
>draw a nude body more 'skillfully' than Pollock that simple fact proves he
>is the 'better' artists is just bone-head stupid, IMHO. Disagree if you
>like...
Vargas is the best of pinup art, an original American style, sought by
art collectors and enjoying a new popularity. However he also did
beautiful portraits and other work. Artzy fartzies like you see
nothing more than skill in Vargas. Beautifully painted nudes seem to
precipitate the bile in artzy fartzies because they aren't ugly or
painted as badly as a modern academic museum quality de Kooning
schmier.
I see nothing more in Pollock than fairly dull floor covering design.
If any painting attributed to Pollock turned out a to be a fake it
would be considered garbage. Pollock is nothing but a commercial art
signature.
Mani Deli
> I can draw and paint super *realistically*.
Great, Lets see it! I heard this all along in art school. However,I
never saw any drawing to bear this out. There are some funny stories
about this in my book .
> So what? That easily impresses
>the unsophisticated, but I know anyone that makes an effort can draw
>realistically.
That's modern art school mythology.
>You don't need a teacher to learn that. It helps to have some
>guidance if you can find it and afford it, but it's not as important as just
>practicing, training your eye hand coordination.
Another "trained eye."
> If your school is
>teaching you rhetoric and philosophy but neglecting the skills, then you're
>just a sucker for paying them for that.
>
>Debra
Todd Strickland
"Fidel Faddle" <fid...@noemailever.com> wrote in message
news:3d68e...@oracle.zianet.com...
Thank you for your reply. Finally! An intelligent post!
You're right, at 36 I'm a little too young to have grown up with Rockwell's
pictures on the coffee table. But I'm just old enough to have some fleeting
memories of what things were like 'back then' and the way they have changed.
I was born in Atlanta, Georgia, but my family moved north before my first
birthday. Aside from a couple of years in upstate New York and one year in
Boulder, Colorado, I grew up in Northern California. My mother was a proud
southerner, and almost all of my relatives lived in the south. It's a silly
thing, but I remember my mother had a cigarette lighter she bought at some
gift shop (probably Stone Mountain, a monument to Confederate 'heros') with
a cartoon depiction of a haggard Confederate soldier carrying a tattered
Confederate flag; the caption at the bottom read, "Forget? Hell!" As a
child, I didn't know what it meant, only that the south, my home, had
undergone some terrible injustice.
When we would visit Atlanta on vacation, I saw signs that something was
changing (late 60s), but I didn't quite understand what the change was. My
grandfather worked at a watch repair shop, and I remember a discussion he
had with my mother when a black man was hired at the shop for the first
time. He said that the man was a good worker, and they got along alright,
but it was hard to get used to the way black people 'smelled.' Back in
California, there were all kinds of different people, but down in Georgia,
people seemed very concerned about this 'white' and 'black' difference. But
he never said anything bad about black people, just that they smelled
different...
Back in school in California, we studied about the Civil War. My teacher
said that the south was a racist place, and the northern states which loved
freedom and equality had freed the slaves. All the other children seemed to
buy this story, but no one likes to be told 'their own' are the bad guys.
I'd seen the 'freedom loving' north; I'd been to New York and I knew that
the whites lived in one part of town, the blacks lived in another. In my
own city of San Jose, we all knew that the 'Mexicans' (as if they weren't
really Americans) lived on the east side, and white people lived on the west
side. The east side was the 'dangerous' side where people were poor and
took drugs...
Then one year, a Vietnamese kid came to school. We didn't know anything
about him, just that he was here 'because of the war,' somehow. It made no
difference to me, but some boys at my school decided this kid needed to get
the shit beaten out of him. "Why?" I asked. "Man! Don't you know! Dale's
uncle went to Vietnam to fight in the war!" Of course, this kid was one of
the people Dale's uncle was fighting FOR, but that concept was completely
beyond a bunch of 9 year old bullies. The 5 to 1 odds seemed particularly
unfair, but they said, "he probably knows karate."
In high school my sister went through her own 'proud southerner' phase. She
hung a huge Confederate flag in her room, put Confederate flags all over her
car, used to argue that the Civil War was unnecessary, that economic
realities would have led to the abolition of slavery within a few years
regardless. Now, my sister was no more racist than I; this was her way of
justifying her identity. Slavery was bad, but the south was basically as
good as the north. My approach was the opposite; the south was completely
in the wrong to perpetuate slavery, and fighting the Civil War was nothing
more than a pathetic attempt to keep slavery alive. But the north was just
as racist as the south. If economic conditions were equal between the north
and the south, the north would have found some rationalization for using
slavery as well.
I went to college in Los Angeles (which was a north/south issue all over
again; Northern Californians feel that Southern California is an evil place
which 'steals' their water. Many Northern Californians feel the north
should 'seceed' from the south and make a new state). After being there for
a few years an old friend from the north came to visit me. She grew up in
San Jose also, but went even farther north for college, to the Redwood
forests of Humboldt State. When I knew her before she had always claimed
she would never have children, because the world was a fucked-up place and
it was unconscionable to bring children into such a world, etc. etc. But
now, sitting in the UCLA North Campus Cafeteria, she tells me she's had a
change of heart. She met someone at Humboldt State who explained to her
that she had a moral obligation to have children. You see, it's a proven
fact (he said) that poor minorities are reproducing at a faster rate than
white Americans; well-educated white Americans were reproducing at the
LOWEST rate. Therefore, educated (white) people had a moral responsibility
to have children in order to offset the uncontrollable numbers of children
that 'minorities' were having. I can't tell you how uncomfortable this
discussion was making me. I kept "shh! shh!" -ing her; "You can't talk like
that around here. We're gonna get in a lot of trouble. This is L.A., not
Humboldt." Of course, I tried to point out the idiocy of this asshole's
position, that educational performance has nothing to do with one's genes,
that this guy was probably an out-and-out racist member of some
white-supremacist group which targets young, impressionable, WHITE college
students. I think I talked some sense into her, but if she'd gone to school
in L.A. and I'd gone to Humboldt, maybe it would have been the other way
around.
Then after graduation, I had the fortunate experience of living through the
L.A. riots (I mean that; it's terrible that shit happened, but it did open
my eyes). I spent a lot of time in South Central L.A. for my job, as a
process server for a west-side law firm. I wasn't freaked-out about being
'south of the 10' after sunset; I knew that ALL of L.A. was dangerous ;-).
But that day, I was getting a lot of angry stares from people. I didn't
know why, but clearly it was a 'race thing.' Then, late in the afternoon
when I returned to the Santa Monica office I understood; "Didn't you hear?
The Rodney King verdicts came back; not-guilty." Everyone knew that the
defense strategy of moving the trial to white 'copland' Simi Valley was a
blatant ploy to play the 'race' issue, but no one really thought it would
work. Afterall, the whole thing had been caught on video, this poor guy on
the ground getting the shit beaten out of him by three cops with
night-sticks, while four other cops stand around watching! BUT IT WORKED!
NOT-GUILTY! And 51% non-white L.A. city blew up! I remember sitting in my
car making-out with my Korean-American girlfriend on the corner of 8th and
Normandie around 10 o'clock that night, getting 'mad-dog' stares from
carloads of black kids; we didn't think it was that serious on the first
night. The next morning the city was on fire (but I still had to work; had
to serve those subpoenas...).
Anyways, the long and the short of this is that as long as I can remember,
in every part of America I've lived in, race relations have been an
unresolved problem. And I know that black people didn't suddenly appear in
1964; they've been in America as long as my ancestors! And Spanish speaking
people have been there even longer (not to mention Native Americans, the
group that got most seriously fucked-over by "Americans"). I come from a
white, upper-middle class family; I have even lived in New England, so I
completely understand the kind of 'world' that Rockwell depicted. But I
also know that it's a lie; America never was, is not, and never will be that
kind of place! The fact that a completely 'Anglo' publication like the
Saturday Evening Post choose his works to grace the cover for so many
decades is as much a testament to their dedication to 'white normalcy' as it
is to Rockwell's status as America's premier illustrator.
Perhaps I'm too hard on Rockwell. Maybe his hometown really was like that;
maybe the kind of issues that effected the rest of the country never touched
his idyllic town. But the New York publishers of the Saturday Evening
Post were certainly aware of these issues, yet had no inclination to admit
to them at all. I can look at a Rockwell and say, "that's cute," but in the
back of my mind I'm always thinking "where are all the other people?"
Todd Strickland
Richard
On Sun, 25 Aug 2002 12:49:50 -0500 (CDT), Mr_Tu...@webtv.net (Mr.
Tudball) wrote:
> I make a very good living painting what I paint.
What do you paint and how much do you make?
Where did you get your training?
Richard
On Sun, 25 Aug 2002 12:49:50 -0500 (CDT), Mr_Tu...@webtv.net (Mr.
Tudball) wrote:
>
>
> I get tired of the same arguments (no i don't) about who's right and
>who's wrong and what's right and what's wrong.
> I do what I do and I do it well.
> I like to see others succeed at what they do.
>
>just fucking paint.
>when it all comes down to it that's what matters.
>-j
Yea I'm not going to talk about this much longer. It would take too
much time away from my art and other stuff.
WoN ereH
>> I can draw and paint *realistically*.
>Great, Lets see it! I heard this all along in art school. However,I
>never saw any drawing to bear this out. There are some funny stories
>about this in my book .
A good bit of my work is at
http://www.sculptureartist.com
I don't have a lot of what I might consider my *fine art* stuff on there
because I made that site for another purpose, but I will get to changing it
eventually. My *super realistic* stuff is not on there because my Dali
interest was a passing/learning phase. I see you stayed in that particular
groove. That's fine for you, but why do you make such a big deal about other
artists wanting to be more original?
>> So what? That easily impresses
>>the unsophisticated, but I know anyone that makes an effort can draw
>>realistically.
>That's modern art school mythology.
I didn't go to art school. I figured that out by picking up a pencil. With
practice, and perhaps some innate eye hand coordination, a pencil drawing will
look like a photograph. But that's just copying.
>>You don't need a teacher to learn that. It helps to have some
>>guidance if you can find it and afford it, but it's not as important as just
>>practicing, training your eye hand coordination.
>Another "trained eye."
Fidel Faddle
says...
>Yea I'm not going to talk about this much longer.
Can't speak for others here, but as for
me, the sooner the better, like RIGHT NOW!
Fidel Faddle
SNIPPED - long-winded essay on growing up in
the Civil Rights 1960s in the USA...
>Perhaps I'm too hard on Rockwell. Maybe his hometown really was like that;
>maybe the kind of issues that effected the rest of the country never touched
>his idyllic town. But the New York publishers of the Saturday Evening
>Post were certainly aware of these issues, yet had no inclination to admit
>to them at all. I can look at a Rockwell and say, "that's cute," but in the
>back of my mind I'm always thinking "where are all the other people?"
YOU're dead wrong!
You need to do a bit of research on Rockwell's later
illustrations. One of his MOST FAMOUS is the depiction
of the young black girl being escorted to school by
US marshals. The black girl in her unsoiled WHITE dress
is fully depicted, but the painting only shows partial
views of the marshals - who we know are marshals
from the arm bands they wear.
And I could go on and on about Rockwell's other
Civil Rights era illustrations, but won't. I refer
you to the coffee-table size book "Norman Rockwell,
Artist and Illustrator" for the most complete
catalog of his numerous works that I'm aware of.
As for my own personal favorite, it has to be THE
GOLDEN RULE illustration published April 1, 1961.
Something ironic about such a serious message on
April Fool's day. And for those unfortunate enough
to not know what The Golden Rule is - "Do Unto
Others as You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
Mani Deli
I come from a
>white, upper-middle class family; I have even lived in New England, so I
>completely understand the kind of 'world' that Rockwell depicted. But I
>also know that it's a lie; America never was, is not, and never will be that
>kind of place!
Whether you like it or not that was an America for some people. The
fact that most didn't share it is another matter. Much of Rockwell is
brilliant characture. However His finest paintings from the turkey
dinner to the Watch repair etc. are in subject matter as real as any
Renior, Balthus, or Vermeer in the reality they depict. Rockwell
stands among the best genre painters.
>The fact that a completely 'Anglo' publication like the
>Saturday Evening Post choose his works to grace the cover for so many
>decades is as much a testament to their dedication to 'white normalcy' as it
>is to Rockwell's status as America's premier illustrator.
Read about Rockwell and the influence his last wife had on his choice
later subject matter and check out his Black school painting.
>Perhaps I'm too hard on Rockwell. Maybe his hometown really was like that;
He grew up in NYC.
>maybe the kind of issues that effected the rest of the country never touched
>his idyllic town. But the New York publishers of the Saturday Evening
>Post were certainly aware of these issues, yet had no inclination to admit
>to them at all. I can look at a Rockwell and say, "that's cute," but in the
>back of my mind I'm always thinking "where are all the other people?"
>
What artzy fartzies really dislike is his popularity his technique and
his story telling subject matter. Rockwell is also beautiful. This is
particularly annoying to the fashionable Modern Academic artist's
allegence to the romance of the gutter.
Tina Mammoser
Richard wrote:
> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
> On 24 Aug 2002 06:24:01 GMT, nerd...@aol.combounces (Nerd Gerl)
> wrote:
>
> >I hate to sound like Mani... but why go to school at all?? (unless you're being
> >forced to.)
>
> Well Mr. Goffredo, who I trust, said it's easier if you go to school
> (as long as you have good teachers, of course). School makes me be
> disciplined and do more work. Plus I want a college degree for
> personal satisfaction. And I get to meet lots of girls at school,
> especially in art classes, and that's extremely important. That aspect
> is like life or death to me. Plus I like being with people rather than
> being home alone. Another thing is, at school every piece of artwork I
> do gets critiqued by the teacher and students. I get lots of feedback.
> I also like to compare my artwork to other peoples'. It's good to know
> where you stand. Lastly, a lot of art books really don't teach you
> very much. I don't know why that is.
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
>
There are other options too. You could study privately with an artist - that way
you can choose the artist and get intense one-on-one instruction. I studied
painting privately for 3 years and supplemented it with short courses at various
London art schools, to get experience in other mediums, other styles, and with
other instructors. And you can still go to college for a degree. (An art degree
isn't terribly practical. then again, I have practical degrees and am not using
them either. *grin*) I have 3 degrees and none in art. I'm now a full-time
artists. I'm also studying for another degree part time (Open University -
Physics). I still take short courses, as do most of the other artists I know - the
learning never ends. I found a studio and all the artists there see everything I
do and critique it whether I want them to or not. I get tons and tons of feedback.
Working in a studio group can be a wonderful way of having a community. I get to
see their work which is in a range of differing styles and mediums than my own so
I'm always getting new ideas. The best way of knowing "where I stand" is to have
exhibitions, have my work in places, and go see other exhibitions. That's what's
really out there. The real context is the selling art world where your work will
have to earn you a living and you have real competition.
Please note that I'm not saying art college is bad - it can be great. Just that it
isn't the only way. :)
Tina.
--
**********££££££££££££££££££££**********
-----Colorist expressionist contemporary landscapes-----
The FUN FORTNIGHTLY PAINTING
HTTP://WWW.TINA-M.COM
Sign up for a sneak peek every other week into the mind of a painter!
mailto:ti...@tina-m.com
Exclusive small works for auction direct from the artist:
http://www.ebay.com/ - search for TINA-M
**********££££££££££££££££££££**********
Todd Strickland
> In article <akb8h...@enews2.newsguy.com>, ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp
says...
>
>
> SNIPPED - long-winded essay on growing up in
> the Civil Rights 1960s in the USA...
It was long-winded, wasn't it. Sorry...
Per your and Mani's advice I did take a second look at some late Rockwell's.
I stand corrected. Late in his career he did turn to various social issues
for subject matter. That's laudable, and deserving of more respect than I
was giving him.
Todd Strickland
Mani Deli
>>> (WoN ereH) wrote:
>>> I can draw and paint *realistically*.
>
>>Great, Lets see it! I heard this all along in art school. However,I
>>never saw any drawing to bear this out. There are some funny stories
>>about this in my book .
>
>A good bit of my work is at
>http://www.sculptureartist.com
I like what you show. I might ad that I think the best modern
sculpture is plastic toys and figures.
>I don't have a lot of what I might consider my *fine art* stuff on there
>because I made that site for another purpose, but I will get to changing it
>eventually. My *super realistic* stuff is not on there because my Dali
>interest was a passing/learning phase. I see you stayed in that particular
>groove. That's fine for you, but why do you make such a big deal about other
>artists wanting to be more original?
Nothing wrong with original as long as its competent and exhibits a
degree of skill which anyone can't imitate.
>>> So what? That easily impresses
>>>the unsophisticated, but I know anyone that makes an effort can draw
>>>realistically.
>
>>That's modern art school mythology.
>
>I didn't go to art school. I figured that out by picking up a pencil. With
>practice, and perhaps some innate eye hand coordination, a pencil drawing will
>look like a photograph. But that's just copying.
Can you name a fine drawing by a master that looks like a photo? Do
Ingres Dali or Rockwell drawings look like photos.
Mani Deli
>What I think about Vargas (and what you think) hardly matters.
But when most people like Norman Rockwell it matters. And when most
people dislike the three Stooges of Modern Academic Art, Pollock, de
Kooning and Rothko, that also matters.
> What the
>curators of the Louvre, the Prado, the Hermitage, the Metropolitan, MoMA,
>etc. think is what determines whether Vargas 'deserves' to hang in these
>museums. So far, they don't seem to think so. What a bunch of asshole
>snobs, huh?
What is derogatorily called illustration , Kitsch and commercial art
by all species of Modern Academic Art fundamentalists poses a real
threat to the stuff presently allowed into the modern sections of
museums.
Just imagine what most people would prefer to look at if rooms full of
the finest illustrators were allowed to hang next to those so called
masterpieces of Modern Art in the modern sections of museums.
All the cries of philistine against those people would come to naught.
Then think of how stupid the curators would look after spending
fortunes on all those drips, schmiers and stripes. And most important
of all think of what it might eventually do to the prices of all that
stuff. It could cause an art market crash. That's what the curators
who really represent the art market are really afraid of.
For economic reasons alone, the art establishment has no choice but to
deny that illustration is art and keep it far away from the museum.
Mani Deli
>> SNIPPED - long-winded essay on growing up in
>> the Civil Rights 1960s in the USA...
>
>It was long-winded, wasn't it. Sorry...
I thought it was to the point, interesting and related to a common
feeling about Rockwell's earlier subject matter. It contrasts the
surreal view of what America is supposed to be and an experience of
what it really is.
Hm, I guess we don't even agree when I think you are right and you
think you're are wrong.
>Per your and Mani's advice I did take a second look at some late Rockwell's.
>I stand corrected. Late in his career he did turn to various social issues
>for subject matter. That's laudable, and deserving of more respect than I
>was giving him.
>
However, consider Rockwell's former paintings, before they expressed
the social consciousness mentioned. Are they bad paintings because of
the subject matter offends. To what degree Is subject matter a
criterion for judgement?
I can name lots of great paintings whose subject matter I strongly
dislike and vice versa. I believe that other factors determine lasting
quality.
Discussion
>And what
> about Italy during the Renaissance? Talk about artists
> being 'selected' and
> 'promoted' by influential people!
Not sure I follow this one point.
All I can find are Renaissance art wonders. Maybe the crap
produced by less than worthy artists has been burnt by
disappointed promoters?
N.H
>
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Discussion" <go...@away.dot.for.good.dotcom> wrote in message
news:FIua9.3019$qZ2....@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
The Black Death was what led to the Renaissance (which is why there is talk
of a possible African Renaissance after AIDS has killed a similar proportion
of the populace).
Then, as now, you had artists and people who thought that they were artists
with no aesthetic sense. Fortunately for later generations all those with no
aesthetic sense died out. There was a simple causal factor, then, as now,
those who with no aesthetic sense were slaves to fashion. The fashion at
that time was blue headgear - now, blue headgear is just the perfect place
for a plague infested black rat to go for a kip.
You can see the development here. Those who wore these blue caps (they may
even have pre-invented the 'IQ-reducer', or peaked cap, and the 'double IQ
reducer' of a peaked cap worn backwards), consequently died like flies. The
artists, on the other hand survived and the rest is history.
This is why you often hear the Black Death known by a corruption of its
original name the 'Blue Bonnet Plague'.
It's not clear how this is all going to turn out with the new plague of
AIDS, but, if Tracy Emin's bed and tent are representative in any way of
her, and her ilk's habits, it may be a similar story.
Thinking about it, maybe the new plague could be called the 'No Bleu Bonnet
Plague' in memory of those who didn't practice safe sex.
You are right about the fires, though, any studio containing a Blue Bonnet
would have been raised to the ground at once - if there were no Blue Bonnets
the art would have to speak for itself, which is how we ended up with such a
period of magnificent art.
--
"Every evil in the bud is easily crushed: as it grows older, it becomes
stronger". Cicero
augart
> the finest illustrators were allowed to hang next to those so called
> masterpieces of Modern Art in the modern sections of museums.
I like to look at the porn.
Richard
On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 10:55:07 -0400, Mani Deli <mani...@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
>>I didn't go to art school. I figured that out by picking up a pencil. With
>>practice, and perhaps some innate eye hand coordination, a pencil drawing will
>>look like a photograph. But that's just copying.
>
>Can you name a fine drawing by a master that looks like a photo? Do
>Ingres Dali or Rockwell drawings look like photos.
Debra's comment is just an excuse. It's always much harder to draw,
paint, or sculpt realistically. And just because you use realism
doesn't mean you can't be creative. It's just a lot easier to create
something that's not realistic. Off the top off my head, the best
modern sculptures I've seen are not toys, but high quality cold cast
resin models that they sell in the hobby shops. A lot of skill and
realism goes into those, as well as creativity. Making realistic stuff
is NOT just copying. Tracing is just copying. I bet Debra's drawings
are not "super realistic."
Richard
On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 10:55:46 -0400, Mani Deli <mani...@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
>Just imagine what most people would prefer to look at if rooms full of
>the finest illustrators were allowed to hang next to those so called
>masterpieces of Modern Art in the modern sections of museums.
Why doesn't someone just go ahead and start a museum displaying
paintings by Vargas, Rockwell, HR Giger, etc.? Is there such a museum
now?
Todd Strickland
"Discussion" <go...@away.dot.for.good.dotcom> wrote in message
news:FIua9.3019$qZ2....@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
I didn't say the stuff wasn't good!
Just pointing out that the Pope was a pretty influential guy, or so I've
heard...
Todd Strickland
Todd Strickland
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:akdumj$ntv$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
(snip good yarn)
Peter, don't go goofy on me!
Todd Strickland
Erik A. Mattila
> It's a little more complicated than that, you have to know your history:
>
> The Black Death was what led to the Renaissance (which is why there is talk
> of a possible African Renaissance after AIDS has killed a similar proportion
> of the populace).
I wouldn't think a plague in a feudal economy would result in the
accumulation of wealth and secular power that led to the Renaissance,
Pete. What about the defeat of the Moors, Europe being flooded with
wealth from the newly "discovered" rest of the world, the invention of
capitalism, and so on?
>
> Then, as now, you had artists and people who thought that they were artists
> with no aesthetic sense. Fortunately for later generations all those with no
> aesthetic sense died out. There was a simple causal factor, then, as now,
> those who with no aesthetic sense were slaves to fashion. The fashion at
> that time was blue headgear - now, blue headgear is just the perfect place
> for a plague infested black rat to go for a kip.
Well, the Circle of the Medici were certainly "slaves to fashion" - the
fashion being neoclassicism. But the attrition rate of Renaissance art
was very high - the high-nineties as I recall. The little that survived
did so because it was collected by individuals and institutions that had
the means to protect it from the ravages of time and politics.
>
> You can see the development here. Those who wore these blue caps (they may
> even have pre-invented the 'IQ-reducer', or peaked cap, and the 'double IQ
> reducer' of a peaked cap worn backwards), consequently died like flies. The
> artists, on the other hand survived and the rest is history.
>
> This is why you often hear the Black Death known by a corruption of its
> original name the 'Blue Bonnet Plague'.
Sounds a little fishy to me. Isn't the favorite theory that the virus
or infection was spread by fleas. Think about it. What the hell would
be so attractive about blue hats to rats?
>
> It's not clear how this is all going to turn out with the new plague of
> AIDS, but, if Tracy Emin's bed and tent are representative in any way of
> her, and her ilk's habits, it may be a similar story.
I assume you mean "Africans." Why don't you just say it?
>
> Thinking about it, maybe the new plague could be called the 'No Bleu Bonnet
> Plague' in memory of those who didn't practice safe sex.
Sounds to me like you're worried about being "Zimbabwayed" Pete.
Erik
Peter H.M. Brooks
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
news:3D6B5F3E...@oco.net...
> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
>
>
> > It's a little more complicated than that, you have to know your history:
> >
> > The Black Death was what led to the Renaissance (which is why there is
talk
> > of a possible African Renaissance after AIDS has killed a similar
proportion
> > of the populace).
>
>
> I wouldn't think a plague in a feudal economy would result in the
> accumulation of wealth and secular power that led to the Renaissance,
>
Black Death are amazingly interesting.
>
> >
> > It's not clear how this is all going to turn out with the new plague of
> > AIDS, but, if Tracy Emin's bed and tent are representative in any way of
> > her, and her ilk's habits, it may be a similar story.
>
>
> I assume you mean "Africans." Why don't you just say it?
>
>
>
> >
> > Thinking about it, maybe the new plague could be called the 'No Bleu
Bonnet
> > Plague' in memory of those who didn't practice safe sex.
>
>
> Sounds to me like you're worried about being "Zimbabwayed" Pete.
>
that is water well under the bridge!
Fidel Faddle
>
>There is a Rockwell museum and store in Sturbridge, MA
That should be STOCKBRIDGE, MA.
Erik A. Mattila
>>I wouldn't think a plague in a feudal economy would result in the
>>accumulation of wealth and secular power that led to the Renaissance,
>>
>>
> Amazingly, though, that is just what it did! I think that the results of the
> Black Death are amazingly interesting.
I'm sure that it is interesting. But I don't think a unitary premise
can explain history as complex as the Renaissance. Just the impact of
Arab libraries "liberated" in Spain on Europe, where there were none,
for example. And, since this is cross-posted to uk.philosophy.humanism
we might consider the impact of Luther and the rest of the humanists in
the context of the Renaissance.
>
>>>It's not clear how this is all going to turn out with the new plague of
>>>AIDS, but, if Tracy Emin's bed and tent are representative in any way of
>>>her, and her ilk's habits, it may be a similar story.
>>>
>>
>>I assume you mean "Africans." Why don't you just say it?
>>
>>
> You are wrong. I am an African, I certainly don't mean Africans!
Interesting. That leaves it a riddle who you mean by "Emins and her
ilk" if they are not Africans tragically suffering an AIDS epidemic.
Perhaps you mean "British Artists"???
Erik
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
>
>
> >>I wouldn't think a plague in a feudal economy would result in the
> >>accumulation of wealth and secular power that led to the Renaissance,
> >>
> >>
> > Amazingly, though, that is just what it did! I think that the results of
the
> > Black Death are amazingly interesting.
>
>
> I'm sure that it is interesting. But I don't think a unitary premise
> can explain history as complex as the Renaissance. Just the impact of
> Arab libraries "liberated" in Spain on Europe, where there were none,
> for example. And, since this is cross-posted to uk.philosophy.humanism
> we might consider the impact of Luther and the rest of the humanists in
> the context of the Renaissance.
>
feudal system as a result of the shortage of labour brought on by the black
death - and the consequent increase in demands for wages and so forth from
the serfs left, provided the impetus that assisted the huge change.
>
>
> >
> >>>It's not clear how this is all going to turn out with the new plague of
> >>>AIDS, but, if Tracy Emin's bed and tent are representative in any way
of
> >>>her, and her ilk's habits, it may be a similar story.
> >>>
> >>
> >>I assume you mean "Africans." Why don't you just say it?
> >>
> >>
> > You are wrong. I am an African, I certainly don't mean Africans!
>
>
> Interesting. That leaves it a riddle who you mean by "Emins and her
> ilk" if they are not Africans tragically suffering an AIDS epidemic.
> Perhaps you mean "British Artists"???
>
pretty obvious.
Todd Strickland
"Mani Deli" <mani...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:icgkmuc2uun7r6qrl...@4ax.com...
> , "Todd Strickland" wrote:
> >Per your and Mani's advice I did take a second look at some late
Rockwell's.
> >I stand corrected. Late in his career he did turn to various social
issues
> >for subject matter. That's laudable, and deserving of more respect than
I
> >was giving him.
> >
> However, consider Rockwell's former paintings, before they expressed
> the social consciousness mentioned. Are they bad paintings because of
> the subject matter offends. To what degree Is subject matter a
> criterion for judgement?
It isn't the subject matter which is judged, but how the subject matter is
treated. Regardless of whether it's a striking alpen-glow mountain range or
a simple vase of flowers, the treatment of the subject can range from trite
to sentimental to serious to sublime. If the painting comes across as trite
or overly-sentimental, regardless of how well it's painted, it's going to
have a hard time getting into a major museum. That doesn't mean it won't be
sought after by others. I know that a lot of collectors would gladly pay
big bucks for an original Vargas.
Most Rockwells come across as very senitmental. That's the way he wanted
them to be, so I don't fault him. But the result is that it doesn't seem
like very serious art. The craft involved was serious, and part of a long
tradition of craftsmanship. But the end result, the art, doesn't seem too
serious, and that is what is being judged. Major museums (not just Modern
Art museums) want serious art. And even most people who love Rockwell
(non-artists) do so not because of his skill, but because they enjoy his
lighthearted and unserious look at America. That's his strength, but it's
also the reason he's unlikely to hang in the Louvre.
Todd Strickland
Mani Deli
>>"Mani Deli" wrote
>> To what degree Is subject matter a criterion for judgement?
> , "Todd Strickland" wrote:
>It isn't the subject matter which is judged, but how the subject matter is
>treated. Regardless of whether it's a striking alpen-glow mountain range or
>a simple vase of flowers, the treatment of the subject can range from trite
>to sentimental to serious to sublime. If the painting comes across as trite
>or overly-sentimental, regardless of how well it's painted, it's going to
>have a hard time getting into a major museum.
What about Picasso's Mother and Child, Paolo and the Donkey, Matisse
interiors, Balthus, Renior? Its as gummy as can be and badly painted.
How come Bouguereau is increasingly exhibited in museums. Most great
American illustrators aren't in museums and didn't do what you call
overly-sentimental.
> That doesn't mean it won't be
>sought after by others. I know that a lot of collectors would gladly pay
>big bucks for an original Vargas.
>
>Most Rockwells come across as very senitmental. That's the way he wanted
>them to be, so I don't fault him. But the result is that it doesn't seem
>like very serious art.
Is serious art Pollock, de Kooning or Rothko? How about a bunch of
crap lying on the museum floor?
> The craft involved was serious, and part of a long
>tradition of craftsmanship. But the end result, the art, doesn't seem too
>serious, and that is what is being judged. Major museums (not just Modern
>Art museums) want serious art. And even most people who love Rockwell
>(non-artists) do so not because of his skill, but because they enjoy his
>lighthearted and unserious look at America. That's his strength, but it's
>also the reason he's unlikely to hang in the Louvre.
>
I seems like you are really saying that the stuff you like is serious
while the stuff most like ain't. On the contrary I believe that most
Modern Academic Art in museums at present has to look like its a
put-on done as an act of defiance. What you call serious I call
intellectual kitsch.
If it needs a long sermon to proclaim its art its probably bullshit.
Mani Deli
>Very well put, Todd. The idea of sentimentality also applies to the work of
>Bougereau, the hero of the artistic great unwashed.
Take a look at the Bouguereau work at ARC you will see all manner of
subject matter. (I remind this hairsplitting academic asshole that he
spelled Bouguereau wrong only because he was outraged by some of my
past misspellings)
>While it is true that
>much of his popularity derived from his nudes (done in a phony classical
>manner to meet 'standards of decency' while letting the viewers get their
>rocks off),
I guess this guy gets his rocks off on Picasso's ass holes and other
naughty parts. Its interesting how phonies like Fox turn prude when
and artist the Don't like exhibits exceptional skills.
> his remaining work suffers from the same sentimental themes and
>treatment as Rockwell's.
Rather you suffer from an allergy to sentimentality.
> It appears that da Boog was also aware of what he
>was doing at all times and knew exactly what his audience wanted.
-like de Kooning, Mondrian, Picasso and thousands of other artists
including you..
>False sentiment and cliche play to the lowest common denominator of any
>society. Films (cf. any Spielberg film, especially Schindler's List), pop
>music, and best-selling novels all profit from the crass sensibilities of
>the many. Nothing much has changed, and change is unlikely in the future.
Cliche play is the only subject of your utterly incompetent output.
And I remaind all what Fox thinks is real art.
Dan Fox wrote:" However, if Mani goes to a Toronto museum and poops in
five places on the floor, and it's displayed, that's art. "
Fidel Faddle
>Most Rockwells come across as very senitmental.
Won't argue that point. Sentimental is NOT the word
I'd choose to use though. How about, depending on
the individual illustration - humorous, melancholy,
patriotic, serious. Once again you are not putting
his works in the context of the times they were
published as covers for Saturday Evening Post. It's
a MUST that his "illustrations" be seen in context
of the times they were published. Not from the
jaundiced viewpoint of today's mores.
>But the result is that it doesn't seem
>like very serious art.
Rockwell himself said that he is NOT an artist.
He was an illustrator. You obviously know nothing
about his entire ouvre if you think he didn't
illustrate serious subject matter. I refer to the
previously mentioned Civil Rights era illustrations
and other of his wartime illustrations. While MUCH
of his ouvre is handled with some degree of humor,
MUCH of it is serious.
>But the end result, the art, doesn't seem too
>serious, and that is what is being judged.
By whom? By you? You, who obviously have no
interest in educating yourself by seeking out his
entire body of illustrations?
>Major museums (not just Modern
>Art museums) want serious art.
Rockwell does not hang in "major museums" of art
simply because he is an ILLUSTRATOR!
>That's his strength, but it's
>also the reason he's unlikely to hang in the Louvre.
Let me say it one more time so that you
might finally get it - ILLUSTRATOR!!!
augart
Stel dat ratten de wereld gaan beheersen. Op welke manier gaan zij dan
de macht overnemen?
Zullen zij de mens infiltreren en zijn gedrag verstoren?
Lance
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
> It's a little more complicated than that, you have to know your history:
>
> The Black Death was what led to the Renaissance (which is why there is
talk
> of a possible African Renaissance after AIDS has killed a similar
proportion
> of the populace).
>
Peter are you sure that your history is right?
There was a "little" renaissance in the middle ages which included a revival
of many of the sciences. Roger Bacon - of reading glasses fame - was a
representative person from that mini-renaissance. My reading of history is
that the black death actually destroyed the mediaeval mini-renaissance, and
put off the full revival of learning until much later...
Further, I think that it is completely wrong to say that the AIDS epidemic
is the source of present talk of an African renaissance. Some of the African
renaissance greatest proponents do not even believe that AIDS exists!
Lance
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Lance" <Lanc...@worldonline.co.za> wrote in message
news:aklr2l$s8l$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
> > It's a little more complicated than that, you have to know your history:
> >
> > The Black Death was what led to the Renaissance (which is why there is
> talk
> > of a possible African Renaissance after AIDS has killed a similar
> proportion
> > of the populace).
> >
>
> Peter are you sure that your history is right?
>
> There was a "little" renaissance in the middle ages which included a
revival
> of many of the sciences. Roger Bacon - of reading glasses fame - was a
> representative person from that mini-renaissance. My reading of history is
> that the black death actually destroyed the mediaeval mini-renaissance,
and
> put off the full revival of learning until much later...
>
predicated upon the black death that caused a revolution in the value of
labour.
>
> Further, I think that it is completely wrong to say that the AIDS epidemic
> is the source of present talk of an African renaissance. Some of the
African
> renaissance greatest proponents do not even believe that AIDS exists!
>
previous naissance - unless you count the colonial golden age. The only way
in which it makes sense is in apposition to AIDS.
Mani Deli
Where did I write that?
...no skill no art!
Todd Strickland
"Fidel Faddle" <fo...@noemailever.com> wrote in message
news:3d6d4...@oracle.zianet.com...
> In article <akis6...@enews1.newsguy.com>, ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp
says...
>
> >Most Rockwells come across as very senitmental.
>
> Won't argue that point. Sentimental is NOT the word
> I'd choose to use though. How about, depending on
> the individual illustration - humorous, melancholy,
> patriotic, serious. Once again you are not putting
> his works in the context of the times they were
> published as covers for Saturday Evening Post. It's
> a MUST that his "illustrations" be seen in context
> of the times they were published. Not from the
> jaundiced viewpoint of today's mores.
His earlier stuff, the quaint scenes of American small-town life did not
reflect America as it trully was EVER. The context of the times has not
changed greatly. The "jaundiced viewpoint" of today is merely an openness
about problems which have ALWAYS existed in America.
Even when his stuff was contemporary, it was still sentimental; it reflects
a longing for an America that NEVER was. And THAT'S why it was (and
continues to be) popular.
>
> >But the result is that it doesn't seem
> >like very serious art.
>
> Rockwell himself said that he is NOT an artist.
> He was an illustrator.
Before I joined this newsgroup I would have been happy to agree with you and
leave it at that. But there are too many people here who insist that
Rockwell is a FINE ARTIST, not a "mere illustrator." I am willing to accept
that at face value, and discuss the issue from that point.
> You obviously know nothing
> about his entire ouvre if you think he didn't
> illustrate serious subject matter. I refer to the
> previously mentioned Civil Rights era illustrations
> and other of his wartime illustrations. While MUCH
> of his ouvre is handled with some degree of humor,
> MUCH of it is serious.
I grant you that in subject matter he was not completely one-dimensional.
But you're off your rocker if you think his fame rests on the Civil Rights
stuff, rather than school boys playing hooky to sneak a swim at the local
pond.
>
> >But the end result, the art, doesn't seem too
> >serious, and that is what is being judged.
>
> By whom? By you? You, who obviously have no
> interest in educating yourself by seeking out his
> entire body of illustrations?
Again, I am roughly familiar with the range of his output. There is a HEAVY
preponderence of small-town "genre" scenes.
And no, I've never sat on the selection committee of a major museum, so I'm
not the one who's judgement counts. But obviously, my sentiments about
Rockwell are shared by most of the curators of major museums.
>
> >Major museums (not just Modern
> >Art museums) want serious art.
>
> Rockwell does not hang in "major museums" of art
> simply because he is an ILLUSTRATOR!
Then why does he hang in ANY museum of FINE ART? It's a rhetorical
question...
> >That's his strength, but it's
> >also the reason he's unlikely to hang in the Louvre.
>
> Let me say it one more time so that you
> might finally get it - ILLUSTRATOR!!!
I've avoided this whole artist/illustrator debate because a) I don't exactly
follow how the terms are being used around here and b) it really seems
beside the point to me. If an "illustrator" does some exceptionally fine
"artistic" work, well, what's the difference?
And I would say that as Saturday Evening Post covers they are
"illustration," but the original works, the individual oil-on-canvas
paintings, certainly have every claim to the title "fine art." That's not
why he's not in major museums. I've already given my opinion on why he's
not in there, so I won't repeat it here.
Todd Strickland
Leigh
"Todd Strickland" <ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp> wrote
>
> His earlier stuff, the quaint scenes of American small-town life did not
> reflect America as it trully was EVER.
Yes it did exist! I was THERE! Now maybe after the blessing was said over
that lushious Thanksgiving turkey, someone made an ill timed remark and
anangry exit was made after knocking over a chair or whatever --- but for a
brief moment in time, we all came together over good food. And I remember
the doctor's office scenes and the young kid in uniform saying goodbye and
so many others. Maybe as a family we didn't always fit the Rockwell
scenario, but it was something to strive for, a family goal to be like that.
And we came pretty darned close, nevermind alcholism, dad out of work,
mother supporting family, worn out grandmother raising grandkids --- we
still fit what Rockwell said we were, an All American Family during the
good and the bad times. There was a common thread there and it had nothing
to do with making great sums of money but much more to do with just plain
folks trying to do their best.
If you are saying there was none of that in America and it was all a
pipedream, I'm here to tell you that you are very wrong! I lived it! and
what's more --- I still do!
L.
Mani Deli
<ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp> wrote:
>
>"Fidel Faddle" <fo...@noemailever.com> wrote in message
>news:3d6d4...@oracle.zianet.com...
>> In article <akis6...@enews1.newsguy.com>, ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp
>says...
>>
>> >Most Rockwells come across as very senitmental.
>>
>> Won't argue that point. Sentimental is NOT the word
>> I'd choose to use though. How about, depending on
>> the individual illustration - humorous, melancholy,
>> patriotic, serious. Once again you are not putting
>> his works in the context of the times they were
>> published as covers for Saturday Evening Post. It's
>> a MUST that his "illustrations" be seen in context
>> of the times they were published. Not from the
>> jaundiced viewpoint of today's mores.
>
>His earlier stuff, the quaint scenes of American small-town life did not
>reflect America as it trully was EVER.
Lets assume just for the moment that you are right. So What?
>Even when his stuff was contemporary, it was still sentimental; it reflects
>a longing for an America that NEVER was. And THAT'S why it was (and
>continues to be) popular.
So what does that have to do with the quality of his work? What's
wrong with sentiment? There are lots of great classical paintings
which express sentiment.
>> >But the result is that it doesn't seem
>> >like very serious art.
As I said an artzy fartzy thinks that anything that isn't in a Modern
Academic context isn't serious art. Only fashionable incompetent
splats stripes and schmiers make that grade.
>> Rockwell himself said that he is NOT an artist.
>> He was an illustrator.
I never saw this statement verified. However it is known that Rockwell
was disturbed that he wasn't in any museums.
>Before I joined this newsgroup I would have been happy to agree with you and
>leave it at that. But there are too many people here who insist that
>Rockwell is a FINE ARTIST, not a "mere illustrator." I am willing to accept
>that at face value, and discuss the issue from that point.
>> >That's his strength, but it's
>> >also the reason he's unlikely to hang in the Louvre.
Does all art hang in the Louvre?
>I've avoided this whole artist/illustrator debate because a) I don't exactly
>follow how the terms are being used around here and b) it really seems
>beside the point to me. If an "illustrator" does some exceptionally fine
>"artistic" work, well, what's the difference?
No kidding. Now tell that to Pedigreed Fox.
>
>And I would say that as Saturday Evening Post covers they are
>"illustration," but the original works, the individual oil-on-canvas
>paintings, certainly have every claim to the title "fine art." That's not
>why he's not in major museums. I've already given my opinion on why he's
>not in there, so I won't repeat it here.
>
>Todd Strickland
...no skill no art!
artonio7
"Leigh" <le...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:umtdq1...@corp.supernews.com...
Leigh.... I remember one christmas eve "slash" morn at my little Rockwellian
house. I was 5 and had a cold... My father an alchoholic decided he would
make me a special tea, which constisted of everything from rubbing alchohol
to vicks vaporub... I choked down as much as I could. Then he proceded to
rub my whole body with mustard compound... You may or may not remember this
product, it was like Icy hot" but hotter. I was in agony so I screamed from
the pain. My mother who had been patient up to that point couldn't take
anymore so she stepped in... well by daybreak there was blood throughout the
house. The christmas tree was toppled furniture was thrown everywhere,
plates and cups were broken and knives were sticking out of the walls. (My
father took pride in being a stillehto thrower, thank god he wasn't a very
good one.)
I remember "PRAYING TO GOD, Santa or anybody to make it stop. Just then
there was a knock at the door and I was assured that god had heard my
prayers Much to my surprise it was my God parents . I thought they would
take me out of this hellhole, the looks on their faces when they saw the
mess was almost comical "They were so horrified."
The mother of mine who holds the common thread that you may be referring
to... "Told them to please excuse the mess, I had broken a cup.
They only stayed a short while and left...By the way... they didn't even
bring me a present .
I would have LOVED TO SEE THAT ON THE COVER OF SATURDAY EVENING POST.
"Christmas in America"
Norman... you have so disappointed me.
Leigh
"artonio7" <arto...@adelphia.net> wrote
> I would have LOVED TO SEE THAT ON THE COVER OF SATURDAY EVENING POST.
> "Christmas in America"
> Norman... you have so disappointed me.
>
>
Sorry for your bad memories, Antonio, but that picture is on newspapers and
TV screens every day, I'm sorry to say. Why should Rockwell paint something
so painful when he could show a suggestion of what life COULD be if we
wanted it badly enough.
How is your life? Have you elected to follow in your father's footsteps or
did you learn from him that there is a better way. One of my earliest
decisions, made around age 5, was that I WILL NOT BE LIKE THAT WHEN I GROW
UP! (recalling a nagging mother.) I remember Rockwell's illustrations and
if they didn't show life as it was, they showed life as it could and should
be. Most of us do try, most of us fail to different degrees, but only the
mentally ill, physically lazy and/or grossly greedy do not try to make life
better for their loved ones.
L.
artonio7
>
> "artonio7" <arto...@adelphia.net> wrote
>
> > I would have LOVED TO SEE THAT ON THE COVER OF SATURDAY EVENING POST.
> > "Christmas in America"
> > Norman... you have so disappointed me.
> >
> >
> Sorry for your bad memories, Antonio, but that picture is on newspapers
and
> TV screens every day, I'm sorry to say. Why should Rockwell paint
something
> so painful when he could show a suggestion of what life COULD be if we
> wanted it badly enough.
As a person spending a great deal of time and energy recovering from the
abuse inflicted on me as a child, I can speak to the deception and
whitewash that Rockwell contributed to. It was the late fifties a time when
unpleasantness was best left hidden. Rockwell made the perfect wallpaper to
cover the bloodstains of reality. Of course he was doing his job and he did
it well.
>
> How is your life? Have you elected to follow in your father's footsteps or
> did you learn from him that there is a better way. One of my earliest
> decisions, made around age 5, was that I WILL NOT BE LIKE THAT WHEN I GROW
> UP! (recalling a nagging mother.)
My life is my life. I chose to not follow my fathers ways of torture. I try
not inflict myself on anyone in a manner that would knowingly steiffel their
spiritual growth or cause them emotional or physical harm, almost to the
degree of being a complete recluse.
>I remember Rockwell's illustrations and
> if they didn't show life as it was, they showed life as it could and
should
> be. Most of us do try, most of us fail to different degrees, but only the
> mentally ill, physically lazy and/or grossly greedy do not try to make
life
> better for their loved ones.
Rockwell was a highly skilled technician, who was able to characterize a
notion or ideal at it's core.As an illustrator he was extremely succesfull.
I'm sure if he was paid enough he would have been able to illustrate and
convince a large audience the absolute necessity for boiling icecubes on a
hot summers day. I'm convinced that many of his audience of the day would
perhaps well up with tears while remembering all the times that they could
have or should have boiled icecubes in the heat of summer.
Not wanting to be combattative with you Leigh... (because you seem to be a
nice person) in a subjective sense Rockwells contribution to my pain and
suffering was fairly high. As a technician used by the free enterprise he
sold lies to sale papers. I wonder what sort of human would not care to
explore the human condition a little bit further especially if his
livelyhood and life was so involved in doing the sort of work he did. It is
in my opinion that he chose not to see the suffering. He also chose not to
get involved in making real social change. Of course I am not blaming
Rockwell for my miserable childhood. But I am extremley cautious around
those who stare at suffering and respond by ignoring or trivialising it to
the degree of Rockwell. As an illustrator "All praises go to Rockwell" as a
human, well, let's just say "I'd never want to grow up to be like him."
Which brings me to a point or question...in the pursuit of "growth" as a
human...as artists...what is the gauge between sentiment and exploration.
Someone from this group once said art give voice to that which has no words.
How does one seperate human subjectivity while responding to their human
quality of expression? Some gauge the success of the masters by their
ability to encourage more questions. Then there is the group who declares
that there must be a perfect balance between technical excellence and
idealism, while other schools of thinking encourage ones to renounce
everything deemed as safe or status quo and to produce or appreciate the
opposite.
As consitenly dynamic beings it is nearly impossible to marry an idealogy
and unwaveringly carry it to the grave and still ring truth to the catch
phrase "I'm alive."
I assume that perhaps the best we can do is wonder, way our options, choose
a path and in the face of fear, seek the knowledge and wisdom that will
prove you both right and wrong.
Tony
http://artonio7.com
>
> L.
>
>
Leigh
scenes NEVER happened. Antonio described his abusive childhood, suggesting
that Rockwell depicted fantasy, not real life. My point has nothing to do
with sentiment or sentimentality, and everything to do with the fact that we
are all from one sort of dysfunctional family or another, and to deny that
in most lives there are moments of family togetherness, complete with a
degree of happiness and promise is to deny the existence of hope.
I'm sorry for those who have suffered abuse, I'm sorry for those who have
lost hope, but I will stand firm with my support for Rockwell's promise of a
better world.
Yes, as an illustrator he was selling an idea, just like "Drink Bud beer and
have bunches of good friends and good times", take Celebrex and be able to
dance like a pro, and on and on... that's not to say some beer drinkers
don't have good times, and some people taking pain relievers can't dance
like pros... what on earth is the problem with a talented illustrator
showing the world that it is possible to be happy, loving and caring????
I'm through on the subject.
L.
"Dan Fox" <danf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20020830111521.591$G...@newsreader.com...
> Leigh and Todd -
>
> I've been reading your contributions to this thread with interest.
>
> It seems to me that what we are talking about here is the difference
> between sentiment and sentimentality. I looked them up; here's what the
> dictionary says:
>
> Sentiment: emotion, feeling.
>
> Sentimentality: The quality or condition of being excessively or
affectedly
> sentimental.
>
> I think a good comparison is Rockwell's work with Hopper's. Rockwell
> attempts to manipulate our emotions by presenting cliche situations, while
> Hopper's work communicates the genuine isolation that goes with being
> human.
>
> One way to tell the difference: a sentimental piece gives up everything it
> has immediately. There is nothing more to learn or feel from a Rockwell or
> a Boog than what you get at first viewing; on the other hand, you can look
> at and study the work of Hopper, or the Boog's contemporary Van Gogh, over
> a lifetime and not exhaust their emotional and intellectual possibilities.
>
> This of course also goes for music (pop versus jazz or classical), movies,
> etc. A friend of mine teaches screenwriting at UC Berkeley. He made his
> classes see the movie Titanic as a classic example of popular schlock. His
> comment on the movie was: 'There wasn't an honest moment in it.' I didn't
> see the movie, but I think the comment could easily apply to the work of
> sentimental painters - they are dishonest in that they attempt to
> manipulate the emotions of the vunerable (kids, unsophisticated adults) by
> presenting cliche situations in a manner calculated to create surface
> emotion.
>
> --
> Dan
> www.danfoxart.com
> "Art is what the Trust Fund Kids say it is."
Discussion
It's a judgement that has to be made each time the
question crops up.
I understand the criticism of his works, but as usual there
is always an exception to the rule.
I viewed a work entitled something like "the right to practice
one's own religion". I think the wording had been extracted from
something like the Bill of Rights.
I found it entirely different and much better than the other works
displayed. I noticed the price was a mere 8000,000 dollars, but
I had not any spare change at the time.
N.H
"Dan Fox" <danf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20020830111521.591$G...@newsreader.com...
> Leigh and Todd -
>snip<
Andrew D
"Discussion" <go...@away.dot.for.good.dotcom> wrote:
[snip]
+> This of course also goes for music (pop versus jazz or classical), movies,
+> etc. A friend of mine teaches screenwriting at UC Berkeley. He made his
+> classes see the movie Titanic as a classic example of popular schlock. His
+> comment on the movie was: 'There wasn't an honest moment in it.' I didn't
+> see the movie, but I think the comment could easily apply to the work of
+> sentimental painters - they are dishonest in that they attempt to
+> manipulate the emotions of the vunerable (kids, unsophisticated adults) by
+> presenting cliche situations in a manner calculated to create surface
+> emotion.
Whereas real art - like abstract dribbles and smears on canvas - is
"honest" because.......?
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Andrew D
<mwe...@islandnet.com> wrote:
[snip]
+Life is brutal. Last week, a little 6 year
+old Palestinian girl was buying a ruler after her first
+day at school - she was killed by Israelis. Rockwell
+could not have depicted such a scene.
+His illustrative work does not touch on the
+universal human experience.
Does your's? Does Dan's? Does Allison's? Does Picasso's? Does Rothko's?
Does Pollock's? Does anyone's art touch on the *universal* human
experience? Examples and explanations please...
Erik A. Mattila
New Yorker in the early '60s: "A Letter From a Region of My Mind."
While discussing H. B. Stowe (Uncle Tom's Cabin) he went off on a
tangent about sentimentality. His idea was that sentimentality
inevitably was an alibi for something profoundly evil and insidious.
Anyway, it is about the only critique of sentimentality that I've read,
ever. It's worth looking-up if you're interested. The rest of
Baldwin's essay was of course outstanding.
Personally, the Rockwell pastische always reminds me of those people who
lived underground in the movie "A Boy and His Dog."
Erik
Dan Fox wrote:
> Leigh and Todd -
>
> I've been reading your contributions to this thread with interest.
>
> It seems to me that what we are talking about here is the difference
> between sentiment and sentimentality. I looked them up; here's what the
> dictionary says:
>
> Sentiment: emotion, feeling.
>
> Sentimentality: The quality or condition of being excessively or affectedly
> sentimental.
>
> I think a good comparison is Rockwell's work with Hopper's. Rockwell
> attempts to manipulate our emotions by presenting cliche situations, while
> Hopper's work communicates the genuine isolation that goes with being
> human.
>
> One way to tell the difference: a sentimental piece gives up everything it
> has immediately. There is nothing more to learn or feel from a Rockwell or
> a Boog than what you get at first viewing; on the other hand, you can look
> at and study the work of Hopper, or the Boog's contemporary Van Gogh, over
> a lifetime and not exhaust their emotional and intellectual possibilities.
>
> This of course also goes for music (pop versus jazz or classical), movies,
> etc. A friend of mine teaches screenwriting at UC Berkeley. He made his
> classes see the movie Titanic as a classic example of popular schlock. His
> comment on the movie was: 'There wasn't an honest moment in it.' I didn't
> see the movie, but I think the comment could easily apply to the work of
> sentimental painters - they are dishonest in that they attempt to
> manipulate the emotions of the vunerable (kids, unsophisticated adults) by
> presenting cliche situations in a manner calculated to create surface
> emotion.
>
>
Margie Nall
>One way to tell the difference: a sentimental piece gives up everything it
>has immediately. There is nothing more to learn or feel from a Rockwell or
>a Boog than what you get at first viewing; on the other hand, you can look
>at and study the work of Hopper, or the Boog's contemporary Van Gogh, over
>a lifetime and not exhaust their emotional and intellectual possibilities.
I would disagree and say that I find Hopper's
images even a faster read than much of Rockwell's.
Rockwell's works were often complex, requiring
one to do an all-over viewing in order for all
the pieces of the puzzle to be appreciated.
Hopper's works usually have a focal point
surrounded by drabness - and the focal point
is a very quick study.
Margie Nall
>Yes, as an illustrator he was selling an idea
MORE IMPORTANTLY, he was selling a magazine!!
Had he tried to depict violence, deprivation,
poverty, crime etc. I can assure you he would
soon have been out of a job - or maybe he would
have been famous for his Crime Illustrated works!
Andrew D
+>One way to tell the difference: a sentimental piece gives up everything it
+>has immediately. There is nothing more to learn or feel from a Rockwell or
+>a Boog than what you get at first viewing; on the other hand, you can look
+>at and study the work of Hopper, or the Boog's contemporary Van Gogh, over
+>a lifetime and not exhaust their emotional and intellectual possibilities.
Rubbish. If you can find messages, ideas, emotions or anything else in a
piece of "modern" art then you could find the very same in more
traditional works - if you bothered to look. Your problem is, you are
ap-parently blinded by the bleeding obvious and don't bother to look
beyond it - unless of course, nothing is obvious on first viewing. That my
friend is a failing, not a gift.
Andrew D
Nall) wrote:
+In article <umvve6b...@corp.supernews.com>, le...@nomail.com says...
+
+
+>Yes, as an illustrator he was selling an idea
+
+MORE IMPORTANTLY, he was selling a magazine!!
+
+Had he tried to depict violence, deprivation,
+poverty, crime etc. I can assure you he would
+soon have been out of a job - or maybe he would
+have been famous for his Crime Illustrated works!
What astounbds me is that the entire art academy is built on the idea of
assessing and "understanding" art. Rothko's lines, Mondrian's boxes,
Pollock's dribbles are all analysed in depth in part for the purpose of
understanding "what the artist has to say".
In short, academic art looks for "the idea" in modern art whilst
dismissing ideas-based art as mere illustration. It's really a
self-defeating exercise.
Andy d.
Margie Nall
right@the_end.of.my_tether says...
>In short, academic art looks for "the idea" in modern art whilst
>dismissing ideas-based art as mere illustration. It's really a
>self-defeating exercise.
>
>Andy d.
Good assessment. I don't like tagging 'the idea'
as academic statement. Academic to
me invokes 'scholarly' and I prefer to think
of it as 'scholarly art' ideas.
I do think it's appropriate to divide art into
two broad categories:
Art that illustrates.
Art for art sake.
WILLIAM PALMER
"augart" <aug...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:525d72a7.02082...@posting.google.com...
> > Just imagine what most people would prefer to look at if rooms full of
> > the finest illustrators were allowed to hang next to those so called
> > masterpieces of Modern Art in the modern sections of museums. strac
In general, I agree. I would love to seem some art exhibitions, for
example, based on the science fiction/fantasy art of Frank Frazetta,
Richard Powers, Frank Kelly Freas, Virgil Finley, and many other
illustrators. Nor do I restrict that to sf illustrators--there are all
sorts of other illustrators who have been snubbed in favor of third-
rate abstract painters. Now, I am not down on all modern art
the way some people in this group are, but I certainly agree there
is a lot of "bucket-of-paint-thrown-over-a-canvas" CRAP that
gets far too much attention by far too many museums.
As far as I am concerned, probably the greatest modern
U. S. artist is Stuart Davis. Some people will tell you he
is old hat, but my own feeling is he was at the creative
pinnacle of modern art, and things went downhill after
him, and basically nothing new came down the pipe
until the pop artists got here. Far from being old
hat, his art today is as fresh and new as it was when
Davis created it.
But getting back to illustrators, I will tell you who one
of the most shunned and neglected illustrators of our time
is: Graham Ingels, the EC horror comic illustrator. It is
an absolute cultural tragedy that Ingels work has not
been showcased by any great museum to date. He
had a tragic life. He was hounded, made ashamed
of his own art. In my view, Ingels is, in illustration,
the eerie equal to what Lovecraft is in literature.
While some of Ingels' depictions are a bit too ghastly
for me to enjoy, I think open-minded viewers can
really appreciate his talent is by focusing on a few of
his panels, such as one in "Horror We? How's
Bayou?" where, on the first page, the car is
parked in front of the spooky bayou house.
Nothing gruesome in view, but the eerie mood
captured by the illustration is quite amazing.
And there are some other great "mood panels"
in the story, too. It's sad. Ingels was afraid
of his own art. Today most other people are
afraid of it too...
alt.genius.bill-palmer
(Temporary office: rec.arts.prose)
wil...@ix.netcom.com
>
> I like to look at the porn.
>