FA: Thomas Kinkade ORIGINAL "Home for the Evening"
Chris Coleman
Thur
"Chris Coleman" <lyndhol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133622743.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7371848375&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMESE%3AIT&rd=1
>
"Buy it now price US $74,500.00"
"0 bids"
Enough said.
--
Thur
artangel
YUCK!
Kris Baker
"artangel" <cityofim...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1133627281.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I think there is one more thing to add.
>
> YUCK!
I can't imagine anyone is still falling for this crap. His "art" is now
appearing on grocery store air fresheners.
Remember the 60 Minutes expose? Pure justice. The "gallery" in our mall
shut down right after.
Kris
aest...@hotmail.com
Kris Baker
<aest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133645657.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>I think his 'art' is suitable for Xmas cards.
....that will not be displayed.
I remember reading the Sunday newspaper supplements
with the cheap ads for his "art". I believe you could order
"sofa-sized paintings".
Kris
Pogonip
In your choice of colors?
--
Joanne
stitches @ singerlady.reno.nv.us.earth
Kris Baker
"Pogonip" <nob...@nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:439218ff$1...@news.bnb-lp.com...
As long as it's pink, powder blue, and pale yellow -- sure.
Kris
My hair hurts thinking of that crap
Mani Deli
I don't like his work but I like Kinkade because he sells his work for
lots of money and his success bugs Artzy fartzies no end, he knows his
craft and his work is more original than the miles of schmiery
contemporary impressionism.
His work ranks with a fair illustrator. Although I don't care for his
subject matter, I respect anyone who knows his craft whether or not I
like his work.
Kris Baker
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:i0a4p1p84ohkrksir...@4ax.com...
Because he doesn't paint his "art". His crap is made on an
assembly line, and he signs the finished "product".
It's not art; like you say, it's illustration. The kind you see on
the front pages of romance novels, and in sleazy women's
magazines (usually advertising rectal health products).
...and the *worst* thing about it all is that he's conned many
people into buying valueless "originals". They have no value,
people have no "investment" (as promised), and I'd much rather
have the Agapito Labios painting I bought for $2 a few years
ago. Look *that* one up.
Kris
BrotherBart
I could get a translation for the first word "Sikorsky". What is the second
word?
Kris Baker
"BrotherBart" <Broth...@whoseyourdaddy.net> wrote in message
news:7brkf.6532$SY.2496@trnddc06...
Lips.
Kathryn Hepburn's estate (luckily for me) had three Labios.
Kris
icono
"Kris Baker" <kris....@prodigyy.net> wrote in message
news:Y0rkf.3008$Ba6....@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:i0a4p1p84ohkrksir...@4ax.com...
>> Whats wrong with Kinkade?
>>
>> I don't like his work but I like Kinkade because he sells his work for
>> lots of money and his success bugs Artzy fartzies no end, he knows his
>> craft and his work is more original than the miles of schmiery
>> contemporary impressionism.
>>
>> His work ranks with a fair illustrator. Although I don't care for his
>> subject matter, I respect anyone who knows his craft whether or not I
>> like his work.
>
> Because he doesn't paint his "art". His crap is made on an
> assembly line, and he signs the finished "product".
>
> It's not art; like you say, it's illustration. The kind you see on
> the front pages of romance novels, and in sleazy women's
> magazines (usually advertising rectal health products).
>
Ahhh, we hear from the expert.
He draws originals. There are first run "prints", often called originals.
Sort of like Gorman.
Some like his stuff, some don't. I don't have any or want any.
I notice that you didn't put down porno mags. Must be what you call art.
Art IS an illustration (ALWAYS), whether painted, drawn, built, sawed,
carved, sculpted.
Oh that's right you think it's a short for Arthur.
DUUUHHHH
artangel
lots of money and his success bugs Artzy fartzies no end, he knows his
craft and his work is more original than the miles of schmiery
contemporary impressionism. "
That makes the following valid.
I like McDonalds because they sell billions of Big Macs for lots of
money and their sucess bugs the Foodies no end, they know their craft
and their food is more original than the miles of gourmet chefs.
Again as usual Mani, you have shown us your high standards.
Thur
I have seen a couple of his originals on display in California.
They were for sale in the range hundreds of thousands of dollars.
They were originals of the ones he provided for those magazine
covers.
I admit they were good paintings, but were illustrative without
much subtlety, or any feeling that the artist had tried to work
into the painting much at all.
I can see they had a certain historic value, that they represented
a certain passing view that society recognised as it's own.
The painting regarded in this thread surely cannot have issued
from the same artist.
It comes from his factory, which has made him about the richest
"artist" of his time.
--
Thur
Mani Deli
<kris....@prodigyy.net> wrote:
>
>"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:i0a4p1p84ohkrksir...@4ax.com...
>> Whats wrong with Kinkade?
>>
>> I don't like his work but I like Kinkade because he sells his work for
>> lots of money and his success bugs Artzy fartzies no end, he knows his
>> craft and his work is more original than the miles of schmiery
>> contemporary impressionism.
>>
>> His work ranks with a fair illustrator. Although I don't care for his
>> subject matter, I respect anyone who knows his craft whether or not I
>> like his work.
>
>Because he doesn't paint his "art".
?
> His crap is made on an
>assembly line, and he signs the finished "product".
He's making money just like the modern art charlatans.
>It's not art; like you say, it's illustration.
Picasso is a fifth rate illustrator.
> The kind you see on
>the front pages of romance novels, and in sleazy women's
>magazines (usually advertising rectal health products).
>
>...and the *worst* thing about it all is that he's conned many
>people into buying valueless "originals". They have no value,
Value is determined by supply and demand.
>people have no "investment" (as promised), and I'd much rather
>have the Agapito Labios painting I bought for $2 a few years
>ago. Look *that* one up.
>
The people who pay for Kinkade don't give a shit about what you'lld
rather buy.
Kris Baker
>>
> The people who pay for Kinkade don't give a shit about what you'lld
> rather buy.
Ah, but that's where you're wrong. Theyll'd [sic] be caring a LOT
when they try to profit from their "investments"....which is how this
crapmeister has sold his wares fromt he beginning. He's the
silkscreen version of "collector plates".
Kris
Tony Cooper
>"Kris Baker" <kris....@prodigyy.net> wrote:
>
>> ...and the *worst* thing about it all is that he's conned many
>> people into buying valueless "originals". They have no value,
>> people have no "investment" (as promised), and I'd much rather
>> have the Agapito Labios painting I bought for $2 a few years
>> ago. Look *that* one up.
>
>I think it amounts to fraud -- as you say, people are conned into buying
>'art' they are told has monetary value, only to find out later that its
>appraised or auction value is almost nothing.
And this is different, how, from Beanie Babies or the other fad items
we see on eBay?
> Also, he has turned the
>'print' con into an art of its own - peddling worthless photomechanical
>reproductions as 'prints' for absurd prices.
How is something that goes for absurd prices "worthless"? Can you say
"oxymoron"?
I wouldn't buy a Kinkade postcard, but I wouldn't buy a Precious
Moments tchotchka either. Horses for courses.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL
Thur
"Tony Cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:0ve6p1lg0g9b8m7g8...@4ax.com...
The basis of the objections would probably disappear if the buyers
were not seen as being duped into believing they were
1) buying something that they thought was good art.
2) buying something that would increase in value because others
would want it, also in the belief it was good art.
Sometimes these pieces might be sold on, but time will see them cast
aside, as we all cast aside stuff we know has no lasting value.
> How is something that goes for absurd prices "worthless"?
I am not sure if you really mean to ask it, but some things can be
overpriced, and some things can be overvalued.
Overpriced explains itself, but overvalued can mean so much more.
If two morons bid each other up to a record auction price for a
dog turd, then there is an example of absurd prices for a worthless
item, to quote the extreme. (It may happen one day, the way things
are going)
> Horses for courses
Of course, and if they were sold for less than 50$ then who would
care?
--
Thur
Kris Baker
"Thur" <no-per...@z.com> wrote in message
news:sQHkf.19548$0o2....@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
This "art" is NO different than the Beanie Babies **scams** so many fell for
years ago.
How many people know what was behind THAT particular marketing campaign?
Kris
Google my stories about all that
Too long to repeat
Tony Cooper
I would hope that you understand the difference between "overvalued"
or "overpriced" and "worthless'. Different things.
Nothing is really overpriced if there are people who are willing to
pay the price.
Angrie.Woman
Sounds like a Pokemon to me.
A
Kris Baker
"Angrie.Woman" <Angrie...@ggmail.com> wrote in message
news:l%Okf.3143$rq3...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> Kris Baker wrote:
>>
>>
>> ...and the *worst* thing about it all is that he's conned many
>> people into buying valueless "originals". They have no value,
>> people have no "investment" (as promised), and I'd much rather
>> have the Agapito Labios painting I bought for $2 a few years
>> ago. Look *that* one up.
>>
>
> Sounds like a Pokemon to me.
>
> A
I know nothing about Pokemon, but I now know my Labios ;)
Mine's like the girl, without the dog:
http://www.converseclocks.com/inventory.asp?k=734
Kris
Mani Deli
Never the less, the people who pay for Kinkade don't give a shit about
aest...@hotmail.com
And things may be getting smellier than a rotting fish:
aest...@hotmail.com
And the way things are going, should we be surprised if paintings by
monkeys outsell paintings by humans (even artists)?:
Angrie.Woman
They will when they go to sell it in an effort to pay some retirement
expenses.
A
chris
Biljo White wrote:
>
> I think it amounts to fraud -- as you say, people are conned into buying
> 'art' they are told has monetary value, only to find out later that its
> 'print' con into an art of its own - peddling worthless photomechanical
> reproductions as 'prints' for absurd prices.
Nah, fraud implies some degree of intelligence, and even wit. I think
of Courbet (towards the end of his life) who threw himself into that
whole heartedly, having a couple of hacks paint Courbet-like pictures,
and the signing them; or Dali who signed vast amounts of blank paper
before his death.
Kinkaid popularity is symptomatic of something both emptier, and more
dangerous - the need for the broad mass of people to operate on faith,
rather than reason. That faith can be anything - from Catholic dogma or
Islamacist self-ignition to the new Scientism of Kyoto; from tulip
mania and beanie babies to the NASDAQ; from nationalistic fervour to
peace-mania. Modern "schools" of art; ARC.
All these are based on the unquestioning acceptance of one set of
axioms over another; and people tend to them because, just like math
for Barbie, questioning one's own beliefs is hard. It's much better to
allow someone simply to provide one the answer.
Personally, I think Kinkaid is of great value, but in a perverse way.
The fact of his popularity puts the lie to a broad segment of academic
thinking, and obviously upsets large numbers of group thinkers from the
art-as-intellectual-exercise-or-therapy side (look at the length of
this thread). OTOH an examination of the actual popular images reveals
a good deal about the nature of general society - much more than an
academic counterpart, like Warhol - that buyers/believers tend to
gloss over. (That alone may help it keep it's value over longer
periods). Why are they generally devoid of people? Why - even in the
most luxuriantly summery images - is there often snow in the ground?
Why is having one's hut lit with arc lamps considered comforting? And
when he does venture into some sense of realism, why does his world
stop in the mid 1920's?
Cheers;
CB
Tony Cooper
I'm aware of Kinkade, I've seen some of his work, but I have no
interest in owning a Kinkade. But I'm tolerant enough of other
people's taste that I wouldn't criticize anyone for buying something
just because I don't consider it acceptable.
I know that there's some speculation in buying Kinkades, but I'm not
aware that people buy his work just for investment. Possibly so, but
anyone involved in the art market for investment purposes would surely
do a little research into the long-term projections for art values.
Kinkades may have some short-term investment potential. If
something's "hot", there are people that will pay the price.
Kinkade's wouldn't be the only thing that enjoy value appreciation
even though they aren't generally recognized as inherently valuable.
I don't think anyone has any business deciding that someone else's
taste in art is lacking. Kris is very proud of the piece she picked
up, but I see it as something too close to those paintings of big-eyed
children, clown paintings, and dogs playing poker. My assessment
shouldn't make any difference to Kris, though, and I'm pleased that
she's happy with her purchase. I hope she's happy because she likes
the look of it on her wall, and not just because it's worth more than
she paid for it. It's quite possible that she wouldn't want some of
the originals that I own on her wall, and that doesn't bother me.
There are so many things that we buy that don't have an intrinsic
value commensurate with what they are. That's what disposable income
is for, though. No one wastes money on things that please them.
chris
lies below the surface of Kinkaid?
The Nuclear Powered House In the Depths of Suburban Hell
or
Why Doesn't the Snow Melt?
http://www.gammarat.com/Misc/Misc/c1_12%5b1%5d.jpg
(and what levels does one sink to on too much coffee...)
CB
Kris Baker
She doesn't get it. Obviously, she has a large "investment" that's going
to pay for her to retire in luxury.
Kris
Kris Baker
<aest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133765336.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> And things may be getting smellier than a rotting fish:
>
> http://www.ibfn.org/news/newsarticle.asp?a=351
>
Didn't they know that, going in? Didn't they remember those
nasty things floating in formaldehyde, in the science teacher's
closet?
Kris
artangel
If you like Kinkade fine. If you like paintings of kittens with big
eyes fine. Elvis on velvet fine.
Kinkade markets his work as an investment and as a "painter of light",
a spiritual guide.
He takes advantage of those who do not know any better
chris
E. laBrett Ruus wrote:
> I'd like some opinions on some of these other Thomas KinKade originals
> please. Some of them are a bit startling. He's more versatile than I was
> led to believe.
>
> http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=1918
>
> http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=1928
LoL; they're great.
Cheers;
CB
chris
artangel wrote:
> The problem with Kinkade is not the work but the marketing.
>
> If you like Kinkade fine. If you like paintings of kittens with big
> eyes fine. Elvis on velvet fine.
>
This is only true if you look at decorative wallpaper as the highest
aspiration of art. OTOH, if you accept that art represents the
fundamental beliefs of the artist, and that some belief systems are not
just wrong, but fundamentally destestable, then the "I'm OK, you're OK"
philosophy just doesn't cut it.
> Kinkade markets his work as an investment and as a "painter of light",
> a spiritual guide.
>
> He takes advantage of those who do not know any better
You mean people should not be responsible for their own decisions? Then
who will be responsible in their stead?
CB
mjoann
I think Kinkade's pictures are pleasant enough, although they get really
boring after a while.
The thing that irritates me is how he markets his "Christianity." Where
I come from, real Christians are not greedy enough to make millions off
of innocent buyers who think they are supporting a Godly man.
mjoann
Tony Cooper
wrote:
>
>artangel wrote:
>> The problem with Kinkade is not the work but the marketing.
>>
>> If you like Kinkade fine. If you like paintings of kittens with big
>> eyes fine. Elvis on velvet fine.
>>
>
>This is only true if you look at decorative wallpaper as the highest
>aspiration of art. OTOH, if you accept that art represents the
>fundamental beliefs of the artist, and that some belief systems are not
>just wrong, but fundamentally destestable, then the "I'm OK, you're OK"
>philosophy just doesn't cut it.
I can't agree that any art is fundamentally detestable. I can
certainly agree that some art is detestable to me, but that's personal
perspective. As long as there's someone out there who likes it, art
is not fundamentally detestable.
I can't really follow that bit about "belief systems". It seems that
you are saying that an atheist cannot appreciate religious art because
the atheist thinks the belief system itself is fundamentally flawed.
I remember seeing a canvas that was all white except for one small
square of red in some Manhattan museum. MOMA or the Guggenheim, I
think. I was thinking "This guy's scamming us passing this off as
art", but someone on the museum acquisition committee found artistic
value in it. Who's to say which of us was wrong?
Kris Baker
"E. laBrett Ruus" <elr...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1dfeae016...@news-server.bak.rr.com...
> I'd like some opinions on some of these other Thomas KinKade originals
> please. Some of them are a bit startling. He's more versatile than I was
> led to believe.
>
> http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=1918
>
> http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=1928
Oh. My. God. Those are great.
I just spit coffee all over the dog....
Kris
Kris Baker
"E. laBrett Ruus" <elr...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1dfeae016...@news-server.bak.rr.com...
> I'd like some opinions on some of these other Thomas KinKade originals
> please. Some of them are a bit startling. He's more versatile than I was
> led to believe.
>
> http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=1918
>
> http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=1928
This page fits right into the "stump-broken cow" theme so popular
on AMOE:
http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=1918&p=6
....and this is perfect.
http://images.somethingawful.com/inserts/articlepics/photoshop/01-16-04-kinkade/Kanzune2.jpg
Laughing. Go through them all.
Kris
Kris Baker
"mjoann" <xtcmu...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:43955495...@netscape.com...
He's just the painterly version of Falwell, Robertson, and that "Purpose
Driven Life" guy.
Kris
chris
Tony Cooper wrote:
> I can't agree that any art is fundamentally detestable. I can
> certainly agree that some art is detestable to me, but that's personal
> perspective. As long as there's someone out there who likes it, art
> is not fundamentally detestable.
>
I keep forgeting that this is USENET, where people with too much time
on their hands will argue endlessly about whether making lampshades
from human skin was fundamentally destable, or maybe not, because some
fundamentally destable people actually liked them. Go for it. OTOH I'm
happy with the philosophical practicality of admitting that some things
are just too fucked to be considered in a positive light.
> I can't really follow that bit about "belief systems". It seems that
> you are saying that an atheist cannot appreciate religious art because
> the atheist thinks the belief system itself is fundamentally flawed.
>
Well the you would have a very stupid and intolerant atheist on your
hands. He's yours, you deal with him. Saner ones would recognize that
we all have belief systems (whether they include a god or not), and the
inclusion of a god does not invalidate the human value of the work any
more than the exclusion of such.
> I remember seeing a canvas that was all white except for one small
> square of red in some Manhattan museum. MOMA or the Guggenheim, I
> think. I was thinking "This guy's scamming us passing this off as
> art", but someone on the museum acquisition committee found artistic
> value in it. Who's to say which of us was wrong?
Who cares? If you have chosen to ignore the context of the work then
it's wallpaper. Decorative perhaps, meaningful, not. But pretending
that that context doesn't exist is simply self-delusional.
Cheers;
CB
Angrie.Woman
I can't speak for all buyers. My friend who bought one bought it because
she loved it, which is a good thing. But she certainly expected it to
appreciate, and it is sad to think that she probably won't love it so
much when she finds out that it doesn't.
A
Kris Baker
>
> I can't speak for all buyers. My friend who bought one bought it because
> she loved it, which is a good thing. But she certainly expected it to
> appreciate, and it is sad to think that she probably won't love it so much
> when she finds out that it doesn't.
>
> A
You don't think she knows, by now? Obviously, because she's a friend, you
can't tell her that her "art" is worth a lot less than she paid. Until
there's another class-action suit...then you'll be her best friend.
Kris
artangel
so hard are still running down my face.
I too spit coffee on my dog AND the neighbors' child.
http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=1918
Great!
Thur
> Orlando, FL
This is an old getout.
Why deny for yourself the capability to discern good from
bad or better from worse? We all do this with our own works,
and we all do it throughout life in almost every way.
It's a tiresome argument, but it usually goes :" every judgement
is subjective" versus: no, each judgement carries the weight of
opinion gleaned from study, from current culture, from knowledge
and experience, from the confidence of one's own aesthetic
tuning.
--
Thur
Tony Cooper
wrote:
>
>Tony Cooper wrote:
>> I can't agree that any art is fundamentally detestable. I can
>> certainly agree that some art is detestable to me, but that's personal
>> perspective. As long as there's someone out there who likes it, art
>> is not fundamentally detestable.
>>
>
>I keep forgeting that this is USENET, where people with too much time
>on their hands will argue endlessly about whether making lampshades
>from human skin was fundamentally destable, or maybe not, because some
>fundamentally destable people actually liked them. Go for it. OTOH I'm
>happy with the philosophical practicality of admitting that some things
>are just too fucked to be considered in a positive light.
I know the feeling, Chris. I keep forgetting that this is USENET
where people can't spell and Godwin's Law is the shoe that will drop.
I agree, though, that people who like lampshades made out of skin are
destable. I don't think they ever were stable.
Did Ilse Koch consider the lampshades art, or was she just the Martha
Stewart of the wives of SS officers craft circle?
>> I remember seeing a canvas that was all white except for one small
>> square of red in some Manhattan museum. MOMA or the Guggenheim, I
>> think. I was thinking "This guy's scamming us passing this off as
>> art", but someone on the museum acquisition committee found artistic
>> value in it. Who's to say which of us was wrong?
>
>Who cares? If you have chosen to ignore the context of the work then
>it's wallpaper. Decorative perhaps, meaningful, not. But pretending
>that that context doesn't exist is simply self-delusional.
So you believe there is context to the work in this case, but no
context to tigers on velvet?
Tony Cooper
>This is an old getout.
>Why deny for yourself the capability to discern good from
>bad or better from worse?
Oh, we do. And we should. It's when we decide that what *we* discern
as "good" is what is "good" for all and all else is "bad" that is
wrong. I discern Kinkaid as "bad", but I allow that he might be
discerned as "good" by someone else.
LPV
> I'd like some opinions on some of these other Thomas KinKade originals
> please. Some of them are a bit startling. He's more versatile than I was
> led to believe.
>
> http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=1918
Hey, Brother Bart: is that you in the 'painting' on Page 6? It's the one
done by geno1173.
Love the hat.
Loren
BrotherBart
<snip endless argument>
Obviously you don't.
Thur
> Orlando, FL
Like I said, the argument can be tiresome.
You have clipped it out from my post and restated
yours.
To make the argument stick, each of us has to be on
our separate, remote mountain top, making our individual
judgements without any influence by, or reference to,
others or any shared information. Also each artist has to
produce art which is completely uninfluenced by the
marketplace, or by any other artist.
This has never been the case for the world of art, even
Modern art.
When two people or more have an input or influence on
art, then these subjective judgements start to pick up
something of a set of shared references, and even values.
There, I have got it off my chest.
--
Thur
sir_haxalot
original in. I want to know what it hangs next to. Is it contemporary
art, in the room with the pile of light bulbs on the floor? Is it in
the impressionist room, next to a Renoir? Is it in the American
'nostalgic' art room, next to a Norman Rockwell?
Tony Cooper
wrote:
While Kinkade deserves to be hung only in the Museum of Bad Art, that
an artist is represented in a museum's collection is not an indication
that the work will please you.
Spend a day in, for example, MOMA (the Museum of Modern Art) in NYC
and you find yourself standing in front of many, many pieces that will
make you wonder why they deserve to be displayed as "art".
It wasn't in MOMA, but I once saw a 40 foot long or so canvas covered
with broken cups and plates embedded in thick acrylic. It was the
featured exhibition at a major NYC museum. Art? Not to me, but
someone thought so.
Rockwell? A competent illustrationist who produced pleasant cover
illustrations for the Saturday Evening Post. Nice warm and fuzzy
stuff. Museum-quality art, though? Comparable to Constable or
Turner, though? Or, should his work be in the room with Skelton's
clowns and Keane's portraits of children with thyroid problems?
sir_haxalot
was just wondering where a Kinkade would go stylistically to hang with
peers. Actually, at our city's major art museum we have a Rockwell oil
painting, which I like a lot, and it seems to hang as a peer in a room
of other american nostalgia and blue-collar imagery.
Mani Deli
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Rockwell? A competent illustrationist who produced pleasant cover
>illustrations for the Saturday Evening Post. Nice warm and fuzzy
>stuff. Museum-quality art, though? Comparable to Constable or
>Turner, though? Or, should his work be in the room with Skelton's
>clowns and Keane's portraits of children with thyroid problems?
Rockwell isn't allowed in the modern sections of museums because it
would allow people to compare his competence to the charlatinism on
which curators have spent multi-millions on.
kungdrew
artangel
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
"If I could start over again, I'd paint like Picasso."
Mani Deli
You would try but but end up teaching the next generation of failures
again.
artangel
You are soaking wet.
Have you been pissing in the wind again?
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
"If I could start over again, I'd paint like Picasso."
Mani Deli
>Interestingly, Rockwell had no illusions about his own work - he knew he
>was a competent magazine illustrator. Others have tried to make him into a
>fine artist, especially after his death.
and they succeeded admirably as the public constantly attests to.
sir_haxalot
to think that he had no concept that perhaps one day, his work might be
considered art. But of course, I guess if he had decided to do art,
then he wouldn't be famous, right? His work would immediately stop
selling because his talent would magically disappear if he didn't sell
illustrations to the Evening Post. lol
Mani Deli
wrote:
>Is that good or bad? Rockwell did do oil paintings, so it is a stretch
>to think that he had no concept that perhaps one day, his work might be
>considered art.
I agree. I think he knew he painted well enough not to bother worring
about it.
> But of course, I guess if he had decided to do art,
>then he wouldn't be famous, right?
?
> His work would immediately stop
>selling because his talent would magically disappear if he didn't sell
>illustrations to the Evening Post. lol
?
An artist doesn't decide what's art, the public does so over time.
sir_haxalot
in fact art, and you don't get to sit here and criticize their
importance to the art world, right? At the same time, since I am a
viewing member of the public, I can decide for myself that I don't like
Kinkade's art and not have that in any way indicate some admission of a
lack of talent on my part, right?
Sarah
$100M a year. He has ten artists that do his works for him, he does
not to them himself......
The artist is local to me & some local artists think he is such a
joke.
On Ebay you can buy an 'original' hand done one for just 99 cents from
a guy in China......check that if you have time. esp the one about
Lovers Point in PG as that is where he comes from.
On 12 Dec 2005 16:29:41 GMT, biljo...@yahoo.com(Biljo White) wrote:
Tony Cooper
wrote:
I'm with Ty, here. Who are you responding to? With my newsreader, I
only see unread messages, and I have no idea who "your" is.
If you can figure out how to turn the shower on, which way to turn the
key to make a car start, and how to turn your computer on, you can
figure out how to post messages with attribution.
Mani Deli
wrote:
>So by your own admission, the public has decided that Picasso, etc. are
>in fact art,
I don't think most of the public likes Picasso. They know his name and
that his work is worth lots of money.
>- and you don't get to sit here and criticize their
>importance to the art world, right?
The art world is totally divided on the matter. You can check out
opinions from the other side at http://www.artrenewal.org/
>At the same time, since I am a
>viewing member of the public, I can decide for myself that I don't like
>Kinkade's art and not have that in any way indicate some admission of a
>lack of talent on my part, right?
I agree. I don't like his work either. I don't know anything about
your talent.
Mani Deli
>Kincade hasn't sold an original since 1998..... yet the guy takes in
>$100M a year. He has ten artists that do his works for him, he does
>not to them himself......
Warhol did the same.
>The artist is local to me & some local artists think he is such a
>joke.
>
I think he's a joke on Modern Artists.
>On Ebay you can buy an 'original' hand done one for just 99 cents from
>a guy in China......check that if you have time. esp the one about
>Lovers Point in PG as that is where he comes from.
>
You can also buy Picasso imitations real cheap there. Along with slick
imitations claiming that they might just be by Picasso. In my opinion
the real value of Picasso is the signature.
China and Honk Kong don't bother imitating Picasso etc. because it
doesn't sell.
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
opinions from the other side at http://www.artrenewal.org/
ROTFL!! Please.... a bunch on Ayn Rand devotees who run side business
as "ateliers" do not constitute half of the art world. Especially when
the majority of them post under multiple aliases.
As far as I know none has written published criticism in major
periodicals or books. (Leaving aside your own chimeral tome.)
And for good reason: 1) they are primarily propagandists and 2) don't
have the discipline to provide a reasoned argument for the importance
of the derivative pastiches that populate their "Living Masters"
gallery.
Tony Cooper
>The art world is totally divided on the matter. You can check out
>opinions from the other side at http://www.artrenewal.org/
>
>ROTFL!! Please.... a bunch on Ayn Rand devotees who run side business
>as "ateliers" do not constitute half of the art world.
The word "atelier" means "workshop". The use of the word in this web
page means that ARC provides references to ateliers that art students
can attend. It is not, as you imply, a title assumed by the people.
the web page goes on to give information about the schools and
workshops available. I didn't read all of the descriptions, but it
does not seem that the workshops and schools are run by ARC people.
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
Tony Cooper wrote:
> On 13 Dec 2005 17:04:21 -0800, s_l_a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >The art world is totally divided on the matter. You can check out
> >opinions from the other side at http://www.artrenewal.org/
> >
> >ROTFL!! Please.... a bunch on Ayn Rand devotees who run side business
> >as "ateliers" do not constitute half of the art world.
>
> The word "atelier" means "workshop".
The use of the word in this web
> page means that ARC provides references to ateliers that art students
> can attend. It is not, as you imply, a title assumed by the people.
Nor did I imply it. The business are run as "ateliers" in essence
conservative formally uncredited art schools.
> the web page goes on to give information about the schools and
> workshops available. I didn't read all of the descriptions, but it
> does not seem that the workshops and schools are run by ARC people.
In which case you would be wrong. They are the population of supposed
"Art Experts" and "Living Masters" which the site promotes. Please
check your facts more thoroughly and avoid intentional misreadings
before posting.
Tony Cooper
>
>Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On 13 Dec 2005 17:04:21 -0800, s_l_a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >The art world is totally divided on the matter. You can check out
>> >opinions from the other side at http://www.artrenewal.org/
>> >
>> >ROTFL!! Please.... a bunch on Ayn Rand devotees who run side business
>> >as "ateliers" do not constitute half of the art world.
>>
>> The word "atelier" means "workshop".
>No Really????
If you understood this, then you should have cast your sentence to
convey your understanding. Devotees who run business(es) as
ateliers... means they are functioning as ateliers. The difference is
in "as" instead of "of".
>The use of the word in this web
>> page means that ARC provides references to ateliers that art students
>> can attend. It is not, as you imply, a title assumed by the people.
>
>Nor did I imply it. The business are run as "ateliers" in essence
>conservative formally uncredited art schools.
I'm sure you had a meaning in mind when you wrote this. It doesn't
come across. I think you are talking about "unaccredited" art
schools, but it's hard to tell.
If, as I'm beginning to suspect, English is not your first language,
then I apologize for criticizing your ill-formed attempts at
meaningful sentences. If English is your first language, then I urge
you to complete your GED program.
>> the web page goes on to give information about the schools and
>> workshops available. I didn't read all of the descriptions, but it
>> does not seem that the workshops and schools are run by ARC people.
>
>In which case you would be wrong. They are the population of supposed
>"Art Experts" and "Living Masters" which the site promotes. Please
>check your facts more thoroughly and avoid intentional misreadings
>before posting.
I checked. I stand by my comment.
Yes, the site does promote the workshops and other art training
programs, but they seem to be run independently of ARC.
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
Ah if only grammer trolls or silly insults actually contributed to the
validity of ARC.
Unfortunately they do not and I stand by my comments as well.
They are the population of supposed "Art Experts" and "Living Masters"
which the site promotes.
As such they are truly bad art critics (or alternately banal painters)
with little to no recognition in established circles.
Thur
"Dan Fox" <danfoxa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20051214081316.105$Q...@newsreader.com...
> kind of argument christians give apropos evolution: 'scientists disagree
> on
> evolution.' The art renewal kooks are no more a part of the art world than
> the creationists are a part of the scientific world.
>
> The strange notion that legitimate art is limited to the realism of the
> 19th century french academy is laughable unless you're a janitor from Crib
> Death, Iowa.
>
> The art renewal website is a hoot to be sure, but my favorite sites are
> the
> ones that refute the theory of relativity and reformulate physics without
> mathematics.
Re:
> The strange notion that legitimate art is limited to the realism of the
> 19th century french academy is laughable unless you're a janitor from Crib
> Death, Iowa.
I had not realised that anyone had tried to put up this view,
which on it's own, cannot stand.
The same goes of course for those who try to fix some sort of
justification for modernism merely on the existence of the same
brief French period. I have read a few tracts which in essence
seemed to me to rely upon this.
I can't recall the actual page, but in his introduction somewhere,
Gombrich (Art and Illusion) makes the point that a recognition of
skill is essential for understanding style and expression.
Which relates to one aspect of art which the French Academic
championed and Modernism tried so hard to ignore.
--
Thur
Lumpy
into alt.marketing.online.ebay, please
Craig
Tony Cooper
Seems like a still life of sour grapes. Whatsa matter, Sunshine, did
they reject your Draw Me matchbook cover?
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
Ah if only silly insults actually contributed to the validity of ARC.
They don't and I stand by my original comments.
Mani Deli
> The art renewal kooks are no more a part of the art world than
>the creationists are a part of the scientific world.
One need only look at Fox's 1960 furniture store abstraction to see
who's a kook. It also pays to read his stuff on RAF to see that he is
a Modern Academic Art fundamentalist.
>The strange notion that legitimate art is limited to the realism of the
>19th century french academy is laughable unless you're a janitor from Crib
>Death, Iowa.
The strange notion that the only legitimate art of the 20th century is
limited to the crap in the modern sections of museums is laughable
especially when you see mountains of Fox type wall covering all over
the net and in the painting racks of accredited schools run by people
who know even less than Fox..
>The art renewal website is a hoot to be sure,
and a poke in the cerebral hemorrhoids for anyone like Fox who can't
draw and exhibits little more than post Kindergarten craft.
ARC at last shows the artwork of the past which was suppressed for
four generations and offers an alternative to the slanted art history
taught in "accredited" schools. Among other things it suggests
schools that offer an alternitive to those which teach a creed instead
of a craft.
Here one can see and compare the alternitive to Modern academic Art
and decide about it for one self. Before the advent of the net this
was not available.
sir_haxalot
style is "better" because it looks more photorealistic. It is
precisely because of the invention of the photograph that this style of
painting became less desirable... because they're expensive to
commission compared to a photograph. That doesn't mean people can't
still do it.
I argue that in fact, painting like the "old masters" is a very easily
learnable step-based progression of paint buildup on the canvas. It's
easier to erase mistakes, it's easier to blend away brushstrokes, and
it works well for creating that particular style of painting. However,
it is just a style, and it is not objectively better than any other
style. If I compare a landscape by Constable to a Rothko based on
realism, Rothko loses. If I compare them based on which one makes
better use of just a few color fields, then Constable loses. Just
because something takes longer doesn't make it better.
Just because something looks realistic doesn't mean that anything else
was created by untalented hacks. Those painters knew their market,
just like painters today do. Except for one thing: It may have been
much more difficult in the heyday of realistic painting to sell
anything else. That's why you see so few surviving examples of major
undertakings in any other style.
Previous to realistic paintings, the church only commissioned
UNrealistic works, because a realistic, human likeness was considered
blasphemous. It's not that medieval artists couldn't draw
realistically. Which would you rather do, burn at the stake or sell
tons of art and retire? That may have been the choice they faced.
Bob C
> Previous to realistic paintings, the church only commissioned
> UNrealistic works, because a realistic, human likeness was considered
> blasphemous. It's not that medieval artists couldn't draw
> realistically.
Actually, it may well be that they couldn't, because they had no
instruction on how to do it and no available realistic images to use as
models to emulate. Drawing realistically is something which must be
learned and it's impossible for us know how difficult this would have
been if we lived in a world where we'd never seen realistic images.
- Bob C.
sir_haxalot
they had people, old statues, old paintings, etc. I'll give you an
example, and I know it's not the best example, but I believe similar
examples would've been available to anyone at that time. The ruins at
Pompeii/Herculaneum show paintings with chiaroscuro and while not the
most convincing perpective renderings, they're decent enough to lead me
to believe that it is at least possible that there existed realistic
artworks at the time of even the earliest painters and sculptors. In
the early 1400's, Van Eyck was producing what were very meticulous
manuscript illuminations with pre-existing techniques used for statue
decorations. Once he and his peers came across mixing the paints with
oil to get transparent colors, they could render their shading
techniques to a greater precision almost exclusively because of the
medium. Way before that, in the most minute manuscript illuminations
in the Book of Kells, you see attempts at shading. It's not that
people didn't know how to do it, but they may not have had the
materials available to fully execute their stylistic visions.
Bob C
> It's just not true that they didn't have realistic images to emulate --
> they had people, old statues, old paintings, etc. ... The ruins at
> Pompeii/Herculaneum show paintings with chiaroscuro and while not the
> most convincing perpective renderings, they're decent enough to lead me
> to believe that it is at least possible that there existed realistic
> artworks at the time of even the earliest painters and sculptors.
People and old statues aren't 2D images, they're 3D objects. Translating
them into 2D objects is a learned skill. There are a few exceptions who
seem to pick it up naturally, but it's impossible for us today to know
whether they could have accomplished this in the absence of the
realistic 2D images which are all around us in the modern world.
It's true that in medieval times there were historical examples existing
with a much greater degree of naturalism than was being done at the time
(although very few of them would be considered particularly realistic by
modern standards), but most medieval artists probably had little or no
access to them . It's not like they could go to the local library and
check out a book on Roman wall painting.
It's also true that the influence of the church and stylistic trends did
work to prevent a greater degree of naturalism from developing. But this
doesn't mean that the artists had the skills to switch to realism if the
prevailing climate called for them to do that. The skills they had were
the ones which they had been taught to have and this didn't include
realistic rendering. They might have learned to do it, slowly over time,
if it became their goal to do so - which is eventually what happened.
- Bob C.
Mani Deli
wrote:
>I argue that in fact, painting like the "old masters" is a very easily
>learnable step-based progression of paint buildup on the canvas. It's
>easier to erase mistakes, it's easier to blend away brushstrokes, and
>it works well for creating that particular style of painting.
Modern Academic Art school mythology, its easy, sure! Its a good
excuse for those who teach without any knowledge of their craft. The
results are the armies of failures.
Like most Modern Academic art fundamentalists this guy imagines that
at present the only choice is between 19th century academic subject
matter and abstraction. Along with this he imagines the only abstract
art is the Modern Academic stuff in museums.
> However,
>it is just a style, and it is not objectively better than any other
>style. If I compare a landscape by Constable to a Rothko based on
>realism, Rothko loses.
and if you compare Rothko to an average horse blanket, Rothko loses.
> If I compare them based on which one makes
>better use of just a few color fields, then Constable loses. Just
>because something takes longer doesn't make it better.
>
>Previous to realistic paintings, the church only commissioned
>UNrealistic works, because a realistic, human likeness was considered
>blasphemous.
No, in the dark ages they couldn't do any better because the knowledge
was lost.
> It's not that medieval artists couldn't draw
>realistically.
They couldn't.
> Which would you rather do, burn at the stake or sell
>tons of art and retire? That may have been the choice they faced.
>
Nobody was ever burned for drawing realistically and if you know art
history you will know that the best minds in Europe made great efforts
over a long time to figure out how to paint realistically and nobody
complained about it.
Bet this guy's work looks even worse than Fox's
Lumpy
Would you guys mind dropping the
crossposts from
alt.marketing.online.ebay.
It's obvious you're not involved in
the discussion there.
Craig
sir_haxalot
render, but it's pretty well understood now that the so-called 'dark
ages' may not have been this time when knowledge was lost, so much as
access to it was just suppressed/oppressed, and actually there was a
great deal of stylistic development during that time.
sir_haxalot
Mani Deli wrote:
> On 14 Dec 2005 09:29:18 -0800, "sir_haxalot" <devin...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >I argue that in fact, painting like the "old masters" is a very easily
> >learnable step-based progression of paint buildup on the canvas. It's
> >easier to erase mistakes, it's easier to blend away brushstrokes, and
> >it works well for creating that particular style of painting.
>
> Modern Academic Art school mythology, its easy, sure! Its a good
> excuse for those who teach without any knowledge of their craft. The
> results are the armies of failures.
Once again, you sidestep actually addressing what I'm talking about in
order to insult the graduates of an art program. You assume that all
academic artists are non-figurative, which is just plain wrong. Go see
the Academy of Art San Francisco, they have a figurative art branch, I
should know, I've taken classes from it.
>
> Like most Modern Academic art fundamentalists this guy imagines that
> at present the only choice is between 19th century academic subject
> matter and abstraction. Along with this he imagines the only abstract
> art is the Modern Academic stuff in museums.
>
> > However,
> >it is just a style, and it is not objectively better than any other
> >style. If I compare a landscape by Constable to a Rothko based on
> >realism, Rothko loses.
>
> and if you compare Rothko to an average horse blanket, Rothko loses.
>
> > If I compare them based on which one makes
> >better use of just a few color fields, then Constable loses. Just
> >because something takes longer doesn't make it better.
> >
> >Previous to realistic paintings, the church only commissioned
> >UNrealistic works, because a realistic, human likeness was considered
> >blasphemous.
>
> No, in the dark ages they couldn't do any better because the knowledge
> was lost.
>
> > It's not that medieval artists couldn't draw
> >realistically.
>
> They couldn't.
Prove it. All I need is one realistic drawing, which is more than easy
to come by, and yet you'll have to comb through every possible work
that could've existed in order to prove your side.
>
> > Which would you rather do, burn at the stake or sell
> >tons of art and retire? That may have been the choice they faced.
> >
>
> Nobody was ever burned for drawing realistically and if you know art
> history you will know that the best minds in Europe made great efforts
> over a long time to figure out how to paint realistically and nobody
> complained about it.
Oh really? Go read the summary of The Art of the Icon (1990) here:
http://home.pcisys.net/~tbc/sdg/SAW/YTF/part_4.htm
> Bet this guy's work looks even worse than Fox's
Statements like that embolden me to paint works that hopefully will
"look" even worse to you, just because I can.
Mani Deli
wrote:
>
>Mani Deli wrote:
>> On 14 Dec 2005 09:29:18 -0800, "sir_haxalot" <devin...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >I argue that in fact, painting like the "old masters" is a very easily
>> >learnable step-based progression of paint buildup on the canvas. It's
>> >easier to erase mistakes, it's easier to blend away brushstrokes, and
>> >it works well for creating that particular style of painting.
>>
>> Modern Academic Art school mythology, its easy, sure! Its a good
>> excuse for those who teach without any knowledge of their craft. The
>> results are the armies of failures.
>
>Once again, you sidestep actually addressing what I'm talking about in
>order to insult the graduates of an art program.
You said it very easy.
> You assume that all
>academic artists are non-figurative, which is just plain wrong.
I assume no such thing. However most all art school figurative work is
just plane incompetent.
?
>> Bet this guy's work looks even worse than Fox's
>
>Statements like that embolden me to paint works that hopefully will
>"look" even worse to you, just because I can.
good luck!
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
Mani Deli wrote:
> (Dan Fox) wrote:
>
> > The art renewal kooks are no more a part of the art world than
> >the creationists are a part of the scientific world.
>
> One need only look at Fox's 1960 furniture store abstraction to see
> who's a kook. It also pays to read his stuff on RAF to see that he is
> a Modern Academic Art fundamentalist.
>
> >The strange notion that legitimate art is limited to the realism of the
> >19th century french academy is laughable unless you're a janitor from Crib
> >Death, Iowa.
>
> The strange notion that the only legitimate art of the 20th century is
> limited to the crap in the modern sections of museums is laughable
> especially when you see mountains of Fox type wall covering all over
> the net and in the painting racks of accredited schools run by people
> who know even less than Fox..
>
> >The art renewal website is a hoot to be sure,
>
> and a poke in the cerebral hemorrhoids for anyone like Fox who can't
> draw and exhibits little more than post Kindergarten craft.
>
> ARC at last shows the artwork of the past which was suppressed for
> four generations
LOL ! David, Ingres, Courbet, and the Pre-Raphaelites haven't been
suppressed.
and offers an alternative to the slanted art history
> taught in "accredited" schools.
But as we've been able to demonstrate, ARC offers really bad art
history.
It has the potential to be an excellent site on 19th century academic
art but lost
the chance by succumbing to factually inaccurate conspiracy theories.
In the meantime one would better spend one's time with:
R. Rosenblum & H. W. Janson, 19th Century Art. New York: Harry N.
Abrams, Inc., 1994.
Here's a fairly typical syllabus for an art history course. What is
"slanted" about it?
http://www.uml.edu/Dept/History/ArtHistory/19cent.htm
Among other things it suggests
> schools that offer an alternitive to those which teach a creed instead
> of a craft.
But ARC has it's own creed, and a rather silly one based on the
writings of Ayn Rand.
I can't really think of a successful artwork that is not a combination
of both creed and craft nor an an accredited school that does not teach
both.
> Here one can see and compare the alternitive to Modern academic Art
> and decide about it for one self.
Well yeah they're mostly derrivative pastiches of superior artists.
None of the "Living Masters" rank technically with Vermeer, van Eyck or
even Christopher and Mary Pratt, Pearlstein, Chuck Close, Ramos,
Morley, Richter etc.
And conceptually they're vapid so I wouldn't put them in the same rank
as Salle, Warhol, Clemente, Gary Hill etc...
So I've decided for myself and I really don't see why they deserve any
recognition beyond what they already have.
Before the advent of the net this
> was not available.
No one was able to see commercial art before the Internet? Explain
Mani Deli
>
>Mani Deli wrote:
>> ARC at last shows the artwork of the past which was suppressed for
>> four generations
>
>LOL ! David, Ingres, Courbet, and the Pre-Raphaelites haven't been
>suppressed.
What about all the others?
>
> and offers an alternative to the slanted art history
>> taught in "accredited" schools.
>
>But as we've been able to demonstrate, ARC offers really bad art
>history.
Like?
>It has the potential to be an excellent site on 19th century academic
>art but lost
>the chance by succumbing to factually inaccurate conspiracy theories.
>
>In the meantime one would better spend one's time with:
>
>R. Rosenblum & H. W. Janson, 19th Century Art. New York: Harry N.
>Abrams, Inc., 1994.
>
>Here's a fairly typical syllabus for an art history course. What is
>"slanted" about it?
>
>http://www.uml.edu/Dept/History/ArtHistory/19cent.htm
I haven't taken that course. Sounds like it all leads up to the usual
Cezanne.
Have taken art history and youll'd think the only artists of the late
period were the impressionists.
> Among other things it suggests
>> schools that offer an alternitive to those which teach a creed instead
>> of a craft.
>
>But ARC has it's own creed, and a rather silly one based on the
>writings of Ayn Rand.
Just lame brain Fox mentioned Rand, you repeat it. Its got nothing to
do with Rand.
>
>I can't really think of a successful artwork that is not a combination
>of both creed and craft nor an an accredited school that does not teach
>both.
What's Vermeer's creed? However most art students and artists I see
have no craft.
>
>> Here one can see and compare the alternitive to Modern academic Art
>> and decide about it for one self.
>
>Well yeah they're mostly derrivative pastiches of superior artists.
Yeah and Modern Academic Art hasn't made it past 1923 Dada.
>None of the "Living Masters" rank technically with Vermeer, van Eyck or
>even Christopher and Mary Pratt, Pearlstein, Chuck Close, Ramos,
>Morley, Richter etc.
Most of the artists in Modern Sections of museums create second rate
decorative wall covering. Usually the bigger, the worse it is.
>And conceptually they're vapid so I wouldn't put them in the same rank
>as Salle, Warhol, Clemente, Gary Hill etc...
>
>So I've decided for myself and I really don't see why they deserve any
>recognition beyond what they already have.
>Before the advent of the net this
>> was not available.
>
>No one was able to see commercial art before the Internet? Explain
So is all the artwork you dislike commercial?
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
Mani Deli wrote:
> On 15 Dec 2005 18:23:57 -0800, s_l_a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> >Mani Deli wrote:
>
> >> ARC at last shows the artwork of the past which was suppressed for
> >> four generations
> >
> >LOL ! David, Ingres, Courbet, and the Pre-Raphaelites haven't been
> >suppressed.
>
> What about all the others?
You mean likeConstable, Delacroix, Caspar David Friedrich, Fuseli,
Goya, Turner, Caillebotte, Reynolds, Gainsborough...
....nope they haven't been suppressed either.
> > and offers an alternative to the slanted art history
> >> taught in "accredited" schools.
> >
> >But as we've been able to demonstrate, ARC offers really bad art
> >history.
>
> Like?
Dear me Mani, just a few months ago you profided a link from the site
based on a forged New York Times article.
>
> >It has the potential to be an excellent site on 19th century academic
> >art but lost
> >the chance by succumbing to factually inaccurate conspiracy theories.
> >
> >In the meantime one would better spend one's time with:
> >
> >R. Rosenblum & H. W. Janson, 19th Century Art. New York: Harry N.
> >Abrams, Inc., 1994.
> >
> >Here's a fairly typical syllabus for an art history course. What is
> >"slanted" about it?
> >
> >http://www.uml.edu/Dept/History/ArtHistory/19cent.htm
>
> I haven't taken that course. Sounds like it all leads up to the usual
> Cezanne.
>
> Have taken art history and youll'd think the only artists of the late
> period were the impressionists.
What no Barbizon school , Rodin, Munch, Hodler, Toulouse Latrec,
Gauguin, Ensor, Singer Sargent? There's a really nice painting by
Ivan Nikolaevich Kramskoy in the Rosenblum and Janson. What do you
think of it?
>
> > Among other things it suggests
> >> schools that offer an alternitive to those which teach a creed instead
> >> of a craft.
> >
> >But ARC has it's own creed, and a rather silly one based on the
> >writings of Ayn Rand.
>
> Just lame brain Fox mentioned Rand, you repeat it. Its got nothing to
> do with Rand.
Actually I mentioned it first. Try Googling Brian Yoder or Fred Ross
with Ayn Rand and see what you get.
> >
> >I can't really think of a successful artwork that is not a combination
> >of both creed and craft nor an an accredited school that does not teach
> >both.
>
> What's Vermeer's creed?
http://www.nga.gov/exhibitions/verm_2.shtm
However most art students and artists I see
> have no craft.
Christopher and Mary Pratt, Pearlstein, Chuck Close, Ramos,
Morley, Richter etc. all exhibit traditional craft skills. Of course
there are many
other forms of craft which for some reason you refuse to acknowlege.
> >
> >> Here one can see and compare the alternitive to Modern academic Art
> >> and decide about it for one self.
> >
> >Well yeah they're mostly derrivative pastiches of superior artists.
>
> Yeah and Modern Academic Art hasn't made it past 1923 Dada.
I would disagree but you haven't responded to my point that the
"Living Masters" ARC promotes mostly produce derrivative pastiches of
superior artists.
>
> >None of the "Living Masters" rank technically with Vermeer, van Eyck or
> >even Christopher and Mary Pratt, Pearlstein, Chuck Close, Ramos,
> >Morley, Richter etc.
>
> Most of the artists in Modern Sections of museums create second rate
> decorative wall covering. Usually the bigger, the worse it is.
Again I would disagree but you haven't responded to my point.
None of the "Living Masters" rank technically with Vermeer, van Eyck or
even Christopher and Mary Pratt, Pearlstein, Chuck Close, Ramos,
Morley, Richter etc.
> >And conceptually they're vapid so I wouldn't put them in the same rank
> >as Salle, Warhol, Clemente, Gary Hill etc...
> >
> >So I've decided for myself and I really don't see why they deserve any
> >recognition beyond what they already have.
>
> >Before the advent of the net this
> >> was not available.
> >
> >No one was able to see commercial art before the Internet? Explain
>
> So is all the artwork you dislike commercial?
No I was refuting you're rather silly notion that
"Here [At ARC] one can see and compare the alternitive to Modern
academic Art
and decide about it for one self.
Before the advent of the net this was not available."
by pointing out that commercial art by its very nature has always had a
great deal of public exposure.
Again since the "Living Masters" which you propose as the alternative
to work currently shown in museums have inferior craft/conceptual ideas
than the artists I mentioned, I really don't see why they deserve
greater recognition. Why do you believe they do?
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
Mani Deli wrote:
> >
> >But ARC has it's own creed, and a rather silly one based on the
> >writings of Ayn Rand.
>
> Just lame brain Fox mentioned Rand, you repeat it. Its got nothing to
> do with Rand.
"A work of art is the selective recreation of reality for the purpose
of communicating some aspect of what it means to be human or how we
perceive the world"
www.artrenewal.org/articles/2005/abstract/ross1.asp
Art is the selective recreation of reality according to the artist's
metaphysical
value-judgments ... Ayn Rand, The Romantic Manifesto
www.olist.com/docs/101-2002-6.pps
You were saying???
Lumpy
several times politely.
Would you PLEASE quit your fucking
cross posting of your Kinkade rant
into alt.marketing.online.ebay
Please?
If you don't, I'm going to sign your
name to all the paintings down at
Denny's.
Craig
sir_haxalot
The purpose of art school is not to learn the "right way" to paint,
it's to learn a way to paint that's generally accepted by academia.
It's so simple that some people get frustrated by it. If you get a
teacher obsessed with "right" versus "wrong", that's probably the
weed-out class, i.e. to see if you're persistent enough to put up with
their crap for a semester. If you pass, then all the rest of the
classes will be awesome (as was my experience).
Biljo White wrote:
> You guys have picked up on an important thing about mani -- he has no
> education. he constantly puts his foot in his mouth on art and art history,
> misspells lots of easy words, and contradicts himself. I don't think he's
> even aware of many of the artists you've cited; he always mentions only the
> same few.
>
> He's just a bag of childish emotions and resentments. He says he got kicked
> out of art school for demanding to be taught 'his way,' which tells us he's
> been a kook all his life. (Do you know how hard it is to get kicked out of
> art school?)
sir_haxalot
not trying to insult his intelligence. I just want to understand where
he's coming from. His arguments are just so all over the place, it's
fascinating to try to trace back to what the contradictory arguments
are based on. It reminds me of a religious debate I heard once,
regarding how to prove the existence of god. At one point, the
fundamentalist rebutted with a question like 'well, how do we know
Napoleon ever really existed?' The scholar immediately replied, "Well,
for one, we have his body... "