Protest over figure classes
peter nelson
It describes a controversy in which the Norwegian Academy
of Art proposed to offer figure painting. The article notes that,
"For several decades, the education at the Academy has been
strongly focused on modernistic expressions and techniques,
creating an environment that has encouraged experimentation.
The suggestion to form figurative classes was seen by many as
a move towards a more reactionary, classical oriented education."
http://norway.origo.no/culture/embla/art/akademitull.html
The human figure, of course, is one of the most difficult,
challenging, and subtle subjects in art. One of the reasons why
it forms the basis of most traditional art education programs
is not necessarily because it's expected to be the artist's
primary subject, but rather because the discipline, experience,
and practice of studying it and learning to render it is very
valuable skill for all drawing, painting, and sculpture that might
follow, even including abstract and nonrepresentational art.
Every problem in visual art from color to light to texture to form
to design and everything else is represented in the human figure.
It is absolutely the mother's milk of all visual art, regardless of
what future aspirations the artist might have.
To me it's extraordinary enough that an art academy would offer
no figure painting classes. But that the suggestion that
they institute some should result in a violent reaction and
accusations that such art is "reactionary" shows how absurdly
politicized the thinking in the art world has become.
---peter
Kay Kane
peter nelson wrote in message <794ktv$2k$1...@antiochus.ultra.net>...
use knowledge gained from my "figure drawing" classes I took in the past, I
feel they are and essential part of the learning process. You must possess
knowledge of the basics (such as figure drawing) in order to discard or move
beyond representational art (if you so choose). You must KNOW the rules or
you aren't BREAKING the rules, you are just floundering around and calling
it art.
Kay
P.S. Cheer up! Most art schools still require figure drawing classes in
their foundations.
>
>
zi...@interport.net
Actually I was on Norway in Novem,ber and I understand it quite well.
We stayed with a colleague of my wife's who seems to be an excellent
anthropologist when she getsd out there and works with other people's
cultures and their needs. She can easily idenify with poor Nepali
peasants ,Etc. But through he first husband, a Brit, she entered that
art world -the happenings, conceptual art world. And a buddy of hers
from England was coming just then to have a show in a museum near
Oslo. She was all excited since she would translate the words which
werespoken electronically over the objet in one room.
'
The woman was a bold pioneer with great spirit , courage and human
heartedness away from her own culture. But back in the middle of it,
she was amn egocentric baby lost in the periphery of her own culture.
She was provincial. Go back and read some Ibsen. Do you think things
have changed much? Well 180 degrees, now a lot of the things
Norwegians thought were terrible in the 19th century are di -rigeur
in this one. And whatever was worthwhile back then must real be awful.
That happens ion the establishment, and even more in the provinces
where there is no alternative.
Gabriel
-N.
<pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> Every problem in visual art from color to light to texture to form
> to design and everything else is represented in the human figure.
> It is absolutely the mother's milk of all visual art, regardless of
> what future aspirations the artist might have.
Again, you have overstated the case.
Every problem in the visual arts is not represented in the human
figure...one reason why the human figure has been jettisonned in much
westen art, as well as historically the art of many cultures.
That having been said, I have no quarrel with folks that wish to study the
figure, or wish to set up studies for the figure, more power to them. I am
anaware of the specifics in the school you mentioned in your post, but if
their approach reflected the absolutism of your above statement, I can see
why it might create opposition, as rightly it should.
-N.
--
N
To reach me, remove _xxx from my address.
peter nelson
>In article <794ktv$2k$1...@antiochus.ultra.net>, "peter nelson"
><pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>
>> Every problem in visual art from color to light to texture to form
>> to design and everything else is represented in the human figure.
>> It is absolutely the mother's milk of all visual art, regardless of
>> what future aspirations the artist might have.
>
>Again, you have overstated the case.
>Every problem in the visual arts is not represented in the human
>figure...
I may have overstated it slightly, but there is no other
subject which even APPROACHES the human figure
as a cornucopia of artistic challenges and issues. There
is nothing the Norwegian Academy could have possibly
replaced it with that would have provided such a good
foundation in artistic skills.
> one reason why the human figure has been jettisonned in much
>westen art, as well as historically the art of many cultures.
If your thesis that it was "jettisonned" because it failed to
be all things to all artists was true then it would have been
replaced by something better. (at the risk of sounding like
mdeli, I'm tempted to suggest that one reason many modern artists
eschew the figure is because it's too difficult and demanding
for them).
And actually "many" cultures have not historically rejected the
figure. A few, such as some Islamic societies, have done so as
a result of religious fanaticism or sexual hangups.
---peter
-N.
<pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> -N. wrote in message ...
> >In article <794ktv$2k$1...@antiochus.ultra.net>, "peter nelson"
> ><pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Every problem in visual art from color to light to texture to form
> >> to design and everything else is represented in the human figure.
> >> It is absolutely the mother's milk of all visual art, regardless of
> >> what future aspirations the artist might have.
> >
> >Again, you have overstated the case.
> >Every problem in the visual arts is not represented in the human
> >figure...
>
> I may have overstated it slightly, but there is no other
> subject which even APPROACHES the human figure
> as a cornucopia of artistic challenges and issues.
Again, you are retreating into hyperbolic statements about the human figure.
Must you make erroneous claims for you to value the enterprise you are
involved in? I wonder if a deep and abiding doubt as to the significance
of the human figure in art is the source of such over-compensation.
> There
> is nothing the Norwegian Academy could have possibly
> replaced it with that would have provided such a good
> foundation in artistic skills.
Again, I disagree. If you wish to make art concerning the human figure
than by all means do so, more power to you. However, it is but one
approach to art. The model of art education based upon a Beaux Arts
tradition, is but one option...by no means does it even pretend to be
comprehensive...indeed, the Beaux Arts tradition's hostility to the vast
sea of artistic practices, training, and ideology that exists beyond it is
if anything, proof positive to me of its insignificance, weak foundations,
and limited approach. YMMV.
> > one reason why the human figure has been jettisonned in much
> >westen art, as well as historically the art of many cultures.
>
> If your thesis that it was "jettisonned" because it failed to
> be all things to all artists was true then it would have been
> replaced by something better.
This does not follow.
One reason why human figuration has been bypassed often in this century,
is that the artistic challanges confronting the state of the art were not
to be found exclusively within the human figure.
(at the risk of sounding like
> mdeli,
God forbid you should resort to Mdeli for your arguements...he is an
ignorant demogogue (he has repeatedly and consistently proved this to
me...and he deliberately lies, mis-quotes, and mis-represents artists and
critics: when he is cornered and proven wrong he resorts to insults, which
is the crux of his program and about as sophisticated as it gets. His
opinions are of no merit. I no longer bother reading or responding to him,
its not worth my time)
> I'm tempted to suggest that one reason many modern artists
> eschew the figure is because it's too difficult and demanding
> for them).
Based upon what personal experience in other forms of art do you make this
claim? I suspect you are speaking entirely from speculation. Doing all art
well is difficult and demanding.
Again, I do not see the fit of your arguement, it does not follow. I
cannot imagine that art was anymore or less difficult in the last century,
yet artists made figurative art almost exclusively. Some still continue to
do so in this century. I cannot imagine that human artistic 'talent',
'ability', or 'potential' has so dramatically declined over time...so that
'no one can' make figurative art in this century [i.e., its too difficult
and demanding]. Please.
If it could be done one hundred years ago, it most assurendly can be done today.
The fact that many artists in this past century have committed themselves
to making art NOT based upon human figuration, attests to a shift in
artistic paradigm, the state-of-the-art, and a critical mass of vital
artistic interests, issues, and problems...that did not include the
figure, and could not be successfully approached and developed with the
figure...that is why artists had jettisonned the figure.
Additionally, one sees an enourmous amount of human figuration in art of
modernity. A great deal of it is in photography and film, mediums that in
many ways built upon and superceeded the acheivements in figurative
painting. Surely film is the contemporary medium for mimesis. Cinema and
non-figurative art are on the whole easily as difficult and demanding as
you beleive figurative painting to be. Much of the tradition (particularly
the Beaux Arts) of figure painting has simply been seen as superfluous the
critical artistic mass of modernity.
> And actually "many" cultures have not historically rejected the
> figure. A few, such as some Islamic societies, have done so as
> a result of religious fanaticism or sexual hangups.
You need look no farther than beloved Christiandom, with its own religious
fanatics. The Iconoclastic Controvery, for reasons different, than I was
suggesting in my post, went so far as to outlaw figurative art as graven
images. The Iconoclasts did not simply bypass or jettison figurative art,
they actively and vigorously destroyed figurative art.
[Your mentor, Mdeli, is a good example of (albeit ineffectual) reverse
iconoclasm].
You would be well served to study art history (in addition to Post Modern
thought as was advised in other posts). The Greek or Christian cross is a
good example of abstract form...independent of anything else
contemporaneously going on in the culture.
peter nelson
>> I'm tempted to suggest that one reason many modern artists
>> eschew the figure is because it's too difficult and demanding
>> for them).
>
>Based upon what personal experience in other forms of art do you make this
>claim?
Based on having seen the pathetic results of some teachers
of modern art in their efforts to render the figure when for some reason
they feel that they need to.
>Additionally, one sees an enourmous amount of human figuration in art of
>modernity. A great deal of it is in photography and film, mediums that in
>many ways built upon and superceeded the acheivements in figurative
>painting.
But photography and film do not require that students solve the
difficult problems of proportion, shading, rendering, etc. I'm also
a photographer. Photography introduces the element of
composition but the painter or draughtsman has to handle that
ALSO. It is a lot easier to learn to take a photograph of a person
than to draw one.
>Surely film is the contemporary medium for mimesis. Cinema and
>non-figurative art are on the whole easily as difficult and demanding as
>you beleive figurative painting to be.
I disagree. A badly rendered figure is obvious to the casual observer; a
badly done paint-splatter is a matter of opinion. Thus any poseur can
claim to be a great paint-splatter artist. But if someone draws or paints
the human figure badly it's obvious. So rendering the fgure also serves
as a poseur filter.
>> And actually "many" cultures have not historically rejected the
>> figure. A few, such as some Islamic societies, have done so as
>> a result of religious fanaticism or sexual hangups.
>
>You need look no farther than beloved Christiandom, with its own religious
>fanatics. The Iconoclastic Controvery, for reasons different, than I was
>suggesting in my post, went so far as to outlaw figurative art as graven
>images. The Iconoclasts did not simply bypass or jettison figurative art,
>they actively and vigorously destroyed figurative art.
But that still sipports my claim that other societies rejected the figure
for religious fanaticism or sexual hangups, not for any defensible reason.
>You would be well served to study art history (in addition to Post Modern
>thought as was advised in other posts). The Greek or Christian cross is a
>good example of abstract form...independent of anything else
>contemporaneously going on in the culture.
There art lots of abstract art forms; what's your point? The Greeks
still
did figurative art.
---peter
zi...@interport.net
I would like a list from "N" of the many cultures in which the human
figure has been jettisoned because there are pictorial or sculptural
problems not to be found in it which the artists in that culture want
follow. Here are a few you cannot use:
Islamic art - does not use the human figure because of specific
doctrinal objections
Orthodox Jewish art - has similar objections
We have no idea whether the Acheulians ever did any or not, we only
have some small [tiny even] fragments of what they did do, and we have
no ideas about their reasons, since nothing but a few artifacts
exists.
Various First Nations in Us and Canada had some styles which were
nonrepresentational, but the same groups had other formings which were
like the coexistence of rather abstract pots and Kachina's and
Kachiona dolls.
Where are those people who felt the limitations so strongly outside of
Western modernist abstraction?
Gabriel
On Tue, 02 Feb 1999 04:18:08 -0500, redi...@earthlink.net_xxx (-N.)
wrote:
>In article <794ktv$2k$1...@antiochus.ultra.net>, "peter nelson"
><pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>
>> Every problem in visual art from color to light to texture to form
>> to design and everything else is represented in the human figure.
>> It is absolutely the mother's milk of all visual art, regardless of
>> what future aspirations the artist might have.
>
>Again, you have overstated the case.
>Every problem in the visual arts is not represented in the human
>figure...one reason why the human figure has been jettisonned in much
>westen art, as well as historically the art of many cultures.
>
>That having been said, I have no quarrel with folks that wish to study the
>figure, or wish to set up studies for the figure, more power to them. I am
>anaware of the specifics in the school you mentioned in your post, but if
>their approach reflected the absolutism of your above statement, I can see
>why it might create opposition, as rightly it should.
>
-N.
<pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> -N. wrote in message ...
> >In article <796vmg$on9$1...@antiochus.ultra.net>, "peter nelson"
>
> >> I'm tempted to suggest that one reason many modern artists
> >> eschew the figure is because it's too difficult and demanding
> >> for them).
> >
> >Based upon what personal experience in other forms of art do you make this
> >claim?
>
> Based on having seen the pathetic results of some teachers
> of modern art in their efforts to render the figure when for some reason
> they feel that they need to.
You need to get out more.
You sound confused. Your words betray you. You use the term 'modern art'
(correct me if I am wrong) as synonymous with 'abstract art' and as
opposed to 'figurative' art.
> >Additionally, one sees an enourmous amount of human figuration in art of
> >modernity. A great deal of it is in photography and film, mediums that in
> >many ways built upon and superceeded the acheivements in figurative
> >painting.
>
> But photography and film do not require that students solve the
> difficult problems of proportion, shading, rendering, etc.
...lighting, proportion, and rendition are as much a part of film and
photography as they are to painting. Film and photography as well
introduce entirely other sets of problems.
> >Surely film is the contemporary medium for mimesis. Cinema and
> >non-figurative art are on the whole easily as difficult and demanding as
> >you beleive figurative painting to be.
> I disagree. A badly rendered figure is obvious to the casual observer; a
badly done paint-splatter is a matter of opinion.
'Badly rendered' is a matter of opinion. I have no quarrel with figurative
art. I have made much figurative art, and continue to make figurative art.
I imagine, however, that our standards of good and bad are quite
different.
Beleive me: drawing a foreshortened toe is not the ne plus ultra of
artistc accomplishment.
You are correct in stating that a badly done paint-splatter is a matter of
opinion.
> Thus any poseur can claim to be a great paint-splatter artist.
Anyone, poseur or not, can claim to be anything they wish. Anyone else is
free to hold other opinions.
> But if someone draws or paints
> the human figure badly it's obvious.
All this depends on ones values...and how you define 'badly'. [I assume
you are refering to Beaux Arts academic figurative art...which represents
only one set of measures and values for figurative art, by no means the
only or the best].
Beuax arts conventions of figuration are but one in a sea of approaches
and figurative conventions. Gothic and Byzantine style figuration would
be, by Beaux Arts type opinion, done badly. I often prefer the former to
the latter...personal opinion mind you. I suppose I am a poseur in your
limited world-view and artistic experience.
So rendering the figure (and in a certain manner) we see also serves as a
poseur filter.
> >> And actually "many" cultures have not historically rejected the
> >> figure. A few, such as some Islamic societies, have done so as
> >> a result of religious fanaticism or sexual hangups.
> >
> >You need look no farther than beloved Christiandom, with its own religious
> >fanatics. The Iconoclastic Controvery, for reasons different, than I was
> >suggesting in my post, went so far as to outlaw figurative art as graven
> >images. The Iconoclasts did not simply bypass or jettison figurative art,
> >they actively and vigorously destroyed figurative art.
>
> But that still sipports my claim that other societies rejected the figure
> for religious fanaticism or sexual hangups, not for any defensible reason.
I beg to differ. It would be true if along with your above assertion, you
claim that societies accepted the FIGURE for religious fanaticism or
sexual hangups, not for any defensible reason.
What is there to suggest that your own embrace of the fugure is not
attributable to your sexual hangups and/or religious fanaticism?
> >You would be well served to study art history (in addition to Post Modern
> >thought as was advised in other posts). The Greek or Christian cross is a
> >good example of abstract form...independent of anything else
> >contemporaneously going on in the culture.
Many tribes of American Indians have a very compelling abstract tradition.
I suppose according to you they were all poseurs.
> There art lots of abstract art forms; what's your point?
There's more than one way to skin a cat?
[Your book has only one way...it is subsequently rejected only by poseurs].
As a means of carrying content: the variety and abundance of Christian
crosses appear to carry a super-abundance of rich vital content for a
multitude of people...even when stripped down to bare bones geometry.
According to your premis, the cross is utilized, in a process whereby
humanity is eschewing the figure because it's too difficult and demanding
for them, not because of the incredible visual power of the abstact form
of the cross.
One would be hard pressed to find as convincing and powerful an
expression, so extensively adopted, and by so many cultures, as the cross,
in a peice of figurative art. Based on such an analysis, abstract imagery
would appear to be the privileged practice.
-N.
P.S. You have a lot to share with Mdeli: you should get together...and pose.
mdeli
<pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>I may have overstated it slightly, but there is no other
>subject which even APPROACHES the human figure
>as a cornucopia of artistic challenges and issues. There
>is nothing the Norwegian Academy could have possibly
>replaced it with that would have provided such a good
>foundation in artistic skills.
It isn't a foundation. You can see the result in the square miles of
horrible figure drawings turned out by millions of students who don't
know any drawing fundamentals.
Calculus can be said to be a foundation for physics. However, if you
call a course physics and it is attended by students who don't know
arithmetic, you aren't really teachin physics.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
Note: There was an address error in former messages
The above address is correct. Please try again.