commerical art vs. fine art
~Artist~
>
> i've been working in commercial art for the last few years (from print
> advertising to web design) and i've gotten more and more disgruntled with
> it. while i like the art aspects of it, i can't stand all of the b.s.
> involved. i'm about to get a mailroom job and save my creativity for myself
> and my spare time. by the time i'm done with work, i don't feel like trying
> to draw or paint or do anything just for the enjoyment of it. has anyone
> else gone through this? any thoughts?
>
> commercial artists are just so under-appreciated it seems. at least with
> fine art, it seems to get appreciated more, but rarely pays off. is there a
> trade-off?
>
You have to work your petudies off.
Simple as that.
That is exactly why the best artist is not the best artist. What artist
is really only a slect few really get it. That is why Nathan Olivera
doesn't call all you whipper snappers back. Simple as that, you all
don't get it, and never really will, unless you walk the path and
most of you are not strong enough orcomited enough for the title
artist.
Most of the time you are not working hard enough or thinking
hard enough.
I have tons of jobs art, art promotion, art sales, a career to intitally
support the habit and thank god after spending 20 years learning
the ropes I am getting a glimpse of success and the hard work it
takes and how it pays off. It is definately not for the light hearted
and I would not change a thing or trade a thing for it. But you all
better be ready to work you petudies off after you worked your
petudies off!!
My advice is work you brushes to the wood then ask and that is
after your day job.
Mattison
http://www.rhinodev.com/M
Kay Kane
>! wrote:
>>
>> i've been working in commercial art for the last few years (from print
>> advertising to web design) and i've gotten more and more disgruntled with
>> it. while i like the art aspects of it, i can't stand all of the b.s.
>> involved. i'm about to get a mailroom job and save my creativity for
myself
>> and my spare time. by the time i'm done with work, i don't feel like
trying
>> to draw or paint or do anything just for the enjoyment of it. has anyone
>> else gone through this? any thoughts?
>>
>> commercial artists are just so under-appreciated it seems. at least with
>> fine art, it seems to get appreciated more, but rarely pays off. is there
a
>> trade-off?
>>
>
>You have to work your petudies off.
>
>Simple as that.
Yes!
>That is exactly why the best artist is not the best artist. What artist
>is really only a slect few really get it. That is why Nathan Olivera
>doesn't call all you whipper snappers back. Simple as that, you all
>don't get it, and never really will, unless you walk the path and
>most of you are not strong enough orcomited enough for the title
>artist.
>Most of the time you are not working hard enough or thinking
>hard enough.
>I have tons of jobs art, art promotion, art sales, a career to intitally
>support the habit and thank god after spending 20 years learning
>the ropes I am getting a glimpse of success and the hard work it
>takes and how it pays off. It is definately not for the light hearted
>and I would not change a thing or trade a thing for it. But you all
>better be ready to work you petudies off after you worked your
>petudies off!!
>
>My advice is work you brushes to the wood then ask and that is
>after your day job.
>
>Mattison
>http://www.rhinodev.com/M
Yup... Mattison is telling the secret which is no secret but a lot of
artists just don't work, and work and keep working and if you aren't doing
the art you'd better be thinking about the art and if you have company over,
you should wish they would leave because they are keeping you from your art
and if you have to do laundry, get groceries, etc. keep resenting it as time
spent away from your art. The rest will come if the work, work, work comes
first.
Kay
To reach me remove 'rcd' from my e-mail address
Salmon, John
>
> ~Artist~ wrote in message <372937...@att.net>...
> >! wrote:
> >>
> >> i've been working in commercial art for the last few years (from print
> >> advertising to web design) and i've gotten more and more disgruntled with
> >> it. while i like the art aspects of it, i can't stand all of the b.s.
> >> involved. i'm about to get a mailroom job and save my creativity for
> myself
> >> and my spare time. by the time i'm done with work, i don't feel like
> trying
> >> to draw or paint or do anything just for the enjoyment of it. has anyone
> >> else gone through this? any thoughts?
> >>
> >> commercial artists are just so under-appreciated it seems. at least with
> >> fine art, it seems to get appreciated more, but rarely pays off. is there
> a
> >> trade-off?
> >>
> >
Hey! I'm not certain I agree with all this work work work stuff.
It seems to me that if you need to work so hard at something, then
your doing it all wrong.
In my opinion you should work smart not hard.
Salmon
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
"!" <jet...@see.sig> wrote:
(...)
> commercial artists are just so under-appreciated it seems. at least with
> fine art, it seems to get appreciated more, but rarely pays off. is there a
> trade-off?
Sounds like a case of "the grass is greener on the other side of the fence" to
me.
Many who make the trip to which you refer find they're still not appreciated
and they also make less money.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
April Showers
says...
>Yup... Mattison is telling the secret which is no secret but a lot of
>artists just don't work, and work and keep working and if you aren't doing
>the art you'd better be thinking about the art and if you have company over,
>you should wish they would leave because they are keeping you from your art
>and if you have to do laundry, get groceries, etc. keep resenting it as time
>spent away from your art. The rest will come if the work, work, work comes
>first.
>
>Kay
And don't think that with success you'll end up working
less. You only stay successful by meeting the demands
of the market should you be so lucky as to get in that
position. Ask any artist who has several galleries to
satisfy. 'Success can be its own reward' some wag once
said, but in the case of artists, it can be their ulcer too.
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
"!" <jet...@see.sig> wrote:
> burnin...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> <7gc8re$k6i$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >
> >Sounds like a case of "the grass is greener on the other side of the fence"
> to
> >me.
>
Of course, that doesn't mean that it might not turn out that way...
just be aware of the view from the other side :P
>
> >Many who make the trip to which you refer find they're still not
> appreciated
> >and they also make less money.
>
> true... however, a person would have to appreciate you an awful lot if they
> would be willing to plop down a couple grand for your work, wouldn't they?
Either that or someone conviced them that it was a 'good investment'.
Once you're over a couple of grand, it's mostly name recognition.
That's why A. Wyeth's Christina's World went for a song and dance.
Given his current recognition, the same painting would be a bit more :P
>
> this kinda stemmed from a discussion i was having with my husband.
> basically, he thinks that commercial artists are part of the service
> industry, so i don't have a lot of room to bitch if i get bent over.
Well, you can *always* bitch :P
I would point out to you that many artists started out doing illustrations
for hire. N.C. Wyeth and H. Pyle come to mind. I've been thinking of
stealing the original of N.C.'s Springhouse from the Deleware Museum....
maybe if I asked nice, they'd loan it to me.... :P
My point is that the primary difference between a "commercial" artist and a
"fine" artist is the former is paid in advance and more frequently.
> however, with fine art, you seem to get to call your own shots a bit more.
> (or am i totally off about this?)
Nope. You can do anything you wish... assuming you don't care if anyone
pays for it or not.
emat...@tomatoweb.com
"!" <jet...@see.sig> wrote:
> burnin...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> <7gc8re$k6i$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >
> >Sounds like a case of "the grass is greener on the other side of the fence"
> to
> >me.
>
> i was kinda wondering about that... that's why i asked. *grin*
>
> appreciated
> >and they also make less money.
>
> true... however, a person would have to appreciate you an awful lot if they
> would be willing to plop down a couple grand for your work, wouldn't they?
>
> basically, he thinks that commercial artists are part of the service
> industry, so i don't have a lot of room to bitch if i get bent over.
> (or am i totally off about this?)
>
>
I think I agree with your husband's analysis. My experienc4 as a 'commercial
artist' is just that, it is providing a service to clients, and often the
clients undermine the project with their own lack of experience and vision,
but since they are signing checks, it's important to keep them happy. This
places a special task on the work produced which you don't necessarily find
in producing 'fine art.' Personally, I justify this by convincing myself
that my objective is to satisfy all the requirements of a specific job, which
often includes factor far beyond the four corners of the face of the artwork
-- things like production costs, client satisfaction [which often means that
you have to help the client believe that they are art directors, whether true
of not]. So from that perspective it is challenging, and satisfaction can be
derived as such. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you can complete
a project that looks good in spite of being undermined by a client, it's a
considerable accomplishment.
But that's why we have terms like 'design' and terms like 'art.' They are
quite different animals. "Design' implies a much broader range of
considerations than does 'art' in the arena of what criteria is being
satisfied. What links the diverse activities such as industrial design,
nautical design, architectural design, experimental design, landscape design,
and all is the requrement that the designer take into account the broad
context of the project and produce a solution to a web of interlated
problems. Often the problem solutions cancel out one another, for example in
nautical design you can design a boat that is safer in the water by making
the "V" shape of hull steeper, creating reserve bouyancy (the more the hull
leans over, the more water it displaces) but in doing so you create a
'lively' hull which rocks in the water a lot and is likely to make the
sailors seasick which is a serious problem. In graphics arts, I once worked
for a company that had a world-class industrial designer create the logo, but
it was not printable. It was a yellow circle overprinted with a black circle
which left a black shape with a very narrow yellow band around it. The
problem is that the paper stretched a bit each time it went through a press,
and at the time no company could meet the tight alignment requirements (the
eye seems to be able to pick up a very slight errror in the alignment of a
circle within a circle.
Anyway, I'm just rambling because I think advertising design is very
different from fine art, even thought both have some common territory. I
think the problem of feeling that commercial art drains your creative energy
that you would apply to fine art can be solved intellectually, just by
convincing yourself that the two activites are distinct enough not to
interfere with one another. It's just a matter of focus. The real problem,
as I see it, is that eight hours a day on any job can zapp you to the degree
that going to the studio is difficult. But there's also a possibility that
you just don't like commercial art. I got to that point once -- but it was
back in the days of rubber cement and exacto knives. There was so much
tedium involved, measured against the impossible deadlines of the industry.
It was just too stressful, so I hopped out of advertising design and into the
printing industry itself, which I actually liked better. But now, computers
have changed all that.
Erik Mattila
Ariane
On Thu, 29 Apr 1999, ! wrote:
> i've been working in commercial art for the last few years (from print
> advertising to web design) and i've gotten more and more disgruntled with
> it. while i like the art aspects of it, i can't stand all of the b.s.
> involved. i'm about to get a mailroom job and save my creativity for myself
> and my spare time. by the time i'm done with work, i don't feel like trying
> to draw or paint or do anything just for the enjoyment of it. has anyone
> else gone through this? any thoughts?
Had a friend who used to play drums on a cruise ship. Liked it at first,
travel was fun, but said the music pretty much sucked......then it sucked
the creativity right out of him. He quit, works a day job, and plays in
an original gig now....Your story reminded me of him. So long as I can
afford to feed myself and pay rent, I prefer to create for myself (& do
various commission work) than to work for someone else regularly. But
Michaelangelo may have disagreed!
> commercial artists are just so under-appreciated it seems. at least with
> fine art, it seems to get appreciated more, but rarely pays off. is there a
> trade-off?
>
> - jetgirl
>
>
> e-mail: jetgirl @ saintlydesigns.com icq: 15958196
> aim: jetgirl031 http://www.saintlydesigns.com/jetgirl/
>
>
>
>
>
>
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com
>
> i guess what i'm wondering is... can there ever be any satisfaction in
> commercial art?
>
> - jetgirl
>
Sure, for those of us who love mere skill no art
Seriously, My decision was the same, keep a simple day job
(teaching comuter skills to engineers) in order to keep
my "artmaking" free from a preassure to sell.
The tradeoff is that I have less time and more money to spend
in art.
--
lauri....@nokia.com http://www.netti.fi/~laurleva/index.html
The fact that I abuse my office address, does not imply
that my employer agrees with, or is aware of my opinions expressed here
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com
Thanks Erik,
once again for a balanced study of the question.
I would like to use slightly different terms:
*Applied art*, is for me something that is used to
denote works, be they ads or illustrations or
tomb stones, that are made on commission and
for other purpose than art itself.
*Commercial art* is for me what most professional
artist do. Art for sale. With it own constrains.
The 'artistic freedom' is to find them by your self.
*Pure art* is made with primary concern on
artistic issues. No quality judgement here. I regard as pure
art the "sofa art" done in numerous evening classes
as well as van Gogh works his brother could not sell.
He made them anyway.
*Fine art* then, is applied, commercial or pure
art that is reckognized by the art establsihment.
I believe that many works of "fine art" are
terrible close to applied art because they are made
to contribute a specific exhibition and deadlines.
- lauri
mdeli
snip
>Anyway, I'm just rambling because I think advertising design is very
>different from fine art, even thought both have some common territory.
The commonality is abstraction. Most commercial design is far better
in all respects to the abstraction of Modern Academic Art.
I
>think the problem of feeling that commercial art drains your creative energy
>that you would apply to fine art can be solved intellectually, just by
>convincing yourself that the two activites are distinct enough not to
>interfere with one another.
Yes better do that if you can't draw.
> It's just a matter of focus. The real problem,
>as I see it, is that eight hours a day on any job can zapp you to the degree
>that going to the studio is difficult.
Especially if you don't know your craft..
> But there's also a possibility that
>you just don't like commercial art. I got to that point once -- but it was
>back in the days of rubber cement and exacto knives. There was so much
>tedium involved, measured against the impossible deadlines of the industry.
Which was as far as those who hadn't mastered the craft got in those
days.
>It was just too stressful, so I hopped out of advertising design and into the
>printing industry itself, which I actually liked better. But now, computers
>have changed all that.
>
>Erik Mattila
So what are you up to know?
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/
Peter Nelson
>i guess what i'm wondering is... can there ever be any
>satisfaction in commercial art?
Beethoven, DaVinci, and many, many others worked for
money. Why do you assume it wasn't satisfying? I
work for money as an engineer but I also love my job.
Why do you think there's some conflict between loving
what you do and getting paid for it?
---peter
Bryn_Ayers
Jetgirl writes:
> > commercial artists are just so under-appreciated it seems. at least with
> > fine art, it seems to get appreciated more, but rarely pays off. is there a
> > trade-off?
Commercial art is in some innate sense evil, categorically one
is trying to use a distractive attraction to get someone to want
something else.
In rare cases 'sex-sells-pop' does it mean anything.
> > - jetgirl
What you are refering to as 'fine art' roughly defines a group
that sells itself as that. 'intellectualism-sells-art'
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
"O senseless man, who cannot possibly make a worm and yet will make
Gods by the dozen!" -- Michel de Montaigne (1533-92).
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Louis Moreau Gottschalk
to its aesthetic merits. Whether it was inspired by money or by the Muse,
all we (the audience) need worry about is the quality of the work.
The only just criticism I can level against commercial art is that it
encourages the artist to abandon more subtle effects for the sake of
promoting a product. A lot of bad commercial art is flashy, gaudy, and vulgar
- which is perhaps the reason the whole field is sometimes tarred with that
brush. The limitations of the medium - short, snappy sound bites - has
perhaps been more of a limitation than a boon, also.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
emat...@tomatoweb.com
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com wrote:
>
>
> Thanks Erik,
> once again for a balanced study of the question.
>
> I would like to use slightly different terms:
>
> *Applied art*, is for me something that is used to
> denote works, be they ads or illustrations or
> tomb stones, that are made on commission and
> for other purpose than art itself.
>
> *Commercial art* is for me what most professional
> artist do. Art for sale. With it own constrains.
> The 'artistic freedom' is to find them by your self.
>
> *Pure art* is made with primary concern on
> artistic issues. No quality judgement here. I regard as pure
> art the "sofa art" done in numerous evening classes
> as well as van Gogh works his brother could not sell.
> He made them anyway.
>
> *Fine art* then, is applied, commercial or pure
> art that is reckognized by the art establsihment.
> I believe that many works of "fine art" are
> terrible close to applied art because they are made
> to contribute a specific exhibition and deadlines.
>
> - lauri
>
Yeah, I can go along with your terminology. How would movie making fit into
this? I would argue that cinema is a fine art-form (or can be), but it's a
production of a social unit rather than an individual. We can credit Kubrick
for making a great film, but do we also credit the grips, cameramen, makeup
artists, and so on, as co-artists? I'm thinking in an average film crew we
can find individuals fulfilling each of the categories you have devised.
Just a provocative thought.
Erik
emat...@tomatoweb.com
Bryn_Ayers <br...@wralaw.com> wrote:
>
>
> Jetgirl writes:
>
> > > commercial artists are just so under-appreciated it seems. at least with
> > > fine art, it seems to get appreciated more, but rarely pays off. is there a
> > > trade-off?
>
> Commercial art is in some innate sense evil, categorically one
> is trying to use a distractive attraction to get someone to want
> something else.
>
> In rare cases 'sex-sells-pop' does it mean anything.
>
Here's some of the evil things I have done recently.
1. A poster for a joint project between NASA and AISTEC (American Indian
Science & Technology Education Consortium).
2. A logo for an organization that works on cultural communication between
people in the Pacific.
3. A cover for a report on the Retail Industry in the Palm Springs area.
4. A web site for an individual who gold plates car parts.
5. A web site for the Public Interest Energy Research review panel (State of
Ca.)
6. A web site for a conference on Indian Gaming held in Reno.
7. A cover for a directory of resources in the SF Bay Area on industry and
education.
8. A web site for an organization that helps small businesses become more
efficient.
9. A cover for a directory of the Biotech industry in Ventura County, Ca.
10. Graphic design for a web site that helps new computer users make a good
choice in purchasing software.
11. A logo design for a Fellows program for a Science and Technology
organization.
Shall I go on? There are many more evil projects, past and pending. Of
course it is apparent on the face of it that each of the projects above that
I am "trying to use a distractive attraction to get someone to want something
else."
Erik Mattila, in concert with the Devil
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com
> just out of curiosity... when you _do_ get to spend more time on art, do you
> find it is more quality time since you aren't doing art all day?
>
> - jetgirl
It is not much, but only quality time. I can afford thinking a piece for
years, before working it out. I have just finished a relief, the first drafts
are from late fifties. I have time to sit in front of an almost finished
piece for a couple of weeks, looking if there is something I could do better.
- lauri
--
lauri....@nokia.com http://www.netti.fi/~laurleva/index.html
The fact that I abuse my office address, does not imply
that my employer agrees with, or is aware of my opinions expressed here
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
emat...@tomatoweb.com
Louis Moreau Gottschalk <gotts...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> The money behind and even the message of an art-work is not directly relevant
> to its aesthetic merits. Whether it was inspired by money or by the Muse,
> all we (the audience) need worry about is the quality of the work.
>
> The only just criticism I can level against commercial art is that it
> encourages the artist to abandon more subtle effects for the sake of
> promoting a product. A lot of bad commercial art is flashy, gaudy, and vulgar
> - which is perhaps the reason the whole field is sometimes tarred with that
> brush. The limitations of the medium - short, snappy sound bites - has
> perhaps been more of a limitation than a boon, also.
>
> Regards,
>
> Iian Neill.
>
Hi Iian, What you're describing as 'bad commercial art' is actually 'good
commercial art.' All the flashiness, gaudiness and vulgarity is time-tested
and proven to get the results intended, and consequently required. But
truthfully, I think there's some confusion about what a graphic designer
does. I seldom get asked to produce this kind of graphics, since I'm not
closely associated with that particular market. Most of my clients want to
project a sophisticated, even formal, image.
But that's the first task with a new client, to determine what kind of ideas
the client wants to project. It seems rather obtuse, but actually one is
working with very concrete visual ideas. So if you are hired to create
attention grabbing graphics for garlic flavored bubble-gum, I would think
that the gaudiness you are refering to is approppriate.
I would suggest that anyone who is interested should pick-up an issue of
Communication Arts or Graphos, or other trade journals. Here you will find
examples of advertising design that will knock any artist's socks off. Really
beautiful stuff that addresses a very sophisticated aesthetic.
I really think that the bulk of work that is handed over to an independent
designer is not the flashy stuff you're citing. Most of it is corporate
images, brochures, annual reports, newsletters, studies, reports -- and of
course the new web base market.
So what I advocate is to keep fine art and commercial art separated,
especially insofar as aesthetic judgement is concerned.
regards,
Erik
Lauri Levanto
As you must well know Erik,
the vords seldom denote to discrete patches on the map.
Language is not formal logic. Especially commercial and fine art
involves a lot of craftmanship.
Theater, cinema and symphony concerts are all examples of
collective artmaking. (It is partly this feel of unity,
that pulls artist into those genre.)
Much more interesting case is sculpture, where the artist often
works on wet clay. Crafsmen, moldmakes do cast it into plaster.
After that a stone masonry carves it out. Something like that
happened in the 17th century Dutch ateliers, too.
By the way, did I see a glimpse of pre-postmodern romantic
white male artist hero in your posting?
My .02 of provocation
- lauri
--
Disclaimer:
The fact that I abuse my office address does not imply
that my employer agrees with, or is aware of
my opinions expressed here.
Bryn_Ayers
emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
> In article <7gium2$rq3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> Bryn_Ayers <br...@wralaw.com> wrote:
> > Jetgirl writes:
> > > > commercial artists are just so under-appreciated it seems. at least with
> > > > fine art, it seems to get appreciated more, but rarely pays off. is
there a
> > > > trade-off?
> > Commercial art is in some innate sense evil, categorically one
> > is trying to use a distractive attraction to get someone to want
> > something else.
> > In rare cases 'sex-sells-pop' does it mean anything.
> Yes, the Designer's studio is indeed the Devil's workshop.
Would you deny as a Commercial artist that the net effect of
Commercialism has been somewhat negative... Government by fad and
rhetoric, body paranoia, Cool?
And to requalify what I meant 'postmodern advertising tactics
tend to be immoral'... Subconscience data (the Wall Street Journal
= Confidence), (Ice Mountain Water = Peak Experience),(VW = Freedom)
And by Wall Street liberals this is all treated as kind of cool...
Your response...
> Here's some of the evil things I have done recently.
Well we wan't to believe that we have transcended a dialectic but we
are still engaged in one so I will state that I realize that advertising
is a 'fact' and my dialectic response is to say that artists ought to
consider seriously,(as should investors) what the effect will be of
what they are supporting. Certain celebrities lend their names to
projects they support, -although their moral decisions are a consequence
of propaganda there is at least a good faith effort made...
Your production list is typically amoral... I noticed that you started
with things that might even be considered good***
> 1. A poster for a joint project between NASA and AISTEC (American Indian
> Science & Technology Education Consortium).
OK -Maybe good in a PC sense
> 2. A logo for an organization that works on cultural communication between
> people in the Pacific.
OK
> 3. A cover for a report on the Retail Industry in the Palm Springs area.
?
> 4. A web site for an individual who gold plates car parts.
Moral
> 5. A web site for the Public Interest Energy Research review panel (State of
> Ca.)
?
> 6. A web site for a conference on Indian Gaming held in Reno.
Gambling Addiction
> 7. A cover for a directory of resources in the SF Bay Area on industry and
> education.
Amphiboly
> 8. A web site for an organization that helps small businesses become more
> efficient.
Downsizing, open a factory in Mexico...low wages profitable pollution laws
> 9. A cover for a directory of the Biotech industry in Ventura County, Ca.
Read up on Genetic pollution...(ambigous)
> 10. Graphic design for a web site that helps new computer users make a good
> choice in purchasing software.
?
> 11. A logo design for a Fellows program for a Science and Technology
> organization.
?
> Shall I go on? There are many more evil projects, past and pending.
Well it appears that there are some questionable industries that have your
hand on them...
> Of
> course it is apparent on the face of it that each of the projects above that
> I am "trying to use a distractive attraction to get someone to want something
> else."
> Erik Mattila, in concert with the Devil
I will let you off the hook on the very very bad aspects of this... But
really you need to think about what you are promoting...
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
--
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
"O senseless man, who cannot possibly make a worm and yet will make
Gods by the dozen!" -- Michel de Montaigne (1533-92).
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
mdeli
Most all artwork past and present is commercial. Artzy fartzies like
to make believe that anything that isn't abstract or conforms to
minimal skill and technique, is commercial. Most hate money because so
little comes there way. This hatred instantly ceases if any win the
Modern Art Lottery.
Glenn Geist
>
>The commonality is abstraction. Most commercial design is far better
>in all respects to the abstraction of Modern Academic Art.
>
MANI!!! Wake up - Plato has left the academy - AbEx is over - it's
time to come out of the cave.
>
>Yes better do that if you can't draw.
>
>Especially if you don't know your craft..
>
>Which was as far as those who hadn't mastered the craft got in those
>days.
>
Craft, craft, craft and craft as you define it, which means the level
of your accomplishment, which means Norman Rockwell is better than
Picasso.
>
>Mani DeLi
>...no skill no art
Much skill, still no art
>
Glenn Geist
>The only just criticism I can level against commercial art is that it
>encourages the artist to abandon more subtle effects for the sake of
>promoting a product. A lot of bad commercial art is flashy, gaudy, and vulgar
>- which is perhaps the reason the whole field is sometimes tarred with that
>brush. The limitations of the medium - short, snappy sound bites - has
>perhaps been more of a limitation than a boon, also.
>
I wouldn't dispute it, but it's interesting to see how time puts a
patina on commercial art. In the last few years vintage commercial
art has become rather expensive, or "collectible" as they say. Perhaps
time removes the commercial intent - or blunts it sufficiently for us
to see something else in it.
In a way, the Sistine ceiling was commercail art - meant to sell a
religious myth - to produce guilt or awe or whatever it took to sell
the product - maybe you're in better company than you thought. <s>
I'm sure Mike would rather have been painting something else.
GLenn
Glenn Geist
>
>Well Erik, if you believe that there is a correlation between
>technology and violence as the postmodern writer Don DeLillo
>states...
And if you believe there's a correlation between the lack of
technology and ignorance, brutality, isolation, squalor, repression,
disease and violence as post-postmodern writer Glenn says. <BG>
>
Really, I just wanted to voice support for those working as commercial
artists. The devil has little to do with it - he's too busy going
after the Abstract Expressionists.
Glenn
cr...@my-dejanews.com
to do with the egoism of freshman year, when a small number of artists point
blankly rejected the materialism of the upwardly mobile mainstream in the
school in favor of the idea that they should adher to the prospect of
maintaining the status of Raphael their better drawings had earned them in
high school.
By sophomore year, usually, and certainly by junior, it was discovered that
the centralization of the cirriculum and the concerns of mom had jettisoned
the spark of genius whereby the hold-outs had lit the candle of distain.
Further, the flourishing phantasgms of color xerox and digital animation had
made the upperclassmen cocky enough to suggest that advanced technology was
the higher seat of intuition, and that mastering the equations for LISP was a
higher calling than comparing Itten and Di Vinci on the subject of color
opposition, or the fine considerations of brush and tint.
Lastly, it was discovered that the women who gave themselves over Easter to
the half-mad derelicts still cultured enough to live in a garage or an attic,
had by graduation reported the names of Picasso and Gris to their attorneys
and sworn utterances to their Don Pedros and Michael Chevy.
Commercial art carries on the mystique of romance like the journals for
feminism. The hint of betrayal, with ten years of reckoning, takes on the
perfumes of esoterica, while on the floors of fine art the stains of
turpentine are replaced by the stench of urine.
In the end, however, my freshman year opinion regarding the dialectic
remains unchanged. My belief is that poverty and the worst fine art is
morally higher than the precocious perfection of the Chaise Drawing Firm.
Commercial art is the seat of an oppressor made insouciant with the insolence
of innovative new self-hatreds for the primary concession to the nature of
reality that projects over the condomniums, secretaries and Visa balances to
fall upon the object of suspicion, a lazy middle aged man, sleeping on a cat,
on a couch that bears the great soil of sepia acrylic paint.
emat...@tomatoweb.com
wq...@victoria.tc.ca (Marilyn Welch) wrote:
> Well Erik, if you believe that there is a correlation between
> technology and violence as the postmodern writer Don DeLillo
> states...
>
> gold? the mining of gold is environmentally destructive
> cars? depleting the ozone
> biotech? genetically altering food, yech
> gambling: well that one is okay. It's human instinct to gamble
> and it brings money to reserves, I'm for it.
>
> But then, judge not.
> I once made a label for a chicken company, and I'm a vegetarian.
>
> M.
Well, if you want to play that game you have to do it comprehensively,
otherwise it's just hipocracy. For starters, we have a hemisphere of
immigrants dancing on the graves of Native People -- a phenomena brought
about by a keen cultural interest in violence and evil, not to mention greed.
But in order to make such a fact bearable, we have the doctrine of 'Manifest
Destiny.'
But really, the argument against commercial art is a high school argument at
best, carried on by those who are still primarily concened with figuring out
where everthing belongs, part of ego fomation. I mean, where can the
argument possibly end? Anyone who participates in an economy can be held
morally liable for that participation, to any degree. Since Canada has trade
relationships with the US, I will hold Canadians accountable for Korsevo.
Sounds rather foolish, doesn't it?
Erik Mattila
emat...@tomatoweb.com
Undoubtedly true. Didn't Voltaire say "Consistency is found in realms above"
or something like that.
Glenn Geist
>And to requalify what I meant 'postmodern advertising tactics
>tend to be immoral'... Subconscience data (the Wall Street Journal
>= Confidence), (Ice Mountain Water = Peak Experience),(VW = Freedom)
>And by Wall Street liberals this is all treated as kind of cool...
>
There's perhaps some subtle humor I'm missing here -
characteristically. Wall Street Liberal is an oxymoron, right?
Immoral - quite possibly; dishonest at least, but in that it serves
the great Mamon and exploits the gullible masses, it's not exactly
rooted in liberal viewpoints, right?
So it's an oxymoron - right? <s>
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
":Who threw potato salad at CCNY lecturers on Dadaism"
-Alan Ginsberg-
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Peter Nelson
! wrote in message <0f6X2.16249$1v....@ndnws01.ne.mediaone.net>...
>Peter Nelson wrote in message ...
>>
>>Beethoven, DaVinci, and many, many others worked for
>>money. Why do you assume it wasn't satisfying? I
>>work for money as an engineer but I also love my job.
>>
>>Why do you think there's some conflict between loving
>>what you do and getting paid for it?
>
>
for
>a living, it's a career not a job. i don't know many people who have made a
>career out of commercial art and the ones i know that are currently working
>in it can't wait to get out.
I attend several life studios where I'm one of the few
students or amateurs - the others are working artists.
Some are free-lancers, some work for corporations or
advertising agencies, etc, but they all seem to like it.
They all talk enthusiastically about their work and projects
while we draw and paint the model.
Maybe you just need to find a better set of clients/customers.
---peter
Peter Nelson
Bryn_Ayers wrote in message <7gium2$rq3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
>
>Jetgirl writes:
>
>> > commercial artists are just so under-appreciated it seems. at least
with
>> > fine art, it seems to get appreciated more, but rarely pays off. is
there a
>> > trade-off?
>
>Commercial art is in some innate sense evil, categorically one
>is trying to use a distractive attraction to get someone to want
>something else.
It doesn't have to be a distraction. In any case, what does the
motive of the customer have to do with the art? Bach's
Goldberg Variations were done as a soporific! Many of the
great paintings and sculptures of the classical period were
done to promote institutions. Some of the best art being
done today is commercial art.
---peter
Peter Nelson
>Would you deny as a Commercial artist that the net effect of
>Commercialism has been somewhat negative... Government by fad and
>rhetoric, body paranoia, Cool?
Your problem just seems to be with capitalism. But this has nothing
to do with art. Are you suggesting that Michelangelo's Pieta was
evil because it was promoting a corrupt and patriarchal Church?
What about DaVinci's Mona Lisa, which, like most commissioned art
of the day, was done for the wealthy?
You seem to be suggesting that we can declare art as "good" or
"bad" (or at least, "good" or "evil") based on who pays for it, and
what THEIR motives are.
---peter
emat...@tomatoweb.com
"!" <jet...@see.sig> wrote:
> emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote in message <7gjbuo$68j$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >Yeah, I can go along with your terminology. How would movie making fit
> into
> >this? I would argue that cinema is a fine art-form (or can be), but it's a
> >production of a social unit rather than an individual. We can credit
> Kubrick
> >for making a great film, but do we also credit the grips, cameramen, makeup
> >artists, and so on, as co-artists? I'm thinking in an average film crew we
> >can find individuals fulfilling each of the categories you have devised.
> >Just a provocative thought.
>
> better. heck, i think kevin smith did clerks all by himself and it was
> hilarious. big budgets and lots of special effects seem to be being
> substituting good content. (although, we rented pleasantville this weekend
> and it was wonderful, but it has been the only noteable exception lately.)
>
> - jetgirl
>
Yeah, "Clerks" was a great flick. A lot of the big-buck productions are 'the
same old story' replayed in different technological environments. But
artists like Gericault and Delacroix used to make big-screen paintings, then
rent a shop to display it, and charge admission to passer-bys to go in and
see it. Kind of like early cinema, in a way -- not to mention the carnival
side-show aspect.
Geof
Perhaps your focus has dominated your vision. I have come full circle.
I started out wanting to be a commercial artist and doing commercial art
more than thirty years ago(Can it be that long)? Gradually I shifted
into fine art, which I have done professionally for more than 27 years.
I could say that I am one of the fortunate few Artists who has made a
reasonably good living at my craft. Within the past five years I have
had several companies commission me to do designs for gift and other
items. In the past I preferred to think of myself as above that and
shunned anything remotely commercial. But I found myself falling into
the trap that I have seen so many other artists fall into. Using the
same medium, repetitive subject matter, same palette, same style and set
formulas. I decided to accept a few commercial commissions and have to
say that I enjoyed every often agonizing moment. They took me out of my
comfort zone and challenged me to work in different mediums, formats,
colors, and styles. Granted the money and royalties I earn will reward
me for my efforts - but I have learned to push my limits, restimulate my
creativity, view mine and other artist's work differently, and become a
better artist.
Do not approach your commercial art as drudgery, consider yourself
being paid to: learn negotiating skills, assemble a high quality
portfolio, develop good work habits, an opportunity to work in different
media, using different approaches to obtain a result, and best of all -
work full-time developing skills that most artists can only do
sporadically or when the mood takes them.
Easy. No. Neither fine nor commercial art is easy. They both have their
drawbacks. Anyone can walk into any art store and buy a tube of paint
and a brush call themselves an artist. These are the ones who join
groups and sit around gossiping about other artists, or entering into
inane discussions about what they believe to be art. I like to call
this the dope ring. They are the ones who put their work in cafes and
offices for free, because they don't have the pride, confidence or
knowledge about marketing their work. But trust me - good artists are
really few and far between and they have been tempered by hard work,
overcoming failures, and the strength of their belief in themselves.
They are doers not talkers. They are working diligently into the night
in a thousand studios across this nation - even as you read this.
Good luck Jetgirl. The world awaits your actions.
Geof
! wrote:
>
> Peter Nelson wrote in message ...
> >
> >Beethoven, DaVinci, and many, many others worked for
> >money. Why do you assume it wasn't satisfying? I
> >work for money as an engineer but I also love my job.
> >
> >Why do you think there's some conflict between loving
> >what you do and getting paid for it?
>
> it makes me think of that saying about how if someone likes what they do for
> a living, it's a career not a job. i don't know many people who have made a
> career out of commercial art and the ones i know that are currently working
> in it can't wait to get out. the one exception is someone who works for a
> big corporation - only one client to please, excellent pay and benefits,
> lots of room for advancement, etc.
>
> maybe i just need to find something that i love to do that i can also get
> paid for. *grin* right now, i liked sorting mail for minimum wage more than
> working in commercial art. *snicker*
>
> - jetgirl
>
> e-mail: jetgirl @ saintlydesigns.com icq: 15958196
> aim: jetgirl031 http://www.saintlydesigns.com/jetgirl/
emat...@tomatoweb.com
Glad to see you knock the discussion up to a higher level, Peter. That's
what I was thinking, i.e. "this critique is really about modern
industrialized society, not commercial art." The problem, as I see it, with
that kind of a critique is that is unclear where we draw the line. A simple
act like shopping for a pair of Levis can then be constured as evil, as by
such an act one supports the evil empire. Or better yet, what evil do we
condone by having (as the Chairman of Oracle said) a 'thousand dollars worth
of toxic junk' sitting on our desktops, by which me make these arguments?
What's really funny to me about this argument is that shopping has become
such a cultural pleasure. Am I alone in this? I love to go shopping, to buy
things. I'm not rich, not even 'middle class' for that matter (income) but
when eveything looks grim buying a new shirt cheers me up. I just can't see
anything particularly evil about such a thing.
Kay Kane
>Dear Jetgirl,
>Perhaps your focus has dominated your vision. I have come full circle.
>I started out wanting to be a commercial artist and doing commercial art
>more than thirty years ago(Can it be that long)? Gradually I shifted
>into fine art, which I have done professionally for more than 27 years.
>I could say that I am one of the fortunate few Artists who has made a
>reasonably good living at my craft.
Wonderful!
Within the past five years I have
>had several companies commission me to do designs for gift and other
>items. In the past I preferred to think of myself as above that and
>shunned anything remotely commercial. But I found myself falling into
>the trap that I have seen so many other artists fall into. Using the
>same medium, repetitive subject matter, same palette, same style and set
>formulas.
Yes... I notice that also. A lot of times I go to openings with friends
and we say "let's go see ____'s new paintings of floating heads and
carosels" etc. This is a real problem for so many artists; they get
comfortable with a certain type of art for which they receive *acceptance*
and are afraid to try anything new.
> I decided to accept a few commercial commissions and have to
>say that I enjoyed every often agonizing moment. They took me out of my
>comfort zone and challenged me to work in different mediums, formats,
>colors, and styles. Granted the money and royalties I earn will reward
>me for my efforts - but I have learned to push my limits, restimulate my
>creativity, view mine and other artist's work differently, and become a
>better artist.
Sounds good to me.
>Do not approach your commercial art as drudgery, consider yourself
>being paid to: learn negotiating skills, assemble a high quality
>portfolio, develop good work habits, an opportunity to work in different
>media, using different approaches to obtain a result, and best of all -
>work full-time developing skills that most artists can only do
>sporadically or when the mood takes them.
>Easy. No. Neither fine nor commercial art is easy. They both have their
>drawbacks. Anyone can walk into any art store and buy a tube of paint
>and a brush call themselves an artist.
You noticed that too?
>These are the ones who join
>groups and sit around gossiping about other artists, or entering into
>inane discussions about what they believe to be art. I like to call
>this the dope ring.
"inane discussions about what they believe to be art"???? Are you referring
to 'rec.arts.fine'? As a guilty party, I'm wondering if that's a shot!
>They are the ones who put their work in cafes and
>offices for free, because they don't have the pride, confidence or
>knowledge about marketing their work.
Not for me! (But a recent heated discussion here about that)
>But trust me - good artists are
>really few and far between and they have been tempered by hard work,
>overcoming failures, and the strength of their belief in themselves.
Yes!
>They are doers not talkers.
NO! You really need to know how to talk about your art. It is just as
important as marketing your art. Also, you need to be a talker to toss
around ideas & network.
>They are working diligently into the night
>in a thousand studios across this nation - even as you read this.
Yep! Typing this with paint smeared behind my ears (don't ask, I don't
know!)
>Good luck Jetgirl. The world awaits your actions.
>Geof
Good luck Jetgirl. Good post, Geof.
Kay
__
To reach me remove 'rcd' from my e-mail address
A.A. Raimes
writes
Sorry to <snip> you there Geof - I only ever snip when I either totally
agree with what has been said or when I know there is no point arguing -
in this case it was definitely the former.
>and a brush call themselves an artist. These are the ones who join
>groups and sit around gossiping about other artists, or entering into
>inane discussions about what they believe to be art. I like to call
>this the dope ring. They are the ones who put their work in cafes and
>offices for free, because they don't have the pride, confidence or
>knowledge about marketing their work.
I despise this sort of comment though, and it almost completely wiped
out the respect for what you previously wrote. I appreciate that you
have some a great deal of experience in your field of art. However, I
don't feel that the above statement has any grounds in its *entirety*
unless you are willing to provide evidence that could sway me.
Perhaps then you would like to start with me ? I do all of the above -
join groups to discuss art and thrive on the social exchange of ideas -
my art comes from thinking - thinking and then doing. I also show my
work in cafes and offices - but I do this because I am on the first rung
of my career and want exposure wherever possible. Having now done this
successfully for two years I intend to continue, as the profit from it
provides a good, steady income. I have also been approached by several
agents/galleries who *scout* for artists like myself. Originally I
trained as a Graphic Designer and have immense respect for that
profession - I was encouraged into Fine Art because of my socio-
political tendencies that did not make me a good candidate for joining
the world of commercial art, deadlines and working for other people. The
reason I show my work in offices and cafes, amongst other places, is
that *I* choose the venue; the cafes and offices treat me with great
respect and gratitude for showing there and enriching their space; and I
remain my own boss under no obligation to anyone at the same time
selling my work. I have great pride in what I do, an immense amount of
confidence and know exactly how to market in order to maintain my
integrity.
I am wondering what makes someone like you make a statement that
generalises and shows such an obvious lack of knowledge of what other
artists are doing ? One does not address a group of artists without
having firm conviction in what one is saying, so please, let's hear what
grounds you have for it in response to one of the people you chose to
demean.
Respectfully.
Alison A Raimes
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
9th - 23rd May 1999 @ Peterbourough Arthouse
26, Fitzwilliam Street. Peterborough
Tel: 01733 319581 (for gallery opening hours)
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com
emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote: Or better yet, what evil do we
> condone by having (as the Chairman of Oracle said) a 'thousand dollars worth
> of toxic junk' sitting on our desktops, by which me make these arguments?
Here in Finland we have a great debatt about nuclear power.
I happened to drive mad the greens, when I stated that anyone
*who speaks in TV* against nuclear power
has already used his/her share.
The fact that I abuse my office address, does not imply
that my employer agrees with, or is aware of my opinions expressed here
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
peter nelson
>What's really funny to me about this argument is that shopping has become
>such a cultural pleasure. Am I alone in this? I love to go shopping, to
buy
>things. I'm not rich, not even 'middle class' for that matter (income) but
>when eveything looks grim buying a new shirt cheers me up.
Remember the old Phyllis Diller joke? "My friend was feeling kind of blue
so I told her that whenever I'm down in the dumps I buy myself a new hat.
And she replied, 'So THAT's where you get those things!'"
My wife likes to shop. Personally I abhor it. Not for any ethical
reasons but just because I find it such a bother. I've got a million
projects - artistic, gardening, engineering, etc, as well as travel,
and sports activities and I never seem to find enough the time
for them. I'm one of those people who, if I were rich, would hire
someone to do all my shopping for me. My clothes are always
tattered and worn because I hate shopping for new ones. When
I do go shopping I find something that fits and buy 3 of 4 of
them so I don't have to go back soon.
The exceptions to the above are bookstores and art galleries.
I can hardly walk by one without stopping in. I have an art budget
but even when it is depleted I like to look around, so I guess that's
not really "shopping", it's more like being at a museum. And I
think books are very sensual - I like the feel and texture of them
and the act of reading them. I have quite a book collection at
home but to keep it from overwhelming me I get rid of a book every
time I buy a new one. The local libraries (and my Form 1040,
Schedule "A") are the beneficiaries of my book give-aways
to the tune of hundreds, or even thousands, of dollars.
---peter
mdeli
wrote:
>Craft, craft, craft and craft as you define it, which means the level
>of your accomplishment, which means Norman Rockwell is better than
>Picasso.
You're beginning to catch on.
>
>>Mani DeLi
>>...no skill no art
>
>Much skill, still no art
Glen, why not try saying something original.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
grg...@earthlink.net (Glenn Geist) wrote:
> hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>
> >
> >The commonality is abstraction. Most commercial design is far better
> >in all respects to the abstraction of Modern Academic Art.
> >
> MANI!!! Wake up - Plato has left the academy - AbEx is over - it's
> time to come out of the cave.
>
> >
> >Yes better do that if you can't draw.
> >
> >Especially if you don't know your craft..
> >
> >Which was as far as those who hadn't mastered the craft got in those
> >days.
> >
> of your accomplishment, which means Norman Rockwell is better than
> Picasso.
Yeah....?
What's your point?
Glenn Geist
>
>But really, the argument against commercial art is a high school argument at
>best, carried on by those who are still primarily concened with figuring out
>where everthing belongs, part of ego fomation.
>
Well put, but of course it is the Mani-fest destiny of this argument
to be lost on Mani.
Glenn
Glenn Geist
>If you try to sell it its commercial.
>
>Most all artwork past and present is commercial. Artzy fartzies like
>to make believe that anything that isn't abstract or conforms to
>minimal skill and technique, is commercial. Most hate money because so
>little comes there way. This hatred instantly ceases if any win the
>Modern Art Lottery.
>
>Mani DeLi
>...no skill no art
>
Now this has become utterly pathetic. I said it before, Rothko has
left the building. If your stuff doesn't sell it may be because it's
as jejeune as your arguments and as offensive as your personality.
I hate to keep bringing up Hitler, but the comparison is so compelling
- he argued the same damned thing about skill and the "academic"
establishment. He was also a very mediocre painter.
Think of a better pejoritive that artsy fartsy, please. It's almost
embarrassing to be conversing with such a peurile coprolalliac
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Should your babble silence men, and when you mock shall no one shame
you? -Zophar-
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\.
Glenn Geist
>Undoubtedly true. Didn't Voltaire say "Consistency is found in realms above"
>or something like that.
>
And since Emerson found it to be the hobgoblin of little minds,
perhaps the realms above are filled with little minds? Mani speaks to
us from realms above. QED
Glenn
Ariane
On Sat, 1 May 1999, ! wrote:
> Ariane wrote in message ...
> >
> >Had a friend who used to play drums on a cruise ship. Liked it at first,
> >travel was fun, but said the music pretty much sucked......then it sucked
> >the creativity right out of him. He quit, works a day job, and plays in
> >an original gig now....Your story reminded me of him. So long as I can
> >afford to feed myself and pay rent, I prefer to create for myself (& do
> >various commission work) than to work for someone else regularly. But
> >Michaelangelo may have disagreed!
>
>
> that's what i'm starting to think! maybe i'll get another job sorting mail.
> *grin*
>
> - jetgirl
=== I'm doing translation these days, p/t, to cover the essentials. I
just want more time to do my own stuff, whatever I decide to do, you know?
To me, that's part of being an artist, being as free as possible in
today's world.....it's hard to create and to push forward when you're
selling your days to someone else. It comes down to priorities I guess...
Anyway, so much for my confessional.....
a bientot, (`jetgirl': love the name!)
A.
Ariane
On Sun, 2 May 1999, ! wrote:
(...)
> just out of curiosity... when you _do_ get to spend more time on art, do you
> find it is more quality time since you aren't doing art all day?
>
> - jetgirl
=== Varies from day to day, week to week, mood to mood, but on the whole,
working as much as possible every day, should yield the best results
w/respect to making the most creative and finest quality art you possibly
can......my opinion of course.....
a bientot,
A.
Ariane
On Mon, 3 May 1999, Glenn Geist wrote:
> In a way, the Sistine ceiling was commercail art - meant to sell a
> religious myth - to produce guilt or awe or whatever it took to sell
> the product - maybe you're in better company than you thought. <s>
> I'm sure Mike would rather have been painting something else.
>
> GLenn
===.....In a big way. Raphael as well, sold his soul to the pontiff & Co.
for a few lira here and there. So to with the Dutch masters like Rubens
who's studio completed 17 large scale oils for France's Mary of Medici.
Commercial artists all.....etc. etc.
It's essentially the Independants, the Romantics, who have attained, &
created the status itself, of the ideally autonomous and free fine artist
who creates as she or he sees fit and then has an audience to sell
to.....Picasso was the most successful of the Independants, Van Gogh,
perhaps the least......anyway,
a la prochaine,
A.
Ariane
On Mon, 3 May 1999 emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
> Well, if you want to play that game you have to do it comprehensively,
> otherwise it's just hipocracy. For starters, we have a hemisphere of
> immigrants dancing on the graves of Native People -- a phenomena brought
> about by a keen cultural interest in violence and evil, not to mention greed.
> But in order to make such a fact bearable, we have the doctrine of 'Manifest
> Destiny.'
=== Well, then again, so do the Maya (implicitly), but we'll find out if
theirs was more on track than is our more current version on, I think,
Dec. 21st 2013.....or thereabouts.
(...)
> Erik Mattila
a bientot,
A.
Ariane
On Mon, 3 May 1999 emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
> Undoubtedly true. Didn't Voltaire say "Consistency is found in realms
> above" or something like that.
>
> Erik Mattila
=== Voltaire was hardly a romantic.....a rationalistic encyclopaedist
perhaps.....
a bientot,
A.
Marilyn
>
> In article <372d8...@news.victoria.tc.ca>,
> wq...@victoria.tc.ca (Marilyn Welch) wrote:
>
> > Well Erik, if you believe that there is a correlation between
> > technology and violence as the postmodern writer Don DeLillo
> > states...
> >
> > gold? the mining of gold is environmentally destructive
> > cars? depleting the ozone
> > biotech? genetically altering food, yech
> > gambling: well that one is okay. It's human instinct to gamble
> > and it brings money to reserves, I'm for it.
> >
> > But then, judge not.
> > I once made a label for a chicken company, and I'm a vegetarian.
> >
> > M.
>
> otherwise it's just hipocracy. For starters, we have a hemisphere of
> immigrants dancing on the graves of Native People -- a phenomena brought
> about by a keen cultural interest in violence and evil, not to mention greed.
> But in order to make such a fact bearable, we have the doctrine of 'Manifest
> Destiny.'
>
> best, carried on by those who are still primarily concened with figuring out
> argument possibly end? Anyone who participates in an economy can be held
> morally liable for that participation, to any degree. Since Canada has trade
> relationships with the US, I will hold Canadians accountable for Korsevo.
> Sounds rather foolish, doesn't it?
>
> Erik Mattila
>
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
You are right, we are all compromised and that's what I was
trying to convey.
Speaking of Canada's record in foreign affairs of late,
differentiate between the Canadian people and the Canadian
government.
I'm Irish, we didn't colonize any country, we were too busy
being colonized, starved, or killing each other.
M.
A.A. Raimes
, Ariane <da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> writes
>To me, that's part of being an artist, being as free as possible in
>today's world.....it's hard to create and to push forward when you're
>selling your days to someone else. It comes down to priorities I guess...
Amen to that !
But maybe Freedom is a word many don't understand these days ? Perhaps
we should start throwing in some Sartre and Camus to our family across
the Atlantic ? though how they would relate it to their heroine Ayn Rand
I have no idea.
Later too, A.
Ariane
=== It is a point worth considering, enslavement to a social code which
idealizes freedom, but doesn't live it. The inhabitants of Plato's cave
thought themselves free too didn't they? In any event, it is up to the
individual to find freedom for herself. Sartre & Camus are most
definitely appropriate.....But it is not a social/political/cultural issue
nor philosophical matter. Freedom is personal, no?
a la prochaine,
A.
Glenn Geist
>You're beginning to catch on.
I caught on to you immediately - it isn't hard. there's only one
track in your station, after all.
>
>
>why not try saying something original.
>
Why, to give you another excuse far an insult - think of one yourself
- you can handle it. Besides how can I be original when you contain
all knowledge? It would be presumptuous.
Say! Why don't *you* say something original?
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Quan shijie wuchanzhe lianhe qilai!
-Mao Zedong-
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Glenn Geist
>>
>Glen wrote:
>
>>And if you believe there's a correlation between the lack of
>>technology and ignorance, brutality, isolation, squalor, repression,
>>disease and violence as post-postmodern writer Glenn says. <BG>
>
>You are nice Glen but you ain't DeLillo.
>Guess you are thinking of 'good' technology like:
Are you serious? did you eat breakfast this morning? Did you plant
the cerial yourself with your fingers? Did you shower in hot water?
did you sleep out in the rain? did you send this message via satellite
microwave transmission, did you have to kill a bear with your bare
hands? <S>
How much technology is acceptible before it starts to turn "bad"
I think you mean technology put to bad use, which is a human problem,
a philosophical problem, not a tech problem..
>>Really, I just wanted to voice support for those working as commercial
>>artists. The devil has little to do with it - he's too busy going
>>after the Abstract Expressionists.
>
>
>Well, *he* gets bored with AE, and likes to encourage people to
>create images that will encourage people to buy, buy, buy,
>shop till you drop. More, more, more that's *his* slogan.
I'm afraid you are right.
>As I self-righteously pronounce through the tech.of this
>toxic junk on my desk.
>
Desks are bad technology - they should be forbidden - like jobs.
Workers unite! <s>
>
>>
Glenn
Marilyn
Breakfast:
Eggs from neighbourhood chickens
Homemade naan bread
(umm you got me on the coffee, blood in every cup.)
Also new potatoes & greens from the garden for lunch.
I didn't have time to go into the complex details of
exactly what I meant by technology, of course I meant
the diabolical technology. I didn't mean the technology
which made possible tiny little incubators for tiny
little innocent children.
And don't say it's how we use technology, because
plutonium (named after planet Pluto) is bad stuff,
whether we use it or not. And our Prime Minister
is offering to accept the nuclear waste of the US
and Russia to recycle the plutonium.
Easels are better than desks.
M.
emat...@tomatoweb.com
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com wrote:
> In article <7gm61u$iej$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote: Or better yet, what evil do we
> > condone by having (as the Chairman of Oracle said) a 'thousand dollars worth
> > of toxic junk' sitting on our desktops, by which me make these arguments?
>
> Here in Finland we have a great debatt about nuclear power.
> I happened to drive mad the greens, when I stated that anyone
> *who speaks in TV* against nuclear power
> has already used his/her share.
>
> - lauri
> --
> lauri....@nokia.com http://www.netti.fi/~laurleva/index.html
>
Ho, ho, ho. It's ironic that nuclear power would be an issue in the land of
the Sampo, eh?
--Erik
emat...@tomatoweb.com
Well, I gotta admitt that for me 'shopping' is primarily mail-order. I often
get turned-off in stores. I'm amazed at the 90% mark-up on something as
ephemeral as style. Yes, bookstores are wonderful.
But now I'm remembering an old 'early TV' Sci Fi play (was it "Hallmark Hall
of Fame???"). The setting was a future, but in this future the burden of the
lower class was mandatory shopping. If you were fortunate to raise above
your class, the higher up the social hierarchy you moved, the less shopping
the State required of you. The Blue Bloods didn't have to shop at all.
regards,
emat...@tomatoweb.com
> > otherwise it's just hipocracy. For starters, we have a hemisphere of
> > immigrants dancing on the graves of Native People -- a phenomena brought
> > about by a keen cultural interest in violence and evil, not to mention greed.
> > But in order to make such a fact bearable, we have the doctrine of 'Manifest
> > Destiny.'
>
> theirs was more on track than is our more current version on, I think,
> Dec. 21st 2013.....or thereabouts.
>
Provocative, yes. Now that Maya literacy has been discovered the picture
that unfolds is that of military conquest, subjegation and sacrifice. Yet we
can still see the civilization as a jewel. We only need to keep focused on
Mayan political economies, and understand that each individual was iniimately
coexisting is that construction. We can find other examples closer to home,
of course. The Iroqois 'Great Peace' says something on its face -- I mean
what's the sense of a word like "Peace" if it has no opposite. Without
unpeace, the term has no meaning. Jeez, "Mohawk" means "maneater."
My point is that in an argument as obtuse as the 'evil of commercial art' at
some point a reasonable account must include the big picture -- i.e.
individuals coexisting in a political economy. In that sense everything
anyone does in their daily lives relates to that big picture. Now fine art
is being held as an object that is somehow 'immune' from any culpability to
the negative aspects of modern industrial society. I think this idea stinks.
As an institution, the fine arts support the bulkworks of society. Who pays
14 million dollars for a painting? And why do they pay such a fee? How can
toxic chemicals embedded in a matrix elicit such value?
Erik Mattila
emat...@tomatoweb.com
grg...@earthlink.net (Glenn Geist) wrote:
> emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
> >
> >But really, the argument against commercial art is a high school argument at
> >best, carried on by those who are still primarily concened with figuring out
> >where everthing belongs, part of ego fomation.
> >
>
> to be lost on Mani.
>
Have you considered that you're riding a dead horse, Glenn? I mean, do you
remember that song: "I talk to the trees, but they don't listen to me." Or
the old political slogan: "In your heart, you know he's right."
Erik
emat...@tomatoweb.com
Ariane <da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 3 May 1999 emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
>
> > above" or something like that.
> >
> > Erik Mattila
>
> === Voltaire was hardly a romantic.....a rationalistic encyclopaedist
> perhaps.....
>
You must be really suffering from writing your thesis. I remember how that
goes. I wrote a paper once on a Roman Christian catacomb painting in one,
long 72 hour caffien driven stint.
But even so, who is claiming that Voltaire is a romantic? Certainly not me.
But the word "romantic" (Lauri's) and word 'Voltaire: (mine) did appear on
the same post. I submit that this objective fact does not produce "Voltaire
is a romantic."
At the end of the novel, we all end up minding our gardens.
Erik Mattila
Leigh Kimmel
grg...@earthlink.net (Glenn Geist) writes:
> I hate to keep bringing up Hitler, but the comparison is so compelling
> - he argued the same damned thing about skill and the "academic"
> establishment. He was also a very mediocre painter.
Trying to defeat an argument by pointing out someone bad who also held
that position is not good logic, and can actually make your own
position look worse. It fails to address the validity of the argument
itself.
--
Can't wait for "The Phantom Menace" to come out? Relive the wonder of
the
original movies.
http://members.tripod.com/~kimmel/bookstore/starwarstrilogy.html
Leigh Kimmel -- writer, artist and historian
kim...@globaleyes.net
http://members.tripod.com/~kimmel/lhkwebpage.html
Ask me how to order the new Sime~Gen novel!
Check out my bookstore http://members.tripod.com/~kimmel/bookstore/
Louis Moreau Gottschalk
> In a way, the Sistine ceiling was commercial art - meant to sell a
> religious myth - to produce guilt or awe or whatever it took to sell
> the product - maybe you're in better company than you thought. <s>
> I'm sure Mike would rather have been painting something else.
That's an interesting observation, Glenn. All art made by commission is,
perhaps, in some sense commercial - but who, though, would condemn the Sistine
ceiling on those grounds alone? Perhaps arguments of "sincerity" could be
bandied around, but that can be a very elusive quality to quantify - I am not
even sure it is possible to do so. One man's kitsch is another man's
masterpiece.
My personal view is that the artist can be as obsequious and flattering as he
wants, so long as the work doesn't suffer on aesthetic grounds. Sycophantic
paintings short in aesthetic merit tend not to survive the centuries, except
as historical curiosities.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
emat...@tomatoweb.com
Marilyn <m...@bc.ca> wrote:
> emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <372d8...@news.victoria.tc.ca>,
> > wq...@victoria.tc.ca (Marilyn Welch) wrote:
> >
> > > Well Erik, if you believe that there is a correlation between
> > > technology and violence as the postmodern writer Don DeLillo
> > > states...
> > >
> > > gold? the mining of gold is environmentally destructive
> > > cars? depleting the ozone
> > > biotech? genetically altering food, yech
> > > gambling: well that one is okay. It's human instinct to gamble
> > > and it brings money to reserves, I'm for it.
> > >
> > > But then, judge not.
> > > I once made a label for a chicken company, and I'm a vegetarian.
> > >
> > > M.
> >
> > otherwise it's just hipocracy. For starters, we have a hemisphere of
> > immigrants dancing on the graves of Native People -- a phenomena brought
> > about by a keen cultural interest in violence and evil, not to mention greed.
> > But in order to make such a fact bearable, we have the doctrine of 'Manifest
> > Destiny.'
> >
> > best, carried on by those who are still primarily concened with figuring out
> > argument possibly end? Anyone who participates in an economy can be held
> > morally liable for that participation, to any degree. Since Canada has trade
> > relationships with the US, I will hold Canadians accountable for Korsevo.
> > Sounds rather foolish, doesn't it?
> >
> > Erik Mattila
> >
> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
> trying to convey.
> Speaking of Canada's record in foreign affairs of late,
> differentiate between the Canadian people and the Canadian
> government.
>
> I'm Irish, we didn't colonize any country, we were too busy
> being colonized, starved, or killing each other.
>
Canadian) if you are caught with stolen goods you're held accountable and
prosecuted, even though you may have had nothing to do with the theft.
But look, I'm not trying to rub anyone's nose in guilt or anything. I'm just
making a point about the "Out Damned Spot" syndrome. You know, where do we
draw the line? The Americas, historically, can be described as ill-gotten
gains, but today even Native Americans watch TV's, drive cars, and benefit in
many ways from the fruits of industrial civilization -- and suffer with those
fruits along with everyone else. Ah, Brave New World. So it just goes back
to the absurdity, in my opinion, of the "commercial art is evil' idea. Well,
then, I guess everything is 'evil' and where does that get us?
Erik Mattila
emat...@tomatoweb.com
"A.A. Raimes" <ali...@address.in.signature> wrote:
> In article <Pine.OSF.4.10.990504...@alcor.concordia.ca>
>
> >To me, that's part of being an artist, being as free as possible in
> >today's world.....it's hard to create and to push forward when you're
> >selling your days to someone else. It comes down to priorities I guess...
>
> Amen to that !
>
> But maybe Freedom is a word many don't understand these days ? Perhaps
> we should start throwing in some Sartre and Camus to our family across
> the Atlantic ? though how they would relate it to their heroine Ayn Rand
> I have no idea.
>
> Later too, A.
ooooh! toooo cruel! I thot Margaret T. was A.R. in drag? Have I been
misinformed?
Erik
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
kim...@mail.globaleyes.net. (Leigh Kimmel) wrote:
> In article <372f1abd...@news.earthlink.net>
> grg...@earthlink.net (Glenn Geist) writes:
>
> > I hate to keep bringing up Hitler, but the comparison is so compelling
> > - he argued the same damned thing about skill and the "academic"
> > establishment. He was also a very mediocre painter.
>
> Trying to defeat an argument by pointing out someone bad who also held
> that position is not good logic, and can actually make your own
> position look worse. It fails to address the validity of the argument
> itself.
Quite true. However, given that most people who do this as often as
does Mr. Geist are unlikely to understand what it is you just said.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the
pig." :p
mari...@my-dejanews.com
heard of a giant Lite Brite panel ever made? I heard it was done a few years
ago showing a French Impressionist painting with the pegs. I'll appreciate
any information on it.
Write to ultra...@hotmail.com
Thanks
Marie
Marilyn
> > > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
> >
> > trying to convey.
> > Speaking of Canada's record in foreign affairs of late,
> > differentiate between the Canadian people and the Canadian
> > government.
> >
> > I'm Irish, we didn't colonize any country, we were too busy
> > being colonized, starved, or killing each other.
> >
> Nice try, Marilyn, but no dice. In a court of law (Roman, American, English,
> Canadian) if you are caught with stolen goods you're held accountable and
> prosecuted, even though you may have had nothing to do with the theft.
>
> But look, I'm not trying to rub anyone's nose in guilt or anything. I'm just
> making a point about the "Out Damned Spot" syndrome. You know, where do we
> draw the line? The Americas, historically, can be described as ill-gotten
> gains, but today even Native Americans watch TV's, drive cars, and benefit in
> many ways from the fruits of industrial civilization -- and suffer with those
> fruits along with everyone else. Ah, Brave New World. So it just goes back
> to the absurdity, in my opinion, of the "commercial art is evil' idea. Well,
> then, I guess everything is 'evil' and where does that get us?
>
> Erik Mattila
>
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
I repeat, we are all compromised in the present decadence.
There was irony in my first post, in response to your
list of contracts which put you up as a target. I wasn't even
going for the jugular, just by being self-righteous
trying to convey that you were being so.
Marilyn
Ariane
On Wed, 5 May 1999 emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
> Provocative, yes. Now that Maya literacy has been discovered the
> picture that unfolds is that of military conquest, subjegation and
> sacrifice. Yet we can still see the civilization as a jewel. We only
> need to keep focused on Mayan political economies, and understand that
> each individual was iniimately coexisting is that construction. We
> can find other examples closer to home, of course. The Iroqois 'Great
> Peace' says something on its face -- I mean what's the sense of a word
> like "Peace" if it has no opposite. Without unpeace, the term has no
> meaning. Jeez, "Mohawk" means "maneater."
=== I've always wondered, is this picture of the Maya, Iroquois, etc. a
reflection of Western historical praxis moreso than an adequate or
accurate reading of the societies in question. I mean, we know all
about the human sacrifices in pre-conquest Tenochtitlan, and quite a
bit about politico-military life, but really, we know little to nothing
about their Tlachtli games, how they partied (pulque-fests?), or anything
about any other sphere of human interaction.....
We call everything that is neither political nor military "religious".
Don't you find anthropology/history a bit self-serving, and therefore
pointless with respect to what they purport to be doing in this respect?
> My point is that in an argument as obtuse as the 'evil of commercial art' at
> some point a reasonable account must include the big picture -- i.e.
> individuals coexisting in a political economy.
=== Well, to proclaim commercial art as `evil' is a wee bit extreme. I
think it comes down to personal priorities. If I want to sell my time to
someone else, great. Most people have to do this to live. Then, you have
to decide how much time you want to sell. 40 hrs. a week. 20 hrs. 10,
etc. If you only want to sell a bit, then you have to make do with less
money. For some, this is worth the autonomy. For others, they'll take
the money. It's all about personal choices....
> In that sense everything
> anyone does in their daily lives relates to that big picture.
=== Yes, but at the same time, political economy itself can be reduced to
a host of other factors, historical exigency, key personalities, natural
occurrences, war, famine, pestilence, drought, and further, not everything
in human life is ultimately reducible to political economy without
severely distorting the complexity of human life, or, without pushing
some kind of Euro-American lifestyle agenda as an `objective' explanatory
framework. We've discovered the `other' in the existential dialectic
which dominated the 1st half of this century. This compliments but
doesn't necessarily diminish the autonomy of the self.....Unless of course
one chooses to do this in one's own life....
> Now fine art
> is being held as an object that is somehow 'immune' from any culpability to
> the negative aspects of modern industrial society. I think this idea stinks.
=== That's fine, But the `idea' is here, represented in its extreme form.
Basically, for many, fine art is a refuge from what some consider to be a
rat-race world over-run by conformist lemmings. For others, it is an
oasis in which to refresh one's self after playing rat-race politics all
day long. The socially constructed institutions and interactions which
support `fine art' do not exhaust the concept of fine art in my opinion.
Just like a political-economic analysis of social phenomena does not give
an exhaustive account of the reality of the phenomena themselves.
I'm of the opinion that fine art is immersed in our society but
nonetheless retains its own distinctive character, irreducible to causal
logics, and that this character lives only in individuals, with all their
complexity, who engage in what they take to be fine art. It is a
dialectical process which is therefore irreducible.....in my opinion of
course.
> As an institution, the fine arts support the bulkworks of society. Who pays
> 14 million dollars for a painting? And why do they pay such a fee? How can
> toxic chemicals embedded in a matrix elicit such value?
=== As an istitution yes. But people paint anyway, irrespective of the
institutions of fine art. They might choose to engage these institutions
at some point (art school, selling work) and then, they might choose to
disengage at another point (buy a VW van, travel Europe, and paint for
one's pleasure). Fine art is both a social institution, a conglomerate of
institutions, and yet, is more than this too. But I suspect that you know
this already.
a bientot,
A.
Ariane
On Wed, 5 May 1999 emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
> > On Mon, 3 May 1999 emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
> >
> > > Undoubtedly true. Didn't Voltaire say "Consistency is found in realms
> > > above" or something like that.
> > >
> > > Erik Mattila
> >
> > === Voltaire was hardly a romantic.....a rationalistic encyclopaedist
> > perhaps.....
> >
>
> You must be really suffering from writing your thesis. I remember how
> that goes. I wrote a paper once on a Roman Christian catacomb painting
> in one, long 72 hour caffien driven stint.
=== Nice. I did a 25 page distillation of over 50 articles on world
archaeology in one long week-end last year.....Wolpoff, Stringer, Eve
hypothesis, DNA, Neandertals, morphology, blah, blah, blah.....handed it
in and slept for 24 hrs straight.
> But even so, who is claiming that Voltaire is a romantic? Certainly
> not me. But the word "romantic" (Lauri's) and word 'Voltaire: (mine)
> did appear on the same post. I submit that this objective fact does
> not produce "Voltaire is a romantic."
=== Ok, ok, he called you a romantic, and you quoted Voltaire. Sheeesh,
sorry for assuming there was a connection.....
> At the end of the novel, we all end up minding our gardens.
=== In the garden at Place de la Republique in Paris, there's a cool bust
of Voltaire.....
ciao,
A.
Glenn Geist
>Yeah....?
>
>What's your point?
>
>
My point is that it's time to change the subject. His one and only
opinion/obsession has been repeated ad nauseam in every possible way -
we all know what he likes and dosen't like. If you care or don't
care, it's up to you, but this isn't alt.mani.soapbox and he's
treating this group like he owns it. He who has a website, let him
use it.
Glenn Geist
>Have you considered that you're riding a dead horse, Glenn? I mean, do you
>remember that song: "I talk to the trees, but they don't listen to me." Or
>the old political slogan: "In your heart, you know he's right."
>
>Erik
>
Dead horse? Is that what smells here? Yes I remember the Barry
Goldwater campaign strategy and other Republican rhetoric of the time
- all designed to make the complex seem simple and the authoritarian
seem reasonable - argumentum ad populum?
Glenn Geist
>Glenn:
>
>Breakfast:
>Eggs from neighbourhood chickens
>Homemade naan bread
>(umm you got me on the coffee, blood in every cup.)
>
>Also new potatoes & greens from the garden for lunch.
>
Gardening is technology, baking is technology as is the raising of
chickens. Having a house to have breakfast is technology, not having
wild animals to fight you for that breafast is technology, as are the
impliments you eat it with and the plates you eat it from and the
table you set it upon and the dentistry that allows you to keep your
teeth past the age of 21 and the medical technology that allows most
of us to live past the age of 30. Without technology potatoes would
have remained in Peru, the chickens in southeast Asia and the wheat in
Europe. you would have had to catch breakfast with your bare hands or
uproot it with your fingernails and eat it cold in the rain and mud.
You would have had to learn to do this by observation, not by reading
about it.
The problem with the argument is that even to make it requires a
dazzling array of technology - to have survived long enough to learn
to write it has taken enormous technology that took maybe a million
years to develop. We are unable to survive without technology - and
we, as a species are defined by our ability to invent and use it. I
would rather put my faith in the ability to control it than the
fantasy of trying to live naked in the mud.
What it seems you are really arguing is for a level of technology
reminiscent of an era that seems peaceful because we don't have to
live in it. There was more of a threat to your health and safety at
nearly every time in the past than there is today.
That said, when is that breakfast served? <s>
Glenn Geist
>
>Provocative, yes. Now that Maya literacy has been discovered the picture
>that unfolds is that of military conquest, subjegation and sacrifice. Yet we
>can still see the civilization as a jewel. We only need to keep focused on
>Mayan political economies, and understand that each individual was iniimately
>coexisting is that construction. We can find other examples closer to home,
>of course. The Iroqois 'Great Peace' says something on its face -- I mean
>what's the sense of a word like "Peace" if it has no opposite. Without
>unpeace, the term has no meaning. Jeez, "Mohawk" means "maneater."
>
And Maya technology was insufficient, perhaps to prevent the ravages
of disease.
>My point is that in an argument as obtuse as the 'evil of commercial art' at
>some point a reasonable account must include the big picture -- i.e.
>individuals coexisting in a political economy. In that sense everything
>anyone does in their daily lives relates to that big picture. Now fine art
>is being held as an object that is somehow 'immune' from any culpability to
>the negative aspects of modern industrial society. I think this idea stinks.
Interesting concept - how often do you find fine art supporting the
negative aspects of modern industrail society?
> As an institution, the fine arts support the bulkworks of society. Who pays
>14 million dollars for a painting? And why do they pay such a fee? How can
>toxic chemicals embedded in a matrix elicit such value?
>
Japanese banks, or at least they recently did, and often to hide
illegal transfers of funds between corporations - or Australians with
borrowed money who wind up bankrupt because of it. But without the
rich, indeed who would make art that expensive. Art has no intrinsic
value, nor does the printed word.
Yet the rich will always be with us, no?
Glenn Geist
>> Trying to defeat an argument by pointing out someone bad who also held
>> that position is not good logic, and can actually make your own
>> position look worse. It fails to address the validity of the argument
>> itself.
>
That assumes one is trying to defeat an argument rather than to
explain the prevalence of comparisons to tyrants - which is what I was
doing
>Quite true. However, given that most people who do this as often as
>does Mr. Geist are unlikely to understand what it is you just said.
>
It's very easy to say someone is unlikely to understand - it proves
nothing but arrogance.
>"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the
>pig." :p
>
Easier yet to call someone who refuses to acknowledge self-appointed
authority a pig.
Have any point been made here? or have insults been resorted to?
Glenn Geist
>So it just goes back
>to the absurdity, in my opinion, of the "commercial art is evil' idea. Well,
>then, I guess everything is 'evil' and where does that get us?
>
Original sin? <VBG>
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
Glen, on the odd chance that you are capable of rationally looking at
your own actions, everything of which you accuse mani you do yourself.
Marilyn
Glenn,
your definition of technology is very broad indeed.
Couldn't you limit it historicaly to the time when
the actual word: "technology" came into use?
There was never more *universal threat* to human life
and animal life than there is now.
In spite of that, I'm going to have a lovely
breakfast, and I'm going to live in
unassailable time, the present moment.
regards,
Marilyn
Glenn Geist
>Glen, on the odd chance that you are capable of rationally looking at
>your own actions, everything of which you accuse mani you do yourself.
>
This is a very interesting thesis. That must be what the Emperor of
Japan said when we sank his fleet. It quite seems to me that this is
the very backbone of what the masked man has been doing - and to
others long before I posted here. The technique isn't novel, but his
use of it is extreme. On the odd chance that you actually believe
what you say, I'll elaborate:
Mani, or whatever his name is acts in an agressive fashion and then
with mock calm, accuses the transgressed against of agression. That's
the way I see it. He isn't unique and the comparisons with political
tyrants are constantly made because we all remember how Poland invaded
Germany, Hungary invaded the Soviet Union, etc.
Issuing proclamations about the absolute nature of his personal taste
and mocking those who question it, is precisely the behaviour Mr Mani
both indulges in and accuses his sceptics of doing. If making
artistic judgements is "artzy Fartzy" ( I cringe at the childishness
of his terminology) then why is it not so when he does it? He flings
mud and mocks me for muddiness.
Show me where I have proclaimed my tastes as dogma and tell me he has
not appointed himself as the authority, the grand inquisitor and the
scourge of heretics? When have I called someone a schmuck for liking
a kind of art I don't appreciate? - when have I called anyone a
pompous ass for even daring to say he understands something? When
have I called someone scatalogical names for sayingthat he actually
had the right to a humble opinion? It's "Artspeak" when he doesn't
like it, Babble when it contradicts him and I'm a pompous ass because
I question him. Tell me more about how offensive I am.
He has gone out of his way to impugn the intelligence of several
people I know personally - I wish you could realize how near that is
to calling Michael Jordan an uncoordinated midget or Stephen Hawking a
dillitant and scientific poseur. That he never allows for the
possibility of his own limitations was enough in itself to account
for my disgust with his naked defenses and his naked emperors.
His blowhard buffoonery was secondary.
If you do not see him as transcendentally pompous and arbitrarily
authoritarian, vulgar, self-contradictory and mean, then it is your
priveledge. If you think I am illiterate and stupid and unworthy to
have an opinion about artistic matters, it is your priveledge, and I
will allow that perhaps you really are sincere, but it most surely
sounds like rhetorical hooliganism to me - like an attempt to take
over a forum by bullying, the way the you-know-whos took over the
Munich beer halls. ( and then claimed to have been the victims)
Forgive me if I have wounded any fragile egos here, but that's how I
see it.
Glenn ( my actual name) Geist
No humility, no humanity
Glenn Geist
>
>Glenn,
>your definition of technology is very broad indeed.
>Couldn't you limit it historicaly to the time when
>the actual word: "technology" came into use?
>There was never more *universal threat* to human life
>and animal life than there is now.
>
>In spite of that, I'm going to have a lovely
>breakfast, and I'm going to live in
>unassailable time, the present moment.
>
>regards,
>
>Marilyn
The moment indeed - a healthy attitude. I don't agree though that the
peril is greater now than during the great plagues. Humans have no
way to survive without technology.
I'm being coy on purpose as you know, but I'm aware that
irresponsible use of technology is dangerous. I'm also aware that you
can't regain innocence.
I share the allure of the low tech life, but these days even that
rests on a foundation of high tech. I would prefer that we
concentrate more on reducing wasteful and greedy use of technology -
and reducing hostile dogmas and zealotry that make us loath to reduce
our military technology.
In a way I do share the dream, but I don't want to give up all the
perks - like penicillin and this machine that allows me to talk to
people with dreams .
Glenn
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
grg...@earthlink.net (Glenn Geist) wrote:
> burnin...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >Glen, on the odd chance that you are capable of rationally looking at
> >your own actions, everything of which you accuse mani you do yourself.
> >
>
> This is a very interesting thesis. That must be what the Emperor of
> Japan said when we sank his fleet.
That you whine about mani's actions and have no credibility...?
> It quite seems to me that this is
> the very backbone of what the masked man has been doing - and to
> others long before I posted here. The technique isn't novel, but his
> use of it is extreme. On the odd chance that you actually believe
> what you say, I'll elaborate:
(Another in a long line of mani diatribes from Mr. Geist deleted unread).
I guess this means that you can't look at your own actions objectively...
not that I expected anything different.
j_you...@hotmail.com
the Whitney Museum of American Art's unique place in the American art museum
world. The Whitney on Prozac - A once outrageous art museum gets way too
mellow. http://www.slate.com/Browser/99-05-01/Browser.asp "Each of New York's
big art museums has its own, distinct personality. The Guggenheim is a noisy
extrovert that craves attention. The Met is deep, mysterious, and aloof--it
takes years to really get to know it. MoMA is a bit vain, justifiably so. The
oddball of the group is the Whitney Museum of American Art, which suffers from
an institutional version of bipolar disorder. One day it shouts obscenities in
your face. The next it's calm nearly to the point of affectlessness."
emat...@tomatoweb.com
grg...@earthlink.net (Glenn Geist) wrote:
> emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
> >My point is that in an argument as obtuse as the 'evil of commercial art' at
> >some point a reasonable account must include the big picture -- i.e.
> >individuals coexisting in a political economy. In that sense everything
> >anyone does in their daily lives relates to that big picture. Now fine art
> >is being held as an object that is somehow 'immune' from any culpability to
> >the negative aspects of modern industrial society. I think this idea stinks.
>
> Interesting concept - how often do you find fine art supporting the
> negative aspects of modern industrail society?
I'm thinking of of George Shultz statement, when he was still chairman of
Bechtel. It went something like "What business need is an island somewhere
so it can conduct its affairs free of government regulation." It amazes me
that "fine art" can be moved throuout the workd duty free, but the side
effect is supportive of the arts. Art trafficing begins to resemble the
'offshore' bank, it seems. It may be an important part of the global economy
-- what do we proles know?
>
> > As an institution, the fine arts support the bulkworks of society. Who pays
> >14 million dollars for a painting? And why do they pay such a fee? How can
> >toxic chemicals embedded in a matrix elicit such value?
> >
> Japanese banks, or at least they recently did, and often to hide
> illegal transfers of funds between corporations - or Australians with
> borrowed money who wind up bankrupt because of it. But without the
> rich, indeed who would make art that expensive. Art has no intrinsic
> value, nor does the printed word.
>
> Yet the rich will always be with us, no?
> >
So this is my point. I suppose what's arguable is the question of how
important this is to the global economy.
So when Maurice Bishop announced that he would nationalize Granada's banks,
Reagan took action, under the pretext of a Cuban airfield. Hmmmm.
Erik Mattila
John Haber
>we should start throwing in some Sartre and Camus to our family across
>the Atlantic ? though how they would relate it to their heroine Ayn Rand
>I have no idea.
Easy. One is free never to make it through those endless, tacky,
ponderous novels. A truly great person, the kind who will alter the
world with the exercise of mindless power, must do so.
John
John Haber
>commission is, perhaps, in some sense commercial - but who,
>though, would condemn the Sistine ceiling on those grounds
>alone? Perhaps arguments of "sincerity" could be bandied
>around, but that can be a very elusive quality to quantify - I
>am not even sure it is possible to do so. One man's kitsch is
>another man's masterpiece.
>My personal view is that the artist can be as obsequious and
>flattering as he wants, so long as the work doesn't suffer on
>aesthetic grounds. Sycophantic paintings short in aesthetic
>merit tend not to survive the centuries, except as historical
>curiosities.
"Sincerity," "expression," authenticity" -- these are all words loaded
with things that, so many pomo critics and artists have felt, don't
measure up, not when we see ourselves through the constraints of
others.
At what point do we give up our art? I don't have an answer. But I
can see so many tough cases that make one want to ask. We all know
people, even ourselves, who don't just do their art for others but
feel they've abandoned it -- designers who took jobs as pattern
makers, writers who became editors :) -- simultaneously feel that they
still throw themselves into the work in a way that's valuable to
themselves and others, and simultaneously too feel deadended by it and
know the deadening their work will inflict on others.
No wonder that so much "fine art" is not about escaping constraints
but reflecting on them actively as part of the work's content. That
was really, I think, Greenberg's argument in the famous kitsch essay
and the seque from there to his formalism, and it's eerily similar
after all to much pomo theory that rejects him. What's that mean to
me as someone looking for art and for answers? I wish I knew. Ah, I
wish I knew.
John
mdeli
>Mani, or whatever his name is acts in an agressive fashion and then
>with mock calm, accuses the transgressed against of agression. That's
>the way I see it. He isn't unique and the comparisons with political
>tyrants are constantly made because we all remember how Poland invaded
>Germany, Hungary invaded the Soviet Union, etc.
Lets hope you get into Genghis Khan next.
>Issuing proclamations about the absolute nature of his personal taste
>and mocking those who question it, is precisely the behaviour Mr Mani
>both indulges in and accuses his sceptics of doing. If making
>artistic judgements is "artzy Fartzy" ( I cringe at the childishness
>of his terminology) then why is it not so when he does it? He flings
>mud and mocks me for muddiness.
>
>Show me where I have proclaimed my tastes as dogma and tell me he has
>not appointed himself as the authority, the grand inquisitor and the
>scourge of heretics?
Perhaps you should start an "UnModern Art Activities Committee,"
> When have I called someone a schmuck for liking
>a kind of art I don't appreciate? - when have I called anyone a
>pompous ass for even daring to say he understands something? When
>have I called someone scatalogical names for sayingthat he actually
>had the right to a humble opinion? It's "Artspeak" when he doesn't
>like it, Babble when it contradicts him and I'm a pompous ass because
>I question him. Tell me more about how offensive I am.
You started calling me names and I answered in kind. If you would calm
down and address the issues here and take my opinions with the same
modicum of humor as I take your's, your blood pressure might go down
and you might even find that we are in agreement over some points.
>
>He has gone out of his way to impugn the intelligence of several
>people I know personally -
WHo?
> If you think I am illiterate and stupid and unworthy to
>have an opinion about artistic matters, it is your priveledge, and I
>will allow that perhaps you really are sincere, but it most surely
>sounds like rhetorical hooliganism to me - like an attempt to take
>over a forum by bullying, the way the you-know-whos took over the
>Munich beer halls. ( and then claimed to have been the victims)
>
>Forgive me if I have wounded any fragile egos here, but that's how I
>see it.
The most fragile ego here is your's
>
>Glenn ( my actual name) Geist
>
>No humility, no humanity
>
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/
John Haber
>Art, which suffers from an institutional version of bipolar disorder.
>One day it shouts obscenities in your face. The next it's calm
That's cute. It does describe the contrasting last two Biennials
quite well. Well, we've gotta see what happens as the new management
finds its way.
BTW, there's an article in today's NY Times, about handheld devices
that can tap into the Web site so people can pick the images and all
they wish to have as background to their museum. So whatever I think
of this idea, I had best remember that their Web exhibition tour of
"the American century," which seemd to me just flash, is only a work
in progress, and real content will (eventually) get here.
John
Glenn Geist
>I'm thinking of of George Shultz statement, when he was still chairman of
>Bechtel. It went something like "What business need is an island somewhere
>so it can conduct its affairs free of government regulation." It amazes me
>that "fine art" can be moved throuout the workd duty free, but the side
>effect is supportive of the arts. Art trafficing begins to resemble the
>'offshore' bank, it seems. It may be an important part of the global economy
Oh *that Schultz <s>
>-- what do we proles know?
>
In my case not a lot, but regulation certainly is coming to the
international art trade - often in the name of protecting patrimony,
but there's always more to it than that.
>>
>
>So this is my point. I suppose what's arguable is the question of how
>important this is to the global economy.
>
>So when Maurice Bishop announced that he would nationalize Granada's banks,
>Reagan took action, under the pretext of a Cuban airfield. Hmmmm.
>
Don't get me started about Regan! <s>
Glenn Geist
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>Mister Humanity (Glenn Heise Scheise Geist) wrote:
>>Mani, or whatever his name is acts in an agressive fashion and then
>>with mock calm, accuses the transgressed against of agression. That's
>>the way I see it. He isn't unique and the comparisons with political
>>tyrants are constantly made because we all remember how Poland invaded
>>Germany, Hungary invaded the Soviet Union, etc.
>
>Lets hope you get into Genghis Khan next.
He answers only by insult ( and incorrect German spelling) Es ist
mir aber egal. At least it's not French
>
>>Issuing proclamations about the absolute nature of his personal taste
>>and mocking those who question it, is precisely the behaviour Mr Mani
>>both indulges in and accuses his sceptics of doing. If making
>>artistic judgements is "artzy Fartzy" ( I cringe at the childishness
>>of his terminology) then why is it not so when he does it? He flings
>>mud and mocks me for muddiness.
>
>>
>>Show me where I have proclaimed my tastes as dogma and tell me he has
>>not appointed himself as the authority, the grand inquisitor and the
>>scourge of heretics?
>
>Perhaps you should start an "UnModern Art Activities Committee,"
He ignores the question and tosses out an insult - but that's OK. and
hilarious coming from the Chairman of the UnMani Art Committee. And
it reminds me that I forgot to compare him to Joe McCarthy!
>
>> When have I called someone a schmuck for liking
>>a kind of art I don't appreciate? - when have I called anyone a
>>pompous ass for even daring to say he understands something? When
>>have I called someone scatalogical names for sayingthat he actually
>>had the right to a humble opinion? It's "Artspeak" when he doesn't
>>like it, Babble when it contradicts him and I'm a pompous ass because
>>I question him. Tell me more about how offensive I am.
>
>You started calling me names and I answered in kind. If you would calm
>down and address the issues here and take my opinions with the same
>modicum of humor as I take your's, your blood pressure might go down
>and you might even find that we are in agreement over some points.
>
He blames the target for getting hit with bullets. I seem to recall
questioning a proclamation, not calling him names. Unfortunately I'm
enjopying myself here and perhaps that bothers him.
>
>>He has gone out of his way to impugn the intelligence of several
>>people I know personally -
>
>WHo?
>
Here I'm surprised - some evidence that he's read my post - but why
should I tell Him - I know a lot of people. One of the benefits of
being an old fartzy.
>> If you think I am illiterate and stupid and unworthy to
>>have an opinion about artistic matters, it is your priveledge, and I
>>will allow that perhaps you really are sincere, but it most surely
>>sounds like rhetorical hooliganism to me - like an attempt to take
>>over a forum by bullying, the way the you-know-whos took over the
>>Munich beer halls. ( and then claimed to have been the victims)
>>
>
>>Forgive me if I have wounded any fragile egos here, but that's how I
>>see it.
>
>The most fragile ego here is your's
>
Again, the Peewee Herman "I know I am but what are you:? defense.
And quite off the mark too. I don't have a fragile ego, I'm just
argumentative.
>Mani DeLi
>...no skill no art
>
OK, sure - which is it you lack?
Glenn
No muss, no fuss
emat...@tomatoweb.com
grg...@earthlink.net (Glenn Geist) wrote:
> Don't get me started about Regan! <s>
>
Have at it, Glenn. But the trick is to relate it to art. Maybe 'ARTificial'
as in intelligence. How about a new thread "Bonzo Goes to College"--is it
Art?
Glenn Geist
>
>
>
Oh why bother with what he wrote? It's all a lot of defensive,
self-serving blather.
I'm tired of arguing with children
Glenn
Glenn Geist
>In article <37325bde...@news.earthlink.net>,
> grg...@earthlink.net (Glenn Geist) wrote:
>
>> Don't get me started about Regan! <s>
>>
>
>Have at it, Glenn. But the trick is to relate it to art. Maybe 'ARTificial'
>as in intelligence. How about a new thread "Bonzo Goes to College"--is it
>Art?
>
There's probably some way to relate Reagan - or anything to art, but
would anyone want t o read it?
Glenn