Rant about decadence and art (Former Art Student)
Marilyn Welch
Selling lots of chocolates lately?
I'm looking forward to checking out your new painting.
Later...
Marilyn
On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, Chris wrote:
>
>
> John Frum wrote:
> >
> > Can't I just make pictures that I and hopefully a few other people enjoy
> > looking at, or is that "kitsch", "literary", "commercial" or
> > "illustration"?
>
>
> Of course you can. Who cares what others think? As Tom pointed out
> elsewhere, just be honest with yourself when you create, like the old
> adage "To thine own self be true." Label generating is a task better
> left to those who have little better to do.
>
> For me, art is a) exploration and discovery; b) communication. For you
> it may be different, but I try and see what underlies the world around
> me, and communicate what I find top those who may be interested. I am
> perfectly willing to meet my audience halfway, so that there is give and
> take with respect to the themes and techniques, and I learn alot through
> their reaction.
>
> Anyway, here's my latest:
> http://www.gammarat.com/Artists/ChrisB/construction.html
>
> Cheers;
>
> Chris
>
> PS. with respect to Bouguereau, look past the themes to the technique
> and structure, which he excelled at. A good deal of his work, taken
> abstractly, is incredibly strong, while even he himself did not take the
> content of his work seriously. It's what made the work sell, and allowed
> him to practice his art.
>
> Now here's something to think about - many of his detractors focus
> primarily on the content, and yet fall all over themselves in praise of
> attempts at content free painting. Seems peculiar to me...
>
>
> --
> Artwork: http://www.gammarat.com/Artists/ChrisB
> StudioTour: http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/brobeck
>
>
Chris
Chris
Chris wrote:
>
>
> Of course you can. Who cares what others think? As Tom pointed out
> elsewhere, just be honest with yourself when you create, like the old
> adage "To thine own self be true." Label generating is a task better
> left to those who have little better to do.
>
Whoops, that should have read "Tim" (old Ponderable :):):) not
Tom..gotta give the devil his due!
Chris
Erik A. Mattila
> <long snip of a very interesting post that I mostly agree with>
>
> Can't I just make pictures that I and hopefully a few other people enjoy
> looking at, or is that "kitsch", "literary", "commercial" or
> "illustration"?
My answer is yes, you can do that, with no loss of soul whatsoever. Your post
made me think about Klee's tenure at the Bauhaus, or even Kandinsky's in early
Soviet social art programs, both of which attempted to erase the lines between
many of our cherished categories, like commercial vs. fine art.
But you know what else it made me think of? Classic Steve Allen TV - the
'golden age' when he teamed up with such visionaries as Louis Nye, Don Knotts
and Howard Adams. One hilarous sketch that really stuck with me was Allen, in
his usual format, introducing it a brief discussion of an issue. "Did you
ever wonder about why rock and roll groups get their names?" and so on, ending
with "Ladies and Gentlmen - THE FOUR CHICKENS!!!! Curtain opens up and there
are Allen, Knotts, Adams and Nye covere from head to toe with chicken
feathers, holding chicken feathered guitars or playing chicken feathered
drums. The jumped straight up and down, the loose feathers floating around
the stage, singing "Crazy, crazy, boo-di-la-dah" over and over for the whole
'song.'
Now why did your description of some of our modern 'cutting-edge' art
practices remind me of that? Oh, I forgot, there was another sketch on avant
garde beatnik musical maestros, where the band was in dark suits, trutlenecks,
and dark sun glasses. "I play meat,", Louie Nye, as he threw a three pound
London Broil steak down on a table "thwounk, thwunk" (actually, a pretty nice
sound).
Erik Mattila
Marilyn
Chris wrote:
> my latest painting:
> http://www.gammarat.com/Artists/ChrisB/construction.html
>
> Cheers;
>
> Chris
>
Your composition is complicated so I can see why the painting gave you some
trouble. What are the dimensions? and are you satisfied with the colour
reproduction? I see a lot of yellow-green on my monitor. I like how the
figures
are involved in an activity, and no one is looking at the viewer. There's a
lot of texture in the background, and there is a real summer mood to the
picture, you can almost
hear the heat bugs singing.
more by email,
Marilyn
Erik A. Mattila
composition, Chris. There's some pretty interesting stuff going on there,
but it was really hard to see on the web. I thought "hmmm. I'd like to jump
in there and see what that's all about -- the hell with the rest of the
painting."
I just remembered when I wrote the above listening to an art insturctor's
critique of some paintings, (when I was 18 or 19) and I thought it was
incredibly stupid of him pointing to a small area in a painting and saying
"You've really got something good going on here. You should develop that
idea, let it overtake the painting." And here I am saying the same thing a
'coupla years' later.
Chairs,
Erik
Chris wrote:
> John Frum wrote:
> >
> > Can't I just make pictures that I and hopefully a few other people enjoy
> > looking at, or is that "kitsch", "literary", "commercial" or
> > "illustration"?
>
> Of course you can. Who cares what others think? As Tom pointed out
> elsewhere, just be honest with yourself when you create, like the old
> adage "To thine own self be true." Label generating is a task better
> left to those who have little better to do.
>
mesken
Yes, there might be a problem with the color repro (WYSIWYG ;-) The
girl in blue on the right is too warm and saturated on the picture,
suggesting nearness. If I occlude the lower part of the picture, so I
can't see where her feet are actually placed, then it looks as if
she's much more in front. As if standing on a high stool at the same
horizontal line as the fellow in green while she's actually the
furthest away of the bunch.
This problem is made worse because:
- she's actually looking at a point about 4-6 feet of the green
fellow's left (straight into the picture that is, not following his
shoulders' angle), that's even behind the purple person (thus not
looking at the action where you'd expect her to look)
- she stands very high (which is important else you'll lose the nice
diagonal) and high things in the flat projection are normally closer
- she isn't partially occluded by the fellow near her
Getting her in front (by placing her on a stool) is no option
whatsoever because there are two diagonals (actually two pairs of
parallel diagonals) important in this composition. The one in the
height but also the one in depth. She's paired with the fellow in
green like the fellow near her is paired with the dude in purple.
Getting her in front would mean disturbing the parallelness of the two
pair's depth diagonals.
Now, if she would look at what the purple dude is doing instead of
looking at a point left of him then things would be a-okay (she could
also move somewhat to the right but this is perhaps a little bit too
late ;-)
>more by email,
>
Hmmm, I wonder..... ;-)
Nikolaus Maack
>Dali's fall from grace I gather is a relatively recent thing -- when I
>was a young 'un, nobody was shunned for thinking Dali was pretty damn
>good and not some kind of "kitsch", but now he seems to be very politically
>incorrect.
I suspect this has more to do with Dali being just about everywhere
you look, than with Dali being a lousy painter. There hasn't been a
poster sale on a university campus in the last ten years that hasn't
included dozens and dozens of Salvidore Dali classics. Being spread
so thin, being hung in every dorm room on earth, has made a lot of
people very tired of Salvidore Dali.
My own roommate has a copy of that famous "melting watches" painting
on the wall of the living room. The usual response to people seeing
this painting is groans of "Again? Again, I have to look at this
painting?"
None of this changes the fact that Dali's paintings are incredible.
They are amazing. Spooky. I love them. However, I have seen most of
them often enough that I am no longer interested in looking at them.
The reason Dali has fallen into disgrace is the same reason that the
song "Achy Breaky Heart" doesn't get radio play lately. No one wants
to hear it anymore. We've heard it enough times to drive us all nuts.
However, it will be back. Oh yes, you know it will. Years from now,
it will be revived on a Golden Oldies radio show.
(In fact, this is already starting to happen in karaoke bars.)
Dali works the same way. People are tired of him, but he gets
discovered over and over, mostly in poster stores, by the young and
impressionable. In this sense, his artwork will never die. And in
the end, being spread so thin doesn't necessarily seem like a bad
thing.
>Van Gough, Matisse and Cezanne can blow my skirt up too, as it were,
I just want to say that I like the expression used in the above
sentence. It makes me want to wear a skirt so someone can blow up it.
>The indoctrination I got in art school was that "visual" was good (form
>entirely divorced from content), "literary" and "decorative" were bad
>(anything that might appeal to the emotions or look nice), and "commercial"
>was the worst evil of all (the commercial art students were the only ones
>who really could draw, paint, compose a picture, use color effectively,
>and so on).
In creative writing courses, we were told "show, don't tell" over and
over again. I think this broke some people. They'd lie on the floor
and whimper "Show, don't tell! Show! Shoooowwwww!" as their
underpants filled with urine.
Only in later years did a professor explain it to us in detail. Some
times it's okay to tell. If it isn't an important moment in the
story, tell. Use "tell"s to get you to the "show"s. Show the
important stuff. Be aware of what is worth showing.
Seems to be the equivalent of knowing, in a musical, when a subject
matter is worthy of a song. Walking to the corner store for milk and
eggs doesn't merit a song. Breaking up with your lover and wanting to
kill yourself does.
"Milk and eggs! Milk and eggs!
Walking to the store, using my legs!
I don't care if it's sunny or rainy!
I'm going to buy eggs for my sweet old lady!
Milk and eggs! Milk and eggs!
She makes the coffee, I drink it down to the dreggs!
I don't care if the sun doesn't shine.
I still have a functioning spine!
Isn't it all so divine?
Milk and eggs! Milk and eggs! MILK AND EGGS!"
(Sorry. I just had to get that out of my system.)
The important thing seems to be, know when to ignore the rules. Most
people don't learn this, which is why so many people poopoo on art
school and creative writing classes. As someone else said in some
other post somewhere, everyone leaving an art school tends to write or
paint in the same way. One prof I had agreed with this. However, he
added, "Short term, yes, you'll all write the same way. Long term,
there'll be much more variance."
Whether this is true or not, I don't know.
>Can't I just make pictures that I and hopefully a few other people enjoy
>looking at, or is that "kitsch", "literary", "commercial" or
>"illustration"?
You can do anything you'd like, so long as mobsters don't kidnap a
loved one and say they'll kill them unless you do as they say. And
even then, if you don't really like the loved one all that much, you
can still do what you want.
Nik
---
Postcard-sized portraits -- $20.
You find the face, I pick the paint. See:
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://www.chat.carleton.ca/~mrtribe
John Haber
>frankly makes me want to puke, but then so does the cloyingly decadent
>Watteau, so there's no accounting for taste, or is there?
I've been totally turned around on the latter. I'm trying to get up
the wit to write something, based on an astounding show of drawings
now at the Frick Collection, but it's not coming. Still give him
another chance. Compared to many of the skilled artists who took up
things after him (much less the sheer garbage of Bougerau far, far
later), he seems so real, so down to earth, so ready to accept the
vaue of a single human figure, the deadening accidents of poverty,
fatigue, and war, and the happier accidents of one color chalk landing
on another.
As for as your main paint: this comes up here again and again and
again, and all I can say is that you're only making your art worse by
the chip you, a good humored guy, risk developing on your shoulder
over other people's art. Just go and do what you want to do.
John Haber
>The reason Dali has fallen into disgrace is the same reason that the
>song "Achy Breaky Heart" doesn't get radio play lately. No one wants
>to hear it anymore.
I'm afraid that and his insistence on playing one heck a lot of other
songs, one after another after another, all pretty kitchy ones, then
smiling to the cameras in a kitchyway himself. If he's just painted
The Persistence of Memory and offed himself, we could value him and
his tragic perception! Instead he has his own museum.
Oh, and one other factor that's come up here a lot: the man who
created an image that's meant to be, well, as the word goes surreal
gets taken as the paradigm of realism. That alone can make his art
seem more stomach turning.
John Haber
>I mean, you folks can distinguish "its" and "it's" and use them correctly,
>and I even saw someone spell "restaurateur" correctly in here.
I'm thinking of renaming myself Mr. Potatoe Head.
Bob C
>
> Painters such as Salvador Dali and Norman Rockwell (strange bedfellows
> indeed!) seem to be classed as "illustrators" and not as real artists...
Remember that Norman Rockwell's paintings were usually intended from
their very beginning to be viewed by most people as photomechanical
reproductions of the actual painting. Thus the painting itself was not
important, just the image created by it, and this is why I tend to think
of him as an illustrator rather than a painter.
I don't know if Dali intended that or not, but that is exactly what he
achieved. I always hear people rave about Dali's technique and
craftmanship, but when I see an original Dali I feel like I may as well
be looking at a high quality photographic reproduction. The surface of
the painting is flat and lifeless. Thus the painting has no value except
to present the image, which could just as well have been presented as a
reproduction. This makes Dali very skilled as an illustrator but not
particularly successful as a painter.
> ... Bouguereau, for all his rendering skill, on the other hand quite
> frankly makes me want to puke, ...
Are you looking at originals or the reproductions? Because, unlike Dali,
the originals have a depth and a life which cannot be appreciated in the
reproduction. Whether or not Bouguereau is successful as an illustrator
depends on how much you like his images, but anyone should be able to
appreciate the beauty of the paintings even if you don't care for the
imagery, and thus he is successful as a painter.
>
> Can't I just make pictures that I and hopefully a few other people enjoy
> looking at, or is that "kitsch", "literary", "commercial" or
> "illustration"?
It could be one or the other or any combination. If you intend to create
interesting images which people are just as happy to see in
photomechanical reproduction as in the original, then I would call you
an illustrator, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But
what do you want to be, a painter or an illustrator, or maybe both?
That's entirely up to you.
- Bob C.
Chris
mesken wrote:
>
{...interesting stuff cut...]
>
> Now, if she would look at what the purple dude is doing instead of
> looking at a point left of him then things would be a-okay (she could
> also move somewhat to the right but this is perhaps a little bit too
> late ;-)
>
Some of what you say is intriguing & I appreciate it; the funny part of
it is that a good deal of what you said re
positioning/colour/perspective was in the original drawings. The problem
of course when you do something like that (line up all the sight lines,
etc.) is that you come up with a contrived picture, like a school
exercise. Similarly for the colour; whether to push the figure on the
right further back by toning down the blue was something I thought about
& decided against, and similarly for what she is standing on. On that, I
haven't a clue :)
It's interesting though that you seem to approach figurative/genre work
from a POV where the questions and general organization should be
deliberately dealt with and and explicitly answered, whereas I guess I
don't.
But thanks for the critique;
Chris
Chris
Marilyn Welch wrote:
>
> Selling lots of chocolates lately?
>
Yes thanks! Even the infamous Cadets
(http://www.gammarat.com/Artists/ChrisB_01/Cadets.html) that our deadly
duo found so distasteful...(I realize it wasn't listed for sale, but
it's going to a good home.)
Cheers;
Chris
PS - I heard recently that what first drew Matisse to painting was the
picture on a box of chocolates....
Chris
I agree re. looking for areas that work in paintings, and trying to
figure out why. FWIW, if I have a painting that I generally see as a
failure, but like certain parts of, I'll cut those out & pin them
up....someday I'll stitch them together, and see how they work..
Re the bushes in the center; a friend of mine mentionned when he saw it
that he had seen a comparison between some background in Meissonier's
work (the grass painted in a picture, he couldn't remember which one..)
and Jackson Pollock's splatter paintings, that they were very
similar...Anyway, one thing I do enjoy playing around with is trying to
determine an adequate level of detail that preserves the sense of an
object in its context, as vs. losing that sense outside the context.
Does that make sense? Better get another glass of wine...
Settees,
Chris
"Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
>
> I couldn't get past the row of plants cutting through the center plane of the
> composition, Chris. There's some pretty interesting stuff going on there,
> but it was really hard to see on the web. I thought "hmmm. I'd like to jump
> in there and see what that's all about -- the hell with the rest of the
> painting."
>
> I just remembered when I wrote the above listening to an art insturctor's
> critique of some paintings, (when I was 18 or 19) and I thought it was
> incredibly stupid of him pointing to a small area in a painting and saying
> "You've really got something good going on here. You should develop that
> idea, let it overtake the painting." And here I am saying the same thing a
> 'coupla years' later.
>
> Chairs,
> Erik
>
> Chris wrote:
>
> > John Frum wrote:
> > >
> > > Can't I just make pictures that I and hopefully a few other people enjoy
> > > looking at, or is that "kitsch", "literary", "commercial" or
> > > "illustration"?
> >
> > Of course you can. Who cares what others think? As Tom pointed out
> > elsewhere, just be honest with yourself when you create, like the old
> > adage "To thine own self be true." Label generating is a task better
> > left to those who have little better to do.
> >
> > For me, art is a) exploration and discovery; b) communication. For you
> > it may be different, but I try and see what underlies the world around
> > me, and communicate what I find top those who may be interested. I am
> > perfectly willing to meet my audience halfway, so that there is give and
> > take with respect to the themes and techniques, and I learn alot through
> > their reaction.
> >
> > Anyway, here's my latest:
> > http://www.gammarat.com/Artists/ChrisB/construction.html
> >
> > Cheers;
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > PS. with respect to Bouguereau, look past the themes to the technique
> > and structure, which he excelled at. A good deal of his work, taken
> > abstractly, is incredibly strong, while even he himself did not take the
> > content of his work seriously. It's what made the work sell, and allowed
> > him to practice his art.
> >
> > Now here's something to think about - many of his detractors focus
> > primarily on the content, and yet fall all over themselves in praise of
> > attempts at content free painting. Seems peculiar to me...
> >
Alison A Raimes
<bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> writes
>Yes thanks! Even the infamous Cadets
>(http://www.gammarat.com/Artists/ChrisB_01/Cadets.html) that our deadly
>duo found so distasteful...(I realize it wasn't listed for sale, but
>it's going to a good home.)
Mr Bore Broebeck: I think you will find that it was I and I only that
found your work distasteful. It was I who was solely responsible for
criticising the poor quality of your work, for which you went to the
incredible ends of defending my criticism on your website and even
writing a back handed, cowardly counter attack on my own work - I
presume that the silly comment about Prozac induced art was your
pathetic way of getting your own back on me (I trust it made you feel so
much better) .... please, however, note that *I* didn't change my
website to accommodate your criticism. Why didn't you just come out and
say it here in public ? Are you afraid of criticising work you don't
like ? Are you perhaps scared of me ? Something about it obviously
affected you deeply. Isn't the most important thing to you your work,
and aren't you delighted to have a market who buys it ? Why then would
you care what a nobody on a newsgroup has to say against it ?
I personally would have a lot more respect for an artist who firstly,
didn't let any sort of criticism affect his work, and secondly, one who
is not so pathetic as to go to the ends of changing his website just
because someone says they don't like his work.
Incidentally, if you are serious you might want to do some research into
the term *Chocolate Box art*. Its a familiar enough one amongst art
writers - it refers to a certain type of *Romantic* art that fails to
recognise the true meaning of the artistic term *Romantic* - a common
enough thing. Not necessarily even a derogatory term but one that
indicates a misdirection. The cadet painting in which you say you were
studying movement is static and lifeless. You have no colour sense, no
understanding of space, no compositional skill and clearly no artistic
integrity - in my worthless opinion. Its a classic example of what is
know as *Chocolate Box art*. You will probably do very well in selling
to the aesthetically challenged modern day viewer.
--
Alison A Raimes
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Kay
Chris wrote:
(snip)
:Even the infamous Cadets
:(http://www.gammarat.com/Artists/ChrisB_01/Cadets.html) that our deadly
:duo found so distasteful...(I realize it wasn't listed for sale, but
:it's going to a good home.)
:
:Cheers;
:
:Chris
I assume that I am the other half of the deadly duo to which you refer?
Funny, I've never seen your website, Chris. There are an awful lot of URLs
posted here and I look only if the person writes something intriguing, to
which I agree or not. I've never noticed you as a "player", just as one
half of the Duo of Dullards.
:
:PS - I heard recently that what first drew Matisse to painting was the
:picture on a box of chocolates....
Sorry, doesn't strike my interest. I go for the contemporary stuff; even so,
I doubt if I have a single friend who isn't fooling around with boxes
recently <gag>
Kay
:
:--
Kay
mesken wrote:
(snip)
:Yes, there might be a problem with the color repro (WYSIWYG ;-)
What does WYSIWYG ;-) mean?????
Kay
"Do you know what he needs? Two or three shock treatments,"
Mary George said. "Get that artist business right out of his head once
and for all." (from "An Enduring Chill" by Flannery O'Connor)
mdeli
Maack) wrote:
>wordw...@my-yahoo.com (John Frum) wrote:
>>Dali's fall from grace I gather is a relatively recent thing -- when I
>>was a young 'un, nobody was shunned for thinking Dali was pretty damn
>>good and not some kind of "kitsch", but now he seems to be very politically
>>incorrect.
Dali is the antithesis of Modern Academic Art theology in every
respect. The last croak of our holy critics for something so
antithetical to their religion is "kitsch."
>I suspect this has more to do with Dali being just about everywhere
>you look, than with Dali being a lousy painter.
Well if he's "just about everywhere " he can't exactly be unpopular.
> There hasn't been a
>poster sale on a university campus in the last ten years that hasn't
>included dozens and dozens of Salvidore Dali classics.
Why do think the guys who print these posters do this.
>
>My own roommate has a copy of that famous "melting watches" painting
>on the wall of the living room. The usual response to people seeing
>this painting is groans of "Again? Again, I have to look at this
>painting?"
Tell him to hang a Rothko and you probably won't even notice it.
>
>None of this changes the fact that Dali's paintings are incredible.
>They are amazing. Spooky. I love them. However, I have seen most of
>them often enough that I am no longer interested in looking at them.
>
>The reason Dali has fallen into disgrace is ...snip.
What you say contradicts this.
>
>>The indoctrination I got in art school was that "visual" was good (form
>>entirely divorced from content), "literary" and "decorative" were bad
>>(anything that might appeal to the emotions or look nice), and "commercial"
>>was the worst evil of all (the commercial art students were the only ones
>>who really could draw, paint, compose a picture, use color effectively,
>>and so on).
...must have been a great school.
>>Can't I just make pictures that I and hopefully a few other people enjoy
>>looking at, or is that "kitsch", "literary", "commercial" or
>>"illustration"?
No you can't lest you commit Modern Academic Art heresy and no artzy
fartzy here will ever give you a large hickey.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
Chris
appreciate your concerns, though I find your critique a little, hmmm,
weak. If you would care to elaborate, I am happy to listen and respond!
After all, as I said before, I think a good part of my art (not
necessarily all art, just what I like to do) is communication; and good
communication isn't just one person foisting their ideas on another.
Rather it's a feedback mechanism, that when successful, benefits both
parties. Think of it this way - your words printed under John's name
motivated me to assess my website, & change it accordingly! What higher
praise could there be?
As for the ChocolateBox label, I do thank you & John for that. I
actually do appreciate it, because it helps me encapsulate what I like
to do. I'm perfectly happy to let other artists go off and create Great
Art, if that's the direction they choose; feel free! For me it is enough
to create something that speaks to the sort of people I care for &
respect, even if they are, admittedly, part of the great unwashed.
Cheers & thanks again;
Chris
Alison A Raimes wrote:
>
> In article <38482962...@ns.sympatico.ca>, Chris
> <bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> writes
>
> >Yes thanks! Even the infamous Cadets
> >(http://www.gammarat.com/Artists/ChrisB_01/Cadets.html) that our deadly
> >duo found so distasteful...(I realize it wasn't listed for sale, but
> >it's going to a good home.)
>
--
Erik A. Mattila
Chris wrote:
> Anyway, one thing I do enjoy playing around with is trying to
> determine an adequate level of detail that preserves the sense of an
> object in its context, as vs. losing that sense outside the context.
> Does that make sense? Better get another glass of wine...
Makes sense to me, Chris. One of the intriguing mysteries about representational
painting is the 'lowest common denominator' of recognition. It makes you question
how it is that we can see and recognize the things in the world at all. What are
the 'indicators' of apprehension, what visual clues do we respond to that makes a
horse a horse or a fly a fly. (or a horse fly).
Do you remember the film "Lawrence of Arabia?" The scene that introduced Omar
Shariff was a cinematic forte, in my opinion. This shape comes out of the
horizon's heat waves, completey distorted and completely incromprehensible, and
slowly resolves into a recognizable image of a man on horseback (I think it said
"camel" just before you understood it was a horse instead). It would be fun to
experiment and measure on what frame various people could comprehend the image,
just to see the difference from individual to individual. (Might be a good test
to see if artists 'see' better.)
Erik
mesken
<ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Are you perhaps scared of me ?
Who isn't? ;-)
Ah, don't be so hard on him. It's not my style either (too much tube
colors which yell at each other for no particular reason) but I like
"social climbing" ("WHAT? $1800!?!? I can buy a stereo for that! ;-)
His new painting is pretty okay (although I'm still uneasy about the
girl on the right). The childlike postures are clearly the result of
good observation, that's quite a tricky thing to do. Take a look at
the drawing of Emily for example and compare it with the painting of
her, we have two different expressions but the differences in the
drawing and the painting (as seen as a drawing) is very subtle. No
doubt Chris must have had the feeling he lost something in his
painting which was present in his drawing.
Alison A Raimes
<bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> writes
>After all, as I said before, I think a good part of my art (not
>necessarily all art, just what I like to do) is communication; and good
>communication isn't just one person foisting their ideas on another.
>Rather it's a feedback mechanism, that when successful, benefits both
>parties. Think of it this way - your words printed under John's name
>motivated me to assess my website, & change it accordingly! What higher
>praise could there be?
There you go again - my words were never printed under John's name in
reference to your work. I signed all my posts with my name - they were
written through his server because I couldn't access mine while in New
York.
Alison
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Alison A Raimes
<usu...@euronet.nl> writes
>His new painting is pretty okay (although I'm still uneasy about the
>girl on the right). The childlike postures are clearly the result of
>good observation, that's quite a tricky thing to do. Take a look at
>the drawing of Emily for example and compare it with the painting of
>her, we have two different expressions but the differences in the
>drawing and the painting (as seen as a drawing) is very subtle. No
>doubt Chris must have had the feeling he lost something in his
>painting which was present in his drawing.
>
>
Of all the paintings this one at least has some attention to
composition. The girl on the right makes *me* uneasy because she is
lifting her dress and part of her thigh is showing. I wonder why anyone
would paint it like that.
Alison
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
mesken
Oh! For Heaven's Sake, you've read the pedophile stuff in this group
and now you suspect anyone.
OTOH the way she sticks her chest in front (while there's nothing on
it yet to make larger with this posture) is kinda peculiar for a
sweet, innocent girl which should be devoid of any sexual feelings.
Also, she's overlooking 3 boys who are still more interested in wood
logs (phallic symbols???) than in her. Perhaps she actually wants to
play them with...
Hmmmm....
Yes, this is what we dutch call "searching nails in shallow water" ;-)
Alison A Raimes
<usu...@euronet.nl> writes
>>
>Oh! For Heaven's Sake, you've read the pedophile stuff in this group
>and now you suspect anyone.
I have ? Where ? Oh no, don't tell me I missed something in the
alt.surrealism thread that I kill filed last week ?????? Damn that
always happens to me ;-)
Chris
mesken wrote:
> Take a look at
> the drawing of Emily for example and compare it with the painting of
> her, we have two different expressions but the differences in the
> drawing and the painting (as seen as a drawing) is very subtle. No
> doubt Chris must have had the feeling he lost something in his
> painting which was present in his drawing.
You're pretty astute Paul! The painting is probably best characterized
as a disaster -maybe not total (otherwise I would have cut it up).
Personally, I like the drawing OK; I think the big problem is that
rather than taking the drawing as a point of departure for the painting
(and letting the latter evolve on its own), I seem to have produced at
best a colourized version of the drawing. Live and learn!
Thanks for the comments;
Chris
mesken
Might be, it's that "homophobe" thread of Nikolaus. He's argueing
about opening some child prostitute ring in his neighboorhood (or
perhaps against, I don't know :-)
Alison A Raimes
<usu...@euronet.nl> writes
>>
>Might be, it's that "homophobe" thread of Nikolaus. He's argueing
>about opening some child prostitute ring in his neighboorhood (or
>perhaps against, I don't know :-)
>
Unkilling that thread immediately <big grin> .... hate to miss out on
the fun.
Alison
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
mesken
wrote:
>
>
>mesken wrote:
>> Take a look at
>> the drawing of Emily for example and compare it with the painting of
>> her, we have two different expressions but the differences in the
>> drawing and the painting (as seen as a drawing) is very subtle. No
>> doubt Chris must have had the feeling he lost something in his
>> painting which was present in his drawing.
>
>
>You're pretty astute Paul! The painting is probably best characterized
>as a disaster -maybe not total (otherwise I would have cut it up).
>Personally, I like the drawing OK; I think the big problem is that
>rather than taking the drawing as a point of departure for the painting
>(and letting the latter evolve on its own), I seem to have produced at
>best a colourized version of the drawing. Live and learn!
>
The drawing is very OK and I can see why you wanted to paint it. The
problem is that the viewing angle is such that very slight changes in
the angles of the head make a different expression. In the painting
the head has moved forward (look at the ear in relation to the neck)
and has slightly rotated to Emily's right. It's hardly measurable but
it's the difference between a "Hey, that's fun" or "Come again?",
there're also a number of angles in the face itself which are
different in the drawing and painting. But it's a very hard viewing
angle to get the exact same results.
You point out a very real hazard of painting after a drawing. When
drawing, you create by developing what feels right ("This line should
be steeper, that one more curved", etc.) When transferring it to the
canvas you're no longer creating by getting a likeness with the idea
but by getting a likeness with the drawing and especially angles
easily get messed up for they're very sensitive (the "conscious eye"
can't distinguish between a few degrees unless it's vertical or
horizontal) and slight differences yield different expressions.
At this moment I'm doing a series of very rough sketches for my next
masterpiece (something less obscene than normal, my sister will check
me out on Xmas :-) Some are details (like the hands, colors, etc.) but
most of them are very rough in which only angles and offsets are
important (the head a rectangle with eyeline and centerline, whole
body with sharp straight lines, etc.). I messed up a lot of times as
well with transferring drawings to paintings and it always was
something like a shoulder line which was on a different height, the
feet being more apart due to slight angle changes in the legs, etc.
etc.
Chris
Maybe it's time to set a bit of background for the painting - there are
three girls (all roughly 11 years old) and one boy (my son, age 9, in
the foreground) The girls are actually in soccer shorts with t-shirts,
my son is in his Army surplus fatigue shirt (rather large for him) and
cargo pants. The four together form a group that generally hang out
together, trade Pokemon, play soccer, war, and spy....
The reason I chose the subject was that, when the 4 of them were
building a fort in the back yard, they naturally grouped themselves in
quite an expressive manner. The two children who tend to be highly
internally focused "doers" on the left, the girl sawing, the boy
hammering. The girl in blue (who isn't at all fond of doing boy things),
up and to the right, and a little aloof from the proceedings; the girl
second from the right more than a little uncertain of where to associate
herself. FWIW, the parents of the various children liked the picture;
the parents of the girl on the right offered to buy it for her, but alas
by the time they made the offer the picture had already been sold.
Certainly it is easy to read in some sexual tension; I think it would be
a disservice to the children to deny an issue that they are learning to
cope with. But I would hope that for the average viewer would
understand that supposed tension in terms of entire the process of
individuation that young people go through. (I know there's no
accounting for the oddballs like Alison though, who alternate between
sexual obsession and self-annointed victimhood:)
Cheers;
Chris
mesken wrote:
>
> On Sat, 4 Dec 1999 11:30:03 +0000, Alison A Raimes
> <ali...@see.signature.for.address> wrote:
>
> >In article <DOVIOFHGJmf638...@4ax.com>, mesken
> ><usu...@euronet.nl> writes
> >
> >Of all the paintings this one at least has some attention to
> >composition. The girl on the right makes *me* uneasy because she is
> >lifting her dress and part of her thigh is showing. I wonder why anyone
> >would paint it like that.
> >
> Oh! For Heaven's Sake, you've read the pedophile stuff in this group
> and now you suspect anyone.
>
> OTOH the way she sticks her chest in front (while there's nothing on
> it yet to make larger with this posture) is kinda peculiar for a
> sweet, innocent girl which should be devoid of any sexual feelings.
> Also, she's overlooking 3 boys who are still more interested in wood
> logs (phallic symbols???) than in her. Perhaps she actually wants to
> play them with...
>
> Hmmmm....
>
> Yes, this is what we dutch call "searching nails in shallow water" ;-)
--
mesken
wrote:
>Certainly it is easy to read in some sexual tension; I think it would be
>a disservice to the children to deny an issue that they are learning to
>cope with. But I would hope that for the average viewer would
>understand that supposed tension in terms of entire the process of
>individuation that young people go through. (I know there's no
>accounting for the oddballs like Alison though, who alternate between
>sexual obsession and self-annointed victimhood:)
>
Hehe,
Ofcourse it's a complete innocent painting but people like Alison and
me just can't tolerate innocent sweetness and pervert it (makes it
better). We're sick people and we like it! ;-)
BTW that's what the dutch saying was about: searching problems where
there're actually none. We do it all the time here :-)
Chris
mesken wrote:
>
> BTW that's what the dutch saying was about: searching problems where
> there're actually none. We do it all the time here :-)
Hey, if it wasn't for that, I wouldn't have my cash job as an analyst.
I'd have to drive a truck, or something :)
Chris
Nikolaus Maack
mdeli (hug...@interlog.com) writes:
> Well if he's "just about everywhere " he can't exactly be unpopular.
Yo, consider the metaphor I used -- the song "Achy Breaky Heart" was
everywhere, driving everyone nuts. Was it popular? For how long? I
consider Dali -- even though I like him -- to be in the same category.
Yes, he is popular. Yes, he is also unpopular. You can be both at the
same time. Read on...
A lot of people like to quote Monty Python. I watched all the Monty
Python stuff years ago. I'm sick of it, personally. When people quote
it, I want to punch them. I'm tired of it. Many, many people are tired
of Monty Python, including, I suspect, the former members of Monty Python.
At the same time, many people LOVE Monty Python, and are discovering it
for the first time.
Is Monty Python popular or unpopular? Both.
(And the same goes double for Douglas Adams and "The Hitch-Hiker's Guide
to the Galaxy".)
Nik
--
Twelve contorted faces. No lines, no waiting.
Visit The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://www.chat.carleton.ca/~mrtribe
Alison A Raimes
<usu...@euronet.nl> writes
>Hehe,
>
>Ofcourse it's a complete innocent painting but people like Alison and
>me just can't tolerate innocent sweetness and pervert it (makes it
>better). We're sick people and we like it! ;-)
Thank god for oddballs, I say. Off to swallow some Prozac and pour some
non-entities now.
Alison
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Chris
Kay wrote:
>
> I assume that I am the other half of the deadly duo to which you refer?
Nope, Sorry.
> Funny, I've never seen your website, Chris. There are an awful lot of URLs
> posted here and I look only if the person writes something intriguing, to
> which I agree or not. I've never noticed you as a "player", just as one
> half of the Duo of Dullards.
That's good Kay, your sense of humour is improving! Your approach seems
a bit peculiar though; I couldn't imagine anyone wanting to be a big
player on a newsgroup. But hey, if it works for you, go for it! We all
need something to live for.
More seriously, I don't mind if you ignore my website; but personally I
love visiting other sites, even those done by people who post little or
nothing of interest. One of my favourite artists on the web (Pol Ledent)
has never posted more than a note to this newsgroup; if I had taken your
tack, then I would have missed his work entirely...(Look him up, I think
even you would enjoy it.)
> Sorry, doesn't strike my interest. I go for the contemporary stuff; even so,
> I doubt if I have a single friend who isn't fooling around with boxes
> recently <gag>
>
I'm curious to find out in what way you find my work non-contemporary
(particularly as ypou've never seen it). Contemporary has a primary
meaning of existing at the same time; a second meaning of being marked
by the characteristices of the present time, so maybe you could
elaborate on one or the other. As for the second statement, I'm not sure
what it means. All your friends are fooling around with boxes? Seems a
boring lot, but then again, they are your friends, so why the <gag>?
Cheers;
Chris
Nikolaus Maack
mesken (usu...@euronet.nl) writes:
> Might be, it's that "homophobe" thread of Nikolaus. He's argueing
> about opening some child prostitute ring in his neighboorhood (or
> perhaps against, I don't know :-)
I don't want to open a child prostitution ring. I want to open a child
prostitution parallelogram. Or maybe a child prostitution trapezoid.
For those of you who stopped reading the thread, or killfiled it, here is
a quick summary of the "Andre Breton, homophobe" thread:
1. Don't fuck children.
2. Unless they can give informed consent.
3. Society says that informed consent becomes possible through some sort
of miracle on the day of your eighteenth birthday.
4. It doesn't, really. Society says a lot of stupid things.
5. Sometimes children are sexual.
6. Sometimes they aren't sexual.
7. Who are you to say anything? You're just some guy on the internet.
Shut up. You're wrong.
If you need any other threads in rec.arts.fine summarized, just let me
know. For the record, almost all threads in this newsgroup can be
summarized as:
1. All art is art.
2. Except that some art is not really art.
3. Personal preference plays a part in what art you like.
4. Some people are stupid.
5. Some people like stupid art.
6. Maybe you are one of these stupid people.
7. Maybe not.
8. Some artists are stupid.
9. Maybe Salvidore Dali, Jackson Pollack, Matisse, Cezanne, or some other
artist is stupid.
10. Maybe not.
11. Let's agree to disagree, or maybe I'll just stop reading your posts.
And so on.
Erik A. Mattila
> I'm curious to find out in what way you find my work non-contemporary
> (particularly as ypou've never seen it). Contemporary has a primary
> meaning of existing at the same time; a second meaning of being marked
> by the characteristices of the present time, so maybe you could
> elaborate on one or the other. As for the second statement, I'm not sure
> what it means. All your friends are fooling around with boxes? Seems a
> boring lot, but then again, they are your friends, so why the <gag>?
>
> Cheers;
>
> Chris
But it's not true that Kay has never seen your work, Chris. Kay is the Arizona
Avatar of Alison. Does that explain the delimma better?
I have learned that the term 'avatar' is both insulting and anti-semetic (from
Kay and Alison). Thank God Kay has me on KILL FILE so she won't have to suffer
my horrible attacks.
But seriously, I think Kay is telling the truth about not viewing your
paintings. She has experienced them vicariously through Alison's written
critiques. I'm not attacking anyone in observing this - I think it's actually
true. And so what? Somebody reads Ruskin, Berenson, or Kuspsit and then looks
at art through different colored spectacles. An artist still has the option to
ask: "Yes, but what do YOU think of this painting?"
Cherrios,
Erik
Bob C
>
> Bob C wrote:
>
> > Thus the painting has no value except
> > to present the image, which could just as well have been presented as a
> > reproduction. This makes Dali very skilled as an illustrator but not
> > particularly successful as a painter.
>
> This is a strange thought to me, Bob. Would you say the same of Vermeer and
> Van Eyck? Vermeer, especially, since insofar as technique was concerned, the
> was Dali's model. To me, viewing a Dali painting on a polished copper plate,
> with the absolute absence of any discernable brushwork, a perfect homogeneous
> surface, is as exciting as the best impasto, skillfully 'painterly' work with
> all its crustiness, craters, and archipelagos.
I definately would not say the same thing about Vermeer and Van Eyck!
Vermeer's paintings give the illusion of creating their own light with
colors that have extraordinary depth, and neither of these qualities can
be captured in a reproduction. I am not as certain what it is about Van
Eyck's paintings that I find so stimulating, but the surfaces do seem
very much alive in a way that reproductions of them do not. Perhaps I
need to study these closer.
I don't believe it is necessary for a work to be "rough" in order for
the surface of the painting to be exciting (after all, I did name
Bouguereau as an example of someone who created exciting paintings
rather than just images). Dali's skills at creating a highly polished
surface are certainly impressive, but that alone does not make the
painting itself, rather than image, of any particular interest to me.
>
> I think the use of the term 'illustrator' is becoming nothing more than a
> generic disclaimer - "this isn't art" sort of statement. It's dismissive, a
> function of 'naming' or a 'dividing practice.' Like how human beings have
> always felt it necessary to 'name' others with a term that means in one way
> or another 'not quite human' before they could oppress them with any degree
> of moral comfort.
>
I think of terms like that as simply a way of getting more meaning out
of what we say. The modern definition of "art" keeps being expanded to
include more and more things. When it gets to the point that anything is
art, then it will cease to have any meaning at all (it's close, but not
quite there yet). Words like "illustration", on the other hand, have
managed to keep a more specific meaning and therefore has a significant
value in conversation.
I will admit, however, that there are many who use "illustration" to
describe works which predictably apply recognizable formulas to solve
their problems. We can usually tell by the context, however, whether the
word is being used as a criticism or a value-neutral description.
Personally, I like to define craftsmenship in painting as the ability to
make every single brushstroke contribute as greatly as possible to
making the painting satisfy the artist's ideal of beauty. This is much
different than technique, which I consider the ability to satisfy the
demands of a particular style. When it is the image created which is
satisfying the artist's ideal and not the painting itself, then their
craftsmenship is as an illustrator and not a painter.
- Bob C.
Alison A Raimes
<bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> writes
>
>
>Kay wrote:
>>
>> I assume that I am the other half of the deadly duo to which you refer?
>
>Nope, Sorry.
No Kay, he has it in for John Haber for some reason, and John has never
once commented on his work - in fact he hadn't seen it until I called it
*chocolate box art* and then all he did was raise his eyebrows and shake
his head (probably more at me than the work;-). Chris even went to the
extent of flaming John (and myself) on a badly written page of his
website (he ought to get Marilyn to do a spell and grammar check if he
want anyone to take it seriously). I think Chris gets very confused ;-)
I still wonder about how the things that someone else says here on a
newsgroup can possibly affect someone else's work. I mean what would
that person do when it is published in a review ? Most people here on
this newsgroup avoid offending and lie - trying to find something
agreeable to say - some even say that the work is good when they haven't
even viewed it - and others say what they think. One thing for sure -
don't ever take a newsgroup review of your work seriously ..... in fact
don't take any review seriously unless it comes from your own mouth :-)
Cheers !
Alison
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Alison A Raimes
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>
>But it's not true that Kay has never seen your work, Chris. Kay is the Arizona
>Avatar of Alison. Does that explain the delimma better?
>
>I have learned that the term 'avatar' is both insulting and anti-semetic (from
>Kay and Alison). Thank God Kay has me on KILL FILE so she won't have to suffer
>my horrible attacks.
>
>But seriously, I think Kay is telling the truth about not viewing your
>paintings. She has experienced them vicariously through Alison's written
>critiques. I'm not attacking anyone in observing this - I think it's actually
>true. And so what? Somebody reads Ruskin, Berenson, or Kuspsit and then looks
>at art through different colored spectacles. An artist still has the option to
>ask: "Yes, but what do YOU think of this painting?"
>
>Cherrios,
>Erik
>
There he goes again - analysing and concluding that another person is
incapable of forming their own opinion. However, in hindsight, one might
want to consider why Chris has flamed John on the Chocolate Box website
page for something that I said. Interesting huh ? Probably the same
reason that Marilyn after months of corresponding with John, for no
reason other than he was friends with me, set her Email to reject John's
letters. Starting to think that there may be something in this, Erik.
Yup ! I got it. We are all indoctrinated robots incapable of an
individual thought or an opinion .... I suspected it for a long time.
Art truly is dead.
Alison
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Alison A Raimes
<bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> writes
>
>Hey, if it wasn't for that, I wouldn't have my cash job as an analyst.
>I'd have to drive a truck, or something :)
>
>Chris
Do you consider the job of driving a truck to be less important that
that of an *analyst* ?
Alison
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
mesken
<ali...@see.signature.for.address> wrote:
>In article <38493DCE...@ns.sympatico.ca>, Chris
><bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> writes
>
>>
>>Hey, if it wasn't for that, I wouldn't have my cash job as an analyst.
>>I'd have to drive a truck, or something :)
>>
>>Chris
>
>Do you consider the job of driving a truck to be less important that
>that of an *analyst* ?
>
Probably not but certainly less rewarding :-)
Chris
your way, I suppose? Anyway, I'll answer this one, guess I just don't
have all the free time you do!
Alison A Raimes wrote:
>
> In article <38493DCE...@ns.sympatico.ca>, Chris
> <bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> writes
>
> >
> >Hey, if it wasn't for that, I wouldn't have my cash job as an analyst.
> >I'd have to drive a truck, or something :)
> >
> >Chris
>
> Do you consider the job of driving a truck to be less important that
> that of an *analyst* ?
>
Too bad you didn't read the earlier part of the thread Alison! I'll
repeat for you
Paul wrote, with respect to your 'critique':
> BTW that's what the dutch saying was about: searching problems where
> there're actually none. We do it all the time here :-)
which I thought was rather funny. So I replied as I did, since a good
part of my cash job consists of doing exactly that. It is an oddity of
our current economic state that as an analyst I'm paid roughly 5 times
more per hour than I would be as a truck driver (which is a job I did
for both a plastics company, and a brick company).
As for relative importance to society, one can never assume to measure
importance by rates of pay; the only measure rates of pay indicate (at
best) are ease of replacement. Right now, analysts are harder to replace
than truck drivers; I expect that'll last another decade at the most
before the bottom falls out of the high-tech market.
Sewage workers, farm workers, street cleaners, truck drivers, food
processors, posties, etc. are the foundation of or society; try getting
rid of the sanitation workers (for example) and see how long society
functions. But we still don't pay them very much, because (as workers,
not people) they are relatively easy to replace on an individual basis.
I'm surprised that you don't see that.
It raises an interesting artistic question though. As you point out,
"You will probably do very well in selling to the aesthetically
challenged modern day viewer." But just who are these "aesthetically
challenged modern day viewers" you denigrate? The very same people
mentionned above, are they not? And are they truly aesthetically
challenged? Or are they, as in every other field - religion, politics,
education, and even science - simply becoming more self-reliant,
more self-educated, more self-assertive? But at the same time one has to
to deal with the issues of maintaining community, of adapting spiritual
values, of not losing the sense of identity that comes from one's
history.
I find the whole issue to be exciting (and fertile) artistic ground;
though I am happy to accept that you don't. There always has been, and
there always will be, room for decorative arts that are created through
trying to discover historical trends and projecting the results forward
through the use of imposed rules and constraints; it's an admirable left
brain approach. If done with good grace (or at least a sense of artistic
panache) it can be quite profitable (it is the same path trod by
Bouguereau, for example), and I am glad that in it you that you have
found your niche. But for me, I think I prefer to carry on with my lack
of sense; the questions Gaugin posed ("Where do we come from? What are
we? Where are we going?") are more than enough to keep me busy for a
lifetime.
Cheers;
Chris
Walter Fisher
colorblind.
--
Walter
dum vivimus, vivamus! (Horace)
The Happy Iconoclast: www.rationality.net
e-mail responses: delete x in return address (anti-spam)
--
"Marilyn Welch" <wq...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.991204090541.6061B-100000@vtn1...
>
> Forget the British vernacular "Chocolate Box Painting"
>
> Your work is going in the direction of New York School,
> Second Generation, like Fairfield Porter, Nell Blaine,
> Jane Freilicher.
>
> Marilyn
>
> On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, Chris wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > John Frum wrote:
> > >
> > > Can't I just make pictures that I and hopefully a few other people
enjoy
> > > looking at, or is that "kitsch", "literary", "commercial" or
> > > "illustration"?
> >
> >
> > Of course you can. Who cares what others think? As Tom pointed out
> > elsewhere, just be honest with yourself when you create, like the old
> > adage "To thine own self be true." Label generating is a task better
> > left to those who have little better to do.
> >
> > For me, art is a) exploration and discovery; b) communication. For you
> > it may be different, but I try and see what underlies the world around
> > me, and communicate what I find top those who may be interested. I am
> > perfectly willing to meet my audience halfway, so that there is give and
> > take with respect to the themes and techniques, and I learn alot through
> > their reaction.
> >
> > Anyway, here's my latest:
> > http://www.gammarat.com/Artists/ChrisB/construction.html
> >
> > Cheers;
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > PS. with respect to Bouguereau, look past the themes to the technique
> > and structure, which he excelled at. A good deal of his work, taken
> > abstractly, is incredibly strong, while even he himself did not take the
> > content of his work seriously. It's what made the work sell, and allowed
> > him to practice his art.
> >
> > Now here's something to think about - many of his detractors focus
> > primarily on the content, and yet fall all over themselves in praise of
> > attempts at content free painting. Seems peculiar to me...
Erik A. Mattila
> There he goes again - analysing and concluding that another person is
> incapable of forming their own opinion.
Well, let's play a little game, then, Alison. Let's break this baby down to its
raw components.
1. Kay states clearly that she has never view Chris' work on his web site, and
even offers reasons why she hasn't done this.
2. Kay offers criticism of Chris' work, which is both similar and supportive of
your criticism of Chris' work.
If you analyse that, what are the possible conclusions?
But my conclusion was the Arizona Avatar thang. This what was I offered to Chris
(and any other reader). I would have to ascribe the authorship of "concluding that
another person is incapable of forming their own opinion" to you, since your are
the originator of this language. Personally, I think Kay is extremely capable of
forming her own opinion, and I often admire her for it. It's just that in this
case Kay explicitly stated that she did not take the steps one would assume were
fundamental to forming an opinion, namely, looking at Chris' web site.
So what conclusion would you draw from that?
> However, in hindsight, one might
> want to consider why Chris has flamed John on the Chocolate Box website
> page for something that I said. Interesting huh ? Probably the same
> reason that Marilyn after months of corresponding with John, for no
> reason other than he was friends with me, set her Email to reject John's
> letters. Starting to think that there may be something in this, Erik.
Sure, there's something to this, Alison, undoubtedly. But what is it? I mean, you
seem to be talking about a series of events over time which involved private
exchanges that I am not privvy to, so I, or other readers, are kind of in the
dark. Be that as it may, the question still looms: How does that apply to a
critique of Chris' art work? For example, I think many understand that Van Gogh's
personality was so intense it suffocated and alienated people, yet he was able to
produce wonderful paintings which are absolutely loved by the same people who would
look at their watch and excuse themselves from Van Gogh's presense on a false
pretext, just to be able to get a breath of air. I'm not saying that Chris'
personality is suffocating, or course, but rather that I don't see the relationship
between liking or disliking Chris as a person (or indeed, a cyberperson) and the
merits or demerits of his art work.
If you wish to make the argument that there is a valid relationship here, I'm all
ears (eyes?).
> Yup ! I got it. We are all indoctrinated robots incapable of an
> individual thought or an opinion .... I suspected it for a long time.
> Art truly is dead.
Sure, but I feel inclinded to ask you to acknowledge that this is a conclusion that
you have made, not I. You may have imagined that this is my conclusion, but this
does not mean that it is -- even though it's a reasonable possibility. The truth
is that it is not my conclusion at all. My conclusion is that personal loyalty
that may exist between friends can be quite irrational, and I mean simply that the
emotional (feeling) content of such loyalty is stronger and more considered than,
say, the merits of a good and solid argument (in the formal sense of argumentation
and debate). I don't see observing and noting this as being particularly negative
or denigrating. When discussing issues, it is often necessary to recognize these
things in order to put asides aside and get on with the debate. I guess you have
to imagine the opposite of not being able to see a person's (who you dislike) work
objectively, and that would be a lively and rigourous debate among great friends --
where cheap shots are even made, but the friendship is never threatened. It's just
a matter of critical distance.
The "Art is dead" idea belongs to a family of ideas, such as Neitzche's "God is
Dead" or Foucault's "The Death of the Author." They're figurative expressions that
comment on the changing status of religion and art in modern industrial society.
They really speak to paradigms -- i.e. "God is Dead" is a way of saying that the
older sway religion held in culture no longer has much power in modern society. It
doesn't say that there is no more religion, but rather that religion, in its old
form, no longer effectively 'explains' the world to people, and subsequently is
less important than it was in older times, as a social force. "Art is dead" speaks
to the proliferation of visual culture, and ideas such as Benjamin's, and the
impact of mass media on modern culture. We see this working in many discussions on
this form, where the very idea of 'art' is radically more ambiguous than it was 500
years ago.
So the only thing you 'got,' Alison, were your own ideas about this, which are not
mine. I hope that you can consider that there are other possibilities.
Best,
Erik
Kay
Alison A Raimes wrote in message ...
:In article <384947A7...@ns.sympatico.ca>, Chris
:<bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> writes
:>Kay wrote:
:>>
:>> I assume that I am the other half of the deadly duo to which you refer?
:>
:>Nope, Sorry.
:
:No Kay, he has it in for John Haber for some reason, and John has never
:once commented on his work - in fact he hadn't seen it until I called it
:*chocolate box art* and then all he did was raise his eyebrows and shake
:his head (probably more at me than the work;-). Chris even went to the
:extent of flaming John (and myself) on a badly written page of his
:website
Is it an *art* website? Why would he do that? It is entirely
unprofessional. Maybe it is just for fun?
(he ought to get Marilyn to do a spell and grammar check if he
:want anyone to take it seriously). I think Chris gets very confused ;-)
It is funny that an adversary will correct grammar but let a friend look
less impressive by not pointing out errors.
:I still wonder about how the things that someone else says here on a
:newsgroup can possibly affect someone else's work. I mean what would
:that person do when it is published in a review ?
I had a couple of bad reviews. Always from the same *&%$## and I wanted to
simultaneously bash my head through a glass window and commit homicide. This
lasted about 5 or 10 minutes. Then I call up a friend who tells me how
biased/stupid/unenlightened, etc. they are and I am over it. Luckily, the
good reviews have outweighed the bad (so far!) but 2 observations:
1. I hate to give someone so much power. That's stupid. I DO have a friend
who got a horrible review after 2 years of wonderful reviews and she has
never done any art since! Now, I didn't lose respect for her for getting a
bad review, but I did lose respect for her for letting it get to her. You
either believe in yourself or not.
2. All of the artists I admire have been reviewed badly at some point. One
that I see often has told me to save them. He had received so many bad
reviews he says he could wallpaper a house with them. But - in order to
receive those poor reviews, he had to be a productive artist. He is quite
successful today though he did get reviewed by Art in American about a year
ago and they said his work shows vivid mysognst tendencies. He isn't like
that at all. So people should either ignor them or quit sending press
releases to them.
Most people here on
:this newsgroup avoid offending and lie - trying to find something
:agreeable to say - some even say that the work is good when they haven't
:even viewed it - and others say what they think.
If I don't like a work, I usually say nothing. I am able to really dislike
or be currently angry with a poster, yet compliment their work. This isn't a
problem for me. Many, though, enjoy speaking through their asses.... I
assume this is what you refer to?
One thing for sure -
:don't ever take a newsgroup review of your work seriously ..... in fact
:don't take any review seriously unless it comes from your own mouth :-)
I value the judgement of my peers. There are probably 5-6 people here who
post regularly that I would value their opinion. But, nothing would change.
Then again, Mani seems to enjoy disparaging Mark's work ad nauseum and that
is getting to be a bit much because everyone's work is personal. I don't
like to read non-constructive criticism. I also don't look at many
websites. We have too many posted here. Maybe when the download time gets
faster...
Kay
:Cheers !
:Alison
:ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
:http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Kay
art students sort of "acted out" the image of neurosis, tormented artist and
all that, but the nuttiest of these big bags of nuts all eventually dropped
out of art to become psychology majors. This ends up being a personal attack
on Chris, but is based on my personal observations. Here's where we differ,
Alison, I feel that entrusting someone to heal one's psyche is equivalent to
entrusting a critic to form one's art. (Not an advocate of therapy, me).
Kay
Alison A Raimes wrote in message ...
:In article <38493DCE...@ns.sympatico.ca>, Chris
:<bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> writes
:
:>
:>Hey, if it wasn't for that, I wouldn't have my cash job as an analyst.
:>I'd have to drive a truck, or something :)
:>
:>Chris
:
:Do you consider the job of driving a truck to be less important that
:that of an *analyst* ?
:
:Alison
:ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
:http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Kay
Alison A Raimes wrote in message ...
:<emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
:>
:>But it's not true that Kay has never seen your work, Chris. Kay is the
Arizona
:>Avatar of Alison. Does that explain the delimma better?
:>
:>I have learned that the term 'avatar' is both insulting and anti-semetic
(from
:>Kay and Alison). Thank God Kay has me on KILL FILE so she won't have to
suffer
:>my horrible attacks.
Oh, you little Spaniel nipping at my heels, I still must suffer it seems
since people respond to you!
:>But seriously, I think Kay is telling the truth about not viewing your
:>paintings. She has experienced them vicariously through Alison's written
:>critiques.
Alison's critique was not positive, no, and I believe they did indicate that
Alison thought they were rather an amateur attempt at art, but I am not sure
because I have not actually engaged in any discussions with Chris except for
a few cheap shots fired by us both in relation to Alison/Marilyn (guess who
sides with whom???)
Not an experience, since I can't remember the substance or content.
I'm not attacking anyone in observing this - I think it's actually
:>true. And so what? Somebody reads Ruskin, Berenson, or Kuspsit and then
looks
:>at art through different colored spectacles. An artist still has the
option to
:>ask: "Yes, but what do YOU think of this painting?"
:>
:>Cherrios,
:>Erik
Fruit Loops!
:
:There he goes again - analysing and concluding that another person is
:incapable of forming their own opinion. However, in hindsight, one might
:want to consider why Chris has flamed John on the Chocolate Box website
:page for something that I said. Interesting huh ?
Yes, it is interesting and beyond me why anyone would go to the bother.
There are likely little voodoo dolls of both you and John with pins being
inserted in that smiley-faced country north of the USA.
Probably the same
:reason that Marilyn after months of corresponding with John, for no
:reason other than he was friends with me, set her Email to reject John's
:letters. Starting to think that there may be something in this, Erik.
What was Erik's point? I missed it...
:Yup ! I got it. We are all indoctrinated robots incapable of an
:individual thought or an opinion .... I suspected it for a long time.
:Art truly is dead.
Oh, I get it - satire and sarcasm. Cool! Is Art dead or are individual
thoughts and opinions dead?
Kay
:Alison
:ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
:http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Erik A. Mattila
blame Watteau if the 'look' of French painting was targeted to tea cups and
wallpaper in the 19th and 20th century. But it's hard to look at French art of
the period without this association. So it's a bit of a test, really, to look
at a Watteau with innocent eyes. But if you do, you see some pretty impressive
painting going on there. The "Chocolate Box Painting" is nothing more than a
dismisssive denigration -- guilt by assocication -- that won't stand up in
court. But personally, it suggests some intriguing possibilities, although I
confess I'm more inclined towards the 'cigar box' and 'orange crate' schools.
Erik Mattila
Erik A. Mattila
Well, Chris, since I'm on Kay's (s)hit list, I guess you'll have to tell her...
"er...not that kind of analysts, ma'am."
This is toooooo funny. Something like "clueless in Arizona" I guess.
Erik Mattila
Kay wrote:
> I thought he was a message therapist? I remember when I was in college. The
> art students sort of "acted out" the image of neurosis, tormented artist and
> all that, but the nuttiest of these big bags of nuts all eventually dropped
> out of art to become psychology majors. This ends up being a personal attack
> on Chris, but is based on my personal observations. Here's where we differ,
> Alison, I feel that entrusting someone to heal one's psyche is equivalent to
> entrusting a critic to form one's art. (Not an advocate of therapy, me).
> Kay
>
> Alison A Raimes wrote in message ...
Erik A. Mattila
> Alison A Raimes wrote in message ...
> :In article <38498A29...@tomatoweb.com>, Erik A. Mattila
> :<emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
> :>
> :>But it's not true that Kay has never seen your work, Chris. Kay is the
> Arizona
> :>Avatar of Alison. Does that explain the delimma better?
> :>
> :>I have learned that the term 'avatar' is both insulting and anti-semetic
> (from
> :>Kay and Alison). Thank God Kay has me on KILL FILE so she won't have to
> suffer
> :>my horrible attacks.
>
> Oh, you little Spaniel nipping at my heels, I still must suffer it seems
> since people respond to you!
Arf! Art! grrrrrr --tinkle tinkle on your carpet. Yea, KillFile only provides
symbolic relief.
> >But seriously, I think Kay is telling the truth about not viewing your
> :>paintings. She has experienced them vicariously through Alison's written
> :>critiques.
>
> Alison's critique was not positive, no, and I believe they did indicate that
> Alison thought they were rather an amateur attempt at art, but I am not sure
> because I have not actually engaged in any discussions with Chris except for
> a few cheap shots fired by us both in relation to Alison/Marilyn (guess who
> sides with whom???)
> Not an experience, since I can't remember the substance or content.
Then what do you base YOUR critique of Chris' work on, Karnak, oh wise one? Or
did you already forget that you wrote one?
> I'm not attacking anyone in observing this - I think it's actually
> :>true. And so what? Somebody reads Ruskin, Berenson, or Kuspsit and then
> looks
> :>at art through different colored spectacles. An artist still has the
> option to
> :>ask: "Yes, but what do YOU think of this painting?"
> :>
> :>Cherrios,
> :>Erik
>
> Fruit Loops!
> :
> :There he goes again - analysing and concluding that another person is
> :incapable of forming their own opinion. However, in hindsight, one might
> :want to consider why Chris has flamed John on the Chocolate Box website
> :page for something that I said. Interesting huh ?
>
> Yes, it is interesting and beyond me why anyone would go to the bother.
> There are likely little voodoo dolls of both you and John with pins being
> inserted in that smiley-faced country north of the USA.
Well, I can't speak for Chris, but I do it because it's funny. And it's no
bother, really. Just entertainment.
> Probably the same
> :reason that Marilyn after months of corresponding with John, for no
> :reason other than he was friends with me, set her Email to reject John's
> :letters. Starting to think that there may be something in this, Erik.
>
> What was Erik's point? I missed it...
That's already been well established, Kay.
> :Yup ! I got it. We are all indoctrinated robots incapable of an
> :individual thought or an opinion .... I suspected it for a long time.
> :Art truly is dead.
>
> Oh, I get it - satire and sarcasm. Cool! Is Art dead or are individual
> thoughts and opinions dead?
No, actually it's called "jumping to conclusions."
Fruit Loops,
Erik
Alison A Raimes
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>Sure, there's something to this, Alison, undoubtedly. But what is it? I mean,
>you
>seem to be talking about a series of events over time which involved private
>exchanges that I am not privvy to, so I, or other readers, are kind of in the
>dark.
No Erik. No private exchanges. Chris and John were engaged in a *debate*
on *Libertarians without a cause* thread, which Chris had clearly lost
the original intent of and John had tried to direct him back to the
issue at hand. When he failed to, he told Chris that he was not going to
continue with the debate and thanked him. Its all archived around the
10th October when I was in New York. Not once did he ever look at or
comment on Chris' work, that was down to me and I stand by it. Chris is
a second rate artist whose colour sense and is so bad that even his
website requires sunglasses to look at comfortably. That is my opinion
irrespective of any other factors and I reserve the right to express it
in the same way that he chose to draw up a website page in which he
named *Mr Haber* and made some ill informed remarks about what he
considers to be *contemporary* art. It doesn't make an iota of a
difference to Chris or his work unless he decides to make it part of his
work, as he has done. You can draw your own conclusions on that one but
he must stand accountable for it. Does that shed some light on it ?
Alison
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Alison A Raimes
<scarl...@theriver.com> writes
>I thought he was a message therapist?
Ha ha ! That's pretty appropriate ! His favourite message is *get a
life* .... apparently his is so good (that is why he paints through
green tinted glasses)
Alison
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Alison A Raimes
<bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> writes
>Whoa, Alison! 5 posts this morning in this one thread....busy mornig out
>your way, I suppose? Anyway, I'll answer this one, guess I just don't
>have all the free time you do!
I see, Chris, is this part of your *get a life* mentality that you often
like to tell others ? I guess you are now an authority on how I spend my
time.
OK - if you are so fast to make assumptions here is the my day in full
for you. Yesterday morning I went to work at nine am (I work seven days
incidentally) - had to drive across to the Royal College of Art and
transport a rejected artist and his work from the Hunting Prize - took
me an hour and a quarter from home. He forgot his papers and I then had
to sit for an hour while he cycled across town to get them so I read a
book. Then we had to stand for an hour and a half in line because they
were *short staffed* in the collection room. I didn't mind that because
this guy is such a good artist and I wanted to talk with him about
future events and competitions. One of the main reasons I do this
driving job is to network and find out how it is possible to make a
living as an artist. I collate all the information and pass the
information back on to the co-operative members at Cable Street Arts.
He talked to me about two artists who I have been interested in for some
time here in London and explained why it so important to keep doing
these competitions and that once you are selected for one then the
others seem to follow suite. One of such artists I ardently followed
since he was in the New Contemporaries competition six years ago -
Zebedee Jones - turns out he is almost deaf, almost blind and has a
speech impediment. Incredible. His work is so involved in the process of
*paint* and its possibilities - he experiments like I do, so I want very
much to meet him and see what he is currently working on. I was excited
to find his studio was next door to the artist I was delivering for.
But my artist is a Canadian figurative artist who is trying to make it
in London (even though he sells really well in Montreal and makes enough
to live and work in London on). Incidentally for anyone wanting to ship
work - he takes the paintings off the stretchers and lays them flat
between two sheets of plywood and then ships them flat, builds new
stretchers in Canada and restretches them without any damage. A tip
worth passing on.
He says he loves being here and that London is the greatest city for an
artist to be. We collected his work and then it took us almost an hour
and a half to get back to the East End of London where his studios are
and I went in to take a look at the studios and see his work in progress
...... and to see if Zebedee was in for a quick studio visit. He wasn't.
My artist and I argued about the price for the day's work - I hate
charging artists for collecting failed competition entries so said 25
pounds (which is my minimum charge for a one hour job) and he insisted
on giving me 30. It took me an hour to get back to my studio because a
masked gunman had walked into a pub close to where I was and gunned down
two people - the police were swarming across East London and stopped me
to search the van.
I got back to the studio at three o'clock, skimmed through my Email and
newsgroups - wrote those five messages which took me approximately five
minutes and then had to dash to another part of town to deliver two
paintings that I sold this week. The first one was from taking a stand
at the Alternative Arts market at Spitalfields in East London on
Thursday. I never do *markets* but most of the co-op gallery members do
and sell well, so thought I would give it a go. The first week I took
some small paintings priced around the hundred pounds mark and didn't
sell a thing - but had a lot of fun ! This week I decided to take some
of my older and larger paintings that I won't ever show again. Before I
had even unpacked my paintings someone had put a reserve deposit on one
and another asked me if he could visit the studio to take a look at the
rest of my work - I have a feeling he was a gallery owner so am keeping
my fingers crossed. By the end of the day another painting had gone also
so in one day I made six hundred pounds selling old work. Better than
driving a van eh ?
By the time I finally got home (its an hours drive from the city) it was
seven in the evening - after I ate and had a glass of wine I got out my
sketch book and spent three hours doing some drawings for a portrait of
John that I am working on, even though I should be working on the
thousand tiny images for my show in April. This morning I was up and on
the road at six - been cleaning toilets all morning and am taking a
break before finishing the job and hopefully getting into the studio by
two this afternoon to get on with the real work.
Voila ! I will let you now decide how much spare time I have and if I
have more free time than you. Now what did *you* yesterday Chris ? Did
you spend it having a *life* which I obviously don't have ?
Alison
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Chris
Err, ...not that kind of analyst, ma'am...its a math degree. It's where
one goes to really come face to face with abstraction.
To infinity, and beyond!
Chris
"Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
>
> Ha ha aha ha ha heee hee ah ha ha ah e heee he eh ehhheee!!!!
>
> Well, Chris, since I'm on Kay's (s)hit list, I guess you'll have to tell her...
>
> "er...not that kind of analysts, ma'am."
>
> This is toooooo funny. Something like "clueless in Arizona" I guess.
>
> Erik Mattila
>
> Kay wrote:
>
> > I thought he was a message therapist? I remember when I was in college. The
> > art students sort of "acted out" the image of neurosis, tormented artist and
> > all that, but the nuttiest of these big bags of nuts all eventually dropped
> > out of art to become psychology majors. This ends up being a personal attack
> > on Chris, but is based on my personal observations. Here's where we differ,
> > Alison, I feel that entrusting someone to heal one's psyche is equivalent to
> > entrusting a critic to form one's art. (Not an advocate of therapy, me).
> > Kay
> >
> > Alison A Raimes wrote in message ...
> > :In article <38493DCE...@ns.sympatico.ca>, Chris
> > :<bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> writes
> > :
> > :>
> > :>Hey, if it wasn't for that, I wouldn't have my cash job as an analyst.
> > :>I'd have to drive a truck, or something :)
> > :>
> > :>Chris
> > :
> > :Do you consider the job of driving a truck to be less important that
> > :that of an *analyst* ?
> > :
> > :Alison
> > :ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
> > :http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
--
Alison A Raimes
<scarl...@theriver.com> writes
>
>Chris wrote:
>(snip)
>
>:Even the infamous Cadets
>:(http://www.gammarat.com/Artists/ChrisB_01/Cadets.html) that our deadly
>:duo found so distasteful...(I realize it wasn't listed for sale, but
>:it's going to a good home.)
>:
>:Cheers;
>:
>:Chris
>
>I assume that I am the other half of the deadly duo to which you refer?
>posted here and I look only if the person writes something intriguing, to
>which I agree or not. I've never noticed you as a "player", just as one
>half of the Duo of Dullards.
>:PS - I heard recently that what first drew Matisse to painting was the
>:picture on a box of chocolates....
>
>Sorry, doesn't strike my interest. I go for the contemporary stuff; even so,
>I doubt if I have a single friend who isn't fooling around with boxes
>recently <gag>
>
Ha ! I am looking for the so called *critique* that Erik says you did of
Chris' work that apparently makes you *not have your own opinion* -
where is it, Kay - is this supposed to be it ? I think Erik owes you an
apology. Me thinks the boys are joining force against us again ......
watch out, they will all be doing those weird bonding dances they do in
the Rugby tours ;-)
Now onto the interesting stuff. Boxes ! Seems everyone is at it - you
are right and you simply *must* have a look at Chris' Chocolate Box page
on his website ;-)
So do you know Susan Hiller's work, Kay ? She has some excellent books
out and in particular _Conversations with Susan Hiller_ in which she
discusses her work in boxes. She did a major exhibition installation at
the Freud Museum in London in 1992. Originally an anthropologist there
is a continual reference to artefacts. If you don't know her work I can
let you know some more - there is a very good article in _Third
Text_Issue 37, Winter 1996-7 which I have been meaning to write up notes
from. Hiller came to do a talk for the MFA students at Manchester when I
was an under grad and we got to sit in on it. I had been researching
her work for weeks in relation to some work I was doing on mirrors and
reflections, so couldn't believe my luck when I found out she was doing
a lecture. My luck turned when somehow or other I was plucked from the
audience by the Head of Art and ordered to operate the slide projector.
I suddenly found myself with an aeroplane style control box, two
computer style slide projectors and two screens which showed work
simultaneously in front of me .... and a huge audience who all seemed to
be far more interested in my predicament than Hiller herself. I fumbled
my way through trying to gauge when she wanted me to flick the slides
through and always getting it wrong (and her firing piercing glances at
me) - feeling a bit like you when you met Lucy Lippard. So when it came
to question time, firstly I hadn't been able to see any of the slides
and had been so nervous to be sitting in front of this huge audience and
next to her that I completely blew any chance to ask her all the things
I had been wanting to.
Speaking of that, I get another chance to blow it on Thursday. The
writer and critic, Guy Brett, who also writes for _Third Text_ is doing
a talk at Cable Street for the exhibition of the artist Peter Fillingham
who is showing here at the moment. When I was researching Chilean
Contemporary Art and was in Santiago I met many artists that had come
into contact with him - he does a lot of writing about peripheral
countries art. They all told me to get in contact with him on my return
(five years ago now). I wrote to him telephoned him and nothing. Imagine
my surprise to find him coming here to our humble little abode ! Anyway
it is a great chance for me to meet a writer who I have admired for a
long time - and to get to talk to him about Chilean Artists. Lets hope I
don't do a Lucy Lippard eh ? Any hints ....
Alison
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Kay
Alison A Raimes wrote in message ...
:
:incidentally) - had to drive across to the Royal College of Art and
:transport a rejected artist and his work from the Hunting Prize - took
:me an hour and a quarter from home. He forgot his papers and I then had
:to sit for an hour while he cycled across town to get them so I read a
:book. Then we had to stand for an hour and a half in line because they
:were *short staffed* in the collection room. I didn't mind that because
:this guy is such a good artist and I wanted to talk with him about
:future events and competitions. One of the main reasons I do this
:driving job is to network and find out how it is possible to make a
:living as an artist.
That's a good way to do it. Has anything paid off yet?
(snip)
:He talked to me about two artists who I have been interested in for some
:time here in London and explained why it so important to keep doing
:these competitions and that once you are selected for one then the
:others seem to follow suite.
Was he talking about "invitationals" or did he advocate continuing sending
slides and fees, etc.?
One of such artists I ardently followed
:since he was in the New Contemporaries competition six years ago -
:Zebedee Jones - turns out he is almost deaf, almost blind and has a
:speech impediment. Incredible. His work is so involved in the process of
:*paint* and its possibilities - he experiments like I do, so I want very
:much to meet him and see what he is currently working on. I was excited
:to find his studio was next door to the artist I was delivering for.
Did you jimmie the window lock? Try this: Break in. Pretend to be
unconscious. When he comes in the studio ask "Did the police remove all the
other bodies here?" He will likely assume that you were an unfortunate
victim of an international drug cartel massacre and will not question you
further. You can mention that you are a legitimate artist and that you were
forced to transport drugs for them because they had your sister/dog/mother
hostage and/or addicted/at gunpoint/on a hit list because she was a
stoolie/turned state's evidence/was skimming/had amnesia and add some other
stuff to spice it up. Believe ME - when you tell stories like this - they
are always speechless and won't ask for more details. Then you can calmly
point out that you like the way he blah, blah, blah and can he tell you his
method/biography/penis size/etc. Most artist's favorite topic of
conversation is:
MEMEMEMEME!
:But my artist is a Canadian figurative artist who is trying to make it
:in London (even though he sells really well in Montreal and makes enough
:to live and work in London on). Incidentally for anyone wanting to ship
:work - he takes the paintings off the stretchers and lays them flat
:between two sheets of plywood and then ships them flat, builds new
:stretchers in Canada and restretches them without any damage.
Some ship them rolled up - paint side out. Cheap. I did this to Australia.
No damage at all. The plywood would be more protective, but perhaps much
larger and certainly more weight.
A tip
:worth passing on.
Thank you.
:He says he loves being here and that London is the greatest city for an
:artist to be.
I think London does sound exciting at this point in time, but I think I'm
still moving to the Netherlands to be Mrs. Mesken and my husband can be Mr.
Mesken Jr. (Where is your work, Paul???)
We collected his work and then it took us almost an hour
:and a half to get back to the East End of London where his studios are
:and I went in to take a look at the studios and see his work in progress
:...... and to see if Zebedee was in for a quick studio visit. He wasn't.
:My artist and I argued about the price for the day's work - I hate
:charging artists for collecting failed competition entries so said 25
:pounds (which is my minimum charge for a one hour job) and he insisted
:on giving me 30. It took me an hour to get back to my studio because a
:masked gunman had walked into a pub close to where I was and gunned down
:two people - the police were swarming across East London and stopped me
:to search the van.
Guns??? In London???
:I got back to the studio at three o'clock, skimmed through my Email and
:newsgroups - wrote those five messages which took me approximately five
:minutes and then had to dash to another part of town to deliver two
:paintings that I sold this week. The first one was from taking a stand
:at the Alternative Arts market at Spitalfields in East London on
:Thursday. I never do *markets* but most of the co-op gallery members do
:and sell well, so thought I would give it a go. The first week I took
:some small paintings priced around the hundred pounds mark and didn't
:sell a thing - but had a lot of fun ! This week I decided to take some
:of my older and larger paintings that I won't ever show again.
Now that's smart. In a recent art pique, I threw in the trash all of my
student work...
Before I
:had even unpacked my paintings someone had put a reserve deposit on one
:and another asked me if he could visit the studio to take a look at the
:rest of my work - I have a feeling he was a gallery owner so am keeping
:my fingers crossed.
Eyes and legs crossed here ;-)
By the end of the day another painting had gone also
:so in one day I made six hundred pounds selling old work. Better than
:driving a van eh ?
Congratulations. <meow>
:By the time I finally got home (its an hours drive from the city) it was
:seven in the evening - after I ate and had a glass of wine I got out my
:sketch book and spent three hours doing some drawings for a portrait of
:John that I am working on, even though I should be working on the
:thousand tiny images for my show in April. This morning I was up and on
:the road at six - been cleaning toilets all morning and am taking a
:break before finishing the job and hopefully getting into the studio by
:two this afternoon to get on with the real work.
:
:Voila ! I will let you now decide how much spare time I have and if I
:have more free time than you. Now what did *you* yesterday Chris ? Did
:you spend it having a *life* which I obviously don't have .
Are amphetimines legal in London???
:Alison
:ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
:http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Kay
Alison A Raimes wrote in message ...
:>Sorry, doesn't strike my interest. I go for the contemporary stuff; even
so,
:>I doubt if I have a single friend who isn't fooling around with boxes
:>recently <gag>
:>
:>Kay
:
:Ha ! I am looking for the so called *critique* that Erik says you did of
:Chris' work that apparently makes you *not have your own opinion* -
:where is it, Kay - is this supposed to be it ?
He's getting a bit addled. I'm sure he is looking for it frantically. It
doesn't exist. We left Brallen before Chris got there and only returned for
a brief battle which was, by the way, welcoming Chris and I do apologize to
Chris for that. Since I didn't know him, it was inpolite of me to take over
his thread for my own purposes. But, Erik is NEVER wrong, you know...
I think Erik owes you an
:apology.
cold-day-hell
He will say that he didn't actually say what you think he said and that you
must be a moron for reading that into it but that he said "if" Kay had
written about Chris blah, blah, blah and then ask you why you are so stupid.
Me thinks the boys are joining force against us again ......
:watch out, they will all be doing those weird bonding dances they do in
:the Rugby tours ;-)
Is that like the football guys bouncing asses together and emitting loud
grunts while wearing giant pieces of cheese on their heads?
:Now onto the interesting stuff. Boxes ! Seems everyone is at it - you
:are right and you simply *must* have a look at Chris' Chocolate Box page
:on his website ;-)
Now I cannot. Can't make me!
Kay
Alison A Raimes wrote:
:
:So do you know Susan Hiller's work, Kay ?
I have heard of it and I'm sure that I've seen it, but my mind went blank
about her now.
She has some excellent books
:out and in particular _Conversations with Susan Hiller_ in which she
:discusses her work in boxes. She did a major exhibition installation at
:the Freud Museum in London in 1992. Originally an anthropologist there
:is a continual reference to artefacts. If you don't know her work I can
:let you know some more - there is a very good article in _Third
:Text_Issue 37, Winter 1996-7 which I have been meaning to write up notes
:from. Hiller came to do a talk for the MFA students at Manchester when I
:was an under grad and we got to sit in on it. I had been researching
:her work for weeks in relation to some work I was doing on mirrors and
:reflections, so couldn't believe my luck when I found out she was doing
:a lecture. My luck turned when somehow or other I was plucked from the
:audience by the Head of Art and ordered to operate the slide projector.
It's funny how being asked to do something for free can give one such
thrills!
:I suddenly found myself with an aeroplane style control box, two
:computer style slide projectors and two screens which showed work
:simultaneously in front of me .... and a huge audience who all seemed to
:be far more interested in my predicament than Hiller herself.
Hahahaha!
I fumbled
:my way through trying to gauge when she wanted me to flick the slides
:through and always getting it wrong (and her firing piercing glances at
:me)
Hahahaha!
- feeling a bit like you when you met Lucy Lippard.
Gulp!
So when it came
:to question time, firstly I hadn't been able to see any of the slides
:and had been so nervous to be sitting in front of this huge audience and
:next to her that I completely blew any chance to ask her all the things
:I had been wanting to.
Mind went blank, eh? Did you answer as intelligently as I with a big
"uhhhhhh?"
:Speaking of that, I get another chance to blow it on Thursday. The
:writer and critic, Guy Brett, who also writes for _Third Text_ is doing
:a talk at Cable Street for the exhibition of the artist Peter Fillingham
:who is showing here at the moment. When I was researching Chilean
:Contemporary Art and was in Santiago I met many artists that had come
:into contact with him - he does a lot of writing about peripheral
:countries art.
Are they calling 3rd world countries peripheral countries now?
They all told me to get in contact with him on my return
:(five years ago now). I wrote to him telephoned him and nothing. Imagine
:my surprise to find him coming here to our humble little abode ! Anyway
:it is a great chance for me to meet a writer who I have admired for a
:long time - and to get to talk to him about Chilean Artists. Lets hope I
:don't do a Lucy Lippard eh ? Any hints ....
Get some sleep at least 24 hours before you meet him. Don't meet him after
an 11 hour drive. Don't say "uhhhhh" and drop your eyes down to the floor
where you wish you would disappear to in order to join your brain. Type
something intelligent claiming to have a type of disease rendering coherent
speach impossible that day but a plea for another chance. Then, if you blow
it, give him the prepared paper (get your brother, the doctor to sign it).
They say you get over it. I haven't :-0
Erik A. Mattila
> Ha ! I am looking for the so called *critique* that Erik says you did of
> Chris' work that apparently makes you *not have your own opinion* -
> where is it, Kay - is this supposed to be it ? I think Erik owes you an
> apology. Me thinks the boys are joining force against us again ......
> watch out, they will all be doing those weird bonding dances they do in
> the Rugby tours ;-)
Did you ever read Joseph Heller's "Catch 22," Alison? In one episode Lt.
Yosarian was being grilled at Courts Marshall as a witness to Lt. Clevenger's
sedition against the U.S. Army. The Judge askes him "Is it true that you heard
Lt. Clevenger say bad things about the Army in the latrine on (such and such)
date? "No, sir, I didn't hear Lt. Clevenger say bad things about the Army."
"When didn't you hear Lt. Clevenger say bad things about the Army." "I ALWAYS
didn't hear Lt. Clevenger say bad things about the Army!"
For some reason this hilarious literary epsidode comes to my when I think about
the issue you've raised.
But let me ask you if you've fairly considered the alternative explanation I've
offered? To restate, there's no real ambiguity to the sentence I wrote (to
paraphrase) "I do think Kay is capable of having her own opinion." Have you
considered that this may be true, and it is a fair reflection of my opinion? To
restate, the "Avatar" concept is possibly a way of refering to the very simple
idea of personal loyalty, where one person backs up the opinion of a friend.
Have you considered this fairly? To restate, the "incapable of having your own
opinion" is your conclusion that you've drawn, independant of other
possiblities. Have you accepted responsibility for this (not a great thing,
really, but just acknowledging that the source of this idea is in you, not I).
If my explanation is true, then it doesn't follow that I owe Kay an apology,
since it is just another way of saying something like "Gee, I really admire the
loyalty you show to Alison." I see it as if you've entered a candy store of
possible conclusions, and have the selected the piece of candy that suits your
taste. No problem in this, of course. But then you are going on as if it were
the only piece of candy in the store. That's problematical, since it is pretty
obvious that there are other candies there, besides the one that happened to
please you.
But without doing the thread research, I recall Kay iterating the "Chocolate
Box" argument. I guess I could have imagined it, or that it was written between
the lines or something like that. It's probably a moot point anyway, as there
is really no real question that Kay concurs with you on your views of Chris' art
work without seeing this work for herself. Am I wrong about this? Does this
mean that Kay is incapable of having her own opinion? I think not, on the face
of it. It only means that she has backed up your opinions, and her position is
not founded on independant observation, but rather founded on her personal
relationship with you. Frankly, I can't think of an alternative conclusion. If
you can, please enlighten me.
Cheers,
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
in 1987, so I would have to had heard about this. Maybe not. Just another art
project among many, right? (But then when it becomes famous, you can say "Yes, I
was there. It was quite moving!")
Erik
Marilyn Welch wrote:
> Erik, now you have me thinking of
> "Parking Lot Art"
>
> It was done at UC Davis in 1987 where cars were placed
> in a pattern opposing the existing parking grid. They were
> grouped according to colour, and even played "music"
> with their horns.
>
> I found the overhead photo of it really fascinating
> thinking here is an object of a lot of hatred - The Car
> and yet this arrangement is really beautiful.
> It made me realize how much I could lose out on by
> dismissing art on the strength of its label.
>
> Did you ever hear about it? The artist is Heath Schenker.
> The book is "The Meaning of Gardens" and yes they consider
> this Parking Lot Art a Parking Lot Garden.
>
> Ah life is so random and chaotic.
>
> Marilyn
Chris
That sounds pretty neat...And the music part brings to mind the Sound
Symposium that's held every year in St. John's (Nfld.). It's generally a
week or so of music, (experimental and otherwise), but one of the
highlights is the composer in residence writes something for the ships
in the harbour, for horns, bells, & whgistles (or whatever else they
have.. The harbour itself is a natural ampitheatre (pretty much ringed
by hills), so it can be quite exciting. Unfortunately it's been awhile
since I've been there, but if it's still going on, I'd recommend it.
Cheers from this side of that northern smiley land...
Chris
=============================
Chris
Walter Fisher wrote:
>
> I like the style. Colors are too bright for me. But, I am somewhat
> colorblind.
>
Uh-oh! Don't think you'd like the painting much then; I found the
reproduction on my site a little duller than the real one :( But thanks
for the comment re. the style.
Cheers;
Chris
Alison A Raimes
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>Did you ever read Joseph Heller's "Catch 22," Alison? In one episode Lt.
>Yosarian was being grilled at Courts Marshall as a witness to Lt. Clevenger's
>sedition against the U.S. Army. The Judge askes him "Is it true that you heard
>Lt. Clevenger say bad things about the Army in the latrine on (such and such)
>date? "No, sir, I didn't hear Lt. Clevenger say bad things about the Army."
>"When didn't you hear Lt. Clevenger say bad things about the Army." "I ALWAYS
>didn't hear Lt. Clevenger say bad things about the Army!"
Isn't that a great movie, Erik ? We had to study it for our elective in
Movie Studies. Good comparison.
You owe Kay an apology as much as Chris owes John one. It makes little
difference of you decide to *eat crow* on this one and do it. You have
accused Kay of something she has not done just as Chris has accused John
of something he definitely didn't do. I wonder if it is legal to publish
a libel on a public website about someone that refers to something the
accused hasn't done ? You, yourself, are always so insistent on having
accusations against you verified, yet you refuse to prove your claim
against Kay. I call that double standards, Erik.
Alison
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Alison A Raimes
<scarl...@theriver.com> writes
>:So do you know Susan Hiller's work, Kay ?
>
>I have heard of it and I'm sure that I've seen it, but my mind went blank
>about her now.
Lets see if I can jog your memory.
_Dedicated to the Unknown Artists_1972-76 : 350 postcards of a generic
image- a rough sea
Her video _Belshazzar's Feast_1983-64: the title taken from Rembrandt's
painting, in which a hand appeared in the midst of a gathering to write
an untranslatable message on a wall. She re-formulates the story so that
it is not the untranslatability of the message which is the mystifying
force, but Daniel's ability to interpret it that becomes so compelling.
>Are they calling 3rd world countries peripheral countries now?
In relation to the hegemonic structure that has dominated twentieth
century world art through Western society and the exclusion of what is
commonly known as *peripheral* art, yes. Absolutely. The journal that I
refer to is _Third Text_ and is dedicated to writing about art from
Third World perspectives. I think there may be a link at
http://www.livjm.ac.uk/~mccscubi/3Tintro.html
In this quarter's issue Sean Cubitt discusses the idea of a universal
language and, in contract to the Chocolate Box idea of art, he
interviews and goes right to the heart of Third World misery through the
artists there. Maria Fernandez discusses Postcolonial Media Theory and
Third World Feminism; Grant Kester has an article on collaborative
efforts by marginal countries to enter into the post-modern dialogue;
John Byrne writes an article called *Cybersublime* and discusses the
representation of the unpresentable in digital art and politics;
Niranjan Rajah writes about the Internet as a medium for art. That is
just a third of the journal - it includes reviews of exhibitions and
informs of forthcoming shows. Guy Brett is a major contributor.
>Get some sleep at least 24 hours before you meet him. Don't meet him after
>an 11 hour drive.
Oh oh, going to a party the night before and working all day too !
>Don't say "uhhhhh" and drop your eyes down to the floor
>where you wish you would disappear to in order to join your brain. Type
>something intelligent claiming to have a type of disease rendering coherent
>speach impossible that day but a plea for another chance. Then, if you blow
>it, give him the prepared paper (get your brother, the doctor to sign it).
>They say you get over it. I haven't :-0
The prepared paper being my certification ? That's the only paper my
brother would sign (he's a neurosurgeon) ;-)
Alison
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Erik A. Mattila
> In article <384C4F7B...@tomatoweb.com>, Erik A. Mattila
> <emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>
> >Did you ever read Joseph Heller's "Catch 22," Alison? In one episode Lt.
> >Yosarian was being grilled at Courts Marshall as a witness to Lt. Clevenger's
> >sedition against the U.S. Army. The Judge askes him "Is it true that you heard
> >Lt. Clevenger say bad things about the Army in the latrine on (such and such)
> >date? "No, sir, I didn't hear Lt. Clevenger say bad things about the Army."
> >"When didn't you hear Lt. Clevenger say bad things about the Army." "I ALWAYS
> >didn't hear Lt. Clevenger say bad things about the Army!"
>
> Isn't that a great movie, Erik ? We had to study it for our elective in
> Movie Studies. Good comparison.
Yes, a good movie, but as I recall the courts marshall dialog wasn't there. Was
it? Check out the book some time.
> You owe Kay an apology as much as Chris owes John one. It makes little
> difference of you decide to *eat crow* on this one and do it. You have
> accused Kay of something she has not done just as Chris has accused John
> of something he definitely didn't do. I wonder if it is legal to publish
> a libel on a public website about someone that refers to something the
> accused hasn't done ? You, yourself, are always so insistent on having
> accusations against you verified, yet you refuse to prove your claim
> against Kay. I call that double standards, Erik.
As I said before, in the US at any rate, the burden of proof on the plantiff in a
libel or slander is to prove that the defendant spoke or wrote untruths that he or
she knew to be untruths, for the purpose of damaging that persons reputation,
employment etc. So I'm not liable at all, since I sincerely believe that Kay wrote
naughty things about Chris' artwork without having viewed it, which I believe to
be reflections of your opinion, and the "Arizona Avatar" language does not
particularly damage one's reputation, unless you conclude what you have concluded.
You also have claimed that the word "Avatar" is anti semetic, which you couldn't
argue in court succcessfully. Anyway, you don't have a case. How could you
possibly prove that what I have said I don't believe to be true. If you argued
that what I said 'means' that I think Kay is uncapable of forming her own opinion,
I could simply respond, "No, I don't think that" and the court (often called 'the
finder of fact'), would have to accept that, since there is no way to prove it one
way or another. So you can see, it is difficult to prove slander or liable. If
you review some of the cases (which you can access online) you will see that these
types of civil action usually involve pretty overt attempts to injure one's
reputation for some particular motive, like if a contractor spread rumors about a
competitor to gain an advatage in winning a bid.
Prove what claim against Kay, Alison? You're the one who invented the offense.
I'm certainly not responsible if you refuse to believe what I have said on the
matter. Besides, Kay has put me on ShrillFile, so she's completely protected from
my abuse, right? Why do you feel that you need to stick up for Kay, anyway? Is
she that defensless and vulnerable that she can't fight her own mightly ideological
battles? I can only concluded that you think Kay is a wimp -- incapable of having
her own opinion. I'm joking of course, so don't get your bowels in an uproar.
This is funny, Alison. It's very humorous. I do hope that your post is not "that"
serious. If it is --- well, do you think that Kay is guilty of libel for calling
me a Cocker Spaniel? I mean, that really hurts, and I'm certain it lowers my
reputation among my peers (except my peers who happen to be dogs, that is). Come
on, you have a good sense of humor, Join me in a hearty chuckle.
But if you can't see the humor or appreciate it, well, I'll see you in court,
right?
Regards,
Erik
Alison A Raimes
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>
>But if you can't see the humor or appreciate it, well, I'll see you in court,
>right?
>
>Regards,
>Erik
>
>
Your safe ! Real life is too serious to ever take anything here with
more than a pinch of salt.
Don't you post late at night, BTW ..... and please don't torture me with
how hot it is during the day and all that - I'm in a freezing cold
studio with thirty four layers of clothes on and its pouring with rain
outside (and in for that matter).
Alison
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Erik A. Mattila
standards. It's all relative, something to do with thick and thin blood.
BTW, I watched another movie last night that I thought was really terrific.
"Instinct" w/ Anthony Hopkins. Didja see it? I really liked the message.
Erik
mesken
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote:
>But it's early morn here. It is a bit cold - but I'm sure it's warm by your
>standards. It's all relative, something to do with thick and thin blood.
>
Ah, how great the internet is. The sun is setting right now in the
Netherlands (and your message appeared no more than 15 minutes ago).
It's probably getting dark soon in the UK as well.
Alison A Raimes
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>But it's early morn here. It is a bit cold - but I'm sure it's warm by your
>standards. It's all relative, something to do with thick and thin blood.
>
>"Instinct" w/ Anthony Hopkins. Didja see it? I really liked the message.
>
>Erik
Oh, I just have an orgasm every time I see Hopkins on the screen. There
is nothing I can do about it, not even thinking of cabbage helps - even
when he played Picasso I drooled my way the entire thing. Which one is
*Instinct* ?
The rain now pouring through my studio roof - straight onto a canvas
that has a pool of resin drying and is too big to move - should be a
nice effect.
So when I get a post of your at midday isn't it like three in the
morning where you are ?
Alison
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
mesken
<ali...@see.signature.for.address> wrote:
>In article <384D1560...@tomatoweb.com>, Erik A. Mattila
><emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>>But it's early morn here. It is a bit cold - but I'm sure it's warm by your
>>standards. It's all relative, something to do with thick and thin blood.
>>
>>BTW, I watched another movie last night that I thought was really terrific.
>>"Instinct" w/ Anthony Hopkins. Didja see it? I really liked the message.
>>
>>Erik
>
>Oh, I just have an orgasm every time I see Hopkins on the screen. There
>is nothing I can do about it, not even thinking of cabbage helps - even
>when he played Picasso I drooled my way the entire thing. Which one is
>*Instinct* ?
>
Amazing... I don't have that at all with Hopkins, shows how different
people are ;-)
>The rain now pouring through my studio roof - straight onto a canvas
>that has a pool of resin drying and is too big to move - should be a
>nice effect.
>
Ah! So this is what artists mean if they talk about the "happy
accidents" ;-)
~Artist~
Start challenging yourself please. You have not found any particular
signature that is beyond the rest of the art planet. You owe it to
yourself if you are going to paint to do so and not copy the rest of
history. Hard to do but you have to break through your own and other
limits. You are not pushing hard enough at all. SPILL THE PAINT WASTE
THE CANVASS and call me in three years and for Gods sake quit being so
darn lazy and on using one to three brushes = Your marks are all the same
repetitive and bore the viewer. Color is immature but happy. Honey,
PAINT YOUR FUNNing A off and call me in 5 years.
Mattison
myfan...@my-deja.com
Alison A Raimes <ali...@see.signature.for.address> wrote:
> OK - if you are so fast to make assumptions here is the my day in full
> for you. Yesterday morning I went to work at nine am (I work seven
days
> incidentally) - ...
I would like to go on Welfare!
Bryn
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Erik A. Mattila
> In article <384D1560...@tomatoweb.com>, Erik A. Mattila
> <emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
> >But it's early morn here. It is a bit cold - but I'm sure it's warm by your
> >standards. It's all relative, something to do with thick and thin blood.
> >
> >BTW, I watched another movie last night that I thought was really terrific.
> >"Instinct" w/ Anthony Hopkins. Didja see it? I really liked the message.
> >
> >Erik
>
> Oh, I just have an orgasm every time I see Hopkins on the screen. There
> is nothing I can do about it, not even thinking of cabbage helps - even
> when he played Picasso I drooled my way the entire thing. Which one is
> *Instinct* ?
Right on. He's in my "Brit Hall of Fame" along with Trevor Howard, Alec
Guiness, Rita Tushingham....Geez, the list is long. Now I feel guilty - Peter
Sellers, Edith Evans, Tom Courtney, Stan Laurel, Charles Laughton, -- wow, Great
Britan really cranks them out. Is it Shakespere's fault?
I'm curious if in your film class if you discussed "The Knack." Do you remember
that film - I just did? (probably because I put Courtney and Tushinghqam on my
list) What a great flick. When they painted the flat and everything in it
white, well, modern art, right -- an 'installation' before installations became
in vogue.
In my mind, the absolute best-ever TV production was the "Jewel in the Crown."
I found it riviting. Here was the top villian ever (even better than Moriarity)
in Merrick. Really outstanding.
"Instinct" is a new video release about a man who has lived with the Gorillas
and turned into a homicidal maniac. I won't say anything else, if you love
Hopkins, you'll love it (even though it's a bit of a recast of Hannibal Lector).
Yep, it was 6:00 am when I answered your post. I've taken to the night for
strategic purposes. The days are full of home care workers for Mother in Law,
vacuum cleaners, visits from hostile in-laws, and high internet traffic. When
the sun come up, I go down.
>
>
> The rain now pouring through my studio roof - straight onto a canvas
> that has a pool of resin drying and is too big to move - should be a
> nice effect.
>
Chris
"Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
>
> Right on. He's in my "Brit Hall of Fame" along with Trevor Howard, Alec
> Guiness, Rita Tushingham....Geez, the list is long. Now I feel guilty - Peter
> Sellers, Edith Evans, Tom Courtney, Stan Laurel, Charles Laughton, -- wow, Great
> Britan really cranks them out. Is it Shakespere's fault?
>
Re. British films, have you seen "The Horses Mouth" ? Alec Guiness,
circa 1958. It's a wonderful little film, I think you (as most people
who post here) would enjoy the rather offbeat art humour, as well as
it's optimistic touch. It's available on video.
Re. Shakespeare - if you are looking for something to fill those desert
days, try Harold Bloom's rather weighty volume. His basic thesis is that
our (Western) perception of the meaning of human was largely an
invention of Shakespeare...I'd fill you in more but I have to put the
rugrat to bed...
Cheers,
Chris
Erik A. Mattila
> "Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
> >
> > Right on. He's in my "Brit Hall of Fame" along with Trevor Howard, Alec
> > Guiness, Rita Tushingham....Geez, the list is long. Now I feel guilty - Peter
> > Sellers, Edith Evans, Tom Courtney, Stan Laurel, Charles Laughton, -- wow, Great
> > Britan really cranks them out. Is it Shakespere's fault?
> >
>
> Re. British films, have you seen "The Horses Mouth" ? Alec Guiness,
> circa 1958. It's a wonderful little film, I think you (as most people
> who post here) would enjoy the rather offbeat art humour, as well as
> it's optimistic touch. It's available on video.
Sure I saw that -- it's part of 'basic training' right? A great film that made me
want to live in a houseboat. I'm wondering now if a cinematic 'first' was in the
Horse's Mouth. The heavy object falling through the floors of a hotel, which has
been redone many times in films since 1958.
I think my favorite Guiness film was "Captain's Paradise" (with "Man in the White
Suit" as runner-up). Did you ever see that one? A ferry-boat captain had an a very
'proper' English wife in Gibraltar, and a svelt lusty Morrocan wife at the other end
of the ferry's route. I think this is where Bunuel got his idea for "The Discrete
Object of Desire."
> Re. Shakespeare - if you are looking for something to fill those desert
> days, try Harold Bloom's rather weighty volume. His basic thesis is that
> our (Western) perception of the meaning of human was largely an
> invention of Shakespeare...I'd fill you in more but I have to put the
> rugrat to bed...
That's an interesting idea. "The play's the thing" and life mimics art. I could buy
it. Please expound. These days it seems I only read software manuals, which often
are the best of post modern literary fiction. Analyse that, oh wise analyst. (I
recall a few comments you've made about technical writing.)
Erik
Chris
"Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
>
> Sure I saw that -- it's part of 'basic training' right? A great film that made me
> want to live in a houseboat. I'm wondering now if a cinematic 'first' was in the
> Horse's Mouth. The heavy object falling through the floors of a hotel, which has
> been redone many times in films since 1958.
>
My film knowlege is spotty at best - in my first incarnation as a
student (Bard, 69-70) about the lightest things going were Andalusian
Dog and Seventh Seal, while my second incarnation (80-84) was in maths,
mostly in Quebec, where the cinemas focused on poorly dubbed versions of
Hollywood blockbusters... I'd never heard of the Horses Mouth until a
year or so ago, but I've learned to love feet!
Re. Bloom:
> That's an interesting idea. "The play's the thing" and life mimics art. I could buy
> it. Please expound. These days it seems I only read software manuals, which often
> are the best of post modern literary fiction. Analyse that, oh wise analyst. (I
> recall a few comments you've made about technical writing.)
>
I like that description - post modern literary fiction - for software
manuals...I used to think it was amazing that some one actually wrote
all that stuff until someone else pointed me towards some sort of
programs that do a good deal of it automatically....
Anyway, Bloom is alot mote interesting but pretty contentious. Each play
is analyzed individually in th ebook, but under a single overiding
spirit - which is his thesis that (western) human nature as we know it
as well as the literary character per se are inventions of Shakespeare.
I'll let him say it in his own words (from the opening of the "To The
Reader"):
"Literary Character before Shakespeare is relatively unchanging; women
and men are represented as aging and dying, but not as changing because
their relationship to themselves, rather than to the gods or God, has
changed. In Shakespeare, characters develop rather than unfold, and they
develop because they reconceive themselves....
"The plays remain the outward limit of human achievement: aesthetically,
cognitively, in certain ways morally, even spiritually. Shakespeare will
go on explaining us, in part because he invented us, which is the
central part of this book. "
Talk about staking out a position! Anyway, I've only recently started to
plow through it..so I'll not do him the disservice of interpreting his
work...but it seems definitely worth th 16 bucks us...A similar sized
software manual would run you 70 at least, and not contain any poetry at
all:)
Well, it's late here now...I'm off to reinvent myself :)
Chris
Kay
myfan...@my-deja.com wrote in message
:
:
:I would like to go on Welfare!
:
:
:Bryn
Me too, Bryn. Let's go to Amsterdam or France.
Kay
:
:
:Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
:Before you buy.
Alison A Raimes
<bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> writes
>Re. British films, have you seen "The Horses Mouth" ? Alec Guiness,
>circa 1958. It's a wonderful little film, I think you (as most people
>who post here) would enjoy the rather offbeat art humour, as well as
>it's optimistic touch. It's available on video.
Now there is a thing. Remember the painting in that film ? I was showing
an American artist (from one of the lists) around London a couple of
weeks ago and went to a favourite little gallery of mine at the back of
an antiques shop in the East End. There was a show of John Bratby and
included was The Horses Head ....... priced, if you remember, at 50,000
pounds which is what he said it would be worth one day ! MY guest got
terribly excited about it all and the curators more excited when he said
he could send some stills of the movie. The movie is very difficult to
get here in Britain - the curators had wanted to show the movie while
the exhibition was on.
Alison
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Alison A Raimes
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>I'm curious if in your film class if you discussed "The Knack." Do you remember
>that film - I just did? (probably because I put Courtney and Tushinghqam on my
>list) What a great flick. When they painted the flat and everything in it
>white, well, modern art, right -- an 'installation' before installations became
>in vogue.
I don't know _The Knack_, I don't think. The two main movies we studied
were _Don't look Now_ with Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie and
Hitchcock's _North by Northwest_. After that I went off and did Vietnam
war movies in line with my American Literature elective. On foundation
course I remember best watching Dr. Caligari and that genre of movies.
Should have kept better notes to remind me which ones.
>"Instinct" is a new video release about a man who has lived with the Gorillas
>and turned into a homicidal maniac. I won't say anything else, if you love
>Hopkins, you'll love it (even though it's a bit of a recast of Hannibal Lector).
Ah yes, I've seen some clips of this. He was a real turn on as Lector -
I think its that fear as the greatest aphrodisiac thing ;-)
>
>Yep, it was 6:00 am when I answered your post. I've taken to the night for
>strategic purposes. The days are full of home care workers for Mother in Law,
>vacuum cleaners, visits from hostile in-laws, and high internet traffic. When
>the sun come up, I go down.
Good plan. When my father died it took us months to get back into a
normal routine. He had to have 24 hour care which we shared between my
mother and myself. For years and years my mother didn't have a full
nights sleep and neither of us sleep properly to this day. Good luck !
Alison
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Alison A Raimes
<scarl...@theriver.com> writes
>That's a good way to do it. Has anything paid off yet?
Its a great deal easier to network in Britain, and especially in London,
purely on the size of the place. I often wonder how you guys do it
spread out all over the continent - you must feel very isolated
sometimes ? There are three major studio groups in London - Acme; Space
and Cable Street. Each have about two hundred artists. Every year we get
involved in the Whitechapel Open - which means each group having Open
Studios on the same weekend and arranging a transport system to take
visitors from one to the other. This year we are planning several other
ventures *en masse*. Its Britain's *Year of the Artist* and there is
going to be a lot of activity and attention on artists and artists
groups. Should be good.
>Was he talking about "invitationals" or did he advocate continuing sending
>slides and fees, etc.?
Having always dismissed the idea of entering competitions as a lottery I
have to say it has changed my mind talking with this particular artist.
It seems that one of the artists short listed for the Jerwood prize
which John wrote briefly on a few weeks ago, has been entering
competitions for five years consistently with no luck. Same work, no
great divergence. In the fifth year he was short listed for one and then
another five all in that year. I guess it is all a matter of the network
system. He got into one major exhibition and then everyone wanted him. I
like success stories like that.
>
>Did you jimmie the window lock? Try this: Break in. Pretend to be
hahahaha..... good plan. I hope he can see me lying there.
>Some ship them rolled up - paint side out. Cheap. I did this to Australia.
>No damage at all. The plywood would be more protective, but perhaps much
>larger and certainly more weight.
I rolled up a six footer and shipped it to Chile by FedEx a few years
ago - it only cost a hundred bucks and arrived in 48 hours.
Unfortunately it did have some cracks in the paint - most of which was
household. I saw it a couple of years later in Florida and decided the
cracks looked good ! One tip though if you want to avoid this cracking
and have several to ship is to lay them all on top of each other and
staple at least one edge to stop them buckling - two sheets of plywood
either side with one edge attached to the board and the thing only
weighs as much as sending one painting. It cost 200 bucks to ship seven
paintings from London to Montreal.
>
>I think London does sound exciting at this point in time, but I think I'm
>still moving to the Netherlands to be Mrs. Mesken and my husband can be Mr.
>Mesken Jr. (Where is your work, Paul???)
He'll have to be your toy boy, honey .... ARdee will be mad ;-)
>Guns??? In London???
Oh yes. More this year than ever before despite the major amnesty on
handing in illegal guns. Its our copycat society !
>Now that's smart. In a recent art pique, I threw in the trash all of my
>student work...
I just carpeted the studio with some of my old paintings !
Cheers.
Alison
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Chris
Alison A Raimes wrote:
> Now there is a thing. Remember the painting in that film ? I was showing
> an American artist (from one of the lists) around London a couple of
> weeks ago and went to a favourite little gallery of mine at the back of
> an antiques shop in the East End. There was a show of John Bratby and
> included was The Horses Head ....... priced, if you remember, at 50,000
> pounds which is what he said it would be worth one day ! MY guest got
> terribly excited about it all and the curators more excited when he said
> he could send some stills of the movie. The movie is very difficult to
> get here in Britain - the curators had wanted to show the movie while
> the exhibition was on.
>
That's neat! I wonder what ever happened to all those wonderful
paintings of feet...BTW - the film can be purchased pretty easily on
this side of the pond, Chapters & Amazon both carry it.
Cheers;
Chris
--
Artwork: http://www.gammarat.com/Artists/ChrisB
StudioTour: http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/brobeck
Alison A Raimes
<bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> writes
>
>That's neat! I wonder what ever happened to all those wonderful
>paintings of feet...BTW - the film can be purchased pretty easily on
>this side of the pond, Chapters & Amazon both carry it.
>
>Cheers;
>
>Chris
>
Unfortunately it is not available here. The curator tried everywhere
including all the film museums and the BBC - very strange. Too bad North
American videos don't work in British VCR machines - maybe they will
transfer it to CDrom one day.
Alison
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk