undergrad school you went to
Katie Miller
Where did you go to school for your undergrad degree in studio art?
Yes, yes, i am a youngster, but a serious artist looking for a serious art
education. I have done my homework.
I am applying to many places, including: The Maryland Institute College of
Art, Kansas City Art Institute, Savannah College of Art and Design, as well
as some more local california state schools and private universities with
good art programs.
Have any of you here attended these or any other art schools in the U.S. or
know of anybody who has?
Did you go to a regular university and major in studio art but regret not
having gone to an art school?
Thanks for the input.
Dik F. Liu
<ka...@NOSPAMjtmiller.com> writes:
>I am applying to many places, including: The Maryland Institute College of
Art, Kansas City Art Institute, Savannah College of Art and Design, as well as
some more local california state schools and private universities with good art
programs.<
All Good schools. However, Maryland is a bit passed their prime. Kansas City is
not the same since Wilbur Newald (sp?) retired. Savannah because of their
hiring policy has never gathered a dedicated team of faculty. I recommend that
you talk extensively to the students in these schools before studying there.
If I were you, I would also look into Parsons School of Design, School of
Visual Arts, and Cooper Union. All are in New York City. There are also The
School of Museum of Fine Art in Boston, Tyler in Philadelphia, and the Art
Institute of Chicago. And of course there is Cal Arts. Each school has a
different emphasis. You need to research to see which school fits you. If you
are looking into universities, the obvious choices are Yale, and Indiana
University at Bloomington.
I am affiliated to some of these schools so my opinion is biased. So take my
advice with a grain of salt. Good luck.
Dik
ABD
the time being, and am thinking about getting a degree. I have a BS in
Chemical Engineering, and did graduate work in Pharmaceutical Science. Art
is my love. Would you recommend that I get a Bachelor's, try for a
Master's, or opt for continuing education?
Dik F. Liu <dik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010923222518...@nso-mp.aol.com...
ash...@webtv.net
The works of the past provide, both visual and textual, the best conduit
to learning.
Read about each age - the context of art, the tools to make art, the
meaning of art.
Learn who gives , who demands, who succumbs, who rebels, accept each
without rejecting.
Your best school is yourself.
As to resources, the ca state facilities are geared to elective study.
(they discourage art majors) Most have excelling facilities.
The schools mentioned in your post are 'design' or product development.
If I was a young collegiate, I would attend state, declare a psychology
major and minor in art. ( Others might declare political or science or
lit., but my opinion is that psych is the most fruitful to artists.)
ashes
Dik F. Liu
<1...@mediaone.net> writes:
>What do you think of Massachusetts College of Art? I am based in Boston for
the time being, and am thinking about getting a degree. I have a BS in
Chemical Engineering, and did graduate work in Pharmaceutical Science. Art is
my love. Would you recommend that I get a Bachelor's, try for a Master's, or
opt for continuing education?<
I think it is an excellent school. What you do - Bachelor's or Master or
Continuing Education - is up to you. Only you can decide what fits your life
style and commitment. Good luck.
Dik
RBrac53660
>the time being, and am thinking about getting a degree. I have a BS in
>Chemical Engineering, and did graduate work in Pharmaceutical Science. Art
>is
>my love. Would you recommend that I get a Bachelor's, try for a Master's, or
>opt for continuing education?<
>
I went to Pratt and had a great time. Really opened my eyes.
Pat Riot
says...
>Did you go to a regular university and major in studio art but regret not
>having gone to an art school?
I think the important thing to ask
yourself now is "what am I wanting
from an art degree - what is my
ultimate goal for myself." If you
can answer that question without too
many reservations, then you need to
look for the program (school) that will
help you fulfill your goals. If you
aren't certain of your goals, then choose
a school that has the best facilities
that you can afford and hope that by
the time you reach the end of your junior
year you have a clearer understanding of
what you want from schooling. At that
point it's still not too late to change
schools.
I went to one of the largest state-supported
universities in the USA - Univ. of Texas, Austin - for
my undergraduate studies. The art complex
there is as large as many small colleges
or universities elsewhere. The art library
alone occupies a building the size of, and
larger than some, city public libraries.
Their permanent collections contain one
of the largest of illuminated manuscripts,
photography, and ancient prints in the world.
The university owns TWO Gutenberg bibles.
And the collection of contemporary art is
second to none for a major university, with
a new art museum now in the works to add
to the two fine modern ones already in
existence on campus.
Why do I mention this? Well, to me the
importance of being able to research all aspects
of "art" was a factor. My undergrad program
included exposure to music, drama, classical
literature etc. I was looking for an "education"
in the arts - not how to become an artist per se.
Having access to the paintings in the on-campus
museums was priceless in itself.
My graduate studies were done at a smaller
campus but with equally great facilities,
the UT-San Antonio campus. Graduate studies
being so self-directed, it is important to
choose a program that will enhance whatever
goal/plan you have for yourself. But be
warned that entry to grad schools is not
always easy - you MUST have a comprehensive
portfolio and be able to argue your points
of view both orally and in writing in order
to gain entry to some of the better schools.
Dik F. Liu
writes:
>Well, Dik, I guess we disagree on Mass college of art! What's your
information? Maybe I'm misinformed (wouldn't be the first time.) Just realized
I could be thinking of Art Institute of Boston. I get them mixed up all the
time....<
The Art Institute of Boston is a small art school in Newbury Street. If I
remember correctly they did not even offer BFA in painting. They are not
competitive. Massachusetts College of Art is a poor man's art college. They
are as far the I know the only state supported art school in the country. The
tuition is shockingly cheap. In the early 80's they moved to a much larger
campus which vastly improved their facilities. These were their best years.
Then some of the really good teachers retired or died, and the school went
through a slum. They are steadily improving, however, and the program is now
taught by some very good and energetic teachers. No big names, tho.
Dik
Dik F. Liu
writes:
>I think two things are important for a school: Very strong teaching in the
fundamentals (drawing, color, etc.), and a well-rounded liberal arts program to
provide you with a real college education.<
I too think that it is important for young art students to have a real college
education. But, mostly it is the universities that offer good liberal art
programs, and most universities offer BA. Because of state laws, there are
usually fewer studio course requirements for BA than for the BFA that is
offered by art colleges. Some universities offer BFA, but still the academic
requirements can out weight the studio requirements. This is why a foundation
art program in a university is less involved than that of an art college. But
while in an art college the student gains an intense foundation art training,
he loses a catholic education.
A good compromise is probably an art college that is affiliated with a
university. That would include the Boston Museum School which is affiliated
with Tuft (as you noted), Parsons which is affiliated with the New School
University, and the Rhode Island School of Design which is affiliated with
Brown. (RISD! Why didnt' I think of that?!).
Another option is to go to a university that offers BA or BFA. Then go to an
art college for a MFA. But this is the complete opposite of what I did. I went
to art college for a BFA, then to a university for a MFA. In hindsight, I
should have designed my education very differently.
Dik
Dik F. Liu
ash...@webtv.net writes:
>If I was a young collegiate, I would attend state, declare a psychology major
and minor in art. ( Others might declare political or science or lit., but my
opinion is that psych is the most fruitful to artists.)<
No disrespect. But I think that even more fruitful to aspiring artists is
learning real art skills.
Dik
Dik F. Liu
writes:
>In an art school, get ready to hang with a lot of dope-smoking, pierced,
tattooed artkids!<
You know, every September I see a new crop of art students with their freshly
pierced nose rings and naval rings. Sometimes the skin around these rings is
red and swollen. Poor kids, they are getting infected. Ahh, the expense of peer
pressure.
Dik
Chris
What's considered "reasonable" tuition in the U.S.? I'm
curious, it might be interesting to compare it with Canada,
and whether a Canadian college might be worth considering
for a U.S. student. FWIW NSCAD (the Nova Scotia College of
Art and Design), after a long period of decline, seems to be
very intent on rebuilding itself to its former level (it
once had a great reputation). The current fees for NSCAD
look to be less than $10,000 ($15,000 if one includes a full
time summer course load) Canadian ($6500 U.S./ $10,000 U.S.
summer included) for a foreign student, which is
significantly less a science program from a good U.S.
university. Plus Halifax is a cheap place to live.
There's more info at:
http://www.nscad.ns.ca/fees.html
Chris
--
What Can I Do? : http://www.theadvocates.org/terrorism.html
RBrac53660
>looking at them gives me the creeps - making me an old fart, I suppose.
>
Thats what there suppossed to do. Geezer ;)
When I was in school they were becoming real popular. I never did it got a
neat scar from a car wreck over my eye.
Dik F. Liu
writes:
>Yeah, we get a lot of that in Boston. Fortunately, my daughter (the one at
SVA) has resisted the temptation of tattoos or piercings.<
She probably stands out in her class.
>You seem to know quite a bit about Boston art schools - have you taught here?<
No. I grew up in Boston and studied art there. So, I was familiar with the
Boston art scene. I haven't been there for a few years, however.
Dik
Dik F. Liu
writes:
>Tuition only: University of Kansas is about $8,000 for non-resident; SVA about
$24,000 (Dik?), a good women's school in Boston (Lesley Univesity) is $16,000.
The tab for my daughter Leija at SVA is about $34,000 for tuition, room, board,
books, etc. I end up paying about $25,000. I get a headache just writing these
figures down!<
Yike! I thought that the annual tuition was less than $20,000. I haven't been
keeping up with the tuition hikes.
Dik
Dik F. Liu
writes:
>Grad school is on her.<
Grad school is very expensive, but sometimes only on paper. Some universities
subsidize their MFA programs. So after you deduct the grants, scholarships, and
TAs from the tuition, the actual cost can be very low. But like many sectors of
higher education, the free rides are dwindling. The key is to look beyond the
official tuition and see the average bottom line.
Dik
Dik F. Liu
which could afford showing good contemporary artists. I think they must have a
solid secondary market. As I remember, a heavyweight gallery in Boston was
Harcus/Krawkow (sp?). May be it now goes by another name. Harcus sold
contemporary art fetching five, six figures. When I was in Boston, that was THE
gallery to get into.
You are right about Boston being conservative. In my early twenties, I
contemplated moving back to Boston, but finally opt for New York. I just can't
imagine myself living in Boston, eking a living painting the banal landscapes
and generic abstract paintings that are so popular there.
Dik
----
In article <20010925222330.836$d...@newsreader.com>, danf...@yahoo.com(Dan Fox)
writes:
>
>I'm in Somerville at present. The major change in the Boston gallery scene
>is the emergence of a group of galleries in the South End that are a
>conscious reaction to Newberry Street - more edgy, etc. Things are a bit
>more diverse on Newberry St., however; I'm going to be in a group show at
>MPG gallery there in November. Ten years ago I couldn't have gotten into a
>show in Boston with a crowbar.
>
>Nielson gallery is still good, and there are a few other modern venues.
>Can't complain. (Of course the collectors are as conservative as ever.
>Think Boston Pops audience members....)
>
>Did you know the Judy Rotenberg gallery? Tragically, Judy's husband was on
>Flight 11 from Boston. I guess everyone's been touched one way or another.
>
>
>
RBrac53660
>subsidize their MFA programs. So after you deduct the grants, scholarships,
>and
>TAs from the tuition, the actual cost can be very low. But like many sectors
>of
>higher education, the free rides are dwindling. The key is to look beyond the
>official tuition and see the average bottom line.
>
>Dik
>
>
>
>
>
>
I'm still paying loans
RBrac53660
>>
>to post the pic.
>
Missing a part of the left leg too. The X rays are neat.
mdeli
>> The key is to look beyond the official tuition and see the average bottom line.
>>Dik
>I'm still paying loans
>www.geocities.com/winston53660/wbphotog.html
Take a look at his pathetic work and you will see why.
...no skill no art
Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
Chris
Welcome back, I guess the world is getting back to normal
after all LOL..
Chris
--
Pat Riot
allspam...@bak.rr.comHelenWaite says...
>In the end, I
>abandoned art and became a writer. Ironic?
Not at all if my experiences hold true
for you and others I have known who thought
getting an art degree was going to be some
sort of "open sesame" to becoming a successful
artist. But you at least found a niche for
yourself that probably owes something, if not
everything, to your art education. That's
why I say in this thread that it's the
"education" you should be going to school
for, not the assumption that school is
going to somehow make a "silk purse from
a sow's ear."
RBrac53660
cheap.
>Apropos your other post - yeah, my daughter knows she's going to have to
>pick a school with a good bottom line. I'll cheer from the sidelines, maybe
>from my pad in a small mexican town ( which I CAN afford!).
>
Pat Riot
says...
>
>When I was in NY I heard good things about CUNY's grad program.
One of the problems faced by major university
students generally is the cost of living in
a major metropolitan area where such universities
are often located. Not all schools have adequate
low-cost dormitories or housing nearby. Rentals
can and do exceed the cost of tuition in some
areas, NYC being one of those, I suspect. And
in college towns, the closer the rental is to
campus the higher the cost usually. And in the
USA, public transportation is woefully lacking
in some areas if you don't live near the campus,
which means the added expense of private transportation.
RBrac53660
Dik F. Liu
>When I was in NY I heard good things about CUNY's grad program. And it was
cheap.<About CUNY
CUNY is not a single school. It is a university system including Hunter
College, Brooklyn College, Queens College, and many others. Some of these CUNY
colleges have own MFA programs ranging from good to mediocore. CUNY does have
its own Graduate Center; but as far as I know, it does not offer MFA in
painting or sculpture.
Dik
Dik F. Liu
writes:
>Yeah, Alpha has been around forever as well. You don't hear much out of them -
mostly work the secondary market, as you said. They also have a core of artists
they're repped for many years. One of their biggies is Aaron Fink, who's the
son of the owners (one way to get in....)<
Aaron Fink - I think he went to Yale in the early 80's. His works that I have
seen were all portraits, mostly prints. It looks as thought he was heavily
influenced by Lester Johnson.
>Harkus/Krakow is still around as Barbara Krakow gallery. She shows modern
masters along with some good up-and-coming people. The story: she split with
Portia Harkus some years ago. Portia is a friend of mine and deals privately
now. She's a great personality, fun to have dinner with. I met Frank Gehry
through her, so she's still up in the stratosphere as far as her clients and
friends go.<
Barbara Krakow has a good eye. I have a friend who showed with her; and I
remember seeing in her gallery some of my teacher's work (Mel Bochner). I
haven't seen a show there for five, six years now. Next time I am in Boston I
will give her a call.
Dik
talk to.
>
>I don't blame you for not going back to Boston. It's my toughest market
>and, the South End scene notwithstanding, generally sucks for modern art. I
>just can't afford to live in NYC.
RBrac53660
the film school and people like Barbara Ess were teaching there too. SUNY
Syracuse also had a good photo program. In retrospect I wish I'd gone to Cal
Arts not for the school so much but another coast.
ABD
Anita
Dan Fox <danf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20010925222330.836$d...@newsreader.com...
> I'm in Somerville at present. The major change in the Boston gallery scene
> is the emergence of a group of galleries in the South End that are a
> conscious reaction to Newberry Street - more edgy, etc. Things are a bit
> more diverse on Newberry St., however; I'm going to be in a group show at
> MPG gallery there in November. Ten years ago I couldn't have gotten into a
> show in Boston with a crowbar.
>
> Nielson gallery is still good, and there are a few other modern venues.
> Can't complain. (Of course the collectors are as conservative as ever.
> Think Boston Pops audience members....)
>
> Did you know the Judy Rotenberg gallery? Tragically, Judy's husband was on
> Flight 11 from Boston. I guess everyone's been touched one way or another.
>
>
>
>
> I grew up in Boston and studied art there. So, I was familiar with
> > the Boston art scene. I haven't been there for a few years, however.
> >
> > Dik
>
> Dan
>
> 'The self, violent and constant, is the subject of all art.' - Barnett
> Newman http://www.danfoxart.com
ABD
find your responses to reply directly. Dan and Dik, you give the best
advice.
ABD
Dan Fox <danf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20010925222330.836$d...@newsreader.com...
> I'm in Somerville at present. The major change in the Boston gallery scene
> is the emergence of a group of galleries in the South End that are a
> conscious reaction to Newberry Street - more edgy, etc. Things are a bit
> more diverse on Newberry St., however; I'm going to be in a group show at
> MPG gallery there in November. Ten years ago I couldn't have gotten into a
> show in Boston with a crowbar.
>
> Nielson gallery is still good, and there are a few other modern venues.
> Can't complain. (Of course the collectors are as conservative as ever.
> Think Boston Pops audience members....)
>
> Did you know the Judy Rotenberg gallery? Tragically, Judy's husband was on
> Flight 11 from Boston. I guess everyone's been touched one way or another.
>
>
>
> dik...@aol.com (Dik F. Liu) wrote:
>
> > the Boston art scene. I haven't been there for a few years, however.
> >
> > Dik
>
mdeli
unnecessary to the production of artwork, if not evil. The basic
scientific foundations of drawing and painting technique are
pooh-poohed. Rote teaching of any kind is dogmatically rejected and
replaced by slogans and so-called theories. Only scant mention is
given to what has by now become vestigial knowledge. Art schools
gradually deteriorated into forums for vacuous theoretical discussions
and havens for curious creeds and impractical idealisms, stressing pep
talks about mystical methods for sharpening emotions and increasing
sensitivities rather than places to learn technique and craft.
By the last quarter of the nineteenth century the purists among the
Romantics began to question the very necessity of acquiring technical
skill. More and more they stressed the importance of aesthetic theory
and denigrated the importance of rote. The first skill appreciably
affected by this was drawing . By the beginning of this century
technical ability itself came under direct theoretical attack, and the
technical deterioration of what is presently considered fine art then
began in earnest.
Even by 1900 this opinion was not as yet very destructive. It was only
when artists who lacked technical skill began to teach that the
damage become apparent. As this century progressed critical judgment
centered on how well a painting conformed to some ever changing
aesthetic theory. The absence of primary skills basic to all painting
of the past now has no weight in a MAA critic's judgments of quality.
Most students today are taught what is best called Modern Art
Fundamentalism and remain totally unaware that there is a whole other
modern art world inhabited by artists who have skill and know there
craft, are popular, successful and have no part in Modern Academic Art
BS They are taught that this work should they come across it, is
something out of the past to be avoided
Todd Strickland
> The belief , now prevails that technique is a cold unemotional matter
> unnecessary to the production of artwork, if not evil. The basic
> scientific foundations of drawing and painting technique are
> pooh-poohed.
Obviously, every work of art created by human hands required
"technique" of one form or another. Can you be a little more
specific? Furthermore, can you give any objective reason why one
technique must be favored over others?
I suppose you will probably mention linear perspective as a so-called
"scientific" technique, but it is merely pseudo-scientific, at best.
Scientifically, the theory of linear perspective teaches that ALL
parallel lines appear to converge as they recede from the viewer.
However, the vast majority of "realistic" painters since the
Rennaisance to the present only paint horizontally parallel lines as
converging (for example, the sides of roads, a line of trees) but
paint vertically parallel lines as REMAINING PARALLEL (the sides of a
building, two tall trees standing side by side)! Granted, some
"unskilled" painters probably never realized what a stupid mistake
this is, scientifically speaking. But most painters knew this was
wrong, and yet chose to continue painting this way. Don't get me
wrong, I have no problem with such "unscientific" technique, but I'm
curious how you would reconcile such an obvious blunder with your own
insistence on "proper" technique.
Another pseudo-science often paraded as necessary for a proper art
education by the defenders of realism is anatomical studies and
drawing of the nude human form. We often hear how the Rennaisance
masters disected cadavers in order to better understand anatomical
structures and to produce "better" art. But what of El Greco? He is
considered a master of the highest order but I'm pretty sure he would
have failed the "Mani test" of proper human rendition. What about
Ingres? I think his pictures are beautiful, in their way, but if we
are to judge "scientifically" we have to conclude that his models were
deformed with unnatural elongation and curvature of the spine and
short, stumpy legs. How do you feel about Ingres, Mani? Was he a
good enough painter for you?
> Rote teaching of any kind is dogmatically rejected and
> replaced by slogans and so-called theories. Only scant mention is
> given to what has by now become vestigial knowledge.
In the 50,000 year history (?) of human art and culture "realism" is a
mere flash in the pan, dominating only Western art and only for
approximately 400 years. Why should any contemporary artist devote
him/herself to a style of art which was so infrequently practiced and
so quickly rejected? I'm playing the devil's advocate here; there are
a lot or realistic artists whom I like. But your attitude that only
realism is "art" just isn't supported by an objective look at history.
Looking at world art from all historical periods the case could be
made that geometric abstraction holds a much higher place in
humanity's artistic valuation system than realism.
> Art schools
> gradually deteriorated into forums for vacuous theoretical discussions
> and havens for curious creeds and impractical idealisms, stressing pep
> talks about mystical methods for sharpening emotions and increasing
> sensitivities rather than places to learn technique and craft.
Yeah, and all those 19th Century schools that taught proper "Salon
approved" styles weren't filled with vacuous theoretical discussions?
I've always felt that Poussin's form of Neo-classicism was a very
"curious creed." And talking about impractical idealism, realism is
the MOST idealistic of art; it's also the one which most fails to
achieve it's aims. Who, in their right mind, would ever mistake a
painting of an apple for the real thing? Actually, having seen some
paintings by Willian Harnett, I have to admit that it is possible.
But ironically, trompe l'oiel painting, the most realistic possible,
was usually rejected as "too realistic" by the academic art world.
Todd Strickland
mdeli
(mdeli) wrote
>> The belief , now prevails that technique is a cold unemotional matter
>> unnecessary to the production of artwork, if not evil. The basic
>> scientific foundations of drawing and painting technique are
>> pooh-poohed.
>
>Obviously, every work of art created by human hands required
>"technique" of one form or another. Can you be a little more
>specific? Furthermore, can you give any objective reason why one
>technique must be favored over others?
No technique is favored over another in any general sense. However
whatever the technique there certainly are degrees of superiority.
That judgment is made by a consensus of viewers.
>I suppose you will probably mention linear perspective as a so-called
>"scientific" technique, but it is merely pseudo-scientific, at best.
Perspective is ultimately explained in mathematical terms. Perhaps you
regard that as pseudo-science.
> the theory of linear perspective teaches that ALL
>parallel lines appear to converge as they recede from the viewer.
That's as far as a shoddy art school education passes on. I have
written extensively here about what and a bit of how perspective
explains what complex forms look like, light and shade etc.
Even your above statement is wrong. All sets of parallel straight
lines converge at points. There can be infinity of sets and points.
Perspective also explains the behavior of curved lines etc. but I
suspect the average art school idiot is unaware of this.
i.e. a picture of a face whether a cartoon or highly realistic is
perceived as that because of perspective. No straight lines necessary.
>However, the vast majority of "realistic" painters since the
>Rennaisance to the present only paint horizontally parallel lines as
>converging (for example, the sides of roads, a line of trees) but
>paint vertically parallel lines as REMAINING PARALLEL (the sides of a
>building, two tall trees standing side by side)!
So what? Parallel lines converge at infinity.
>Granted, some
>"unskilled" painters probably never realized what a stupid mistake
>this is, scientifically speaking. But most painters knew this was
>wrong, and yet chose to continue painting this way. Don't get me
>wrong, I have no problem with such "unscientific" technique, but I'm
>curious how you would reconcile such an obvious blunder with your own
>insistence on "proper" technique.
The stupidity is in your lack of knowledge.
I have no "insistence on "proper" technique." Roughly speaking, I
expect art to show a degree of technique that attracts the viewer.
That requires skill and knowledge not slogans and Artspeak.
>Another pseudo-science often paraded as necessary for a proper art
>education by the defenders of realism is anatomical studies and
>drawing of the nude human form.
I am not a defender of realism as such. My work isn't realistic in any
sense that you infer.
> We often hear how the Rennaisance
>masters disected cadavers in order to better understand anatomical
>structures and to produce "better" art. But what of El Greco? He is
>considered a master of the highest order but I'm pretty sure he would
>have failed the "Mani test" of.
The "Mani Test" is a figment of your stupid imagination. I never said
anything about proper human rendition (whatever that exactly means).
El Greco distorted form his painting is not flat schmier. If marks on
a flat surface look solid that can be shown to follow from an aspect
of perspective.
>What about
>Ingres? I think his pictures are beautiful, in their way, but if we
>are to judge "scientifically" we have to conclude that his models were
>deformed with unnatural elongation and curvature of the spine and
>short, stumpy legs. How do you feel about Ingres, Mani? Was he a
>good enough painter for you?
Some of his legs are fat some thin I suspect you are as familiar with
Ingres as with perspective. Ingres' portraits don't show legs.
Perspective considers distortion. If you want to check this in
scientific detail read about affine geometry. You can also check out
two and three-dimensional distortion in computer graphics and the math
behind this.
>> Rote teaching of any kind is dogmatically rejected and
>> replaced by slogans and so-called theories. Only scant mention is
>> given to what has by now become vestigial knowledge.
>
>In the 50,000 year history (?) of human art and culture "realism" is a
>mere flash in the pan, dominating only Western art and only for
>approximately 400 years.
The realism that you learned to denigrate in art school is indeed a
Flash. The elements of realism are another story. If a drawing has a
subject that can be named it is realistic to A DEGREE. Most western
art has greatly varying degrees of realism.
> Why should any contemporary artist devote
>him/herself to a style of art which was so infrequently practiced and
>so quickly rejected?
What an artist devotes himself to is his problem. However, repeating
what was all done by 1923 and calling it new is a problem with most
students because they believe what their teachers tell them rather
investigating the matter on their own.
>I'm playing the devil's advocate here; there are a lot or realistic artists whom I like.
> But your attitude that only realism is "art" just isn't supported by an objective look at history.
AND WHERE DID I SAY ONLY REALISM IS "ART?" FIND THE QUOTE.
> Looking at world art from all historical periods the case could be
>made that geometric abstraction holds a much higher place in
>humanity's artistic valuation system than realism.
.
Perspective is a geometric abstraction! Your whole mistake is
believing that perspective only results in a high degree of realism.
>> Art schools
>> gradually deteriorated into forums for vacuous theoretical discussions
>> and havens for curious creeds and impractical idealisms, stressing pep
>> talks about mystical methods for sharpening emotions and increasing
>> sensitivities rather than places to learn technique and craft.
>
>Yeah, and all those 19th Century schools that taught proper "Salon
>approved" styles weren't filled with vacuous theoretical discussions?
Yes but they also learned the craft and technique and produced
results.
>I've always felt that Poussin's form of Neo-classicism was a very
>"curious creed." And talking about impractical idealism, realism is
>the MOST idealistic of art; it's also the one which most fails to
>achieve it's aims.
What aims exactly? And what aims does all that other art achieve?
>Who, in their right mind, would ever mistake a
>painting of an apple for the real thing?
Who in their right mind ever made that a requirement.
Who in their right mind would mistake a schmier that looks like the
product of a ten year old, a bunch of stripes or a lot of crap lying
on the floor as something requiring artistic skill and craftsmanship.
Of course the Emperor's New Clothes crowd does it all the time.
>Actually, having seen some paintings by Willian Harnett, I have to admit that it is possible.
I presume you thought it was the real thing not a painting.
>But ironically, trompe l'oiel painting, the most realistic possible,
>was usually rejected as "too realistic" by the academic art world.
>
It wasn't !
Paintstaines
realism is asked for now. "How to Paint the Marvel Way."
RBrac53660
>unnecess
Bullshit
Warhol did a great job at exploiting the very same technique you are trying to
put down as well as at the same time trying exploit and put down. I'm sorry
you must work within your medium and you Mani are not doing a very good job at
it. Nor are you doing a good JOB at your own work on your website. so either
shut up or put up
RBrac53660
>3 point perspective? A novel concept in the fine arts. Oh, I see what sort of
>realism is asked for now. "How to Paint the Marvel Way."
>
Todd Strickland
>>(mdeli) wrote
>>> The belief , now prevails that technique is a cold unemotional
matter
>>> unnecessary to the production of artwork, if not evil. The basic
>>> scientific foundations of drawing and painting technique are
>>> pooh-poohed.
>>
>>Obviously, every work of art created by human hands required
>>"technique" of one form or another. Can you be a little more
>>specific? Furthermore, can you give any objective reason why one
>>technique must be favored over others?
>
>No technique is favored over another in any general sense. However
>whatever the technique there certainly are degrees of superiority.
>That judgment is made by a consensus of viewers.
OK, I'll buy that. But then couldn't there be Modern and Post-modern
works also which show a superior degree of technique? Couldn't
superior technique be used to create non-objectivist or abstract (for
wont of better words) works of art?
>>I suppose you will probably mention linear perspective as a
so-called
>>"scientific" technique, but it is merely pseudo-scientific, at best.
>
>Perspective is ultimately explained in mathematical terms. Perhaps
you
>regard that as pseudo-science.
OK, OK, you got me. Excuse me for not spelling it out in perfect
legalese.
What I should have said was that although the rules of perspective are
exact
and well reasoned, IN PRACTICE very few, if any, artists have ever
followed the rules to anything remotely approaching consistency. In
fact, by far the closest to correctly use perspective (assuming we
are talking about representations in a "normal" Euclidian or near-
Euclidian space) are the Photorealists, abhored Post-modernists that
they are (oh, excuse me; I meant to say Post-bullshitists)!
>>the theory of linear perspective teaches that ALL
>>parallel lines appear to converge as they recede from the viewer.
>That's as far as a shoddy art school education passes on. I have
>written extensively here about what and a bit of how perspective
>explains what complex forms look like, light and shade etc.
I didn't say that's ALL there is to linear perspective, but it
certainly is one aspect.
>Even your above statement is wrong. All sets of parallel straight
>lines converge at points. There can be infinity of sets and points.
>Perspective also explains the behavior of curved lines etc. but I
>suspect the average art school idiot is unaware of this.
Well, if you're going to nit-pick every poorly worded phrase
I type then I guess I'll have to show up your own shoddy
understanding of perspective. I'm restricting this discussion
to Euclidian geometry only, as that is the one most relevant
to any discussion of perspective in ART.
1) NO set of parallel straight lines ever converges. That is the
very definition of parallel.
2) A set of parallel straight lines will APPEAR to be rays of
a common angle if viewed from any line of sight which
is not perpendicular to the lines.
3) The lines will APPEAR to converge at some distance from
the viewer. This apparent convergence point is NOT
infinity (whatever that means), as you state below. The
apparent convergence point is simply at some distance
where the human eye can no longer resolve the actual
distance between the two lines.
4) This apparent convergence of parallel straight lines
will be perceived by a viewer regardless of whether
the lines run parallel or perpendicular to the horizon.
This last point, a major and obvious aspect of perspective,
has been ignored more often than followed throughout
art history.
This is the simplest circumstance to describe. And yet,
throughout art history, artists have generally NOT used
even this simple case correctly.
>i.e. a picture of a face whether a cartoon or highly realistic is
>perceived as that because of perspective. No straight lines
necessary.
This simply doesn't make any sense. Here's a simple picture of
a face:
///////
(^ L ^)
( O)
It's crude, but it is recognizable as a face. How does perspective
figure into this picture at all?
>>However, the vast majority of "realistic" painters since the
>>Rennaisance to the present only paint horizontally parallel lines as
>>converging (for example, the sides of roads, a line of trees) but
>>paint vertically parallel lines as REMAINING PARALLEL (the sides of
a
>>building, two tall trees standing side by side)!
>So what? Parallel lines converge at infinity.
Wrong, as shown above.
>>Granted, some
>>"unskilled" painters probably never realized what a stupid mistake
>>this is, scientifically speaking. But most painters knew this was
>>wrong, and yet chose to continue painting this way. Don't get me
>>wrong, I have no problem with such "unscientific" technique, but I'm
>>curious how you would reconcile such an obvious blunder with your
own
>>insistence on "proper" technique.
>The stupidity is in your lack of knowledge.
Witty...
>I have no "insistence on "proper" technique." Roughly speaking, I
>expect art to show a degree of technique that attracts the viewer.
>That requires skill and knowledge not slogans and Artspeak.
You are the one who said :
> The basic
> scientific foundations of drawing and painting technique are
> pooh-poohed.
You are the one who is implying that this "basic scientific
foundation" is a pre-requisite for "skill and knowledge."
Why should artists today take this "basic scientific knowledge"
seriously when the great masters of the past didn't?
>>Another pseudo-science often paraded as necessary for a proper art
>>education by the defenders of realism is anatomical studies and
>>drawing of the nude human form.
>I am not a defender of realism as such. My work isn't realistic in
any
>sense that you infer.
>> We often hear how the Rennaisance
>>masters disected cadavers in order to better understand anatomical
>>structures and to produce "better" art. But what of El Greco? He
is
>>considered a master of the highest order but I'm pretty sure he
would
>>have failed the "Mani test" of.
>The "Mani Test" is a figment of your stupid imagination. I never said
>anything about proper human rendition (whatever that exactly means).
>El Greco distorted form his painting is not flat schmier. If marks on
>a flat surface look solid that can be shown to follow from an aspect
>of perspective.
The problem here is that you studiously avoid ever telling us, in any
meaningful detail, what you think good art is. Trying to quote you
as accurately as I can, this is the closest I can come to what you say
is good art: art which shows a "degree of technique that attracts a
viewer." This technique requires "basic scientific foundations." The
judgement as to whether a work shows a sufficient "superiority" of
technique is made by "a consensus of viewers."
This is so vague as to be meaningless! One can call ANY work a
masterpiece or a piece of crap using this definition, and that
judgement
will be unassailable. Using your own definition I can easily show
that
Rothko was a great painter; he used a technique; this technique
attracts
many viewers; his technique required some basic scientific
foundations;
a consensus of viewers have judged his work to be superior.
>>What about
>>Ingres? I think his pictures are beautiful, in their way, but if we
>>are to judge "scientifically" we have to conclude that his models
were
>>deformed with unnatural elongation and curvature of the spine and
>>short, stumpy legs. How do you feel about Ingres, Mani? Was he a
>>good enough painter for you?
>Some of his legs are fat some thin I suspect you are as familiar with
>Ingres as with perspective. Ingres' portraits don't show legs.
>Perspective considers distortion. If you want to check this in
>scientific detail read about affine geometry. You can also check out
>two and three-dimensional distortion in computer graphics and the
math
>behind this.
This is a truly assinine defense of Ingres! You are explaing his
distortions
of the human form by refering to esoteric branches of mathematics some
of which did not even exist when Ingres was alive!
A few months ago I posted a message which said viewers of modern art
need to understand the basic theories behind the art and you said that
viewers didn't need to learn any theories whatsoever... But now you
say that I would appreciate Ingres more if only I would study more
geometry! Was Ingres looking at his models in a warped mirror?
Is that what he is trying to show us in "The Bather of Valpicon"?
"The Bather of Valpincon" is a great painting. It is great, not in
spite of
its anatomical inaccuracies; Ingres was a painter, not a doctor,
afterall.
But if these subtle distortions of form are acceptable in great art,
why are
the more extreme distortions of cubism automatically attacked by you?
>>> Rote teaching of any kind is dogmatically rejected and
>>> replaced by slogans and so-called theories. Only scant mention is
>>> given to what has by now become vestigial knowledge.
>>
>>In the 50,000 year history (?) of human art and culture "realism" is
a
>>mere flash in the pan, dominating only Western art and only for
>>approximately 400 years.
>The realism that you learned to denigrate in art school is indeed a
>Flash. The elements of realism are another story. If a drawing has a
>subject that can be named it is realistic to A DEGREE. Most western
>art has greatly varying degrees of realism.
>> Why should any contemporary artist devote
>>him/herself to a style of art which was so infrequently practiced
and
>>so quickly rejected?
>What an artist devotes himself to is his problem. However, repeating
>what was all done by 1923 and calling it new is a problem with most
>students because they believe what their teachers tell them rather
>investigating the matter on their own.
>>I'm playing the devil's advocate here; there are a lot or realistic
artists whom I like.
>> But your attitude that only realism is "art" just isn't supported
by an objective look at history.
>AND WHERE DID I SAY ONLY REALISM IS "ART?" FIND THE QUOTE.
My apologies. As I said above please tell me in sufficient detail
what you think constitutes
real art.
>> Looking at world art from all historical periods the case could be
>>made that geometric abstraction holds a much higher place in
>>humanity's artistic valuation system than realism.
.
>Perspective is a geometric abstraction! Your whole mistake is
>believing that perspective only results in a high degree of realism.
Come on, Mani, you know what I mean; Geometric Abstraction as in
non-representational mosiacs in mosques; Geometric Abstraction as
in the paintings of Ad Rhinehart. There is little in this type of
Geometric
Abstraction which relates to the perspective point tradition of the
Rennaisance. If you say there is, well, I think you're stretching the
meaning of perspective too far.
>>> Art schools
>>> gradually deteriorated into forums for vacuous theoretical
discussions
>>> and havens for curious creeds and impractical idealisms, stressing
pep
>>> talks about mystical methods for sharpening emotions and
increasing
>>> sensitivities rather than places to learn technique and craft.
>>
>>Yeah, and all those 19th Century schools that taught proper "Salon
>>approved" styles weren't filled with vacuous theoretical
discussions?
>Yes but they also learned the craft and technique and produced
>results
I'm not all that impressed with most of the results, but that's just
me...
>>I've always felt that Poussin's form of Neo-classicism was a very
>>"curious creed." And talking about impractical idealism, realism is
>>the MOST idealistic of art; it's also the one which most fails to
>>achieve it's aims.
>What aims exactly? And what aims does all that other art achieve?
The aim of asserting "This is an accurate description of the world."
No
painting is ever very accurate, in this regard. Much Modern art,
admitting
this impossibility of accurately representing three-dimensional space,
made
the wise decision (intellectualy speaking) of refusing to try. That
is a kind
of success in its own right.
>>Who, in their right mind, would ever mistake a
>>painting of an apple for the real thing?
>Who in their right mind ever made that a requirement.
That is the philosophical bias of much realistic art.
>Who in their right mind would mistake a schmier that looks like the
>product of a ten year old, a bunch of stripes or a lot of crap lying
>on the floor as something requiring artistic skill and craftsmanship.
>Of course the Emperor's New Clothes crowd does it all the time.
>>Actually, having seen some paintings by Willian Harnett, I have to
admit that it is possible.
>I presume you thought it was the real thing not a painting.
Yeah, I did at first. That's how skillful he is. He is without a
doubt
in my mind the most "skillful" artist whose work I've ever seen, if
by skill I mean the ability to fool the eye. However, as much as I
do like Harnett, he is not my favorite painter, his works do not move
me emotionally, and his paintings do not challenge me intellectually.
>>But ironically, trompe l'oiel painting, the most realistic possible,
>>was usually rejected as "too realistic" by the academic art world.
>>
>It wasn't !
I sometimes wonder if you've ever cracked open and art history
book in your life.
Todd Strickland
mdeli
>>The belief , now prevails that technique is a cold unemotional matter
>>unnecess
>
>Bullshit
>
> Warhol did a great job at exploiting the very same technique you are trying to
>put down as well as at the same time trying exploit and put down.
What technique is that? Warhol was third rate artist and an
advertising genus.
> I'm sorry
>you must work within your medium and you Mani are not doing a very good job at
>it. Nor are you doing a good JOB at your own work on your website. so either
>shut up or put up
>
Put up what? I suggest you don't read my messages if they bug you that
much.
>www.geocities.com/winston53660/wbphotog.html
The crap on your webside shows that you have no idea about your
medium. I advise all here to look it.
RBrac53660
>advertising genus.
>
>
whats a "genus" ?
yeah and like I'm a great speller
your a wannabe mani and will go down in history as a wannabe. stop wasteing
your time, here on the internet, and learn to do what you preach.
Peter H.M. Brooks
RBrac53660 <rbrac...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >What technique is that? Warhol was third rate artist and an
> >advertising genus.
> >
> >
>
> whats a "genus" ?
>
--
"My own opinion - which I may as well indicate at the outset - is
that pure Anarchism, though it should be the ultimate ideal, to which
society should continually approximate, is for the present impossible.."
- Bertrand Russell
mdeli
years. all hanging together: something like Picasso Matisse Dali,
Rockwell, French and English deco artists (who are the skilled
abstractionists of the century) etc. Let the public compare and decide
what they like.
I have every confidence that if you hung examples of what I consider
the best art of this century next to what is taunted as great, the
whole edifice and pretence of Modern Academic Art will collapse. I
might mention that the best Victorian painters should also be hung
next to Impressionists and Picasso's academic drawing next to academic
sketches by some other artists. This would immediately indicate how
overrated some of these so-called masterpieces really are.
As long as a slanted expurgated version of art history is taught in
schools and art training amounts to teaching a creed instead of a
craft, the job of the museum will be to make sure that only what is
now politically correct and is labeled as great modern art will be
allowed to enter this holy turf .
mdeli
>>>(mdeli) wrote
>>whatever the technique there certainly are degrees of superiority.
>>That judgment is made by a consensus of viewers.
>
>OK, I'll buy that. But then couldn't there be Modern and Post-modern
>works also which show a superior degree of technique?
There certainly could but I found no evidence for it.
> Couldn't
>superior technique be used to create non-objectivist or abstract (for
>wont of better words) works of art?
Why not! -- Japanese textiles, Islamic art, typography, advertising
illustration. It just isn't evident to me in the modern crap passing
itself off as great art.
>What I should have said was that although the rules of perspective are
>exact and well reasoned, IN PRACTICE very few, if any, artists have ever
>followed the rules to anything remotely approaching consistency.
You say this because you don't understand what perspective is and how
its used.
By analogy, after you learn to write you don't think of the rules when
you are writing. However you can't write if you never learned the
rules
>In
>fact, by far the closest to correctly use perspective (assuming we
>are talking about representations in a "normal" Euclidian or near-
>Euclidian space) are the Photorealists, abhored Post-modernists that
>they are (oh, excuse me; I meant to say Post-bullshitists)!
Perspective is non-Euclidian geometry. Its use in art occurred long
before the mathematical explanations. Mind you I don't claim that an
artist must understand it mathematically only that most artwork that
allows the viewer to sense form contains perspective whether or not
the artist was conscious of the fact. However I believe that anyone
who wants to achieve anything that has complexity in form must know
something about perspective. That artist roughly speaking, pushes
around what you call the rules of perspective.
>>Even your above statement is wrong. All sets of parallel straight
>>lines converge at points. There can be infinity of sets and points.
>>Perspective also explains the behavior of curved lines etc. but I
>>suspect the average art school idiot is unaware of this.
>
>Well, if you're going to nit-pick every poorly worded phrase
>I type then I guess I'll have to show up your own shoddy
>understanding of perspective. I'm restricting this discussion
>to Euclidian geometry only, as that is the one most relevant
>to any discussion of perspective in ART.
As I said perspective is non Euclidian geometry. I'm not interested in
any further explanation here. You can find that information in a math
text.
>>I.e. a picture of a face whether a cartoon or highly realistic is
>>Perceived as that because of perspective. No straight lines
>Necessary.
>
>This simply doesn't make any sense. Here's a simple picture of
>A face:
> ///////
> (^ L ^)
> (O)
>
>It's crude, but it is recognizable as a face. How does perspective?
>Figure into this picture at all?
Figure it out yourself.
>Why should artists today take this "basic scientific knowledge"?
>Seriously when the great masters of the past didn't?
If you study what artists learned in the past and you will see that
you are wrong. All the written material of art instruction in the past
is roughly speaking scientific and what is best called rote.
>The problem here is that you studiously avoid ever telling us, in any
>Meaningful detail, what you think good art is.
My main subject here is what I consider bad art and why I consider it
bad. The reason good art attracts the viewer is because it shows
skill. Skill in my opinion basically requires the knowledge which I
described. It is contained in all painting considered great until the
advent of Modern Academic Painting. No skill no art. That is my
fundamental opinion.
If you can only do what most others can do you won't produce anything
that will ride out the fashion.
One can call ANY work a
>masterpiece or a piece of crap using this definition, and that
>judgement
>will be unassailable. Using your own definition I can easily show
>that
>Rothko was a great painter; he used a technique; this technique
>attracts
>many viewers; his technique required some basic scientific
>foundations;
>a consensus of viewers have judged his work to be superior.
Well, I disagree with you on all points.
>This is a truly assinine defense of Ingres! You are explaing his
>distortions
>of the human form by refering to esoteric branches of mathematics some
>of which did not even exist when Ingres was alive!
Affine geometry is eighteenth century. I never claimed that Ingres
understood it. If one distorts form it is technically the reason it
looks that way.
>
>A few months ago I posted a message which said viewers of modern art
>need to understand the basic theories behind the art and you said that
>viewers didn't need to learn any theories whatsoever... But now you
>say that I would appreciate Ingres more if only I would study more
>geometry!
Never said that; don't give a damn what you study
>"The Bather of Valpincon" is a great painting. It is great, not in
>spite of its anatomical inaccuracies; Ingres was a painter, not a doctor,
>afterall.
Same can be said for Tintoretto, el Greco, mannerists Bosch etc. So
What?
>But if these subtle distortions of form are acceptable in great art,
>why are the more extreme distortions of cubism automatically attacked by you?
Because those I mentioned cubism can be done by most anyone. The color
is poor and it is ordinary axonometric rendering not anything
remotely connected with the theoretical gas attributed to it and the
style was used by many artists who did the same sort of knockouts but
aren't seen in museums.
>
> Geometric Abstraction as in
>non-representational mosiacs in mosques; Geometric Abstraction as
>in the paintings of Ad Rhinehart. There is little in this type of
>Geometric Abstraction which relates to the perspective point tradition of the
>Rennaisance. If you say there is, well, I think you're stretching the
>meaning of perspective too far.
You are talking about flat abstraction, pattern making. I certainly
think an average Persian carpet beats any Modern Academic flat
abstraction. Rhinehardt couldn't do anything better than a blank bed
sheet.
>
>>>Yeah, and all those 19th Century schools that taught proper "Salon
>>>approved" styles weren't filled with vacuous theoretical
>discussions?
>
>>Yes but they also learned the craft and technique and produced
>>results
>
>I'm not all that impressed with most of the results, but that's just
>me...
I'm sure you are not, but will you deny that it required skill and
knowledge?
My point in all this is that that basic skill and knowledge is
required to make artwork attractive for more than a period than it
happens to be in fashion. I am not saying that this knowledge should
be used to repeat the art of the past, which you understandably don't
happen to like.
>>>I've always felt that Poussin's form of Neo-classicism was a very
>>>"curious creed." And talking about impractical idealism, realism is
>>>the MOST idealistic of art; it's also the one which most fails to
>>>achieve it's aims.
>
>>What aims exactly? And what aims does all that other art achieve?
>
>The aim of asserting "This is an accurate description of the world."
Do you believe that Poussin believed he was making "accurate
description of the world?"
Who said that accurately representing three-dimensional space is a
necessity. Most great art does no such thing, although some does.
> No painting is ever very accurate, in this regard. Much Modern art,
>admitting this impossibility of, accurately representing three-dimensional space,
>made the wise decision (intellectualy speaking) of refusing to try. That
>is a kind of success in its own right.
Well, take that route (intellectualy speaking) of refusing to try. See
how far you get. I hope you have the right connections.
>He is without a>doubt in my mind the most "skillful" artist whose work I've ever seen,
> if by skill I mean the ability to fool the eye. However, as much as I
>do like Harnett, he is not my favorite painter, his works do not move
>me emotionally, and his paintings do not challenge me intellectually.
I presume Rothko does?
>>>But ironically, trompe l'oiel painting, the most realistic possible,
>>>was usually rejected as "too realistic" by the academic art world.
>>>
>>It wasn't !
>
>I sometimes wonder if you've ever cracked open and art history
>book in your life.
>
I'm quite sure that you only read art school proscribed art mythology
and never read much else on the subject..
tra...@pipeline.com
Ok, please recommend books that differ with this view.
My art teachers say this too. Where can I find out differently.