Dali and Duchamp
Andrew Werby
title for works of art, it was he. His aim was to develop the technique to
depict his visions as if he were taking a color photograph of his dreams - and
his visions were worth the depiction. Images of startling originality poured
from his brush, and to this day retain their impact. In spite of legions of
imitators the works of the master in his prime are unmistakable. While
continuing with his painting he contributed to film and literature, designed
jewelry and objets d’art, even explored holography.
In his last years, badly burned when the house he designed in the shape
of a nautilus shell caught fire, and disconsolate over the death of his
beloved wife Gala, he apparently became the captive of a shadowy group who
put out art - under his name - of appallingly low quality; but anyone familiar
with his exacting standards of craftsmanship should not be fooled. It is true
he did not make a stand against Fascism, so if artists are all to be judged by
their politics he was a failure. Of course we must also discard Prokofiev
(who collaborated with Stalin), Leni Reifenstal , Ezra Pound, and Celine, and
then there were those war machines of Leonardo. But except in the case of
overtly political art, I think that personal politics are a side issue at most-
one of art’s great strengths is its power to transcend the political.
In contrast with Dali’s legacy, which survives as a series of images and
objects, Marcel Duchamp left us with the idea of the artist as
poseur/promoter. Although a few paintings remain of the small number he
bothered
to do before his retirement and the dedication of his time to
perfecting his artistic lifestyle, they are pretty thin stuff in visual
terms. He is most remembered for his “readymades,” designed to prove
that art is anything a self-proclaimed artist says it is; certainly an
appealing notion for an artist, but ultimately corrosive of the trust
that made it possible for artists to earn a living. It is true that we
now have the “freedom” t exhibit a urinal or any other piece of trash
and call it “art” with nobody able to deny it, but we must pay to have
slides made, pay to submit the slides, pay for shipment to and fro, pay
to insure it, and still be unable to sell it.
To give him his due, he was a tireless promoter, both of his own
art and of other’s; organizing the famous New York Armory show of
1913, and launching magazines to disseminate Surrealist views.
Certainly he foreshadowed the current role of the artist as
controversarian, managing to create furor and turn it to his advantage.
His example is a seductive one to would-be artists, who are unclear on
aesthetic principles and unpractised in
technique - just pursue the “art of living” as an artist, and the rest
will follow. Marcel Duchamp is not more than somewhat to blame for the
sad state of art in this era , but if more had followed the more
rigorous example of Dali instead of setting themselves up as
neo-Duchamps, perhaps the galleries would not be such depressing places
to visit today.
Andrew Werby - United Artworks
sd...@lehigh.edu
>title for works of art, it was he.
> In contrast with Dali’s legacy, which survives as a series of images and
>objects, Marcel Duchamp left us with the idea of the artist as
>poseur/promoter. Although a few paintings remain of the small number he
>bothered
>to do before his retirement and the dedication of his time to
>perfecting his artistic lifestyle, they are pretty thin stuff in visual
>terms. He is most remembered for his “readymades,” designed to prove
>that art is anything a self-proclaimed artist says it is; certainly an
>appealing notion for an artist, but ultimately corrosive of the trust
>that made it possible for artists to earn a living.
I'm glad to hear someone finally put it this way: Duchamp--through his
willful, capricious, selfish actions--was a major and early force in the
unfortunate corrosion of trust between artists and the general public.
That's an interesting word you use, "prove"--it strikes me that Duchamp only
proved how shallow art could be and what the artist could get away with
because he was OUT to prove that art could be a scam. Honoring this
contribution is like honoring Richard Nixon for proving that the president
could be a lying crook and fool the public into electing him. It seems to me
that the same flaw in Duchamp's argument also applies to the decline in moral
standards this country has witnessed; it's common to hear people say, "Oh,
loosen up, it's the '90's, not the '50's," but this seems to me to imply that
the mere passage of time impels us to lower our standards in order to prove
that we can do so if we want to.
>Certainly he foreshadowed the current role of the artist as
>controversarian, managing to create furor and turn it to his advantage.
>His example is a seductive one to would-be artists, who are unclear on
>aesthetic principles and unpractised in
>technique - just pursue the “art of living” as an artist, and the rest
>will follow. Marcel Duchamp is not more than somewhat to blame for the
>sad state of art in this era , but if more had followed the more
>rigorous example of Dali instead of setting themselves up as
>neo-Duchamps, perhaps the galleries would not be such depressing places
>to visit today.
Indeed, Duchamp is to blame in a big way, in the same way that Nixon is to
blame for the corrosion of trust between the general public and politicians.
I always disliked Duchamp, but I never really realized what an instrumental
force he was in tarnishing the name of art in the public's eye and turning
into a potential laughing stock. In my opinion, he should go down in art
history books the way Hitler or Stalin go down in history books.
(Incidentally, I think Matisse, Klee, or Picasso had more of a positive
influence on art in this century than Dali, although Dali is certainly up
there.)
Scott
Jason A. Hutto
Scott...You erroneously wrote 'Richard Nixon' where you meant to put
"Bill Clinton".
I am sure you are embarrassed.
Jason
--
This has been a message from : Jason A. Hutto (Brother Alphabet)
----------------------------------------------------------------
ja...@ra.msstate.edu | http://www2.msstate.edu/~jah10
Mani Deli
-=> Quoting Dre...@ix.netcom.com to All <=-
Dr> Salvador Dali was a true genius; if anyone in the 20th
century
Dr> deserves the title for works of art, it was he. His aim was
to develop
Dr> the technique to depict his visions as if he were taking a
color
Dr> photograph of his dreams - and his visions were worth the
depiction.
Dr> Images of startling originality poured from his brush, and
to this day
Dr> retain their impact.
The reason Dali is so superior is that his technique is superior
to all other
Modern Academic masters. He had the ability to carry out his
ideas. This
ability is so lacking in so many of our so-called greats. Picasso
had ideas
but lacked any masterly skill. Matisse tried but never had an
idea in his
life. De Kooning and Rothko etc. only thought they had ideas and
thought that
a major one was to lack any skill whatever. This was the only one
to which
they ever conformed.
Dr> Marcel Duchamp left us with the idea of the artist as
Dr> poseur/promoter. Although a few paintings remain of the
small number
Dr> he bothered to do before his retirement and the dedication
of his time
Dr> to perfecting his artistic lifestyle, they are pretty thin
stuff in
Dr> visual terms.
Duchamp was talented, possessed intellect and some skill but was
a lazy fart.
He produced more gas then painting. His early painted works are
interesting
and are among the few abstract works which express three
dimensions. He is
historically admired for doing all the show-biz nonsense which is
presently
required for fashionable success today. His urinal, most later
works and lots
of his statements are really just plain stupid. He was a Dadaist
who outlived
his time and admitted it. He did the right thing by taking rich
old ladies for
a ride long before Warhol got the idea. He remained fashionable
unlike so many
other Dadaist losers.
Duchamp is also a major academic role model for most of today's
art students.
They attempt to repeat his antiquated ideas and suffer a
nostalgia for a
Dadaistic world that never was. They evoke the old nonsense
aesthetics in Post
Modernist babble which they imagine is utterly new.
The Modern Academic student unlike Duchamp, can't draw, has
little knowledge
of art history, lacks technical skill and intellect and imagines
himself a
great artist.
Unlike Duchamp the Modern Art student never earned his right to
laziness and
is in most cases destined as an artist to earn purely abstract
non-objective
money. His ideas of how to fashionably shock people without the
medium of
artistic skill are but boring repetition. The few artists in the
Modern Art
rat race who do make it to the top of the heap and earn those
coveted millions
are about as deserving as lottery winners.
Mani DeLi
... No skill no art.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
Jason A. Hutto
>
>The reason Dali is so superior is that his technique is superior
>to all other
>Modern Academic masters.
Magritte was better in depicting unreality.
He was also more successful in conveying ideas via text-image.
>He had the ability to carry out his
>ideas. This
>ability is so lacking in so many of our so-called greats. Picasso
>had ideas
>but lacked any masterly skill.
Mani Deli, you are out of your mind.
Clinically.
Either that, or you have never seen anything from Picasso.
Altar Boy?
Science and Charity?
I can send you copies of drawings and paintings galore which show
Picasso's 'masterly skill".
He was rendering perfect human figures at age 14 and 15.
He, in effect, had the ability to say "Done That Been There" to the whole
Idea of 'masterly skill' in regard to the existing definition of same.
>Matisse tried but never had an
>idea in his
>life.
Yeah, and he sure as hell didnt found Fauvism.
>De Kooning and Rothko etc. only thought they had ideas and
>thought that
>a major one was to lack any skill whatever. This was the only one
>to which
>they ever conformed.
Where are you from, anyway?
>Duchamp was talented, possessed intellect and some skill but was
>a lazy fart.
I am more likely to agree here.
One of his most successful illusions was that he actually made a
contribution to the 21st century artworld. People still believe that.
Of course I doubt he foresaw this illusion.
>He produced more gas then painting. His early painted works are
>interesting
>and are among the few abstract works which express three
>dimensions.
The third dimension is not that important.
I agree about his earlier painted work...I feel it is his best work and
that the later Dadaist work is far less outstanding (theory excluded)
>Duchamp is also a major academic role model for most of today's
>art students.
>They attempt to repeat his antiquated ideas and suffer a
>nostalgia for a
>Dadaistic world that never was. They evoke the old nonsense
>aesthetics in Post
>Modernist babble which they imagine is utterly new.
I see that. More often I see a fradulent return to some sort of angst
ridden punk expressionism. Ack.
>The Modern Academic student unlike Duchamp, can't draw, has
>little knowledge
>of art history, lacks technical skill and intellect and imagines
>himself a
>great artist.
Wow. You just describe 95% of yourself.
You dont seem to know much about history, either, what with your foolish
comments about Picasso.
If you would like to compete, Ill be glad to put my technical skill up
against yours. I do not imagine myself a great artist. I recognize myself
as a competent one, while at the same time having much to learn. (I am a
great deal more 'open' than most folks here thhink i might be.) Plus the
fact that you yourself have not exhibited very much intellect.
>Unlike Duchamp the Modern Art student never earned his right to
>laziness and
>is in most cases destined as an artist to earn purely abstract
>non-objective
>money.
So what if they do? This is untrue, of course, because most folks look at
non objective/abstract work and claim to like the colors while not
understanding it, since they 'really dont know much about art'
The money is in the pretty flower arangements.
>His ideas of how to fashionably shock people without the
>medium of
>artistic skill...
Does artistic skill come in a tube?
Ill have to go out and buy some...I have never tried that medium.
> are but boring repetition. The few artists in the
>Modern Art
>rat race who do make it to the top of the heap and earn those
>coveted millions
>are about as deserving as lottery winners.
Whatever, man.
Ill send money to your favorite homeless shelter.
Making the millions has as much to do with shrewd marketing and publicity
as it does to making good imagery. SOmetimes the untalented slip by, of
course.
If I make tons of money from painting, I am sure as hell not going to
feel guilty about it.
>Mani DeLi
>... No skill no art.
Here, in a short, to the point phrase, Deli describes himself again.
Salvador Deli.
Sincerely,
G.Gordon Liddy
Mani Deli
The reason Dali is so superior is that his technique is superior
to all other Modern Academic masters.
Ja> Magritte was better in depicting unreality.
Ja> He was also more successful in conveying ideas via text-image.
I have seen many Magritte shows and consider him an artist. If you have seen
both Magritte and Dali originals the first thing you will notice is the
difference in technique. Dali has classical technique with an added unique
touch. His use of light and shade is entirely original. His work (original not
reproduction) has a sense of depth and hyper-reality which no famous Modern
Academic has attained.
As to "text image," do you mean a visual pun? Both artists did this. I much
prefer Dali at this. Magritte never painted a double image and his painting is
quite flat, his color is good but can't compare to Dali.
I would rate Magritte as only a second rate illustrator. For the following
reasons: His painting surface is really art student level. He lacks a refined
finish to his painting. His drawing is mediocre compared to Dali. He lacks
complexity.
Many of our contemporary illustrators paint better than Magritte but none come
close to Dali. I believe that at some future time our illustrators will become
the artists who best represent the fine art in this century. Second rate here
is still of great merit in my opinion.
He had the ability to carry out his
ideas. This ability is so lacking in so many of our so-called greats. Picasso
had ideas but lacked any masterly skill.
Ja> Mani Deli, you are out of your mind.
Ja> Clinically.
Ja> Either that, or you have never seen anything from Picasso.
I've seen most everything important by Picasso. In the original.
Ja> Altar Boy?
Ja> Science and Charity?
Glad you mention these two particular works. Both are crappy third rate 19th
century style academic paintings. They are full of errors which reveal
Picasso's lack drawing skill. They contain perspective errors, the cloth is
flat etc. I can go into more detail if you like. If they weren't signed
Picasso they would have been junked.
Picasso was academically trained. He could out-draw his Modern Art competitors
But he never attained any classical ability in spite of what critics say. Look
at his "dove of Peace" and his portrait of Stalin for his final lack of
ability. He is at his best when he imitated the pencil drawings of Ingres or
Greek bronze drawing. But these are also second rate. If they weren't signed
Picasso they would pass unnoticed. I couldn't say this about Dali.
Dali's early works are very mediocre and show little promise. He worked hard
to attain skill and by 1927 did exceptionally fine work. As Dali accelerated
Picasso deteriorated. Picasso reached his peak idiocy in his "Massacre in
Korea" and the massive "fishermen of Antibes." To compliment this work Dali
sent Picasso a telegram.
"Pablo thanks! Your last ignominious paintings have killed modern art. But for
you with the taste and moderation that are the very virtues of French prudence
we should have had painting which was more and more ugly for at least one
hundred years...you...have achieved the limits and the final consequences of
the abominable in a mere few weeks... etc."
>Matisse tried but never had an
>idea in his life.
Ja> Yeah, and he sure as hell didnt found Fauvism.
Fauvism is fifth rate crap. It is popular among the artsy-fartsies because
they feel they can imitate it and surpass it. However it gets them nowhere
because it isn't signed Matisse. Matisse is one of the best artists to forge
because it takes so little skill.
>De Kooning and Rothko etc. only thought they had ideas and
>thought that a major one was to lack any skill whatever. This was the only
>one to which they ever conformed.
Ja> Where are you from, anyway?
N.Y.C.
>Duchamp was talented, possessed intellect and some skill but was
>a lazy fart.
Ja> I am more likely to agree here.
Hey. are you also "clinically" out of your mind?
>Duchamp produced more gas then painting. His early painted works are
>interesting and are among the few abstract works which express three
>dimensions.
Ja> The third dimension is not that important.
It is not important to those who can't draw. I consider it part of the
foundation of any art work. The lack of dimension is the main reason for the
failure of Modern Academic Art to interest most of the public. Those who lack
understanding of 3D can't go beyond hack graphics and computer patzing.
>Duchamp is also a major academic role model for most of today's
>art students. They attempt to repeat his antiquated ideas and suffer a
>nostalgia for a Dadaistic world that never was. They evoke the old nonsense
>aesthetics in Post Modernist babble which they imagine is utterly new.
Ja> I see that. More often I see a fraudulent return to some sort of angst
Ja> ridden punk expressionism. Ack.
???
>The Modern Academic student unlike Duchamp, can't draw, has
>little knowledge of art history, lacks technical skill and intellect and
imagines himself a great artist.
Ja> Wow. You just describe 95% of yourself.
Ja> You dont seem to know much about history, either, what with your
Ja> foolish comments about Picasso.
Picasso and Matisse are considered gods. In this respect I'm an atheist. I
think you and your ilk suffer from religio-mania. If you criticize god you are
considered a heretic and people like you attack their sanity. You really
engage in boring conformity rather than critical thinking.
Ja> If you would like to compete, Ill be glad to put my technical skill up
Ja> against yours. I do not imagine myself a great artist. I recognize
Ja> myself as a competent one, while at the same time having much to
Ja> learn. (I am a great deal more 'open' than most folks here think i
Ja> might be.) Plus the fact that you yourself have not exhibited very
Ja> much intellect.
Is this confession? I don't know anything about your skill. Perhaps you excel
in skill. It is not relevant to the criticism discussed here.
>Unlike Duchamp the Modern Art student never earned his right to
>laziness and is in most cases destined as an artist to earn purely abstract
>non-objective money.
Ja> So what if they do? This is untrue, of course, because most folks look
Ja> at non objective/abstract work and claim to like the colors while not
Ja> understanding it, since they 'really dont know much about art'
If what you want is fine abstraction, you want study Persian Rugs. If you want
something superior to Modern Academic non-objective abstract etc. look at
floor covering, towel design and magazine graphics and modern neckties. (to
name a few superior objects).
Ja> The money is in the pretty flower arrangements.
It isn't.
Ja> Does artistic skill come in a tube?
Ja> Ill have to go out and buy some...I have never tried that medium.
Perhaps you never will.
The few artists in the Modern Art rat race who do make it to the top of the
heap and earn those coveted millions are about as deserving as lottery
winners.
Ja> If I make tons of money from painting, I am sure as hell not going to
Ja> feel guilty about it.
Hey man, make all the money you can. I'm all for making money. I've knocked
out abstract crap for money but the fact that Picasso or Rothko are worth a
lot of money says little about the merit of their painting.
The less skill the less competition. Since you assure us that you are brimming
with skill I'm sure that this should be as great a consolation to you as it is
to me.
>Mani DeLi
... No skill no art.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
Andrew Werby
>
> Ja> If you would like to compete, Ill be glad to put my technical
skill up
> Ja> against yours. I do not imagine myself a great artist. I
recognize
> Ja> myself as a competent one, while at the same time having much to
> Ja> learn. (I am a great deal more 'open' than most folks here think
i
> Ja> might be.) Plus the fact that you yourself have not exhibited
very
> Ja> much intellect.
>Mani Deli responded:
>Is this confession? I don't know anything about your skill.
> >Mani DeLi
[So do we have a way to arrange this duel? Oils at twenty paces?
Plein-air at high noon? Perhaps both could submit work on a subject to
be determined to a neutral web-page, then a jury mutually agreed on
would decide the winner - In ancient Greece, art was an Olympic event;
perhaps we can recreate some of that excitement here in cyberspace.
Andrew Werby - United Artworks]
Jason A. Hutto
Cool. I'm all for that.
Let's set it up.
Or were you just being sarcastic?
I would like to see a rec.arts wide competition.
We could organize it into a juried exhibition, etc etc.
J
John Frigo
mani...@canrem.com (Mani Deli) wrote:
[another-diatribe-on-how-much-better-an-artist-
Dali-is-than-any-other-since deleted, cuz I
just couldn't stand the waste of bandwidth.]
Okay, okay...
So Dali knew how to paint fleshy textures on wood.
This makes the draftsmanship of Picasso suck?
or the meaning of Magritte somehow lacking?
I don't think so.
Just for the sake of argument, let me throw out
two names of artists that the art establisment
doesn't think too highly of. M.C. Escher and
H.R. Geiger. Any one of my profs would've
balked at them. But personally, I think Escher
is deeper than Dali, and Geiger is more skillful.
But both are too banal even for the "cool" banality
of postmodernism. I still like 'em.
This is just my opinion. As yours is your own.
Neither has to invalidate the other. But as long
as we're cutting apart other artist's work...
Oh, nevermind.
John Frigo <jfr...@bilbo.bio.purdue.edu>
> FREE TOILET PAPER (and more) on fuzzy's home page <
> http://schenectady.ecn.purdue.edu/~fuzzy <
John Frigo
(Andrew Werby ) wrote:
: [So do we have a way to arrange this duel? Oils at twenty paces?
: Plein-air at high noon? Perhaps both could submit work on a subject to
: be determined to a neutral web-page, then a jury mutually agreed on
: would decide the winner - In ancient Greece, art was an Olympic event;
: perhaps we can recreate some of that excitement here in cyberspace.
Oh, pinch me!
(...too much excitement...)
(liked the "Plein-air at high noon", tho!)