Defiance and Impressionism
Mani Deli
>The most influential artist(s) of all time were the Impressionists.
Though this is what is taught today it is not entirely true. Impressionist
techniques can be found in many classical paintings. It was usually relegated
to a part of a painting or in artist’s preliminary sketches. What was new
about it was that the whole painting was done in "impressionist" technique
(really several techniques.)
>They were the first to defy the accepted 'way to be'.
>They made defiance into an artform and influenced everything that came
>afterwards.
I never knew that defiance was an artform. However the majority of today’s
Modern Artists do suggest defiance and have made it a fashionable attitude. In
its march to minimality Modern Art suggests a defiance of artwork which
contains anything much more than DEFIANCE resulting in utterly STUPID ART.
> The styles changed, but the attitudes and values of artists
>as a collective and the general principles of artists have since been
>those of exploration and challenge.
I suppose you are inferring that classical painting lacked "exploration and
challenge." Perhaps we should discount the discovery of perspective, the
invention of oil paint and other mediums, anatomy, technical innovation etc.
as just a lot of antiquated nonsense.
>They also revolutionized the way exhibitions were regarded,
How’s that?
> they expanded the definition of what is art,
Tell us about the Expanded as opposed to the unexpanded definition. What
nonsense
>they changed art education, and they redefined color theory.
They certainly influenced education. As to their color theories they are
technically incorrect. However this did not denigrate their painting it just
mannered them.
>Nothing of this nature, and this impact, ever occurred before the
>Impressionists.
Nonsense
>
>Any artists who came before, especially those of the Renaissance, will
>always be seen as those who did only what was expected, and as a result,
>are of very little true import.
Tell us "what was expected."
> Even Michelangelo did what he was
>supposed to do. He didn’t break any rules or change anything.
What rules?
> He just
>happened to be technically great. That is all he will ever be known for.
>DaVinci innovated to a certain extent, but he only made about 17
>paintings. He never broke from the style that was status quo. Too bad.
>Imagine what the world would be like if they had explored whatever came
>to mind instead of abiding by all the rules.
>
I guess these loser artists who were just technically great and nothing else
just didn’t put any DEFIANCE into their work. Perhaps Art schools should add
a Defiance for beginners course to their curriculum.
>There are other arists who made significant contributions prior to the
>Impressionists such as Rembrandt etc, but unfortunately most of them were
>silenced and they died before they could ever see the impact of their
>work reach fruition.
>
>Rembrandt was a successful artist and ran a school. He was ruined in a
financial depression and had a great influence on other artists since his
time.
Mani DeLi
…no skill no art.
RUSS MACKECHNIE
I have read your material "from the wings" for quite some time. It is interesting,
thought-provoking, often right on the money, and occasionally reactionary. But who's
quibbling?
Anyway, without injecting myself into the "defiance vs. skill vs. art vs. modern
art" fray, I must point out that you disserve yourself by discharging your
entertaining weapons at targets unworthy of the expenditure. With regard to this
particular thread, it is a case of the proverbial straw man being pounded into, well,
very short straws. . . .
All the very best,
-- Russ M. --
Mani Deli
>
>>Russ writes to Mani,
I think Modern Art is a target especially suited for target practice. Perhaps
you might "inject" yourself and voice your opinions. Many here write to me
direct rather than to this forum.
Hardly anyone who takes my side on this argument dares to express their
opinions.
Are they afraid to voice their opinions publicly?
We are fortunate that there is a medium where one can express contrary
opinions.
If there were no sceptics we would still believe that the origin of man
resides with Adam and Eve and Noah influenced the origins of species.
Mani DeLi
..What most artists today try to pass off as self expression is self
delusion.
RUSS MACKECHNIE
>[Some material deleted]
>I think Modern Art is a target especially suited for target practice. Perhaps
>you might "inject" yourself and voice your opinions. Many here write to me
>direct rather than to this forum.
>
>Hardly anyone who takes my side on this argument dares to express their
>opinions.
>Are they afraid to voice their opinions publicly?
>
>We are fortunate that there is a medium where one can express contrary
>opinions.
>If there were no sceptics we would still believe that the origin of man
>resides with Adam and Eve and Noah influenced the origins of species.
>
>Mani DeLi
>
Well, Mani, it's not fear that deters me from joining you on occasion--I've often
been quite tempted. And not just when I think you're right (I often think you're
wrong, too.) That's why your implication that I'm one of those who "takes [your]
side" is inaccurate. I happen to believe that very often you fashion some
particularly appropriate needles for insertion into gas-filled balloons just waiting
to be punctured. But--to mix metaphors--you often throw some very attractive babies
out with your Modern-Art-for-the-most-part-stinks bathwater.
I happen to believe that Picasso was one of the truly great artists. Yes, he made
a lot of crap, too--particularly in his later years. But he was undeniably a man of
great skill--and a true innovator. Most importantly, he made very beautiful pieces.
Pieces that, like Shakespeare's literary contributions, will be with us for as long
as humans crawl around on the planet. That is not to say that Picasso is to be
worshipped. . . I wouldn't trade Vermeer's "Young Girl with a Pearl Earring" for
every Picasso ever created (well, maybe EVERY Picasso . . . .)
The point here is that I think sometimes you fall victim to your very own
criticism: you've espoused an "ism" of your own. It's "Modern-Art-is-Crap-ism". And
while an awful lot of "Modern Art" is crap, so was a lot of what was made when
Caravaggio was at his easel, Vermeer was at his, and Michelangelo was chipping away
at his blocks of marble.
The difficulty I have in expounding my own theories and thoughts about art (and in
supporting you when I think you're right--and chastising when I think you're
wrong--about Picasso for example) is that 40 and 50 and 60 line "soundbites" on a
Newsgroup are wholly inadequate for expressing even rudimentary principles on the
subject. What inevitably occurs is descent into ad hominem attacks,
oversimplification, and unjustified hardening of insupportable positions. These
little bites are often Macbeth's "tale[s] told by an idiot . . ." often signifying
less than nothing.
That is why I remain in the wings and settle for the entertainment value of the
posts. These discussions belong in books and lengthy articles, where thoughts--often
very complex thoughts--can be developed logically and as elaborately as they deserve.
Not subjected to being grabbed out 3 lines at a time and macheted to bloody strips.
That is why I await publication of your book. After I've read your argument in all
its glory I'll decide whether I'm "on your side" or not.
I debated long and hard with myself before even making the comment that generated
your response. Perhaps that was a mistake. I'm simply not prepared to lay out my
theory on art and aesthetics in this forum. It's not fair to me, to the argument, to
art, or to those who peruse this group. Because if it were done properly, I'd be
strung up at dawn for massive misuse of Netspace. . . .
Keep on truckin, though, Mani. You don't need my (or anyone else's)
support--you're holding your own just fine. But about this Picasso guy . . . .
All the best,
-- Russ M. --
Mani Deli
>Well, Mani, it's not fear that deters me from joining you on occasion--I've
often
>been quite tempted. And not just when I think you're right (I often think
you're
>wrong, too.) That's why your implication that I'm one of those who "takes
[your]
>side" is inaccurate.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that.
>I happen to believe that very often you fashion some
>particularly appropriate needles for insertion into gas-filled balloons just
waiting
>to be punctured. But--to mix metaphors--you often throw some very attractive
babies
>out with your Modern-Art-for-the-most-part-stinks bathwater.
>
> I happen to believe that Picasso was one of the truly great artists. Yes,
he made
>a lot of crap, too--particularly in his later years. But he was undeniably a
man of
great skill--and a true innovator. Most importantly, he made very >beautiful
pieces.
>Pieces that, like Shakespeare's literary contributions, will be with us for
as long
>as humans crawl around on the planet. That is not to say that Picasso is to
be
>worshipped. . . I wouldn't trade Vermeer's "Young Girl with a Pearl Earring"
for
>every Picasso ever created (well, maybe EVERY Picasso . . . .)
>
I would partially agree. Picasso did do some nice paintings. I even explained
why he outranked many contemporaries. But my criticism refers to his rank as
an artist with the classic greats and to his not -so-fine work.
> The point here is that I think sometimes you fall victim to your very own
>criticism: you've espoused an "ism" of your own. It's
"Modern-Art-is-Crap-ism". And
>while an awful lot of "Modern Art" is crap, so was a lot of what was made
when
>Caravaggio was at his easel, Vermeer was at his, and Michelangelo was
chipping away
>at his blocks of marble.
>
Sure but I'm addressing Modern Academic Art here. By that I refer to artwork
praised by our holy critics. All contemporary art is modern and I've stated
many times that I believe more fine work has been produced in this century
then ever befoe.
> I debated long and hard with myself before even making the comment that
generated
>your response. Perhaps that was a mistake. I'm simply not prepared to lay out
my
>theory on art and aesthetics in this forum. It's not fair to me, to the
argument, to
>art, or to those who peruse this group. Because if it were done properly, I'd
be
>strung up at dawn for massive misuse of Netspace. . . .
That is why one has to crystalize ones statments to be as concise as posible.
I Thought your response was excellent and tried to imply that I appreciated it
whether t you agree with me or not.
Thanks,
Mani DeLi
>
Sue
However, take a look at http://www.artcom.com/lca/
and enjoy a new Boticelli.
Bye and love to all.
RnB K
subjects and artists. We have the largest selection in the Midwest. Stop
by our gallery located @ 175 N. Franklin Ave, Chicago IL. 60606, or call
312-332-7185.
Or email us at RnB K...@aol.com
Thank you for your time.
Raymond Koehler