Mani de Li: On Picasso and Tamara
just....@gmail.com
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/critique.htm
Is this to say that Picasso did not contribute to art? Doesnt a
contribution to art through your work validate you as an artist to some
degree in your opinion?? I think your 'Critique by Comparison' is fair
but only to the examples you used. One might even argue that this
artist Tamara would not have her style if not for "non-artist" or
"art-speak" artist like Picasso.
Im no art history expert and do not understand how to break down art as
many of you claim too but in my observation Dali seemed to offer a new
perspective to reality through his art, even if it was just his reality
(or maybe others) I mention Dali becasue your paintings appear to be
dali'esque - Did Picasso not do this same thing by breaking down
reality into a new perspective with his cubism and/or abstract
paintings? If yes, why is this not worthy of even the slightest bit of
your respect to him as a contributor?
Does your arguement of "no skill no art" only include skill in photo
realism? does composition hold value? Do you give him an inch
anywhere? I again admit im no big fan of Picasso but when i look at
his paintings i see something there of value and something to learn
from, something tangible. So he wasnt a great photo realist painter,
his strengths were elsewhere were they not? (in your opinion)
Or any others who are iwlling to comment? (Mesken? others?)
Mani Deli
<just....@gmail.com> wrote:
>Referring to Mani Deli website:
>http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/critique.htm
>
>Is this to say that Picasso did not contribute to art?
I think Picasso along with Matisse and Cezanne are an invention of
critics which propagated the religion of artistic nihilism.
> Doesnt a
>contribution to art through your work validate you as an artist to some
>degree in your opinion??
I'm not concerned whether I'm judged as an artist. Art isn't my
religion.
>I think your 'Critique by Comparison' is fair
>but only to the examples you used.
So site some of your own. The work I sited are considered
masterpieces. I think they aren't anything of the sort.
> One might even argue that this
>artist Tamara would not have her style if not for "non-artist" or
>"art-speak" artist like Picasso.
Tamara had craft knowledge and could draw and always attracts the
viewer. Picasso lacks these qualities, even for you, I suspect.
>Im no art history expert and do not understand how to break down art as
>many of you claim too but in my observation Dali seemed to offer a new
>perspective to reality through his art, even if it was just his reality
>(or maybe others) I mention Dali becasue your paintings appear to be
>dali'esque -
They are.
> Did Picasso not do this same thing by breaking down
>reality into a new perspective with his cubism and/or abstract
>paintings?
No, Picasso is a charlatan and a product of artspeak and clever
businessmen.
> If yes, why is this not worthy of even the slightest bit of
>your respect to him as a contributor?
I have no respect for Picasso.
>Does your arguement of "no skill no art" only include skill in photo
>realism?
Anything that doesn't conform to modern art stupidity is
"photorealistic, that's what they teach in art school; Tell me which
works of mine looks photorealistic. How about Dali, Norman Rockwell
of Disney?
> does composition hold value?
Infinitely less than the Modern Art doubletalk about it. Most modern
art contains no more composition than an average bed sheet.
> Do you give him an inch
>anywhere?
Yes, as bad as Picasso is he's miles better than most later Modern
Art.
> I again admit im no big fan of Picasso
Perhaps you might tell us why!
> but when i look at
>his paintings i see something there of value
So do I, great monitary value at present but nothing more.
> and something to learn
>from, something tangible.
I can say the same for an average junk yard.
> So he wasnt a great photo realist painter,
>his strengths were elsewhere were they not? (in your opinion)
He's not the artist he's cracked up to be whatever his strengths. At
best he is a third rate cartoonist who enlarged his cartoons and
claimed they were great art.
zeno
"just....@gmail.com" wrote:
> Referring to Mani Deli website:
> http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/critique.htm
>
> Does your arguement of "no skill no art" only include skill in photo
> realism?
Mani is not what you call a "photo-realist" that is a later term for
artists who were literally influenced by photography, his work is
derivative of and creatively extends the style used by Dali which employs
an illustrative approach and rules of composition stemming from the
ancient study of perspective. The subject matter can be described as
"surrealism", but this term can also apply to artists like Miro who used
the "positional" mode rather than the "illustrative". Both approaches are
valid, although Mani (imho) doesn't understand this (yet), or for some
reason sees this "other" mode as his "enemy", a prejudice which his
experiences interfacing with the art world (gallerys, critics, etc.)
undoubtedly has conditioned, it is unfortunate, ... so be nice. He is a
spokesman for others like him, competent artists, who were the victims of
the fashion of the day, swept under the carpet so to speak, thus his
antagonism to modernism. His attitudes are really about the politics of
art, although he couches it in terms of modernists being incompetent, it
is an extreme reaction to what he feels has been extreme injustice. Dali
himself, in spite of his notoriety, was in a sense was also an outcast
during the heyday of Picasso and later modernism. One needs to sort out
the "politics" from the aesthetic judgements, this is where Mani's
position rubs people the wrong way and why he can seem like a kook
shouting in the wind. There is validity on both sides and it is not
difficult to form an attitude which can include Picasso AND Dali. The
universe is comprised of the forces of Creation and the forces of
Destruction. Picasso consciously chose not to paint in the older
traditions which he was competent at because he was a creature of history
not an ostrich. Today you can do anything you want, but be prepared to
fight.
Zeno
zeno
Mani Deli wrote:
> I think Picasso along with Matisse and Cezanne are an invention of
> critics which propagated the religion of artistic nihilism.
Clearly you are the nihilist. By throwing out Picasso, Matisse, Cezanne
etc. you might as well through out everything leading up to them, something
implicit in your philosophy. Actually you are the ultimate nihilist. All of
art is the invention of these other forces of history. You are a fool.
Zeno
just....@gmail.com
anything for me. thats why i dont like him, but i dont resent him.
the only painting that really stands for me is old man with a guitar.
some of his "mathematical" cubism i like too. honestly i dont care much
for most art, i think it sucks. & the idea of a museum is more
interesting than the museum itself.
i didnt get any secret rothko decoder ring but i know i like the warm
feeling it stirs up and thats enough for me. the term photorealism was
the wrong one to use so let me explain - the tamara painting you show
on your website i agree is more attractive than the picasso but its
loses flavor faster than cheap yankee bubble gum. i cant stand ultra
refined art, super perfect straight lines and perfect lighting and
glossy sheen..
francis bacon is probably my favorite artist. to me he is raw and his
paintings have real soul to them, to me they represent real people more
than real people do. maybe that sounds like pretentious art guru
bullocks to you but thats my sincerest feelings on him. i agree skill
is important but to me i think its a balancing act of skill and
emotion, otherwise you have a childish scrawl vs. a boring perfect
circle.
Thur
"zeno" <ze...@sonic.net> wrote in message news:41DA0839...@sonic.net...
modernists who threw out tradional art and even traditional skills, and
they who preach for an all embracing action of innovation over tradition.
Definition of nihilism
Philosophy.
1..
1.. An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence.
2.. A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can
be known or communicated.
2.. Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a
willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious
belief.
3.. The belief that destruction of existing political or social
institutions is necessary for future improvement.
4.. also Nihilism A diffuse, revolutionary movement of mid 19th-century
Russia that scorned authority and tradition and believed in reason,
materialism, and radical change in society and government through terrorism
and assassination.
5.. Psychiatry. A delusion, experienced in some mental disorders, that the
world or one's mind, body, or self does not exist.
Thur
zeno
Thur wrote:
> "zeno" <ze...@sonic.net> wrote in message news:41DA0839...@sonic.net...
> >
> >
> > Mani Deli wrote:
> >
> >> I think Picasso along with Matisse and Cezanne are an invention of
> >> critics which propagated the religion of artistic nihilism.
> >
> > Clearly you are the nihilist. By throwing out Picasso, Matisse, Cezanne
> > etc. you might as well through out everything leading up to them,
> > something
> > implicit in your philosophy. Actually you are the ultimate nihilist. All
> > of
> > art is the invention of these other forces of history. You are a fool.
> >
> > Zeno
> >
> The nihilism is encompassed in modernist thinking and actions. It is the
> modernists who threw out tradional art and even traditional skills, and
> they who preach for an all embracing action of innovation over tradition.
>
"innovation over tradition"
The tradition was already one of innovation and evolution. It was inevitable
that it would keep evolving. That is the Western tradition of art and science.
To say there was a "tradition" is to freeze a particular earlier period of that
evolution and that is arbitrary where you decide to fix it. Modernism was
anything but nihilistic. The perception of "nihilism" is by those who cannot
deal with the evolution, who are indeed "afraid" of it.
Zeno
Thur
"zeno" <ze...@sonic.net> wrote in message news:41DA17B1...@sonic.net...
Not so.
Each generation evolved from the past, without throwing out the basic
values.
What happened between 1880 an today is an exception to this. Much of the
modernist tradition has been built over the foundations of the past.
Single point perpsective, modelling of depth through light and dark tones,
the
responsibility of the artist to build the narrative rather than to unload it
onto the
viewer are examples. No evoloution there, and the general tone that you
adopt.
I am to be cast as a revisionist, and sometimes a rectionary, to suggest
that
the very basis of modernism needs to be justified.
Tradition, as defined in your comments is only one way of using the word.
There is a tradition if previous styles, however archaic have a meaning,
and a value and a relevance to contemporary works.
The idea that modernism provides "a whole new range of possibilities" is a
red herring, since it does not deal with the fact that it denies just as
many
possiblities too.
> The perception of "nihilism" is by those who cannot
> deal with the evolution, who are indeed "afraid" of it.
From what I read, your use of the word evolution in regard to modernism, is
in direct opposition to what I read. Modernists claim to have come through
a revolution rather than through evolution.
Who is afraid? Well you have nothing to fear, beating the drums of
convention.
I seem to be amongst a very small number here.
Which of us are evolving, and which of us are desperately clinging to the
rocks
of posture?
Thur
Mani Deli
Lauri Levanto
Thur wrote:
>
> Not so.
> Each generation evolved from the past, without throwing out the basic
> values.
- like the medieval art evolved from the GrecoRoman tradition?
- like the renaissance developed from the medieval art
> What happened between 1880 an today is an exception to this. Much of the
> modernist tradition has been built over the foundations of the past.
> Single point perpsective,
- like the inclusion of single point of time by impressionists was not
evolution?
> modelling of depth through light and dark tones,
- and trough color changes of indirect light was not an evolution?
> the
> responsibility of the artist to build the narrative rather than to unload it
> onto the
> viewer are examples.
Here I am lost, Thur. Which traditional piece you had in mind
that *build* a narrative, without relying on narratives
that the viewer was supposed to know, like the Oath of Horatio?
> The idea that modernism provides "a whole new range of possibilities" is a
> red herring, since it does not deal with the fact that it denies just as
> many
> possiblities too.
- it never denied the photorealism of Warhol et others.
- it never denied the skill of Dali
Picasso was a representational artist most of his life.
Were not his enhacements of representational means evolution,
or do you see a arevolutionary break in his carrier?
The Russian modernists no doubt wanted to revolutionize art
together with the revolution of society.
The revolutional society was (unfortunately) revisionistic with art.
The Socialistic Realism was not only stagnation, it degraded the
Sowiet art to a level before Repin and Aivazovsky.
Thre is no linear development in art. How crude are hellenistic mosaics
comared to Lascaux cave paintings 10 000 years earlier.
Eevotion is there, but like in nature it takes many paths and
only future tells which ones survive.
* * *
This does not mean I do not understand and appreciate your point of wiew.
In music I happen to be very conservative.
Most music composed since 1750 is for me modern crap.
But still I see Beatles as an evolution from Baroque and Shubert lieds :-)
-lauri
Thur
"Lauri Levanto" <laur...@dnainternet.fi> wrote in message
news:41dad...@news.dnainternet.net...
"Ultimately Rothko chose to abandon figuration altogether, moving
to pure abstraction in (1945).
"By stripping away all recognisable images, my father looked to
communicate on a more elemental level, to appeal to the emotions
with sensations as the only mediator."
"Rothko's work ultimately makes explicit what all art assumes: what
the artist presents is only a portion of the artistic experience; the rest
must be supplied by the viewer, drawn from his or or her own thoughts,
experience, cultural grounding, emotional disposition.
*** My father's gamble was to place a much heavier burden on the
viewer to complete the interaction."
Hows that for stating the obvious? His works have been stripped down to
a couple of shapes and mostly a couple of colours. Of course the
viewer is faced with a burden when trying to make sense of it.
And I see that most abstract art is less complicated than that of the
"past".
Representational art, or art before Abstraction, supplied some steps or
some keys with which the viewer could make comprehension of the image.
The tradition was to have a dialogue, as far as possible with the viewer.
To suggest, as Christopher Rothko does in his text (sorry, too much to
type) that only Modernism makes a dialogue with the emotions is just
bunk. Try looking at Goya's "3rd May 1808" and tell me that it does
not attempt and succeed to transmit directly to the viewer's emotions.
Re: evolution and revolution.
> - like the medieval art evolved from the GrecoRoman tradition?
You have had to travel way back to make your point.
Incidentally, there is another view on this. Renaissance was energised
by a wholesale study of what was thought of as a Classical Period in
the past, where great art and science rose higher than what was
perceived in society at that time. The changes brought about can be viewed
as an evolution from that study. This continued smoothly into an Italian
style which some might regard as the height of the Renaissance.
In spite of this fundamental change, the purpose of the artist remained
much the same. The artist, the culture/society and the viewer all had a part
to play in art. The artist was still required to present images that - at
least
one the superficial level - would be unpuzzling to most who normally viewed
it.
Fact is that while mainstream Impressionism was an evolution, modernism
by it's own mouth is a revolution, throwing out tradition, by replacing it
with new goals, new methods, and new values. (Some might say that
values have no place in the modernist language)
You know the new script: "If the artist says it is art then it is art",
"there
are no subjective values in art, you cannot say something is better than
something else except as a personal expression" and lots of references
in the negative sense to anything that has a taste of the past:-
"derivative",
"old hat", "nothing new", "not innovative", etc.
I still have an interest in reasonable texts and explanations, though. :-)
Thur
Mani Deli
<laur...@dnainternet.fi> wrote:
>> The idea that modernism provides "a whole new range of possibilities" is a
>> red herring, since it does not deal with the fact that it denies just as
>> many
>> possiblities too.
>- it never denied the photorealism of Warhol
Photorealism of Warhol ? The guy couldn't even draw.
>et others.
>- it never denied the skill of Dali
>
Most of the fine work done during the Modern period is'nt allowed in
museums simply because people might compare it to the crap that
inhabits the place now. And that might lead people to think that the
curator is as dumb as Fox.
>Picasso was a representational artist most of his life.
for those who have eye problems.
>Were not his enhacements of representational means evolution,
>or do you see a arevolutionary break in his carrier?
-like evolution is to creationism.
>Thre is no linear development in art.
Correct, that's artwork should be judged in terms of quality not
Artspeak.
>
>This does not mean I do not understand and appreciate your point of wiew.
>In music I happen to be very conservative.
>Most music composed since 1750 is for me modern crap.
This is obvious for someone having as little skill as you have.
Mani Deli
>Mr. Dork, Thur and others -
>
>The only way to approach this is by getting an art education, with emphasis
>on art history.
Fox knows art history and anyone who says anything he doesn't like
says doesn't..
>There is no quick way to explain why this work is great
>and the artists are masters.
There is no way at all. No one has to study in order to see crap as
crap.
> Supplement your education with lots of museum
>visits - just keep looking at the art, all of it, and your eye will begin
>to train itself.
This guy is a patronizing jerk. He imagines that those who don't like
what he does don't see or read anything.
> (Same as with good music.) The time and money spent are
>considerable, but the rewards are enormous. Artists like Picasso, Rothko,
>de Kooning, etc., provide as much deep pleasure as Vermeer if you are open
>to them. You don't need to keep missing out.
That what religious fanatics say. Just give your self to the lord and
you will find out what you are missing. If a Rothko was signed Fox it
would be worthless.
keith o'connor
"positional mode" in relation to "illustrative mode".
--
take care: Keith
"zeno" <ze...@sonic.net> wrote in message news:41D9B531...@sonic.net...
just....@gmail.com
than i do from museums, maybe im not ready for what your speaking of.
ive had 1 art teacher and this was 3 or 4 years ago. we ended up being
close friends and realized i learned more from him about art in our
personal relationship than what he taught us in class.
i do think there is something to what you are saying - the whole 'no
art no skill' that mani de li talks about i throw out the window. the
reason is because my friend painted my portrait in a matter of just
moments. i mean a photo realistic portrait. it was like watching bob
ross on roids. this was a demonstration he was giving in class, he
showed, in my opinion, his technical ability - but his personal art was
this abstract expressionism that was not entirely non representational.
i dont understand it and still dont know what hes doing or going with
it.
Paul Mesken
<just....@gmail.com> wrote:
>i do think there is something to what you are saying - the whole 'no
>art no skill' that mani de li talks about i throw out the window.
Well, the "No Skill, No Art" mantra of Mani doesn't mean that skill is
the only or most important part of art. Mani, himself, states that
there are many technically skillfully made works of art that are quite
boring.
The idea is that skill is an _essential_ part of art making. Much like
mastering the keys is an essential part to making piano music.
"Mastering the keys" is not what piano music is about but it is close
to impossible to make piano music without such a basic thing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Mesken, feared administrator of www.nellarteforum.com
Thur
"Paul Mesken" <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
news:p97tt05h6jjaj5kkf...@4ax.com...
Additionally, many of the Modernist works I see have been deliberately
created with little or no demands on such skills.
For example, some works have been portrayed as "works my 5 year old
daughter could do". Some artists seem to try to provoke this kind of
reaction. See Twombly as my favourite for hate.
The whole trouble that such conflicts of opinion create, is that they become
polarised. On the one side, it sometimes reads as though an exhibition of
the artists skills is the only objective, while in opposition, you might
read
into them that skills are of no account.
Impressionism, when it arrived, offered to some, an example of lesser
skills,
especially when compared with the French Academic tatses for detail.
Assuming we can accept that the best Impressionists were skilled, and
produced fine works, then this suggests that skills like other aspects of
art can vary sometimes without failing to produce a work of art.
Looking back at the Rococco period before French Academic style,
then some works produced by Watteau as an example show much less detail.
The question (for me at least) remains. How much skill can be left out of
a work of art before it becomes lessened? If you go the whole way, and
leave all skill, then I hope we all agree that a work of art would fail.
Therefore, there must be some sort of judgement, - for each work of art -
on how much skill it required, and if the artist has been painting in a
style
that has reduced the skill level, has this worked?
Thur
Mani Deli
> You need a lot of technical ability to paint good
>abstract work.
That may be but your work is no example of that. You have no more
technical ability than an average chimpanzee.
> Myself and every other abstract artist I know can paint
>professional-quality figurative work.
This is bullshit. Fox can't even draw and his work is little more than
third rate 1960's imitation avant-gone . He couldn't make it as well
as the worst street corner portraitist.
Most abstract artists can't even draw. Look at Pollock and Warhol.
Paul Mesken
>The question (for me at least) remains. How much skill can be left out of
>a work of art before it becomes lessened?
I believe that as soon as the audience's attention is more on the
skill side instead of the idea that the work of art should evoke then
something has gone wrong.
Interestingly, this not only goes for a lack of skill (as soon as the
experience of the painting is reduced to the "My little niece could
make that") but also if it is all about technical ability and the
painting is reduced to merely a technical "tour de force".
So, a lack of skill (to make the particular representation "work") or
the wrong application of an abundance of skill are both a Bad Thing.
But, at least, an abundance of skill can still invoke awe in the
audience :-)
Skill, and its application, should be appropriate. An abundance of
skill gives the artist more freedom.
Mani Deli
wrote:
>Well, the "No Skill, No Art" mantra of Mani doesn't mean that skill is
>the only or most important part of art. Mani, himself, states that
>there are many technically skillfully made works of art that are quite
>boring.
The average artzy fartzy here can't fathom that fact because they have
been lead to imagine that good artwork results from a romantic idea of
total freedom. This is about the first thing they learn in Art school
from teachers who have to teach because they don't know their craft.
>The idea is that skill is an _essential_ part of art making. Much like
>mastering the keys is an essential part to making piano music.
>"Mastering the keys" is not what piano music is about but it is close
>to impossible to make piano music without such a basic thing.
>
That fact is a real threat to those who have no skill. It offends them
no end because it is a threat to all they hold sacred.
No one needs any education to sense the total lack of skill in most
Modern Art.
no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
radi...@aol.com
Mani Deli wrote:
>
> Tamara had craft knowledge and could draw and always attracts the
> viewer. Picasso lacks these qualities, even for you, I suspect.
>
Picasso doesn't attract viewers?
Perhaps not you or me, but others, yes.
And at least Picasso is Picasso, whereas
ManiDeli is just a re-hash of Dali!
> >Im no art history expert and do not understand how to break down art
as
> >many of you claim too but in my observation Dali seemed to offer a
new
> >perspective to reality through his art, even if it was just his
reality
> >(or maybe others) I mention Dali becasue your paintings appear to be
> >dali'esque -
>
> They are.
>
Finally, you admit this!
Yet ANOTHER person who notices how you
stole Dali's style!
I think it's finally sinking in, eh?
>
> >Does your arguement of "no skill no art" only include skill in photo
> >realism?
>
> Anything that doesn't conform to modern art stupidity is
> "photorealistic, that's what they teach in art school; Tell me which
> works of mine looks photorealistic. How about Dali, Norman Rockwell
> of Disney?
>
Surrealism is an extension of the photoreal
genre.
> > does composition hold value?
>
> Infinitely less than the Modern Art doubletalk about it. Most modern
> art contains no more composition than an average bed sheet.
>
Your own art could use some compositional skills!
>
> > So he wasnt a great photo realist painter,
> >his strengths were elsewhere were they not? (in your opinion)
>
> He's not the artist he's cracked up to be whatever his strengths. At
> best he is a third rate cartoonist who enlarged his cartoons and
> claimed they were great art.
I'm on Mani's side when it comes
to people like David Hockney, who is someone
who tries to justify his bad realism drawing
skills by claiming all realism is done with optical
aids.
And for the most part, modern
abstract art doesn't do it for me,
and i lean to the photoreal or surreal
in my tastes.
However, there is some abstact
art that moves me, that has good compositional
"skill". Some of Picasso's art is
interesting and unique. Just like
Keith Haring wasn't a realist at all,
but still communicated something.
I myself am more of a realist
or surrealist:
So i have everything to gain
to say that ManiDali is right. But
I'm not as close-minded as he is, and
i'm aware that other people's
tastes and opinions are just as
valid as mine or his.
Bottom line:
You can have all the
drawing "skills" in the world,
but if you don't have a unique
application of those skills, you
won't be original, but just a
copy-cat.
Picasso is unique.
Slick
just....@gmail.com
Paul Mesken wrote:
> Well, the "No Skill, No Art" mantra of Mani doesn't mean that skill
is
> the only or most important part of art.
Mani De Li implys that if your paintings can not be recognized as a
tangible item and/or with clarity then you have no technical skill and
the painting is not art, your just a glorified cartoonist.
some people prefer dim lighting to achieve a romantic mood or effect
but that doesnt mean they dont have a 50 trillion watt lightbulb they
could blast you with. its what the artist is intending to achieve i
think is what is important here, regardless of if you understand it and
hate it anyway or dont understand it and love it.
the flag of japan is not some great work of art but then again how many
of you can draw a perfect circle freehand?
zeno
Mani Deli
<just....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Paul Mesken wrote:
>> Well, the "No Skill, No Art" mantra of Mani doesn't mean that skill
>is
>> the only or most important part of art.
>
>Mani De Li implys that if your paintings can not be recognized as a
>tangible item
What is a tangible item?
Mani Deli
>You can have all the
>drawing "skills" in the world,
>but if you don't have a unique
>application of those skills, you
>won't be original, but just a
>copy-cat.
Never the less, no skill no art.
>
> Picasso is unique.
really?
radi...@aol.com
radi...@aol.com
Mani Deli wrote:
>
> >
> > Picasso is unique.
>
> really?
Indeed. Certainly more unique
than most "Skillful" artists out there.
There are soo many photorealists
and fantasy/surrealist artists who
are great technicians, but who don't
really stand out, either compositionally, subject
matter, or otherwise.
Slick
Lauri Levanto
Thur wrote:
>
> The whole trouble that such conflicts of opinion create, is that they become
> polarised. On the one side, it sometimes reads as though an exhibition of
> the artists skills is the only objective, while in opposition, you might
> read > into them that skills are of no account.
Newsgroups like this tend to polarize even more.
> Impressionism, when it arrived, offered to some, an example of lesser
> skills, especially when compared with the French Academic tatses for detail.
For some others, it offered innovative use of light and colour.
As Vasari said already in renaissance time, sometimes the scetches of
masters are stronger and more vivid than the finallized painting.
Paul Mesken (elsewhere):
>So, a lack of skill (to make the particular representation "work") or
>the wrong application of an abundance of skill are both a Bad Thing.
back to Thur:
> Assuming we can accept that the best Impressionists were skilled, and
> produced fine works, then this suggests that skills like other aspects of
> art can vary sometimes without failing to produce a work of art.
I would say it: ...this suggests that *use* of skill...
> Looking back at the Rococco period before French Academic style,
> then some works produced by Watteau as an example show much less detail.
Rembrandt ans Turner are my favourites in this respect.
In Rembrandt's portraits the faces leave nothing for guessing,
while for the clothing he gives but few superbly selected brushstrokes.
>
> The question (for me at least) remains. How much skill can be left out of
> a work of art before it becomes lessened?
First we much separate skill and details.
Mani's favourite modernist - the Dumbo - has but few details though
those are drawn with a superb skill.
As the best business logos show, restricting to a few lines can show
extraordinary skill.
If you go the whole way, and
> leave all skill, then I hope we all agree that a work of art would fail.
Paul M. again:
>I believe that as soon as the audience's attention is more on the
>skill side instead of the idea that the work of art should evoke then
>something has gone wrong.
On the other hand a mere idea is not yet art.
There must be an idea and an expression for the idea.
>
> Therefore, there must be some sort of judgement, - for each work of art -
> on how much skill it required, and if the artist has been painting in a
> style
> that has reduced the skill level, has this worked?
Reducced or exceeded :-)
-lauri
palmer....@sbcglobal.net
That is certainly true. Some
in the new generation may have
technical skills arguably as good
or better than those of masters
like Kelly Freas (who sadly just
passed away), Ricard Powers, Frank
Frazetta, Virgil Finley, Jack
Gaughan, etc., but even the
best of the new crop -- from
anything I have noticed -- lack
the originality of any of those
I mentioned. (And of course,
"originality" involves all sorts
of qualities, some quite difficult
to pin down.)
Mr. Palmer
Room 314
>
>
> Slick
Mani Deli
>possible clues:
>
>http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/6942.html
>http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/1243001.html
>
>keith o'connor wrote:
>
>> i find your post very interesting and would appreciate a description of
>> "positional mode" in relation to "illustrative mode".
>> > Mani is not what you call a "photo-realist" that is a later term for
>> > artists who were literally influenced by photography, his work is
>> > derivative of and creatively extends the style used by Dali which employs
>> > an illustrative approach and rules of composition stemming from the
>> > ancient study of perspective. The subject matter can be described as
>> > "surrealism", but this term can also apply to artists like Miro who used
>> > the "positional" mode rather than the "illustrative".
Surrealism in my opinion is reality in an unreal context. Its nothing
new and has a long tradition.
>> >Both approaches are
>> > valid, although Mani (imho) doesn't understand this (yet), or for some
>> > reason sees this "other" mode as his "enemy", a prejudice which his
>> > experiences interfacing with the art world (gallerys, critics, etc.)
>> > undoubtedly has conditioned, it is unfortunate, ... so be nice. He is a
>> > spokesman for others like him, competent artists, who were the victims of
>> > the fashion of the day, swept under the carpet so to speak, thus his
>> > antagonism to modernism.
I have no antagonism to modernism. I only reject most so called Modern
Art which hangs in museums presently considered masterpieces. These
works do not constitute the full body of modern art.
>>> His attitudes are really about the politics of
>> > art, although he couches it in terms of modernists being incompetent,
Incompetence has nothing do with politics.
>> > it
>> > is an extreme reaction to what he feels has been extreme injustice.
Rejecting incompetent artwork isn't "extreme" nor am I concerned with
justice in this matter. My opinion on this might surprise you as I
don't even consider art a very important matter. I'm far more
interested in science and concerned by what looks to me like a
national march toward fascism and religious fanaticism. I consider
Modern Academic Art rather a joke but admire the charlatans who are
accumulating fortunes by this means. At the same time my attitude
towards the vast army of failures who can produce just about the same
thing and spend their lives wondering why they are failures, is
cynical bordering on humor. I even consider the ever larger mass of
output produced by an incompetent army of art school graduates an
asset. The more incompetent artists the more work for those who know
their craft.
>Dali
>> > himself, in spite of his notoriety, was in a sense was also an outcast
>> > during the heyday of Picasso and later modernism.
Dali was never an outcast except for critics. He is more popular than
Picasso.
>>> One needs to sort out
>> > the "politics" from the aesthetic judgements, this is where Mani's
>> > position rubs people the wrong way and why he can seem like a kook
>> > shouting in the wind. There is validity on both sides and it is not
>> > difficult to form an attitude which can include Picasso AND Dali.
I don't see it that way.
> The
>> > universe is comprised of the forces of Creation and the forces of
>> > Destruction. Picasso consciously chose not to paint in the older
>> > traditions which he was competent at because he was a creature of history
>> > not an ostrich. Today you can do anything you want, but be prepared to
>> > fight.
To me, art isn't worth fighting over. I write here because it amuses
me. I enjoy the fray. I always did well in art, never had to toil at a
job, sold my work even while in school and later as long as I chose
to remain a professional artist. During the many years I lived in NYC
I had a better education, better opportunities, better company, better
sex than most. You can fight, I prefer to laugh.
Dali said about Picasso's originality:
"He had a feel for adjectives, but few ideas. He listened to me and
gratified me with answers full of modifiers. His whole brilliance lay
in his skill as plagiarist and stager--as a jewel-setter. When all was
said and done, Picasso was a duettist. He always needed a partner:
Ingres, Delacroix, Velazquez, and others I forgot. But he was a
eunuch, a caricaturing imitator who tore down and made fun of what he
could not outdo. All he knew how to do was distort as he copied."
[Dali #257 confessions]