Cezanne - Alive & Kicking
if...@my-dejanews.com
Had to go away for a few days ( not that any of you missed me, hm :-)
The debate on Cezanne is not really about Cezanne, is it? It's not about the
technique of Cezanne - any good artist knows that Cezanne can draw and handle
painting with precision of a best swiss watch; any good artist can see that.
Aha, what did I say? GOOD artist? That's right, any decent artist knows that.
So who are those who attack him? Who are those who make a mockery of Cezanne's
technique? What are they? Are they GOOD artists? Oh no, they're not.
When these attackers look at Cezanne what do they see? They see it written all
over Cezanne's paintings - "my art is alive and yours is rotten dead", that's
what these so-called "artists" see when they look at Cezanne and Matisse.
Now, that's an insult, that hurts badly. How to deal with that hurt?
Do they admit their limitations, do they bow down to Cezanne's aliveness and
try to learn from it? Oh, no. Their ego won't allow that.
And what do they do? These days they set up websites where they attack
Cezanne and others like him, they take fragments of Cezanne's painting, they
put them out of context and make fun of them. And what do they attack Cezanne
with? They attack him with those sleazy Victorian images, with those
imitators and distorters of nature (distorters as opposed to great
interpreters of nature),those beauticians of nature, which appeal only to an
inexperienced in art eye (I wonder what would Rembrandt say if he saw all
those silly Orientalists?). They unashamedly put their own 'no skill, no art'
"art", carefully calculated to sell to all those 'boobs', on their website
and start verbal attack on Cezanne.
Now do they feel better after doing that? I don't think so.
Now, in order to survive, they have to continue finding faults in Cezanne and
others and continue the attack. That makes them even more negative. Now,
they've managed to attract to their 'views' a few other negative types, some
artzombies, some 'nobodies'and 'the show must go on'...
But that's how it's always been in art, in music - Mozart and Salieri come to
mind...'Dead' people can't stand alive ones, and vice versa. Artists like
Cezanne scare the hell out of mediocrity, they'r perceived dangerous, their
art destroys all that is held so dear by these would-be 'artists', it exposes
them, their whole foundation is threatened.
An artist has to be completely insensitive not to appreciate Cezanne. Ok, one
might have different heroes, one might like some of Cezanne's works and not
the others, but if you're an artist how can you dismiss Cezanne, Matisse,
Gaugin, Rothko, Mondrian, Klee, Kandinsky - they're Copernicuses and Galileos
in art - their art makes cracks in the walls of ignorance surrounding our
consciousness...
Now, I've been accused of 'artspeak' here. Strange, I'm not an art critic,
I'm not a journalist, I'm not an art historian...I don't have any vested
interest in Cezanne or Matisse's paintings ( I wish I had), so what is my
motive in appraising these artists? I always feel stuck for words when
trying to describe Cezanne or Matisse to somebody.. however you try you miss
something. And those who claim they can describe,only display their
prejudices and their ignorance. Even the artists themselves, most of the
times, speak rubbish when asked about their art - because I suspect art has
nothing to do with words and linguistics (but, if needed, it can certainly
use words or anything else). I don't think we need more art critics - we
certainly need art lovers and we need more honest, devoted artists.
Is this 'artspeak':-),
you tell me...
ifree
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Iian Neill
Yes, it is about Cezanne, but there are other issues involved. Cezanne just
happens to illustrate these points well.
> It's not about the
> technique of Cezanne - any good artist knows that Cezanne can draw and handle
> painting with precision of a best swiss watch; any good artist can see that.
> Aha, what did I say? GOOD artist? That's right, any decent artist knows that.
Cezanne was scorned in his own era for technical incompetence. Now, unless you
want to call all the artists back then "bad", and only the independents "good",
your argument begins to look a little shaky.
Any decent artist knows that Rembrandt was a good artist, or Ingres - who
certainly could paint with the precision of the best Swiss watch. But to place
Cezanne on their level in terms of technical ability seems to make a mockery of
any attempt at defining technical skill.
> So who are those who attack him? Who are those who make a mockery of Cezanne's
> technique? What are they? Are they GOOD artists? Oh no, they're not.
And are the hundreds of modern art critics who support Cezanne good artists? I am
highly doubtful of that. What point are you trying to make here? If those who
praise Cezanne are not particularly good artists themselves (many of these would
be merely critics) then how does your argument hold water?
> When these attackers look at Cezanne what do they see? They see it written all
> over Cezanne's paintings - "my art is alive and yours is rotten dead", that's
> what these so-called "artists" see when they look at Cezanne and Matisse.
No, when I look at Ingres, Goya, or Velasquez I see - "my art is alive and yours
is rotten dead", so to speak. In fact, one only has to look at any number of great
painters throughout history: Poussin, Raphael, Da Vinci, Rubens, etc.
I cannot speak for anyone else, but I feel no envy of Cezanne.
> Now, that's an insult, that hurts badly. How to deal with that hurt?
I do not feel insulted, nor hurt at all.
> Do they admit their limitations, do they bow down to Cezanne's aliveness and
> try to learn from it? Oh, no. Their ego won't allow that.
Genuflecting dutifully to Cezanne's reputation has its limitations as well.
> And what do they do? These days they set up websites where they attack
> Cezanne and others like him, they take fragments of Cezanne's painting, they
> put them out of context and make fun of them. And what do they attack Cezanne
> with? They attack him with those sleazy Victorian images, with those
> imitators and distorters of nature (distorters as opposed to great
> interpreters of nature),those beauticians of nature, which appeal only to an
> inexperienced in art eye (I wonder what would Rembrandt say if he saw all
> those silly Orientalists?).
And were the artists who painted such works 'inexperienced' or naive about art?
Far from it.
> But that's how it's always been in art, in music - Mozart and Salieri come to
> mind...'Dead' people can't stand alive ones, and vice versa.
If this were the case, I should by rights despise Goya, Velasquez, Chardin or
Ingres - to name just a few. However, I do not - my love for them is bountiful, I
can assure you.
> Artists like Cezanne scare the hell out of mediocrity, they'r perceived
> dangerous, their
> art destroys all that is held so dear by these would-be 'artists', it exposes
> them, their whole foundation is threatened.
Perhaps all Western art was merely a precursor to Cezanne? We had to have Titian,
Rubens, Caravaggio and so on so that artists such as Cezanne could come into
existence? Art is not like technology - it does not "progress" in an easily
defined line from primitive to advanced. It may become visually more accurate, or
broader in scope, or wider in its distribution, but the fact remains that Jackson
Pollock and Rauschenberg have not made Rembrandt or Rubens obsolete; whereas we
might expect the opposite to take place with regards to science or technology.
Which foundation is "better" - that of Ingres, or that of Cezanne? By "foundation"
I refer to standards of technical and aesthetic excellence.
> An artist has to be completely insensitive not to appreciate Cezanne.
One could say the same for those who profess to find Jean-Leon Gerome vulgar; or
one could accept that people have different opinions when it comes to their
favourite painters. Argument transcends opinion when we begin to argue that
such-and-such a painter is GREAT, or GOOD - not merely that we LIKE or DISLIKE
them. If we claim that any artist is great or terrible, then our comments become
material for analysis should anyone wish to dispute these assertions.
> Ok, one
> might have different heroes, one might like some of Cezanne's works and not
> the others, but if you're an artist how can you dismiss Cezanne, Matisse,
> Gaugin, Rothko, Mondrian, Klee, Kandinsky - they're Copernicuses and Galileos
> in art - their art makes cracks in the walls of ignorance surrounding our
> consciousness...
Their art makes cracks in the walls of art itself. Cezanne and Gaugin are merely
the least odious examples of such cracks.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
DFRussell
[...] big deletion
>Is this 'artspeak':-),
No. It's an incorrect rationalization.
Marilyn
>Greetings to all of you attackers and defenders of Cezanne!
He doesn't need defending. Bravo on your post!
Just a memo to those who insist that Cezanne was repudiated in his
lifetime. Pissaro, Renoir, Monet, Rodin, Marie Cassatt championed him.
Monet & Degas bought his work. In condemning Cezanne (as crude & inept)
you question the artistic integrity of all of the above.
But, hey, it's okay to say that you don't like his paintings,
freedom of speech & all that.
>Had to go away for a few days ( not that any of you missed me, hm :-)
I did.
>use words or anything else). I don't think we need more art critics - we
>certainly need art lovers and we need more honest, devoted artists.
amen
M.
if...@my-dejanews.com
Iian Neill <s36...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> > The debate on Cezanne is not really about Cezanne, is it?
>
> Yes, it is about Cezanne, but there are other issues involved. Cezanne just
> happens to illustrate these points well.
No, Iian, it's not about Cezanne - you're against the whole modern history of
art, last 100+something years of art.
I still think your offence has nothing to do with art.
> > It's not about the
> > technique of Cezanne - any good artist knows that Cezanne can draw and
handle
> > painting with precision of a best swiss watch; any good artist can see that.
> > Aha, what did I say? GOOD artist? That's right, any decent artist knows
that.
>
> Cezanne was scorned in his own era for technical incompetence.
I should've said: <every decent artist of his era and of TODAY knows that>.
> Now, unless you
> want to call all the artists back then "bad", and only the independents
"good",
> your argument begins to look a little shaky.
Not at all.
Of course he was scorned for incompetence in his era, what do you expect?
Do you expect the early Church dance with joy when they heard about Galileo's
discoveries?
You know perfectly well, how humanity reacts to anything new.
I don't necesarily call all the artists who were against Cezanne in his time
"bad". I just state that he was a pioneer in art, and not everybody's able to
handle that.
Even among the Impressionists themselves there were quarells - Renoir couldn't
stand Pissaro, Manet and Degas hated each other,accusing each other of
artistic incompetence (can you believe that?)
Degas was bitchy about nearly everybody,
but Mary Cassatt (and that only because she financed the group and therefore
approved by everyone). There was a basic dichotomy between line and colour,
between thought and feeling, between form and atmosphere. But this is not
unusual, and then it echoed earlier duality of Ingres and Delacroix.
> Any decent artist knows that Rembrandt was a good artist, or Ingres - who
> certainly could paint with the precision of the best Swiss watch. But to place
> Cezanne on their level in terms of technical ability seems ny attempt at
defining technical skill.
Cezanne's been placed at the level of Rembrandt not because of his "technical
skills" as you understand them. And what do you actually mean? Lots of people
would disagree with your definition of 'technical abilities' - just try to
paint like Cezanne, go ahead, use all of your skill, your technical
knowledge...you'll never achieve what Cezanne had managed to achieve.
> > So who are those who attack him? Who are those who make a mockery of
Cezanne's
> > technique? What are they? Are they GOOD artists? Oh no, they're not.
>
> And are the hundreds of modern art critics who support Cezanne good artists?
I am
> highly doubtful of that.
No, of course not. I'll go as far as calling all art critics parasites. I
don't care for all those modern art critics's opinions. There're enough
people besides theart critics who love Cezanne.
> What point are you trying to make here? If those who
> praise Cezanne are not particularly good artists themselves (many of these
would
> be merely critics) then how does your argument hold water?
You don't need to be a good artist to praise Cezanne, but you need to be a
GOOD artist to attck him. This is my point.
Anyway, we don't need topraise Cezanne - his art speaks for itself.
> > When these attackers look at Cezanne what do they see? They see it written
all
> > over Cezanne's paintings - "my art is alive and yours is rotten dead",
that's
> > what these so-called "artists" see when they look at Cezanne and Matisse.
>
> No, when I look at Ingres, Goya, or Velasquez I see - "my art is alive and
yours
> is rotten dead", so to speak. In fact, one only has to look at any number of
great
> painters throughout history: Poussin, Raphael, Da Vinci, Rubens, etc.
Using your criterion for "technical ability" we can find faults even with
Goya.
> I cannot speak for anyone else, but I feel no envy of Cezanne.
So why have you picked him up? Because he's "father of all modern art" which
you hate?
> > Now, that's an insult, that hurts badly. How to deal with that hurt?
>
> I do not feel insulted, nor hurt at all.
Maybe you're just not conscious of the exact cause of your antipathy to
Cezanne, Matisse, Gauguin?
> > Do they admit their limitations, do they bow down to Cezanne's aliveness and
> > try to learn from it? Oh, no. Their ego won't allow that.
>
> Genuflecting dutifully to Cezanne's reputation has its limitations as well.
It's not his reputation, it's his art that I can't help but admire.
> > And what do they do? These days they set up websites where they attack
> > Cezanne and others like him, they take fragments of Cezanne's painting, they
> > put them out of context and make fun of them. And what do they attack
Cezanne
> > with? They attack him with those sleazy Victorian images, with those
> > imitators and distorters of nature (distorters as opposed to great
> > interpreters of nature),those beauticians of nature, which appeal only to an
> > inexperienced in art eye (I wonder what would Rembrandt say if he saw all
> > those silly Orientalists?).
>
> And were the artists who painted such works 'inexperienced' or naive about
art?
> Far from it.
'inexperienced'? naive? For one thing they were inexperienced in the subject
matter and, yes, they were naive in protraying it. The Orient wasn't then and
isn't now like that pictured by the Orientalists.
And, most importantly, their paintings are dead, there is no life in them.
> > But that's how it's always been in art, in music - Mozart and Salieri come
to
> > mind...'Dead' people can't stand alive ones, and vice versa.
>
> If this were the case, I should by rights despise Goya, Velasquez, Chardin or
> Ingres - to name just a few. However, I do not - my love for them is
bountiful, I
> can assure you.
Those artists are SAFE for you, they don't bite anymore :-)
But they're the opposites of your Victorian banch, I CAN ASSURE YOU.
You have another problem - your problem is MODERN ART, the art of TODAY and
your place in it as an aspiring artist, isn't that right?
> > Artists like Cezanne scare the hell out of mediocrity, they'r perceived
> > dangerous, their
> > art destroys all that is held so dear by these would-be 'artists', it
exposes
> > them, their whole foundation is threatened.
>
> Perhaps all Western art was merely a precursor to Cezanne? We had to have
Titian,
> Rubens, Caravaggio and so on so that artists such as Cezanne could come into
> existence?
Exactly so. Absolutely!
> Art is not like technology - it does not "progress" in an easily
> defined line from primitive to advanced.
No, you're right - art doesn't progress, we do. (hopefully :-)
> It may become visually more accurate, or
> broader in scope, or wider in its distribution, but the fact remains that
Jackson
> Pollock and Rauschenberg have not made Rembrandt or Rubens obsolete;
God forbid! Of course not.
But it doesn;t mean that we have to go centuries back and exume them.
> whereas we
> might expect the opposite to take place with regards to science or technology.
Hm..........
> Which foundation is "better" - that of Ingres, or that of Cezanne? By
"foundation"
> I refer to standards of technical and aesthetic excellence.
Both are greats.
But your foundation is threatened by Cezanne and everything
he represents.
> > An artist has to be completely insensitive not to appreciate Cezanne.
>
> One could say the same for those who profess to find Jean-Leon Gerome vulgar;
Yes, I do find Gerome & Co's tastes in relation to art vulgar.
But I wouldn't have
bothered - it's because of you and Mr.Mani Deli(hm..)that I have
to mention those idiots. (sorry, couldn't help it)
> or
> one could accept that people have different opinions when it comes to their
> favourite painters.
Yeh, lets divide all those freaking artists according to 'people's tastes',
lets give everyone his favourite artist - I like my sugar sweet.....
> Argument transcends opinion when we begin to argue that
> such-and-such a painter is GREAT, or GOOD - not merely that we LIKE or DISLIKE
> them.
And that's were you're wrong again. 'Like'or 'Dislike' have nothing to do
with it. Art is. Truth is. Life is. Love is. Like it or not.
Cezanne is Art.
> If we claim that any artist is great or terrible, then our comments become
> material for analysis should anyone wish to dispute these assertions.
ah, boring.......
> > Ok, one
> > might have different heroes, one might like some of Cezanne's works and not
> > the others, but if you're an artist how can you dismiss Cezanne, Matisse,
> > Gaugin, Rothko, Mondrian, Klee, Kandinsky - they're Copernicuses and
Galileos
> > in art - their art makes cracks in the walls of ignorance surrounding our
> > consciousness...
>
> Their art makes cracks in the walls of art itself.
hey, hey - hear the voice of ART!
And may I humbly ask you, Iian, on what authority you're speaking on behalf of
ART?
> Cezanne and Gaugin are merely
> the least odious examples of such cracks.
Poor Art! Lets quickly patch all those cracks with Gerome & Co.
>
> Regards,
>
> Iian Neill.
VEAL MEAT AGAIN :-)
mark webber
On Mon, 7 Sep 1998 if...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Greetings to all of you attackers and defenders of Cezanne!
(snip indictment)
>
> Now, I've been accused of 'artspeak' here. Strange, I'm not an art critic,
> I'm not a journalist, I'm not an art historian...I don't have any vested
> interest in Cezanne or Matisse's paintings ( I wish I had), so what is my
> motive in appraising these artists? I always feel stuck for words when
> trying to describe Cezanne or Matisse to somebody.. however you try you miss
> something. And those who claim they can describe,only display their
> prejudices and their ignorance. Even the artists themselves, most of the
> times, speak rubbish when asked about their art - because I suspect art has
> nothing to do with words and linguistics (but, if needed, it can certainly
> use words or anything else). I don't think we need more art critics - we
> certainly need art lovers and we need more honest, devoted artists.
>
> Is this 'artspeak':-),
> you tell me...
>
> ifree
Welcome back, ifree, and I won't disagree with anything in your post, but
I will point out that if what you say is true, the modern-haters need
posts like yours to keep the venom alive.
Perhaps some people see the forum as a place to convert, but I see it as
excercise. I don't think many minds are changed here, but positive
approaches usually get respect.
It's an eloquent, passionate thing you've written, but fasten your belt.
saluts,
Mark
Bob C
>
> In article <35F3C1A3...@student.uq.edu.au>,
> Iian Neill <s36...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > Any decent artist knows that Rembrandt was a good artist, or Ingres - who
> > certainly could paint with the precision of the best Swiss watch. But to place
> > Cezanne on their level in terms of technical ability seems ny attempt at
> defining technical skill.
>
> Cezanne's been placed at the level of Rembrandt not because of his "technical
> skills" as you understand them. And what do you actually mean? Lots of people
> would disagree with your definition of 'technical abilities' - just try to
> paint like Cezanne, go ahead, use all of your skill, your technical
> knowledge...you'll never achieve what Cezanne had managed to achieve.
>
Consider this simply an attempt to organize my own thoughts and ignore
it if you want, but here is my definition of technical competence and
skill which attempts to base the definition on principles on which I
think we can all agree.
1. Technical competence, for a painter, is the ability to manipulate
paint to achieve their goals.
2. Technical skill is technical competence combined with the time and
difficulty required to achieve and execute the particular techniques
being used by an artist.
3. Technical skill is just one aspect of painting skill; painting skill
is just one aspect of artistic skill.
What conclusions might be drawn from this definition?
a. A painter who wants a flat white canvas and perfectly achieves it is
completely competent but has not demonstrated any appreciable technical
skills.
b. Consider a painter whose goal is nothing but a simple black blob, but
wants to give it an exact shape and texture within the strictest
tolerances of scientific measurement available to us. If he achieves,
then he most clearly has a very high level of both competence and skill.
Unfortunately, it is virtually impossible for anyone other than the
painter to be able to recognize this, since the exacting standards of
his goal are not available to us. Furthermore, his level of technical
skill says nothing about the value of the finished work, since the
nature of his exacting goals may not have any value for us.
c. With a painter like Bouguereau, we can make reasonably objective
comparisons to artists with similar styles, to traditional realistic
rendering, and to traditional standards of aesthetic beauty. We can do
this because we all largely agree on those issues. From these standards,
we find Bouguereau to have achieved an extroardinarily high level of
both technical competence and technical skill.
d. With a painter like Cezanne it becomes much more difficult to make
such an objective assessment. Those who find his paintings beautifully
will obviously come to different conclusions about his competence then
those who find the paintings ugly, although I would suggest that those
who find them beautiful may be better able to judge his competence since
they are more likely to have a better understanding of the artist's
goals. Using the above definition, I would think that both C. and B.
were equally technically competent.
If I had to compare technical skills, however, I would suggest that B.
had a clearly higher level of technical skill, not that this in any way
takes away from the high skill level that I believe C. to possess. In
any case, this is an opinion of low confidence given the difficulties in
comparing two so very different styles, because of my own lack of
knowledge and experience in the mechanics of the techniques used by both
artists, and because of the uncertainties in knowing the relative
difficulties of actually developing those techniques during the times in
which they were learning them.
- Bob C.
mdeli
>The debate on Cezanne is not really about Cezanne, is it? It's not about the
>technique of Cezanne - any good artist knows that Cezanne can draw and handle
>painting with precision of a best swiss watch; any good artist can see that.
>Aha, what did I say? GOOD artist? That's right, any decent artist knows that.
Do you talk to yourself all the time?
I'm an indecent artist and still have no evidence that C. could draw
much of anything. I doubt that he could copy the numbers on a swiss
watch.
>
>So who are those who attack him? Who are those who make a mockery of Cezanne's
>technique? What are they? Are they GOOD artists? Oh no, they're not.
I have your assurance for whatever that's worth..
>When these attackers look at Cezanne what do they see? They see it written all
>over Cezanne's paintings - "my art is alive and yours is rotten dead", that's
>what these so-called "artists" see when they look at Cezanne and Matisse.
>
>Now, that's an insult, that hurts badly. How to deal with that hurt?
Where exactly do you get this pain?
>Do they admit their limitations, do they bow down to Cezanne's aliveness and
>try to learn from it? Oh, no. Their ego won't allow that.
I thought he was dead.
>And what do they do? These days they set up websites where they attack
>Cezanne and others like him, they take fragments of Cezanne's painting, they
>put them out of context and make fun of them.
Naughty nahghty?
> And what do they attack Cezanne
>with? They attack him with those sleazy Victorian images, with those
>imitators and distorters of nature (distorters as opposed to great
>interpreters of nature),those beauticians of nature, which appeal only to an
>inexperienced in art eye
You are afflicted with advanced "Picasso Eye," This is the inability
to look at anything outside the modern art section in the museum
without getting dispeptic,
>(I wonder what would Rembrandt say if he saw all
>those silly Orientalists?). They unashamedly put their own 'no skill, no art'
>"art", carefully calculated to sell to all those 'boobs', on their website
>and start verbal attack on Cezanne.
Delacroix did lots of Oriental schmiers.
>
>Now do they feel better after doing that? I don't think so.
You only say this because you feel so bad. If you stare at a Cezanne
nude for an hour each day and avoid any art that disturbs you, you
might feel better. Also take another vacation.
>Now, in order to survive, they have to continue finding faults in Cezanne and
>others and continue the attack. That makes them even more negative. Now,
>they've managed to attract to their 'views' a few other negative types, some
>artzombies, some 'nobodies'and 'the show must go on'...
Yeah, all you negative types!
>
>But that's how it's always been in art, in music - Mozart and Salieri come to
>mind...'Dead' people can't stand alive ones, and vice versa. Artists like
>Cezanne scare the hell out of mediocrity, they'r perceived dangerous, their
>art destroys all that is held so dear by these would-be 'artists', it exposes
>them, their whole foundation is threatened.
He's starting to babble incoherently.
Snip
> I always feel stuck for words when
>trying to describe Cezanne or Matisse to somebody.. however you try you miss
>something. And those who claim they can describe,only display their
>prejudices and their ignorance. Even the artists themselves, most of the
>times, speak rubbish when asked about their art - because I suspect art has
>nothing to do with words and linguistics (but, if needed, it can certainly
>use words or anything else). I don't think we need more art critics - we
>certainly need art lovers and we need more honest, devoted artists.
>
>Is this 'artspeak':-),
>you tell me...
No, its just angry babble; a big kvetch about those who don't like
Cezanne..
I guess you haven't sold any of your schmiers lately.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
if...@my-dejanews.com
Marilyn wrote:
> >
> >Greetings to all of you attackers and defenders of Cezanne!
>
>
> Just a memo to those who insist that Cezanne was repudiated in his
> lifetime. Pissaro, Renoir, Monet, Rodin, Marie Cassatt championed him.
> Monet & Degas bought his work. In condemning Cezanne (as crude & inept)
> you question the artistic integrity of all of the above.
> But, hey, it's okay to say that you don't like his paintings,
> freedom of speech & all that.
>
> >Had to go away for a few days ( not that any of you missed me, hm :-)
>
> I did.
>
> >certainly need art lovers and we need more honest, devoted artists.
>
>
> M.
Hi Marilyn,
thanks for caring.
Yes, it's true all of the great Impressionists accepted and approved of
Cezanne, and he was admired by the younger artists for whom his work was a
revelation. Was it Denis who painted Cezanne's still life surrounded by
admiring art connoisseurs and artists, "Homage to Cezanne"? He was certainly
very influential in his own time.
I think Matisse also bought his painting, Gauguin owned his painting...but
then for the attackers of Cezanne these two are nobodies.
Cezanne's paintings have so much life and light in them....and that's why
they're so unbearable to you know who.
Hey, nice to know there are some alive people on this NG.
Keep it burning, Marilyn.
Best,
JRothen318
of Cezanne - generally recognized as one of the great innovators of the past
100 years - a giant. Of course, during his time he was villified by
contemporary critics one of whom said something like" attention all you modern
painters who use a broom, a shovel, a knife to paint with - you have been
outdistanced. I introduce you to M. Cezanne." Cezanne submitted to the salon
year after year and never had a painting accepted. I guess you current day
critics would say that the academicians of that day knew what they were doing
and recognized a guy who didn't "know how to paint". As for his part, Cezanne
responded : Je vous en merde.
if...@my-dejanews.com
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 7 Sep 1998 if...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > Greetings to all of you attackers and defenders of Cezanne!
>
>
> >
> > Now, I've been accused of 'artspeak' here. Strange, I'm not an art critic,
> > I'm not a journalist, I'm not an art historian...I don't have any vested
> > motive in appraising these artists? I always feel stuck for words when
> > trying to describe Cezanne or Matisse to somebody.. however you try you miss
> > something. And those who claim they can describe,only display their
> > prejudices and their ignorance. Even the artists themselves, most of the
> > times, speak rubbish when asked about their art - because I suspect art has
> > nothing to do with words and linguistics (but, if needed, it can certainly
> > certainly need art lovers and we need more honest, devoted artists.
> >
> > you tell me...
> >
>
> Welcome back, ifree,
thank you, Mark
it's nice to be back :-)
> and I won't disagree with anything in your post, but
> I will point out that if what you say is true, the modern-haters need
> posts like yours to keep the venom alive.
You know what? You're right.
> Perhaps some people see the forum as a place to convert, but I see it as
> excercise. I don't think many minds are changed here, but positive
> approaches usually get respect.
But I'm not here to gain respect, it's the last thing I want.
> It's an eloquent, passionate thing you've written,
hey, I AM a passionate guy, still at my 49, what can I do.
Eloquent, passionate? - this is nothing - you should hear me playing my
violin (definitely won't die of modesty).
But thanks anyway.
> but fasten your belt.
What? a bumpy ride? So be it. I'm used to it -
aut insanit homo aut versus facit :-)
> saluts,
>
> Mark
namaste
mdeli
>1. Technical competence, for a painter, is the ability to manipulate
>paint to achieve their goals.
If this were true every one who picks up paint is technically
competent.
>2. Technical skill is technical competence combined with the time and
>difficulty required to achieve and execute the particular techniques
>being used by an artist.
This says nothing. A student takes even longer to achieve incompetence
than the average professional schmierer.
>
>3. Technical skill is just one aspect of painting skill; painting skill
>is just one aspect of artistic skill.
Sounds good but means nothing.
>What conclusions might be drawn from this definition?
none
>a. A painter who wants a flat white canvas and perfectly achieves it is
>completely competent but has not demonstrated any appreciable technical
>skills.
How does this follow.
>
>b. Consider a painter whose goal is nothing but a simple black blob, but
>wants to give it an exact shape and texture within the strictest
>tolerances of scientific measurement available to us. If he achieves,
>then he most clearly has a very high level of both competence and skill.
>Unfortunately, it is virtually impossible for anyone other than the
>painter to be able to recognize this, since the exacting standards of
>his goal are not available to us. Furthermore, his level of technical
>skill says nothing about the value of the finished work, since the
>nature of his exacting goals may not have any value for us.
Gee.
>>c. With a painter like Bouguereau, we can make reasonably objective
>comparisons to artists with similar styles, to traditional realistic
>rendering, and to traditional standards of aesthetic beauty. We can do
>this because we all largely agree on those issues. From these standards,
>we find Bouguereau to have achieved an extroardinarily high level of
>both technical competence and technical skill.
And we can compare Cezanne to incompetent students and no-skill
realists and conclude that he achieved an extraordinarily low level of
both technical competence and technical skill.
>
>d. With a painter like Cezanne it becomes much more difficult to make
>such an objective assessment.
No it doesn't
>Those who find his paintings beautifully
>will obviously come to different conclusions about his competence then
>those who find the paintings ugly, although I would suggest that those
>who find them beautiful may be better able to judge his competence since
>they are more likely to have a better understanding of the artist's
>goals.
The usual cryptic crap about "understanding." Cantor doesn't
understand more about C, than anyone else.
> Using the above definition, I would think that both C. and B.
>were equally technically competent.
The above isn't a definition.
>If I had to compare technical skills, however, I would suggest that B.
>had a clearly higher level of technical skill, not that this in any way
>takes away from the high skill level that I believe C. to possess.
That is if you consider third rate students had a high skill level.
However, I would expect a academic of your incompetence to consider
schmiery pinheaded subjects with ill fitting hats ("Card Players") on
a high skill level. If anything higher were expected by your followers
the would have to employ someone more competent then you to teach your
kind of verbal baloney instead of craft and technique..
> In
>any case, this is an opinion of low confidence given the difficulties in
>comparing two so very different styles, because of my own lack of
>knowledge and experience in the mechanics of the techniques used by both
>artists, and because of the uncertainties in knowing the relative
>difficulties of actually developing those techniques during the times in
>which they were learning them.
I have strong doubts that you have any competence in any technique at
all. The reason you wrote, "I would suggest that B.had a clearly
higher level of technical skill," is because even you can't fight your
instinctive judgment when it is conveyed to you with masterly skill..