Please look at this.
Stephen Morgana
a look at it and let me know what you think.
http://bigsun.wbs.net/homepages/s/c/m/scm2000/newart/
Thanks
--
Stephen
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
CanoAl
anything else
upload some more then invite me back to your page
-Art Critic
Brother Alphabet
On 11 May 1999, CanoAl wrote:
> spirograph abortions
Can I steal this term from you, please?
Hutto
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Visit Brother Alphabet's Evergrowing List of Bad Ads
w w w . b a d - a d s - l i s t . c o m
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
Stephen Morgana <scm...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> Hi, I've just uploaded a couple new pieces of art. I would like you
to take
> a look at it and let me know what you think.
Don't quit your day job.
>
> http://bigsun.wbs.net/homepages/s/c/m/scm2000/newart/
>
> Thanks
> --
> Stephen
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network
==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your
Own
>
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
The Overlord
Look at the art at this guy's site (the two pieces of recent work
at the website referred to in this post).
this really is the equivalent of a child's scrawl. Compare it to a Cy
Twombly - this is *exactly* the differentiation that Dan Fox was trying to
get across to you a couple of weeks ago.
Then go and look at Dan's work in the Full Disclosure posts. This is about
as good as it gets with abstraction.
The Overlord
May Flowers
ja...@isis.msstate.edu says...
>
>
>On 11 May 1999, CanoAl wrote:
>
>> spirograph abortions
>
>Can I steal this term from you, please?
Maybe it'll become an new 'ism' and everyone
will be doing it. Spirographism
bean...@my-dejanews.com
Oh my god I laughed so hard when I read this I almost pissed on myself.
peter nelson
The Overlord wrote in message <19990511175951.892$kG...@newsreader.com>...
>Peter -
>
>Look at the art at this guy's site (the two pieces of recent work
>at the website referred to in this post).
>
>this really is the equivalent of a child's scrawl. Compare it to a Cy
>Twombly - this is *exactly* the differentiation that Dan Fox was trying to
>get across to you a couple of weeks ago.
I think they both look like childrens' scrawls. They don't have to look
the same to both look sub-amateurish. Recently I attended a meeting
at my wife's company in Cambridge, Mass, where they have an on-site
daycare center. And the facility was festooned with the childrens'
artwork. Works by either Twombly or the above would have fit in
perfectly well, and no one would have known that they weren't done
by the children.
>Then go and look at Dan's work in the Full Disclosure posts. This is about
>as good as it gets with abstraction.
I assure you, it gets a lot better than that. I have canvas-boards I just
use
for mixing colors or unloading paint from brushes that are better than that.
Even Rothko and Pollock are better than that, and I think they're pretty
lame.
The only think which distingishes Dan's work from the typical daycare
inmate is that he fills the canvas - most of them don't.
There's no reason why abstract art has to look like scrawl. Art
does not have to be representational to be deliberate. Sound
does not have to be representational to be deliberate. A symphony
or a piano sonata is (usually) purely abstract. But no one would
mistake it for for a child banging his beach-toys together. Every
note is chosen carefully and played with skill. Even a SINGLE wrong
note stands out painfully. But in the above works if a brush stroke
were missing or out of place, who would notice?
In fact, what I should do if I have time, is make 2 or 3 copies of the the
above art and digitally alter some part of if and then, after these
images have scrolled off of everyone's news servers, post them
with the original to see how many people can pick out the original
one. I'll bet most people would not be able to tell.
---peter
>
>The Overlord
Ariane
On Thu, 13 May 1999, peter nelson wrote:
> >Then go and look at Dan's work in the Full Disclosure posts. This is about
> >as good as it gets with abstraction.
>
> I assure you, it gets a lot better than that. I have canvas-boards I just
> use
> for mixing colors or unloading paint from brushes that are better than that.
> Even Rothko and Pollock are better than that, and I think they're pretty
> lame.
> The only think which distingishes Dan's work from the typical daycare
> inmate is that he fills the canvas - most of them don't.
=== Oooooh now THAT'S harsh.
Just a question Peter. It's obvious that you don't like Dan's work. But
if, say, this work you don't like was based on incredible ideas about the
universe, humanity, and say, the nature of our souls, I mean REALLY
profound stuff. Would that matter at all to you? Would it change your
opinions on the art work or the artist?
A.
peter nelson
Ariane wrote in message ...
>Just a question Peter. It's obvious that you don't like Dan's work. But
>if, say, this work you don't like was based on incredible ideas about the
>universe, humanity, and say, the nature of our souls, I mean REALLY
>profound stuff. Would that matter at all to you? Would it change your
>opinions on the art work or the artist?
It depends on what was meant by "based on". Do you
mean "inspired by . . . "? Artists are motivated or inspired by
many things ranging from philosophy to religion to politics
to personal psychological demons. But in the end they
have to be judged by their artwork. Van Gogh may have been
driven to paint by his psychiatric problems, and perhaps we
should be grateful for this, but in the end it's the results that
count. He's not remembered for being emotionally troubled;
he's remembered for great painting.
Or do you mean that he's trying to COMMUNICATE some
incredible ideas with his art? In that case the art does not
stand on its own "as art", but rather, is evaluated as a
communication medium. How well does the viewer "get"
what he's trying to say, and how great are the ideas
themselves?
Knowing what the art is "based on" doesn't change it
AS ART. My wife is a pianist and, while she usually plays
classical works, once she played some very strange sounding
stuff that didn't sound like music at all. I went over and asked
what it was and she said it was a modern piece someone
had lent her, and showed me the score. She pointed out
that the notes had a mathematical relationship to each other
and that this was the basis of the composer's composition.
OK, so now we understoof intellectually what the music was
"based on". But that knowledge didn't make it sound any more
musical.
I could assign a musical note to every letter of the alphabet and
other notation to punctuation marks, and "play" a verse
from the Bible or a sonnet by Shakespeare. But I doubt you'd
want to sit through it more than once.
---peter
Ariane
> Ariane wrote in message ...
>
> >Just a question Peter. It's obvious that you don't like Dan's work. But
> >if, say, this work you don't like was based on incredible ideas about the
> >universe, humanity, and say, the nature of our souls, I mean REALLY
> >profound stuff. Would that matter at all to you? Would it change your
> >opinions on the art work or the artist?
On Thu, 13 May 1999, peter nelson wrote:
> It depends on what was meant by "based on". Do you
> mean "inspired by . . . "? Artists are motivated or inspired by
> many things ranging from philosophy to religion to politics
> to personal psychological demons. But in the end they
> have to be judged by their artwork. Van Gogh may have been
> driven to paint by his psychiatric problems, and perhaps we
> should be grateful for this, but in the end it's the results that
> count. He's not remembered for being emotionally troubled;
> he's remembered for great painting.
=== Ok, I understand and agree fully up to here......
> Or do you mean that he's trying to COMMUNICATE some
> incredible ideas with his art? In that case the art does not
> stand on its own "as art", but rather, is evaluated as a
> communication medium. How well does the viewer "get"
> what he's trying to say, and how great are the ideas
> themselves?
=== How can we tell what the artist's intentions are except by looking at
the work itself? Even in this case, does it all not come down to the
artwork since, without it, all of those `great' ideas would still only be
in the artist's head?
> > Knowing what the art is "based on" doesn't change it > AS ART.
=== Agreed.....
> My wife is a pianist and, while she usually plays
> classical works, once she played some very strange sounding
> stuff that didn't sound like music at all. I went over and asked
> what it was and she said it was a modern piece someone
> had lent her, and showed me the score. She pointed out
> that the notes had a mathematical relationship to each other
> and that this was the basis of the composer's composition.
> OK, so now we understoof intellectually what the music was
> "based on". But that knowledge didn't make it sound any more
> musical.
>
> I could assign a musical note to every letter of the alphabet and
> other notation to punctuation marks, and "play" a verse
> from the Bible or a sonnet by Shakespeare. But I doubt you'd
> want to sit through it more than once.
>
>
> ---peter
=== I doubt it too......Interestingly, there's a novel by Herman Hesse
called `Magister Ludi' or, `The Glass Bead Game'. In it he outlines a
fictional discipline where symbols are manipulated in just this
fashion.....so that one could juxtapose Parmenides' axioms with a musical
phrasing by Beethoven, with a symbolic rendering of a Van Gogh
landscape.....very interesting and engaging novel too......But then again,
he's dead now so, according to Brother Idiot, he doesn't matter anymore.
Better to check out the latest works by Grimace or Barney the Dinosaur.
They're still around aren't they?
a bientot,
A.
peter nelson
>> Or do you mean that he's trying to COMMUNICATE some
>> incredible ideas with his art? In that case the art does not
>> stand on its own "as art", but rather, is evaluated as a
>> communication medium. How well does the viewer "get"
>> what he's trying to say, and how great are the ideas
>> themselves?
>
>=== How can we tell what the artist's intentions are except by looking at
>the work itself? Even in this case, does it all not come down to the
>artwork since, without it, all of those `great' ideas would still only be
>in the artist's head?
Exactly. So then how does it matter that it's "based on on incredible
ideas about the universe, humanity, and say, the nature of our souls"?
In the end, as you say, it still comes down to the art itself.
---peter
Glenn Geist
The title "critic" when used in this context, usually connotes some
familiarity with grammar. I assume "i seen" was a typo?
I think there's a large difference between a critic and a heckler. <s>
Glenn
A.A. Raimes
<over...@orion.com> writes
>this really is the equivalent of a child's scrawl.
Come on folks: It is obvious this guy is having a laugh - there is no
way this work has been done by an artist - there is no composition, form
or content and certainly no substance. I'll bet my bottom dollar that
this *is* the work of a child posted to see how we react. Someone did
the same with paintings by an elephant not long ago in the press.
>
>Then go and look at Dan's work in the Full Disclosure posts. This is about
>as good as it gets with abstraction.
Absolutely. Since I saw Dan's work the images have been flooding my
head. Can't wait to see more ... as long as he sends them privately or
posts on a website !
Alison A Raimes
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
A.A. Raimes
<pne...@ultranet.com> writes
> Van Gogh may have been
>driven to paint by his psychiatric problems, and perhaps we
>should be grateful for this, but in the end it's the results that
>count. He's not remembered for being emotionally troubled;
>he's remembered for great painting.
Are you sure about this, Peter ? do you think his work would have had
anywhere near the impact it has without it fitting neatly into the myth
of artist as madman ?
emat...@tomatoweb.com
these are a child's work. There's something that I quite can't put my
finger on that seems very different from the children's art I've looked
at. I think it has to do with how the elements relate to the paper. Not
to say a child can't be responsive to the edges of the paper -- it's just
that it is very rare (in my experience). I guess another thing is the
relative size of the various elements -- it don't say 'kid' to me. Of
course I could be completely wrong.
The composition of the second work reminded me quite a bit of some
Flemmish landscapes I've seen.
BTW. I'm in agony. Try as I may, I haven't been able to find Dan Fox's
posts. I've tried different browsers, but they just haven't appeared.
What's the secret?
Erik Mattila
emat...@tomatoweb.com
But elsewhere, Alison, you stated myth was dead in modern society (I'm
just pulling your leg a bit).
What really amazed me on reading Van Gogh's letters was the intellectual
focus he had on solutions to his painting problems. I remember
specifically a passage where he was explaining to Theo how he contrived a
feeling of 'forlorn, depressing' emotion in a landscape by selecting
certain colors and form.
This interested me because my idea about Van Gogh was just the opposite -
- i.e. that he was certainly creating his works from his 'guts' and it
was his natural innate 'genius' that was producing such riveting works of
art. The idea that he spent much time in intellectual reflection
measuring painterly devices towards a preconceived objective really
rocked my boat.
But what this suggests to me is that there is indeed a visual language
that can 'communicate' as 'natural language' communicates. This is a
contentious issue on this NG and beyond (there was (is) a great debate
about this in art criticism, the old 'linguistic basis or art' debate.)
dan...@erols.com
> In article <5bYy+AAs...@raimes.demon.co.uk>,
> "A.A. Raimes" <ali...@address.in.signature> wrote:
> > In article <19990511175951.892$kG...@newsreader.com>, The Overlord
> > <over...@orion.com> writes
> > >Then go and look at Dan's work in the Full Disclosure posts. This is
> > >about as good as it gets with abstraction.
> >
> > Absolutely. Since I saw Dan's work the images have been flooding my
> > head. Can't wait to see more ... as long as he sends them privately or
> > posts on a website !
> >
Allison - thank you. I'm working on a website of my own and will
let everyone know. In the meantime I'll email more pix to you -
I promise! Rushed this week.
Erik -
I find I can't email you. My posts are on this ng as Full Disclosure,
parts I - III. Maybe your ng server filters binary posts. I'll email them
to you if you email me with an address. Also, I could post them on
alt.art.binaries or whatever that ng is. A first cut at the website will
probably be up in a week or two.
regards,
dan
Glenn Geist
and have felt that was quite enough, but I'm always curious about the
pairing of the argument that a child could do this, but that also a
child's perception of the naked emperor is more honest because of the
childish innocence. Something is amiss here. Is there a
contradiction, or is it just me?
Glenn
"peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>
>The Overlord wrote in message <19990511175951.892$kG...@newsreader.com>...
>>Peter -
>>
>>Look at the art at this guy's site (the two pieces of recent work
>>at the website referred to in this post).
>>
>>this really is the equivalent of a child's scrawl. Compare it to a Cy
>>Twombly - this is *exactly* the differentiation that Dan Fox was trying to
>>get across to you a couple of weeks ago.
>
>I think they both look like childrens' scrawls. They don't have to look
>the same to both look sub-amateurish. Recently I attended a meeting
>at my wife's company in Cambridge, Mass, where they have an on-site
>daycare center. And the facility was festooned with the childrens'
>artwork. Works by either Twombly or the above would have fit in
>perfectly well, and no one would have known that they weren't done
>by the children.
>
>
>>Then go and look at Dan's work in the Full Disclosure posts. This is about
>>as good as it gets with abstraction.
>
>I assure you, it gets a lot better than that. I have canvas-boards I just
>use
>for mixing colors or unloading paint from brushes that are better than that.
>Even Rothko and Pollock are better than that, and I think they're pretty
>lame.
>The only think which distingishes Dan's work from the typical daycare
>inmate is that he fills the canvas - most of them don't.
>
Mattison
: In article <19990511175951.892$kG...@newsreader.com>, The Overlord
: <over...@orion.com> writes
: >this really is the equivalent of a child's scrawl.
: Come on folks: It is obvious this guy is having a laugh - there is no
: way this work has been done by an artist - there is no composition, form
: or content and certainly no substance. I'll bet my bottom dollar that
: this *is* the work of a child posted to see how we react. Someone did
: the same with paintings by an elephant not long ago in the press.
THe work is too evloved to be a kids work - but whoever did it has not
clue about brushes.
My advice is change your brushes cause the work is in need of it. The
work was also made by a man
: >
: >Then go and look at Dan's work in the Full Disclosure posts. This is about
: >as good as it gets with abstraction.
: Absolutely. Since I saw Dan's work the images have been flooding my
: head. Can't wait to see more ... as long as he sends them privately or
: posts on a website !
:
Its a great idea you all should use!
Get differnt sigs and bitch on about your own works!
Damn Funny I think.
That blonde color does not blow my whistel either.
Mattison
A.A. Raimes
>Since you are sticking your neck out, I'll do it myself. I don't think
>these are a child's work. There's something that I quite can't put my
>finger on that seems very different from the children's art I've looked
>at. I think it has to do with how the elements relate to the paper. Not
>to say a child can't be responsive to the edges of the paper -- it's just
>that it is very rare (in my experience). I guess another thing is the
>relative size of the various elements -- it don't say 'kid' to me. Of
>course I could be completely wrong.
Erik: if you take a look at the rest of the website you will see that
the work is entirely *realist* - I can't understand how someone who
works in one way can suddenly produce *abstract* without any suggestion
of it in his previous work. However, the observations you made on use of
space/edges IS apparent in the rest of the work which pays more
attention to the formal aspects. I took a closer look - and there does
seem to be some drawing in it that is too precise to be a child's ...
forced maybe ?
>
>The composition of the second work reminded me quite a bit of some
>Flemmish landscapes I've seen.
You are having me on, yes ? the composition instantly bothered me - I
have to admit that my system failed to show the details on the work
clearly, so I went back and scrutinised it closer. Something doesn't
ring true for me. However, having looked at the rest of the site I have
to admit I think this gentleman is extremely brave to post his work here
and applaud him. I did enjoy 'Broken' and 'Seascape 99' on the *water-
colours* page- compositional skills in these two are particularly good
where this use of the edges become the focal points. So maybe the
attempts at abstraction were premature - which is a kind way of saying
they don't work ... yet.
>
>BTW. I'm in agony. Try as I may, I haven't been able to find Dan Fox's
>posts. I've tried different browsers, but they just haven't appeared.
>What's the secret?
>
>Erik Mattila
Agony ? you pure thing - anything I can do to help ?? a massage perhaps
? But then again I doubt you are in as much agony as my browser, which
did a double backwards flip when he posted those binaries - so I didn't
ever see them on the group - but I already received them by Email so
knew of the images he was speaking of. Maybe he could send you them ?
You are in for a real treat. Those images are engraved in my mind now
... Dan's work is abstraction of the highest order - but then again, I
would guess he has put a lot of blood, sweat and tears into it rather
than a night a week at his local art club to get out of the house.
That's where the difference lies between the two.
Regards.
Alison A Raimes
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
9th May to 9th June 1999 @ Peterbourough Arthouse
26, Fitzwilliam Street. Peterborough
Tel: 01733 319581 (for gallery opening hours)
A.A. Raimes
>But elsewhere, Alison, you stated myth was dead in modern society (I'm
>just pulling your leg a bit).
Pull away Erik ! just don't bite without permission, ok ? Would you say
Van Gogh belonged to modern society ??? Of course not me dear ! he *is*
one of those myths that we are all supposed to be part of ... and don't
we love them. Without Theo's devotion to him, VG would have just been
another crazy painting weird pics and we would never have had the
honour of seeing his works ... don't you think ? I mean who would take a
madman and his daubings seriously ?
Enjoyed the nibble.
TechnoCrate
<ali...@address.in.signature> wrote:
>In article <7hms4q$tle$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, emat...@tomatoweb.com writes
>
>>But elsewhere, Alison, you stated myth was dead in modern society (I'm
>>just pulling your leg a bit).
>
>Pull away Erik ! just don't bite without permission, ok ? Would you say
>Van Gogh belonged to modern society ??? Of course not me dear ! he *is*
>one of those myths that we are all supposed to be part of ... and don't
>we love them. Without Theo's devotion to him, VG would have just been
>another crazy painting weird pics and we would never have had the
>honour of seeing his works ... don't you think ? I mean who would take a
>madman and his daubings seriously ?
>
Come on! You're just jealous of the dutch masters. Apart from
Constable the UK hasn't produced that much. If we talk about the
british masters then we're discussing snooker (which I love BTW, it's
good to see Hendry is back on track but he's scottish ofcourse).
Vincent experimented with color and he used it in a very powerfull and
effective way. He might have cut off (part of) his ear but nobody's
perfect, not even the dutch. Light, shape, form, line, color,
material, all have been subject of experiment in the capable hands of
the dutch masters which resulted in innovative paintings and drawings.
Van Gogh is one of those dutch masters just like Rembrandt, Vermeer,
Ruysdael, Mondriaan, Appel, Corneille, etcetera (the list goes on and
on).
The british experiment with turds..........
Cheer up! Although a single work of Van Gogh might buy the entire
heritage of british fine art, you still have snooker ;-)
Marcus Bramble
It is refreshing to read a post like yours. I'll give you my take on it.
It is an old joke among modern artists that a certain percent of viewers
of abstract or other non-traditional art will say, *my kid could do
that.* I think that there are at least a couple of reasons for this.
First, most people have no art education at all, thanks to our American
school system. They expect that real art consists of traditional realism.
The sole criterion for quality, in their eyes, is how closely the artist
can copy reality (doesn't that look just like Aunt Harriet?). Face with
abstraction, or even expressionism, they are offended because they are
faced with the unfamiliar, and with a presentation that is different from
what they expect.
There are exceptions to this - some people with a lot of art education take
the same attitude. Also, some artists produce abstract work
with harmless, pleasing patterns that go well over the couch (see
Mattison's website). Many people like this sort of commercial work. There
are also people with no art background but with open minds who are willing
to consider different types of art. They are rare, but valued.
Second, much abstract art does look easy to do to the untrained eye. It is
in fact very difficult to do well, and requires easily as much skill as
conventional realism. Some training and exposure (and of course an open
mind) enables one to differentiate readily between good abstract art and
amateurish scrawls. It's like anything else - the eye and mind become
capable of discerning qualities that were not apparent previously.
Peter Nelson's attitude is not unfamiliar to me. It seems to be, *I am the
sole judge of everything. If it looks like a childish scrawl to me, then
that's what it is. Period.* My grandfather heard about the first space
flights and said, *that's impossible and against God's law.* Therefore for
him space flight never happened. It was a government plot of fakery and
deception - much like the art reactionarie's idea of a conspiracy of
critics, museums, press, and a strange group called the Artzy Fartzies,
who perpetrate modern art on a gullible public.
Thanks again for posting. I look forward to your thoughts on this.
Marcus
grg...@earthlink.net (Glenn Geist) wrote:
> First of all, I'm not very fond of Twombly, I've only seen a few works
> and have felt that was quite enough, but I'm always curious about the
> pairing of the argument that a child could do this, but that also a
> child's perception of the naked emperor is more honest because of the
> childish innocence. Something is amiss here. Is there a
> contradiction, or is it just me?
>
> Glenn
>
> "peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>>
> >The Overlord wrote in message
> ><19990511175951.892$kG...@newsreader.com>...
> >>Peter -
> >>
> >>Look at the art at this guy's site (the two pieces of recent work
> >>at the website referred to in this post).
> >>
> >>this really is the equivalent of a child's scrawl. Compare it to a Cy
> >>Twombly - this is *exactly* the differentiation that Dan Fox was trying
> >>to get across to you a couple of weeks ago.
> >
> >I think they both look like childrens' scrawls. They don't have to
> >look the same to both look sub-amateurish.
> >>The Overlord
> >
> >
A.A. Raimes
<usu...@euronet.nl> writes
>
>Cheer up! Although a single work of Van Gogh might buy the entire
>heritage of british fine art, you still have snooker ;-)
>
Perfectly cheerful thanks ! Incidentally - do you know how many VG's
Britain owns ??? and I think you may have missed the thread on this
thread - whatever sport has to do with art is beyond me !!! I suggest
you read some art history (you certainly need to) instead of wasting
your time watching some godforsaken dull sport ... you get British
snooker in Mississippi ? What next I ask. Most boring sport I ever
watched in my life.
BTW I recognise you from alt.philosophy .... where I first encountered
Brother Alphabet.
~Artist~
>
> In article <7hmoi1$rbm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, emat...@tomatoweb.com writes
>
> >Since you are sticking your neck out, I'll do it myself. I don't think
> >these are a child's work. There's something that I quite can't put my
> >finger on that seems very different from the children's art I've looked
> >at. I think it has to do with how the elements relate to the paper.
Nope
Not
> >to say a child can't be responsive to the edges of the paper -- it's just
> >that it is very rare (in my experience). I guess another thing is the
> >relative size of the various elements -- it don't say 'kid' to me. Of
> >course I could be completely wrong.
>
> Erik: if you take a look at the rest of the website you will see that
> the work is entirely *realist* - I can't understand how someone who
> works in one way can suddenly produce *abstract* without any suggestion
> of it in his previous work. However, the observations you made on
I can do that easily.
Used to do the science illustration/art thing for the museums 2d 3d it
is no big deal to shift if you are are a real artist but it takes guts.
I have had mural realism people in my stu;dio crying begging to
change. Asking me for solutinos. I tell them and ...Alas...they
painted themselves into a corner in technique and $ chasing .
Nothing to do but feel sorry for them that would not take the risks to
change.
Why the best artist is not the best artist.
Why they drop 98% of art majors after their first show never show
again.
use of
> space/edges IS apparent in the rest of the work which pays more
> attention to the formal aspects. I took a closer look - and there does
> seem to be some drawing in it that is too precise to be a child's ...
> forced maybe ?
Not a kid.
I only saw one piece never looked at the site what is it again?
>
> >
> >The composition of the second work reminded me quite a bit of some
> >Flemmish landscapes I've seen.
>
> You are having me on, yes ? the composition instantly bothered me - I
Needs work - but if the guy saw the Towmbly show imitation is most
of the art world these days and lots of artists like to paint like their
favorites as that is a determinded accepted thing for them.
I went to a show in San diego whree Squeak K could have sued for
copy right infringement literally. I asked the artist who was totally
comying the afore mentioned artists style - Do you know Squeak?
She said no. I said did you see her show - She says yes I loved it ...I
said is that why you are copying her style in your show ? and why do
n't you coem up with ;your own signature?
I can't figure ou;why they do that and they don't paint with their
own colors and signatures. My work fall in ab exp categories sort of
but at least the signatures are mine.
Most artwork on the planet, most people have not followed their
own image making paths or like in NYC they add tons of bees wax or
nail or grunge art...talk about over stated.
I would like to see several of Dans Works in person. I find it hard to
tell if the stuff is digital or not. It looks rather digital to me but my
monitor is pretty bad.
Only the experts like Nathan Olivear and Manuel Neri etc. can
really comment on the paths legitimatel of other painters.... as they
have walked them, most critics and joe public and net loud mouths
have never attempted to run and art business and have no flippin
clue, hell most of them never even stp foot in studios so you can only
take them with so much fact.
That is why I paint and draw what I want and forget the rest. That
is how my career started and it continues that way in its strength and
most of the biggies are the same if you get to ever speak with them.
> have to admit that my system failed to show the details on the work
> clearly, so I went back and scrutinised it closer. Something doesn't
> ring true for me. However, having looked at the rest of the site I have
> to admit I think this gentleman is extremely brave to post his work here
> and applaud him.
I think the same, but that is how people imporve.
>I did enjoy 'Broken' and 'Seascape 99' on the *water-
> colours* page- compositional skills in these two are particularly good
> where this use of the edges become the focal points. So maybe the
> attempts at abstraction were premature - which is a kind way of saying
> they don't work ... yet.
He jsut needs to use the brushes differently and change them.
> >
> >BTW. I'm in agony. Try as I may, I haven't been able to find Dan Fox's
> >posts. I've tried different browsers, but they just haven't appeared.
> >What's the secret?
> >
> >Erik Mattila
>
> Agony ? you pure thing - anything I can do to help ?? a massage perhaps
> ? But then again I doubt you are in as much agony as my browser, which
> did a double backwards flip when he posted those binaries - so I didn't
> ever see them on the group - but I already received them by Email so
> knew of the images he was speaking of. Maybe he could send you them ?
> You are in for a real treat. Those images are engraved in my mind now
> ... Dan's work is abstraction of the highest order - but then again, I
> would guess he has put a lot of blood, sweat and tears into it rather
> than a night a week at his local art club to get out of the house.
> That's where the difference lies between the two.
I could never comment indepthly about anthing on the net cause the
computers are so substandard for viewing art that I rarely critique
anything and I do not have time to most of the time.
If a person takes time to bring their works to the studio and I know
well in advance I will crit them or if I know a student is really
working hard at things then I will offer a crit but very gently. Most
have jumped over with joy I offered and complain about hte lack of
support from the art schools abitilty to have a visual sensibility etc.
Mattison
~Artist~
>
I only saw one peice by accident in this group.
What is the site ?
Mine is http://www.rhinodev.com/M
Read the press if lyou have questions about career etc. I have tried to
put things in articles painters can learn from like mission, marketing,
poetic maps etc.
If you want to see the artist click see the artist 3 times on the photo.
My webmaster wanted to hide me from all the men and meat heads.
The site is ancient because web is low priority now.
sorry
Mexico highest priority.
Mattison
> emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
> > In article <5bYy+AAs...@raimes.demon.co.uk>,
> > "A.A. Raimes" <ali...@address.in.signature> wrote:
> > > In article <19990511175951.892$kG...@newsreader.com>, The Overlord
> > > <over...@orion.com> writes
>
> > > >Then go and look at Dan's work in the Full Disclosure posts. This is
> > > >about as good as it gets with abstraction.
> > >
> > > Absolutely. Since I saw Dan's work the images have been flooding my
> > > head. Can't wait to see more ... as long as he sends them privately or
> > > posts on a website !
> > >
> Allison - thank you. I'm working on a website of my own and will
> let everyone know. In the meantime I'll email more pix to you -
> I promise! Rushed this week.
>
> Erik -
>
> I find I can't email you. My posts are on this ng as Full Disclosure,
> parts I - III. Maybe your ng server filters binary posts. I'll email them
> to you if you email me with an address. Also, I could post them on
> alt.art.binaries or whatever that ng is. A first cut at the website will
> probably be up in a week or two.
>
> regards,
> dan
>
~Artist~
Glenn Geist wrote:
>
> First of all, I'm not very fond of Twombly, I've only seen a few works
> and have felt that was quite enough, but I'm always curious about the
> pairing of the argument that a child could do this, but that also a
> child's perception of the naked emperor is more honest because of the
> childish innocence. Something is amiss here. Is there a
> contradiction, or is it just me?
>
> Glenn
>
> "peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >The Overlord wrote in message <19990511175951.892$kG...@newsreader.com>...
> >>Peter -
> >>
> >>Look at the art at this guy's site (the two pieces of recent work
> >>at the website referred to in this post).
> >>
> >>this really is the equivalent of a child's scrawl. Compare it to a Cy
> >>Twombly - this is *exactly* the differentiation that Dan Fox was trying to
> >>get across to you a couple of weeks ago.
> >
> >I think they both look like childrens' scrawls. They don't have to look
> >the same to both look sub-amateurish. Recently I attended a meeting
> >at my wife's company in Cambridge, Mass, where they have an on-site
> >daycare center. And the facility was festooned with the childrens'
> >artwork. Works by either Twombly or the above would have fit in
> >perfectly well, and no one would have known that they weren't done
> >by the children.
> >
> >
> >>Then go and look at Dan's work in the Full Disclosure posts. This is about
> >>as good as it gets with abstraction.
> >
John Haber
>sole judge of everything. If it looks like a childish scrawl to me, then
>that's what it is. Period.* My grandfather heard about the first space
>flights and said, *that's impossible and against God's law.* Therefore for
>him space flight never happened. It was a government plot of fakery and
>deception - much like the art reactionarie's idea of a conspiracy of
>critics, museums, press, and a strange group called the Artzy Fartzies,
>who perpetrate modern art on a gullible public.
Marcus gets my thanks for this one. Really succinct, and definitely
not just about Peter.
Modern art asks one to stretch one's mind, so it's asking for this
kind of reaction. Is that a problem? Well, tough nuggies.
John
~Artist~
>
> In article <19990516122522.693$Y...@newsreader.com>,
> dan...@erols.com wrote:
>
> > Erik -
> >
> > I find I can't email you. My posts are on this ng as Full Disclosure,
> > parts I - III. Maybe your ng server filters binary posts. I'll email them
> > to you if you email me with an address. Also, I could post them on
> > alt.art.binaries or whatever that ng is. A first cut at the website will
> > probably be up in a week or two.
> >
> > regards,
> > dan
>
>
> I've got a pretty slow connection, so if they are really large files one
> at a time would be best (over 500k). I would love to see one or two, and
> look forward to your website.
>
> best,
> Erik
The guy has 50 websites.
emat...@tomatoweb.com
best,
Erik
Glenn Geist
education, but that helps . There are a lot of educated people who
execrate things that others find appealing.
I can't remember who coined that still uncommon term "mysoneism" but
I like it - there's a natural resistance to anything new because it
raises hell with one's confidence in knowing what's what. I really
can't argue with someone's dislike for an artist or school, but the
'logical' arguments put forth done' seem to be logical to me - just
opinion with a little sophistry as a condiment.
So if we're going to use the fable of the innocent and perspicacious
child - implying the child's eye is better, why then is child-like art
not better?
Candide
marc...@sabbanet.com(Marcus Bramble) wrote:
>Peter Nelson's attitude is not unfamiliar to me. It seems to be, *I am the
>sole judge of everything. If it looks like a childish scrawl to me, then
>that's what it is. Period.* My grandfather heard about the first space
>flights and said, *that's impossible and against God's law.* Therefore for
>him space flight never happened. It was a government plot of fakery and
>deception - much like the art reactionarie's idea of a conspiracy of
>critics, museums, press, and a strange group called the Artzy Fartzies,
>who perpetrate modern art on a gullible public.
>
>Thanks again for posting. I look forward to your thoughts on this.
>
>Marcus
>
>
>
>
>grg...@earthlink.net (Glenn Geist) wrote:
>> First of all, I'm not very fond of Twombly, I've only seen a few works
>> and have felt that was quite enough, but I'm always curious about the
>> pairing of the argument that a child could do this, but that also a
>> child's perception of the naked emperor is more honest because of the
>> childish innocence. Something is amiss here. Is there a
>> contradiction, or is it just me?
>>
>> Glenn
>>
>
>> "peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>>>
>> >The Overlord wrote in message
>> ><19990511175951.892$kG...@newsreader.com>...
>
>> >>Peter -
>> >>
>> >>Look at the art at this guy's site (the two pieces of recent work
>> >>at the website referred to in this post).
>> >>
>> >>this really is the equivalent of a child's scrawl. Compare it to a Cy
>> >>Twombly - this is *exactly* the differentiation that Dan Fox was trying
>> >>to get across to you a couple of weeks ago.
>> >
>> >I think they both look like childrens' scrawls. They don't have to
>> >look the same to both look sub-amateurish.
>> >>The Overlord
>> >
>> >
emat...@tomatoweb.com
example, I found myself wondering why the Amsterdamer Calvinists did
everything in their power to totally destroy Van Rijn -- why, for
sleeping with his maid? What a way to treat one's living art treasures.
But the other thing is that Francis Beacon is hardly ever mentioned in
this NG. Is he in a league of his own? "Above Art" or "The Artist's
Artist" or what? Well, I've already mentioned the British invention of
Pop Art. Said Turner is good enough to eat. Now I bow to Beacon. Even
queried unsuccessfully about Richard Dadd. Looks to me like the Brits
can paint, and I haven't even mentioned Wm. Blake, who not only invented
his own techniques but could think also.
Now I'm wondering if Blake was clairvoyant to the degree to anticipate
RAF. He wrote a story about it, I think. "A Memorable Fancey."
Gabriel approaches Blake and says "let me show you your lot." The two
crawl through tunnels in a cemetary and end up suspended in the tree
roots over a great void, in which psychodelic visions occur, with giant
spiders in battle etc. etc. Then Blake says to Gabriel "let me show me
your lot." After some travel the two end up in a desolate plane with a
small cottage. Peering into the windows, they see that there are benches
all around a room, with baboons sitting on them, chained to the walls.
The chains are just long enough that occassional one baboon can get close
enough to the next to be grabbed, ripped apart, and its parts thrown
about the room in a great frenzy.
What a great story (infinitely better in Blake's prose). He ends it with
the most obtuse comment, something along the line of "thus I refute
Newton's third principle" (I can't remember the exact phrase).
Finally, Britain gave the world Stan Laurel. That can't be discounted.
Erik Mattila
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com
Where is that 'art criticism' you refer.
I'm very interested in that
- lauri
> But what this suggests to me is that there is indeed a visual language
> that can 'communicate' as 'natural language' communicates. This is a
> contentious issue on this NG and beyond (there was (is) a great debate
> about this in art criticism, the old 'linguistic basis or art' debate.)
>
> Erik Mattila
--
lauri....@nokia.com http://www.netti.fi/~laurleva/index.html
The fact that I abuse my office address, does not imply
that my employer agrees with, or is aware of my opinions expressed here
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
TechnoCrate
<ali...@address.in.signature> wrote:
>In article <37411007...@news.euronet.nl>, TechnoCrate
><usu...@euronet.nl> writes
>
>>
>>Cheer up! Although a single work of Van Gogh might buy the entire
>>heritage of british fine art, you still have snooker ;-)
>>
>
>Perfectly cheerful thanks ! Incidentally - do you know how many VG's
>Britain owns ??? and I think you may have missed the thread on this
>thread - whatever sport has to do with art is beyond me !!! I suggest
>you read some art history (you certainly need to) instead of wasting
>your time watching some godforsaken dull sport ... you get British
>snooker in Mississippi ? What next I ask. Most boring sport I ever
>watched in my life.
>
Mississippi? I'm from the Netherlands but we did help to populate that
place (....and the low countries trembled from deep within at that
reference to a black page in dutch history). BTW I do have art history
books (the biggest one is that Janson bible, second only in size to my
unabridged version of The Lord Of The Rings). I just might read them
if you continue to pull down snooker or van Gogh!
Snooker is great, second only to roller derby. BTW that one inspired
Tracey Moffat to make her "Guapa" series. Thus sports can have
something to do with art (and Tracey is ofcourse female which grants
me a great trump-card in an art vs sport flame war ;-) Perhaps snooker
should have fake fights as well, although we did have a streaker at
the Masters two years ago in that epic battle between Davis and
O'Sullivan which is cool as well.
>BTW I recognise you from alt.philosophy .... where I first encountered
>Brother Alphabet.
Must have been a cross post. I hung around comp.ai.philosophy for some
time but people were more concerned with Heidegger and chinese rooms
than visual perception while I (and some others) believe the "I" is an
observation of the perceptual system (of which the visual system is
part ofcourse) rather than the result of the latest hype in science
like quantum mechanics and stuff. There really is a lot known about
visual perception which is not yet fully utilized in art (ofcourse
it's only a tool, but still)
Greetings from the Netherlands
P.S. now some kind of nationalistic flame war seems to unfold in some
threads: allow me to remind that the dutch fleet sailed up the Thames
in 1667, innihilated the british fleet, sailed through some chain and
captured the british flagship "Royal Charles". After this the british
sued for peace and we swapped our american city "Nieuw Amsterdam"
(nowadays known as New York) for an entire british country in south
america (Suriname). Surely, Brittania didn't rule the waves at that
time. Hehe, that should get the flames higher ;-) It's only a shame
that I had to reach back more than 300 years for a decisive dutch
victory.
emat...@tomatoweb.com
usu...@euronet.nl (TechnoCrate) wrote:
> Greetings from the Netherlands
>
> P.S. now some kind of nationalistic flame war seems to unfold in some
> threads: allow me to remind that the dutch fleet sailed up the Thames
> in 1667, innihilated the british fleet, sailed through some chain and
> captured the british flagship "Royal Charles". After this the british
> sued for peace and we swapped our american city "Nieuw Amsterdam"
> (nowadays known as New York) for an entire british country in south
> america (Suriname). Surely, Brittania didn't rule the waves at that
> time. Hehe, that should get the flames higher ;-) It's only a shame
> that I had to reach back more than 300 years for a decisive dutch
> victory.
>
Yes, but the British Empire is an old elephant that never forgets. As
late as 1961 on the BBC's "Goon Show" radio program Peter Sellers
comments:
"The Duke of Orange has attacked Amsterdam by sea!"
"My, I didn't know the Duke was a sailor."
"Oh, yes, he comes from a long line of Navel Oranges!"
Stephen Morgana
let me know what you think. By the way, it is not the work of a child,
but maybe it is imature work.
http://bigsun.wbs.net/homepages/s/c/m/scm2000/newart/
In article <7gg764$pjh$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
Stephen Morgana <scm...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> Hi, I've just uploaded a couple new pieces of art. I would like you
to take
> a look at it and let me know what you think.
>
> http://bigsun.wbs.net/homepages/s/c/m/scm2000/newart/
>
> Thanks
> --
> Stephen
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network
==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your
Own
>
--
Stephen
http://homepages.infoseek.com/~scm2000
emat...@tomatoweb.com
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com wrote:
> Erik,
> Where is that 'art criticism' you refer.
> I'm very interested in that
> - lauri
>
storage right now. I'm trying to remember the 'milestone' essay -- I
think it was by Shapiro, and the title had something to do with "the
linguistic basis of art..." Maybe somebody here will remember (how about
you, John Haber -- ring a bell?) Another name that comes to mind is
Stanley Fish--but that would have been later.
But there are a lot of related writings presently on-line. A good
jumping-off place if you wish to persue the topic. Unfortunately, most
are related to semiotics. I say 'unfortunate' because the debate was
broader than semiology. In fact, much of visual semiotics, such as Goran
Sonesson's, opposes the the idea of a linguistic basis in visual art.
The original argument was, as I recall, drawn from 'linguistics' itself,
rather than semiology. Anyway, here's some links.
Voice of the Shuttle
http://humanitas.ucsb.edu/
This is a massive links site at UC Santa Barbara, with quite a bit under
art, archetecture, photography etc.
http://www.arts.ucsb.edu/~tvc/v10/v10kilbu.html
APPROPRIATION AND THE SEMIOTICS OF SEEING
by Michael Kilburn
http://www.temple.edu/anthro/worth/sbird.html
Man is Not a Bird
Sol Worth
http://www.arthist.lu.se/kultsem/semiotics/
Goran Sonesson, Lund University
http://www.newcastle.edu.au/department/fad/fi/woodrow/analysis.htm
Analysis of visual images
(This is a very interesting web site with a lot of resources and links.
Here's a nice quote from Virginia Woolf taken from one of the pages:)
"But here the speakers fell silent. Perhaps they were thinking that there
is a vast distance between any poem and any picture; and that to compare
them stretches words too far. At last, said one of them, we have reached
the edge where painting breaks off and takes her way into the silent
land. We shall have to set foot there soon, and all our words will fold
their wings and sit huddled like rooks on the tops of the trees in
winter...But since we love words let us dally for a little on the verge,
said the other. Let us hold painting by the hand a moment longer, for
though they must part in the end, painting and writing have much to tell
each other: they have much in common."
[ Virginia Woolf, Essay on Walter Sickert 1934 ]
If you start reading in this area you are bound to stumble across the old
debate that came to be in Greenberg/Shapiro/ generation.
Erik Mattila
emat...@tomatoweb.com
Stephen Morgana <scm...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> I've uploaded one more piece of work to my web page. Take a look and
> let me know what you think. By the way, it is not the work of a child,
> but maybe it is imature work.
> http://bigsun.wbs.net/homepages/s/c/m/scm2000/newart/
>
> In article <7gg764$pjh$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> Stephen Morgana <scm...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> > Hi, I've just uploaded a couple new pieces of art. I would like you
> to take
> > a look at it and let me know what you think.
> >
> > http://bigsun.wbs.net/homepages/s/c/m/scm2000/newart/
> >
> > Thanks
> > --
> > Stephen
> >
> > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network
> ==----------
> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your
> Own
> >
>
> --
> Stephen
I say go for it, Stephen. I really don't know what 'mature' means, but I
suppose it is the result of starting someplace and pursuing something.
What you have shown to me is an inquiry -- perhaps you're the only one at
this point who knows what the question is. But I get that sense that you
are going after something. (how can I be more vague, eh?).
But to tell you the truth, I have never been able to 'connect' with
nonobjective painting. That's not to say I don't appreciate it, I'm just
saying that as far as my own artmaking is concerned, if I got to the
point where you are in the three examples you have posted, I would begin
to develop 'things' that I saw there (like pictures in the clouds).
so keep up the good work!
A.A. Raimes
>But the other thing is that Francis Beacon is hardly ever mentioned in
>this NG. Is he in a league of his own? "Above Art" or "The Artist's
>Artist" or what?
Hmmmmm, I have mixed feeling about his work. I saw his retro at the
Hayward a few months ago and felt that his early work was really
something - the fifties stuff. But then it just started to look like
*versions of*. Still, *technically* he was brilliant - those paintings
captivated.
>Well, I've already mentioned the British invention of
>Pop Art. Said Turner is good enough to eat. Now I bow to Beacon. Even
>queried unsuccessfully about Richard Dadd. Looks to me like the Brits
>can paint, and I haven't even mentioned Wm. Blake, who not only invented
>his own techniques but could think also.
>
My mate TechnoCrate seems to also have completely eliminated William
Hogarth; Joshua Reynolds; and Thomas Gainsborough from British Art
History. I hate these lists but without even starting on the sculptures
of Moore, Caro, Frith, Hepworth, Kapoor and so on what about the
*modern* painters: Victor Passmore; Ben Nicholson; William Coldstream;
Roger Hilton; David Hockney; Bridget Riley; Howard Hodgkin; Maggie
Hambling. That should get the memory started.
What I enjoy most about living in Britain is the accessibility to art -
one can meet artists quite easily because the place is small enough to
track them down - and if they have a show they often do talks. I
recently had a job to buy a print for my boss from Bridget Riley and was
able to go to her studio quite easily. Also I have been to talks by
Hilton; Hodgkins and Hambling. Its good !
>
>What a great story (infinitely better in Blake's prose). He ends it with
>the most obtuse comment, something along the line of "thus I refute
>Newton's third principle" (I can't remember the exact phrase).
You can pull them out from anywhere can't you Erik !
>
>Finally, Britain gave the world Stan Laurel. That can't be discounted.
>
Yup !
Kind regards.
Alison A Raimes
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
9th May to 9th June 1999 @ Peterbourough Arthouse
A.A. Raimes
<usu...@euronet.nl> writes
>Mississippi? I'm from the Netherlands but we did help to populate that
>place (....and the low countries trembled from deep within at that
>reference to a black page in dutch history).
Sorry - bad *in group* joke ! I knew where you were from really - and
welcome ! Looking forward to your input.
>BTW I do have art history
>books (the biggest one is that Janson bible, second only in size to my
>unabridged version of The Lord Of The Rings). I just might read them
>if you continue to pull down snooker or van Gogh!
I urge you to !
>Must have been a cross post.
Yes it was. Cyber is a small world isn't it ? some guy who I exchanged
words with once on one of those cross postings recognised my exhibition
on TV a couple of days ago and wrote to say he had once met me on a
philosophy group and recognised my name .... scary .... reminds us that
really we all ought to behave the same way here as we would in reality.
>I hung around comp.ai.philosophy for some
>time but people were more concerned with Heidegger and chinese rooms
>than visual perception while I (and some others) believe the "I" is an
>observation of the perceptual system (of which the visual system is
>part ofcourse) rather than the result of the latest hype in science
>like quantum mechanics and stuff. There really is a lot known about
>visual perception which is not yet fully utilized in art (ofcourse
>it's only a tool, but still)
I do remember your posts ... well that is how I remember your name ...
look forward to hearing some of that stuff over here, you have some
fascinating ideas to share - why don't you start a thread ? I left
alt.philosophy after someone called *usurper* (unfortunate coincidence)
told us he was so bored that only a war in US could liven his life up. I
knew it was time to seek intellectual stimulation elsewhere .... and
here I am !!!!!!
>
>Greetings from the Netherlands
>
Greetings from Britain (which incidentally includes Scotland) !
>P.S. now some kind of nationalistic flame war seems to unfold in some
>threads:
Oh, every so often the climate changes on these groups and everyone has
their flare up - its usually over as quickly as it started, but thanks
for reminding us of that piece of history. In reality I am not that
nationalistic because I am a nomad - have worked in 15 different
countries in my life and have the necessary papers to work in the US if
I ever so desire ... for now I have chosen the British way of life. I
have plenty of reasons (and it isn't my love life because he is over
that side of the Atlantic... except when he is here !)
Good to meet you ! I look forward to many scraps with you !
Regards
Alison.
~Artist~
>
> In article <zu7gDUAi...@raimes.demon.co.uk>,
> "A.A. Raimes" <ali...@address.in.signature> wrote:
> > In article <37411007...@news.euronet.nl>, TechnoCrate
> > <usu...@euronet.nl> writes
> >
> > >
> > >Cheer up! Although a single work of Van Gogh might buy the entire
> > >heritage of british fine art, you still have snooker ;-)
> > >
> >
> > Perfectly cheerful thanks ! Incidentally - do you know how many VG's
> > Britain owns ??? and I think you may have missed the thread on this
> > thread - whatever sport has to do with art is beyond me !!! I suggest
> > you read some art history (you certainly need to) instead of wasting
> > your time watching some godforsaken dull sport ... you get British
> > snooker in Mississippi ? What next I ask. Most boring sport I ever
> > watched in my life.
> >
> > Brother Alphabet.
> >
> example, I found myself wondering why the Amsterdamer Calvinists did
> everything in their power to totally destroy Van Rijn -- why, for
> sleeping with his maid? What a way to treat one's living art treasures.
>
> this NG. Is he in a league of his own? "Above Art" or "The Artist's
> Pop Art. Said Turner is good enough to eat. Now I bow to Beacon. Even
> queried unsuccessfully about Richard Dadd. Looks to me like the Brits
> can paint, and I haven't even mentioned Wm. Blake, who not only invented
> his own techniques but could think also.
>
> RAF. He wrote a story about it, I think. "A Memorable Fancey."
>
> Gabriel approaches Blake and says "let me show you your lot." The two
> crawl through tunnels in a cemetary and end up suspended in the tree
> roots over a great void, in which psychodelic visions occur, with giant
> spiders in battle etc. etc. Then Blake says to Gabriel "let me show me
> your lot." After some travel the two end up in a desolate plane with a
> small cottage. Peering into the windows, they see that there are benches
> all around a room, with baboons sitting on them, chained to the walls.
> The chains are just long enough that occassional one baboon can get close
> enough to the next to be grabbed, ripped apart, and its parts thrown
> about the room in a great frenzy.
>
> the most obtuse comment, something along the line of "thus I refute
> Newton's third principle" (I can't remember the exact phrase).
>
>
Yes, but the NYS kicked *A* on all of those men and they have NO
women on your list. GGurrls shall we go for one of those High
Banana T Parties too?
Mattison
TechnoCrate
<ali...@address.in.signature> wrote:
>Good to meet you ! I look forward to many scraps with you !
>Regards
>Alison.
"Gee, thanks", a blue looking TechnoCrate said. His impressive
towering manifestation of pure shadow, crowned by a huge military cap,
didn't look so impressive anymore in the warm light of unanticipated
kindness. His leather gloved hands still holding the baits left
untouched. These baits of which he hoped would unleash a global scale
flamewar fueled by nationalism proved useless against this new force.
Now, he realized, there was no hope of NG's in ruin and brother
against brother. Finally, he sunk to his knees, burying his face in
his hands while bitter tears rolled down. And in all of cyberspace his
tortured cries could be heard:" Why? Why? Why? I've been beaten by a
woman!!!!"
[ snapping out of pathetic and sad alter ego ]
Hmmm, obviously I started my campaign too early. But I still might be
able to turn this shamefull defeat into glorious victory..... After
all, if Sauron could do it then so can I }:->
~Artist~
> >
> Greetings from Britain (which incidentally includes Scotland) !
Get over it.
Alison A Raimes
<usu...@euronet.nl> writes
>
>Hmmm, obviously I started my campaign too early. But I still might be
>able to turn this shamefull defeat into glorious victory..... After
>all, if Sauron could do it then so can I }:->
ROFL ! you crack me up ! this is probably why I remembered you. Who is
Sauron by the way ?
Cheers !
mdeli
wrote:
>Glenn -
>
>It is refreshing to read a post like yours. I'll give you my take on it.
>
>It is an old joke among modern artists that a certain percent of viewers
>of abstract or other non-traditional art will say, *my kid could do
>that.* I think that there are at least a couple of reasons for this.
>
The main reason is, that if it looks like your kid could do it, its
the artist's fault not the viewer's.
>. Face with
>abstraction, or even expressionism, they are offended because they are
>faced with the unfamiliar, and with a presentation that is different from
>what they expect.
>
Modern Academic Abstraction is quite familiar to most men on the
street.
>There are exceptions to this - some people with a lot of art education take
>the same attitude. Also, some artists produce abstract work
>with harmless, pleasing patterns that go well over the couch (see
>Mattison's website). Many people like this sort of commercial work.
...usually because its far better than the minimalist crap favored by
museum curators.
>There
>are also people with no art background but with open minds who are willing
>to consider different types of art. They are rare, but valued.
...rare indeed. Modern Academic Art requires Artspeak indoctrination.
>Second, much abstract art does look easy to do to the untrained eye.
...and even easier to the technically knowledgeable
>It is
>in fact very difficult to do well, and requires easily as much skill as
>conventional realism. Some training and exposure (and of course an open
>mind) enables one to differentiate readily between good abstract art and
>amateurish scrawls.
This guy can distinguish between the art schmier from the garbage one
and all because he has an open head.
> It's like anything else - the eye and mind become
>capable of discerning qualities that were not apparent previously.
Anybody hear this sort of bullshit in art school?
>Peter Nelson's attitude is not unfamiliar to me. It seems to be, *I am the
>sole judge of everything.
This artzy fartzy of course judges nothing and in his illogical mind
anyone who doesn't like the artwork he likes claims to be the "sole
judge of everything."
>If it looks like a childish scrawl to me, then
>that's what it is. Period.
And what is it to you?
>* My grandfather heard about the first space
>flights and said, *that's impossible and against God's law.* Therefore for
>him space flight never happened. It was a government plot of fakery and
>deception - much like the art reactionarie's idea of a conspiracy of
>critics, museums, press, and a strange group called the Artzy Fartzies,
>who perpetrate modern art on a gullible public.
Artzy fartzies don't perpetrate Modern Art on the gullible public. The
public isn't that gullible.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
mdeli
wrote:
>Modern art asks one to stretch one's mind, so it's asking for this
>kind of reaction. Is that a problem? Well, tough nuggies.
Haber has a very stretched mind and very tough nuggies.
Ariane
On Mon, 17 May 1999, Alison A Raimes wrote:
> >
> >Hmmm, obviously I started my campaign too early. But I still might be
> >able to turn this shamefull defeat into glorious victory..... After
> >all, if Sauron could do it then so can I }:->
>
> ROFL ! you crack me up ! this is probably why I remembered you. Who is
> Sauron by the way ?
> Cheers !
>
>
> Alison A Raimes
> ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
> http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
>
Three rings for elven-kings under the sky
Seven for the Dwarf lords in their halls of stone
Nine for mortal men doomed to die
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
One ring to rule them all
One ring to find them
One ring to bring them all
And in the Darkness bind them
In the land of Mordor where shadows lie.....
Glenn Geist
Glenn Geist
>It is you your posts are lamer than Manis.
>
No more lame than your bad grammar or punctuation. What the hell did
I say to offend you there? I'm asking questions about things that
seem contradictory and you send gratuitious insults. What kind of a
person are you anyway? If you disagree with me, show that you have
some command of some language and enough of an idea to make a cogent
reply - otherwise save the cliche' insults for someone who cares what
you think.
Glenn
Glenn Geist
We would have real coffee shops instead of these damn Starbucks.
At least we still have Old Amsterdam!
Glenn
usu...@euronet.nl (TechnoCrate) wrote:
>On Sun, 16 May 1999 21:37:54 +0100, "A.A. Raimes"
><ali...@address.in.signature> wrote:
>
>>In article <37411007...@news.euronet.nl>, TechnoCrate
>><usu...@euronet.nl> writes
>>
>>>
>>>Cheer up! Although a single work of Van Gogh might buy the entire
>>>heritage of british fine art, you still have snooker ;-)
>>>
>>
>>Perfectly cheerful thanks ! Incidentally - do you know how many VG's
>>Britain owns ??? and I think you may have missed the thread on this
>>thread - whatever sport has to do with art is beyond me !!! I suggest
>>you read some art history (you certainly need to) instead of wasting
>>your time watching some godforsaken dull sport ... you get British
>>snooker in Mississippi ? What next I ask. Most boring sport I ever
>>watched in my life.
>>
>Mississippi? I'm from the Netherlands but we did help to populate that
>place (....and the low countries trembled from deep within at that
>reference to a black page in dutch history). BTW I do have art history
>books (the biggest one is that Janson bible, second only in size to my
>unabridged version of The Lord Of The Rings). I just might read them
>if you continue to pull down snooker or van Gogh!
>
>Snooker is great, second only to roller derby. BTW that one inspired
>Tracey Moffat to make her "Guapa" series. Thus sports can have
>something to do with art (and Tracey is ofcourse female which grants
>me a great trump-card in an art vs sport flame war ;-) Perhaps snooker
>should have fake fights as well, although we did have a streaker at
>the Masters two years ago in that epic battle between Davis and
>O'Sullivan which is cool as well.
>
>>BTW I recognise you from alt.philosophy .... where I first encountered
>>Brother Alphabet.
>Must have been a cross post. I hung around comp.ai.philosophy for some
>time but people were more concerned with Heidegger and chinese rooms
>than visual perception while I (and some others) believe the "I" is an
>observation of the perceptual system (of which the visual system is
>part ofcourse) rather than the result of the latest hype in science
>like quantum mechanics and stuff. There really is a lot known about
>visual perception which is not yet fully utilized in art (ofcourse
>it's only a tool, but still)
>
>Greetings from the Netherlands
>
>P.S. now some kind of nationalistic flame war seems to unfold in some
~Artist~
> Is that something like Cool Hand Luke's statment: "I can eat 50 eggs!"?
I know a guy who can eat 17 - 18 green chilly peppers...
yep...
I won a T-Shirt once for eating a green pepper...damn HOT too! If
you ate one you get the shirt and ll the free beer you could drink while
you ate the peppers or cactus liqours and I wanted to really try the
liqours....so I ate one....damn one was enough!....I got the shirt and
...It said "I am extremely hornitos for Sauza Tequilla!" of course it
was x-tra small. The other people who competed for the pepper run
off was this 300 pound chick and a 120 Pound Biker guy....darn funny
that chick had him almost whipped then he muscled under they were
back and forth with the peppers 15 - 16 - 17 and then the chick quits
and they are sluggin beer....I barely could eat one! let alone 17 and
the biker guy I mean skinny like pop-eye....he eats 18 and the crowd is
egging him on...and then gross....green spider like mashed up green
spider puke goes shooting everywhere ....talk about gross art....we
later went in the ladies room and that chick....she was having a hard
time man her face was redder than you tomatoes honey!
Hope you enjoyed the gross out session.
bye now
LOL
Mattison
emat...@tomatoweb.com
~Artist~ <matt...@att.net> wrote:
> emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <19990516122522.693$Y...@newsreader.com>,
> > dan...@erols.com wrote:
> >
> > > Erik -
> > >
> > > I find I can't email you. My posts are on this ng as Full Disclosure,
> > > parts I - III. Maybe your ng server filters binary posts. I'll email them
> > > to you if you email me with an address. Also, I could post them on
> > > alt.art.binaries or whatever that ng is. A first cut at the website will
> > > probably be up in a week or two.
> > >
> > > regards,
> > > dan
> >
> > Hmmm. Can't figger out why. emat...@tomatoweb.com
> >
> > I've got a pretty slow connection, so if they are really large files one
> > at a time would be best (over 500k). I would love to see one or two, and
> > look forward to your website.
> >
> > best,
> > Erik
>
>
Erik
Bryn Ayers of North America
emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
> In article <7hoftj$uue$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> lauri....@nmp.nokia.com wrote:
> > Erik,
> > Where is that 'art criticism' you refer.
> > I'm very interested in that
> > - lauri
> "the
> linguistic basis of art..." Maybe somebody here will remember (how
> you, John Haber -- ring a bell?) Another name that comes to mind is
> Stanley Fish--but that would have been later.
In the beggining there was the foot - or so say anthropologists
after the discovery of Lucy; a prehuman primate who walked upright,
but also had a brain of a chimpanzee rather than a human.
How complex language evolved isn't clear. But it is clear that
according to our present view complex visualization predates
complex language and in my view there is still a gap between the
two in favor of vis. Neurology has and continues to posit that
artistic thought(right-brain) and linguistic thought(left-brain)
are generated by different sections of the brain.
The problem with (admitedly PoMo BS) asserting that there is a strict
causal relationship is that the information we presently have
does not demonstrate that one can cause the other, or that they
cannot or did not evolve separately, or latterally; Or that even
a scientific view can hold here (in which case we are nowhere or
speculating IMHO)...
Unless you are able to posit how an incantation by the left brain
were able to cause the right-brain to grow and separate latterally,
and symetrically, I'm afraid such a theory that posits a 'linguistic
cause of art' is bunk if not factually impossible. It seems obvious
to me that it is likely stemmed from decorative tool making, dreams,
visualization, religious objects etc. Of course the left-brain named
these things but that doesn't mean it made these things -Unless you
believe in DMT elves...
> But there are a lot of related writings presently on-line. A good
> jumping-off place if you wish to persue the topic. Unfortunately,
most
> are related to semiotics. I say 'unfortunate' because the debate was
> broader than semiology. In fact, much of visual semiotics, such as
Goran
> Sonesson's, opposes the the idea of a linguistic basis in visual art.
Why?
One of my biggest pet peaves 'with' the way many people aware of Post
modern literature write, is that they often insert an appeal to
some authority(argument ad Vericundum) that states no reason or opinion.
IE. Nietsche is against christianity but Kant and Descartes support
it. Lucretius doesn't believe in christianity nor does Plato or
Rand or Socrates but Plantinga does... says nothing about the veracity
of the proposition(in this case the veracity of Christianity) since we
do not even know the reasons why these philosophers thought the way
they did much less a reason why there opinions would be valid.
For instance we can tell the difference between: Noam Chomsky has
concluded that there is a linguistic basis in art; and Greenburg
has determined that art has its origins in language... Noam
Chomsky is a linguistic/neurology professor at (MIT) hence his
opinions would way heavily on such an issue, Greenburg is an
art critic who discovered flatness- not a likely candidate to
discover such a monumental truth. Ultimately though neither opinion
could be used as absolute proof (BTW. as far as I know neither
Chomsky nor Greenburg hold this opinion).
--
<A href="www.wralaw.com/people/bryn/bomb.html"> Bomb </a>
################################################################
Blah, -you talk very well for someone who walks too- ,Blah
################################################################
emat...@tomatoweb.com
Bryn Ayers of North America <br...@wralaw.com> wrote:
> In article <7hpsil$v1e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
> > In article <7hoftj$uue$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > lauri....@nmp.nokia.com wrote:
> > > Erik,
> > > Where is that 'art criticism' you refer.
> > > I'm very interested in that
> > > - lauri
>
> > "the
> > linguistic basis of art..." Maybe somebody here will remember (how
> > you, John Haber -- ring a bell?) Another name that comes to mind is
> > Stanley Fish--but that would have been later.
>
> In the beggining there was the foot - or so say anthropologists
> after the discovery of Lucy; a prehuman primate who walked upright,
> but also had a brain of a chimpanzee rather than a human.
Well, now some believe that early hominids stood upright while still in
the tree. There's quite a bit of contention here.
>
> How complex language evolved isn't clear. But it is clear that
> according to our present view complex visualization predates
> complex language and in my view there is still a gap between the
> two in favor of vis. Neurology has and continues to posit that
> artistic thought(right-brain) and linguistic thought(left-brain)
> are generated by different sections of the brain.
And some argue that it was the development of the vocal apparutus that
allowed language, which in turn influenced the size of the brain.
(better talkers were better survivors, or something like that.) Also,
the right/left brain idea is pretty much an oversimplification. The
truth appears to be that all the areas of the brain are quite
interdependant on various levels. I mean I wouldn't shout left brain
right brain ideology as gospel.
>
> The problem with (admitedly PoMo BS) asserting that there is a strict
> causal relationship is that the information we presently have
> does not demonstrate that one can cause the other, or that they
> cannot or did not evolve separately, or latterally; Or that even
> a scientific view can hold here (in which case we are nowhere or
> speculating IMHO)...
You've lost he here, Bryn. Who is making this claim? I'm not sure what
causal relationship you're speaking of.
>
> Unless you are able to posit how an incantation by the left brain
> were able to cause the right-brain to grow and separate latterally,
> and symetrically, I'm afraid such a theory that posits a 'linguistic
> cause of art' is bunk if not factually impossible. It seems obvious
> to me that it is likely stemmed from decorative tool making, dreams,
> visualization, religious objects etc. Of course the left-brain named
> these things but that doesn't mean it made these things -Unless you
> believe in DMT elves...
I know of no theory that posits a 'linguistic cause of art.' That's not
what I am discussing at all. What's being discussed here, or at least
what I understood Lauri Levanto's question to be, is the idea that art
could be analysed by using linguistic tools. To give the idea some
substance, it's what Ernst Cassirer theorizes in his Philosophy of
Symbolic Forms. So what is being postulated is that art, as a symbolic
form, behaves in many ways like natural language behaves. More to the
point, what's being discussed is that this is a controversial idea, and
that a debate has been going on for some time about it. Mr. Levanto
stated he was interested in that debate. No one is advocating a position
here (except you, of course).
>
> > But there are a lot of related writings presently on-line. A good
> > jumping-off place if you wish to persue the topic. Unfortunately,
> most
> > are related to semiotics. I say 'unfortunate' because the debate was
> > broader than semiology. In fact, much of visual semiotics, such as
> Goran
> > Sonesson's, opposes the the idea of a linguistic basis in visual art.
>
> Why?
>
> One of my biggest pet peaves 'with' the way many people aware of Post
> modern literature write, is that they often insert an appeal to
> some authority(argument ad Vericundum) that states no reason or opinion.
You don't honestly expect me to write down Sonesson's ideas here, do you?
My God, you have the URL -- why not read for youself why Sonesson argues
against the linguistic basis? You seem to enjoy reading. Go for it.
And incidentally, I personally don't regard semiotics as Post Modernism,
even though many post modern writers are informed by semiotics. It's
quite old, going back to English philosophy, Charles Sanders Pierce,
Ferdinand Sassure, and way back to the Greeks. But big pet peeves
require a lot of pet food. You should get smaller pets, much more
economical.
>
> IE. Nietsche is against christianity but Kant and Descartes support
> it. Lucretius doesn't believe in christianity nor does Plato or
> Rand or Socrates but Plantinga does... says nothing about the veracity
> of the proposition(in this case the veracity of Christianity) since we
> do not even know the reasons why these philosophers thought the way
> they did much less a reason why there opinions would be valid.
Interesting, but I can't see any relationship to the issue under
discussion.
>
> For instance we can tell the difference between: Noam Chomsky has
> concluded that there is a linguistic basis in art; and Greenburg
> has determined that art has its origins in language... Noam
> Chomsky is a linguistic/neurology professor at (MIT) hence his
> opinions would way heavily on such an issue, Greenburg is an
> art critic who discovered flatness- not a likely candidate to
> discover such a monumental truth. Ultimately though neither opinion
> could be used as absolute proof (BTW. as far as I know neither
> Chomsky nor Greenburg hold this opinion).
Again, I'm discussing a debate about the relationships of art and
language with Levanto. I don't see how your paragraph above applies. I
really don't quite understand why you have even written this post. It
seems a bit 'off mark.' I mean, if I agreed with all that you have
written, then what would my proper course be? Should I write a post to
Mr. Levanto stating that I was wrong, there is not or never has been a
debate about linguistics and art? Do you see what I mean?
Erik Mattila
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
Stephen Morgana <scm...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> I've uploaded one more piece of work to my web page. Take a look and
> let me know what you think. By the way, it is not the work of a child,
> but maybe it is imature work.
This has to be a troll.
> http://bigsun.wbs.net/homepages/s/c/m/scm2000/newart/
>
> In article <7gg764$pjh$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> Stephen Morgana <scm...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> > Hi, I've just uploaded a couple new pieces of art. I would like
you
> to take
> > a look at it and let me know what you think.
> >
> > http://bigsun.wbs.net/homepages/s/c/m/scm2000/newart/
> >
> > Thanks
> > --
> > Stephen
> >
> > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network
> ==----------
> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your
> Own
> >
>
> --
> Stephen
> http://homepages.infoseek.com/~scm2000
John Haber
But can you handle kim-chi.
John
Ariane
On Tue, 18 May 1999, Bryn Ayers of North America wrote:
> In the beggining there was the foot - or so say anthropologists
> after the discovery of Lucy; a prehuman primate who walked upright,
> but also had a brain of a chimpanzee rather than a human.
=== Really, I thought that in the beginning, there was actually just the
piece of a tooth, or was it a mandible, or then again, an abstract DNA
theory supposedly predates them both. Anyway, whatever it was, the
anthros ran it through a computer and came up with entire population
movements. Imagine that! Glad we've "graduated" from myth to
science......
> How complex language evolved isn't clear.
=== Nor will it ever be.
> But it is clear that
> according to our present view complex visualization predates
> complex language and in my view there is still a gap between the
> two in favor of vis. Neurology has and continues to posit that
> artistic thought(right-brain) and linguistic thought(left-brain)
> are generated by different sections of the brain.
=== Without conclusive evidence for either position.....
> The problem with (admitedly PoMo BS)
=== As opposed to anthropological and neurological BS?
a bientot,
A.
Marilyn Welch
by bringing up rags like Art in America & Art Forum as if
they are it!
M.
Marilyn Welch
It's hard to read your posts. Take a second and edit them
if you are interested in communicating.
You, who wrote the book on self-promotion, when you suspect
it in other people you call it
"bitching about your own work?"
o, maybe I read you wrong, it's so easy to do.
Marilyn
Alison A Raimes
dejanews.com> writes
>I've uploaded one more piece of work to my web page. Take a look and
>let me know what you think. By the way, it is not the work of a child,
>but maybe it is imature work.
Yes, Stephen - *I* have to apologise for that - the distrust is a result
of being around so many who hide behind pseudonyms ... and play those
games of deceit. Its those *urban legends* where we no longer know what
is real and what is not. What brought me to that wrong conclusion is
that I could not connect this work with your other work. I don't know
about *mature* either - what that means - I certainly don't feel my own
work is anywhere near *mature* (feel free to take a look at the four
drawings on my site and see how I am concerned with the more formal
issues in drawing through abstraction).
As a student we were always made to explain how we made a distinct leap
from one *style* to another and I carried this on to my recent teaching
while I was artist in resident last year in a high school. I had to set
an abstract project for them and they stumbled their way through it,
most of them feebly trying to copy what they had seen me doing in the
studio. The exercise was good for them to understand how complex
abstraction is and to dispel the myth that abstract works are an *easy
option*. So when looking at your work I can't help but see a rift -
would you honour me with how you worked from say the drawings of the
vase and the dog to these new ones (privately would be fine if you
prefer).
Enjoy and keep at it... the main thing is that you love what you do and
that you are committed to it ... which you obviously are.
Regards
Alison
~Artist~
>
> Mattison:
>
> It's hard to read your posts. Take a second and edit them
> if you are interested in communicating.
NOt worth the time.
If you know the history of the net the fashion I use it in is what it is
designed for quick communication. All the crying about grammer
started when all the know nothing lay people got on this thing.
I have been complemented by old timer geek for my understanding
and use of the media they invented.
I do not slow down it does not suit me.
>
> You, who wrote the book on self-promotion, when you suspect
> it in other people you call it
> "bitching about your own work?"
>
> o, maybe I read you wrong, it's so easy to do.
Whatever ...let me know when you get there.
M
May Flowers
> All the crying about grammer
It's grammar -- g-r-a-m-m-A-r...
Of course it was a typo wasn't it?
Stephen Morgana
them. I am confident of my watercolors and regular drawings, but I am
not sure that these newer things are art at all. When I first started
taking art lessons, I started doing what I have been calling stream of
consciousnes drawings. Sometimes I end up with a page full of scribbles
and textures, sometimes shapes would emerge. Sometimes I used those
shapes in paintings. A few weeks ago I decided to do a few of these on
good paper with various pencils and crayons and post them to the net to
see what people thought. I gather from consesus that these are not art.
I have seen things similar to them in the art gallery and on the net,
but apparently what I am doing is not the same.
> Enjoy and keep at it... the main thing is that you love what you do
and
> that you are committed to it ... which you obviously are.
>
I realy do love art and painting and drawing. The last four years of
work and learning is a really significant thing to me. But I am not
sure what art is (other than for obvious examples), and why it is done
(other than for some personal reasons I have of my own).
> Regards
> Alison
FoAm Destroyer
wq...@victoria.tc.ca (Marilyn Welch) wrote:
> Bryn the Bore Ayers
Morally you are a Rollercoaster, I am convinced that you
could some day compliment(excessively) the right person
and make it... Lets just hope that Burningchrome isn't
David Bowie, for your sake...Or that Mani Deli doesn't
have insider connections, to Galleries or Hollywood,. Or
you have blown your 'big chance' at flattery sky high.
> you show how out of date you are
> by bringing up rags like Art in America & Art Forum as if
> they are it!
Art Forum and Art in America will continue to exist well into
the next century. Although they don't deserve to.
I only occasionally read art-magazines for a laugh, and to see
what people may be doing, none seem to convey any real art
theory. I prefer to read what artist write themselves if I
can find it.
If there are any art mags that really convey something please
enlighten us.
I otherwise do not care excessively what is the flavor of the
month mag is since someone as dense as myself can be easily
overwealmed by the glits of the new and might end up doing
something really stupid to fit in.
Your post really had nothing to do with mine 'on parallel
evolution of dual hemispheric thought processes.'
Ciao Babe!
> M.
Bryn (sometimes phil) Ayers
--
++ This too shall pass ++
Alison A Raimes
dejanews.com> writes
>>
>Well, I have been doing stuff like the newer ones but I havent posted
>them. I am confident of my watercolors and regular drawings, but I am
>not sure that these newer things are art at all. When I first started
>taking art lessons, I started doing what I have been calling stream of
>consciousnes drawings. Sometimes I end up with a page full of scribbles
>and textures, sometimes shapes would emerge. Sometimes I used those
>shapes in paintings. A few weeks ago I decided to do a few of these on
>good paper with various pencils and crayons and post them to the net to
>see what people thought. I gather from consesus that these are not art.
>I have seen things similar to them in the art gallery and on the net,
>but apparently what I am doing is not the same.
I was curious about something - the images on your site seem to be on a
coloured background - is that just poor photography or are they like
that in reality - it would make a great deal of difference to how i
would look at the work.
I am all for *consciousness* drawings, as you call them - sketchbooks
should be full of them - but I think they are very different to the
actual work. Everyone thinks through ideas in different ways. In
relation to what you have seen in the galleries I would say they are
successful because artists who have been working for years do the
principles of art as a natural process - they no longer have to consider
the formal issues because they are integrated in everything they do.
This gives the work something that doesn't appear forced as in your
work.
There is no need to know what art is for or why we are doing it. If you
love doing something you should go with it - leave the analysis to the
critics and historians.
Best of luck for the future.
Marilyn
(snipped because of irrelevance & inaccuracy)
> Your post really had nothing to do with mine 'on parallel
> evolution of dual hemispheric thought processes.'
If I wanted to read about the above subject, I would go to
the library. That would leave out the "see how smart I am"
attitude of yours.
M.
PostModernAntique
> (snipped because of irrelevance & inaccuracy)
!Yeah but what if Burningchrome is our ticket to
Stardom!
I think I may have done the social equivalent of Urinating
of John Habers shoes in my last Dali post... I think I need
to start kissing ass and flattering...
> > Your post really had nothing to do with mine 'on parallel
> > evolution of dual hemispheric thought processes.'
> If I wanted to read about the above subject, I would go to
> the library. That would leave out the "see how smart I am"
> attitude of yours.
LOL! I don't even want to pursue topics in anthropology.
Simply for an acedemia one has to consider the science of
biology and anthropology when writing about a 'linguistic
basis of art.'
Bryn (Eating Phil's food out of the trash) Ayers
++ Cendant ++
Kay Kane
America. I like ARTnews. I like other mags. too. I am not stupid nor am I
a bad artist because of my personal preferences! (btw, I also had a
subscription to "Canadian Woman Studies les cahiers de la femme - Feminism &
Visual Art" which is sadly, out of print. Can this redeem me?)
Kay
To reach me remove 'rcd' from my e-mail address
Marilyn Welch wrote in message <37410...@news.victoria.tc.ca>...
:Bryn the Bore Ayers you show how out of date you are
:by bringing up rags like Art in America & Art Forum as if
:they are it!
:
:M.
:
~Artist~
They are it when you can afford the cover.
ggglz
Mattison
~Artist~
>
> In article <374413...@bc.ca>,
> Marilyn <m...@bc.ca> wrote:
> > Phil pontificated:
>
> > (snipped because of irrelevance & inaccuracy)
>
> !Yeah but what if Burningchrome is our ticket to
> Stardom!
Most likely they are the ones who taught me self promotion even
before the GP group !!!
LOL
The more self promotion garbel they produce the more I continue.
Before the ba.sinner desperados got here again, I was only publising
the flower pwer article about he kids killing each other on the net and
one newsletter. Since then I have sent it to 15 other editors!!!
LOL
Damn fun I'll have to say.
Heard today that it is published in the entire North of CA! 1/4 of a
page no less!
LOL
Thatnk for the encouragment sinners!
Mattison
gggglz
"Get out of her way!" cro...@hotmail.com
Kay Kane
(snip)
:LOL
:
:The more self promotion garbel they produce the more I continue.
:Before the ba.sinner desperados got here again, I was only publising
:the flower pwer article about he kids killing each other on the net and
:one newsletter. Since then I have sent it to 15 other editors!!!
:
:LOL
:
:Damn fun I'll have to say.
I'm glad that the Columbine school masacre is providing you with so much
enjoyment. However, you mistakenly claim that art is the answer. A friend
of mine lives in Littleton and they have a thriving arts program in their
schools as well as visiting artists, artists projects, community based arts,
etc. Just what can YOU do to prevent such an occurance that wasn't already
being done?
Kay
(snip)
:LOL
mdeli
<ali...@address.in.signature> wrote:
>I am all for *consciousness* drawings, as you call them - sketchbooks
>should be full of them - but I think they are very different to the
>actual work.
Take a look at her drawings. She can't draw but has sketch books full
of them.
> Everyone thinks through ideas in different ways.
I doubt that you ever had an idea in your life.
> In
>relation to what you have seen in the galleries I would say they are
>successful because artists who have been working for years do the
>principles of art as a natural process - they no longer have to consider
>the formal issues because they are integrated in everything they do.
>This gives the work something that doesn't appear forced as in your
>work.
>
Artspeak.
>There is no need to know what art is for or why we are doing it. If you
>love doing something you should go with it - leave the analysis to the
>critics and historians.
Gee I never would have thought of that.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
myfan...@my-dejanews.com
"Kay Kane" <rcdsca...@theriver.com> wrote:
> Well, they certainly aren't *it* but they are *part* of *it*. I like
Art in
> America. I like ARTnews. I like other mags. too.
I Don't particularly like either of these-(Sorry!). I simply
mentioned them as mags that 'everyone' would know of.
I doubt if Marylin knows of any mags that are funnier or more
out of touch... what it takes to be "it"
> I am not stupid nor am I
> a bad artist because of my personal preferences!
I don't think reading an art mag will make you a bad artist.
Certainly reading an art mag will not independantly make you
a good artist. It will of course make you a bad artist
if reading it is all you do or iff you take some really
really bad advice...
> (btw, I also had a
> subscription to "Canadian Woman Studies les cahiers de la femme -
Feminism &
> Visual Art" which is sadly, out of print. Can this redeem me?)
No... What comes closest to not redeaming you is that you hope
to be in style, and that with someone elses self-defined standards
of what is in... Highly questionable indeed.
I don't think culturally we have progressed since the 1960's or
had an art-world more revolutionary than the 1920's or had
one more esthetically spiritual and simultaneously realistic
than the post-Carravagio baroque artists. Until there can be
seen real progress I plan to be as out of touch as possible.
> Kay
> To reach me remove 'rcd' from my e-mail address
Honestly you can't take offense at Marylin throwing her bad
Karma in my direction(*).
She didn't mean anything she said. It was all intended to
hurt me, which of course means she needs both Zen and Wiccan
counceling... Which will give her superstitious reasons not
to try to hurt other people with essentially non-sequitors.
> Marilyn Welch wrote in message <37410...@news.victoria.tc.ca>...
> :Bryn the Bore Ayers you show how out of date you are
> :by bringing up rags like Art in America & Art Forum as if
> :they are it!
> :M.
They are it... Call my people and ArtTalk
Ciao Babes!
Bryn (pill) SAyersS