Mani and Van Meegeren
Leigh Kimmel
I may be wading into a minefield on this, but I'm going to give it a
try.
First I want to set aside the issues of forgery as misrepresentation,
namely the situation in which the artist presents his or her copies as
authentic originals of one of the great masters. That is fraud, which
is a separate issue from that of the copying itself, which is no
problem so long as two conditions are met: that the copy is identified
as such, and that the original is not copyrighted. The person who
legitimately copies a picture and identifies it as a copy, signing his
or her own name and crediting the original, may be practicing
techniques or flattering through imitation, but commits no ethical
wrong. However, the person who presents his or her work as the master's
original work and thus gains the money that the true work would have
commanded, deceives the buyer and the viewer and thus commits fraud.
With that agreed upon, I want to get to the real issue at hand: namely,
that of whether it is a moral wrong for an artist to produce what s/he
thinks the intended audience wants to see. This is such a severe bone
of contention in our society because we, both as a community of artists
and as a society in general, have yet to resolve just what is to be the
proper role of the artist in relationship to the market and to society
at large. (And for that matter, we haven't really figured out what
should be the proper place of the market in society generally, not just
in art).
To really understand this, one must trace the history of the ideas of
the market and of economics in general. Aristotle and his explicator to
the modern West, St. Thomas Aquinas, held that there is a "just price"
and a "just wage," and that value lies primarily in tangible goods, and
thus the merchant who makes a living on the profits of reselling goods
without materially improving them is something of a shyster. Similarly,
interest is a form of theft in the Aristotlian philosophy, because it
is not "productive" gain.
This kind of economic philosophy is sufficient for an agrarian society,
but it cannot support an economy based upon trade and industry. Thus a
number of rapid paradigm shifts occurred between the Renniassance and
the Industrial Revolution which legitimized such things as the charging
of interest and of the profits of the merchant, as well as the
development of a wealthy and socially powerful merchant class. However
these were hesitant, and often religious and social authorities,
particularly those who were of the traditional landed aristocracy which
felt threatened by the rising merchant class, would pass and enforce
laws that tried to hold society to the old Aristotlian idea of the just
price and the just wage, and of what constituted productive gain. (In
fact, one could consider Marx to be one of the last philosophers of
this system, since his ideas of "surplus value" hearken directly back
to notions of just wages and productive gains).
Traditionally, fine art was the exclusive purvey of the wealthy
aristocracy and royalty, who alone had the money to support an artist.
(The common people had their various folk arts, done in their spare
time, but these were generally ignored as "crude" and "unworthy"). As
the merchant class developed and began to take an interest in art,
their tastes and interests were different from that of the nobility.
(Someone else has already commented upon that transition, and its
effects upon the artist, particularly in the Netherlands).
Even as artists, as well as society in general, were adjusting to the
shift to the market-based society, there came the development of the
technology for the mass reproduction, and thus mass marketing, of art
prints. At first these were monochrome engravings, but as the
technology improved, it became possible to produce full-color art
prints at an astonishing level of fidelity to the original, so that
even the ordinary folk could have attractive prints of fine art in
their homes. Also, printing technologies led to the development of the
illustrated magazine, and thus to a market for artists to provide these
illustrations.
However, to make a living at this, one had to produce things that
people wanted to buy in sufficient quantity to make the reproduction
worthwhile. Often these things were not the sort of subjects that the
traditional aristocracy and clergy had preferred, but more akin to the
plebian subjects of folk art. This led to the feeling that an artist
who turned to subjects that sold was "stooping" to the least common
denominator. The reviling of illustrators as being less than "true"
artists comes from this same root.
In many ways this alienation of the artistic world from the
marketplace, this idea that "commercial" and "artistic" are
irreconcilably alienated, has been one of the great tragedies of modern
Western history. It has led us to dismiss many capable people as
"merely illustrators" or "merely draftsmen" (remember that JMW Turner
earned his daily bread for many years by doing architectural
renderings, while doing his own painting in the time that remained --
we would lose a lot if we were to dismiss him as a "mere draftsman"),
and to ignore many valid techniques and tools as suitable only for
illustration, not fine art (consider how slowly acceptance has come for
the airbrush, primarily because its first uses were in technical and
commerical illustration).
Unfortunately the debate has become so emotionalized that it has become
difficult to discuss it rationally without one side or the other taking
umbrage and claiming insult. I've learned that the hard way in several
other Internet venues, even to the point of having someone demand that
I publicly apologize for an alleged slur against the value of
illustration, merely because I was trying to express how I felt that
being an artist meant being able to be something more than just an
interchangable cog turning out interchangable product as I had been
when working at most other jobs (IE. in those jobs, the job was to be
done the same no matter who was doing it, and the product should be
indistinguishable no matter who was the maker).
"I have a right to be blind sometimes... I really don't see the
signal!"
-- Admiral Lord Nelson
Leigh Kimmel -- writer, artist and historian
kim...@siu.edu http://members.tripod.com/~kimmel/lhkwebpage.html
Listowner of Virtual Selyn, the Sime~Gen mailing list,
sime...@siu.edu
Ask me how to order the new Sime~Gen novel
D F Russell
kim...@siu.edu (Leigh Kimmel) wrote:
>I may be wading into a minefield on this, but I'm going to give it a
>try.
[...] forgery discussion deleted
>With that agreed upon, I want to get to the real issue at hand: namely,
>that of whether it is a moral wrong for an artist to produce what s/he
>thinks the intended audience wants to see.
If this wasn't a common practice, The Artist's & Graphic Designer's
Market annual wouldn't make a habit of listing the "hot" colors for
the year.
I'd personally hate to think I'd painted something to match someone's
couch... I suppose if my income were lower, I might have a different
opinion: Poverty seems to have the ability to moderate one's stances
somewhat :-)
>
>To really understand this, one must trace the history of the ideas of
>the market and of economics in general. Aristotle and his explicator to
>the modern West, St. Thomas Aquinas, held that there is a "just price"
>and a "just wage," and that value lies primarily in tangible goods, and
>thus the merchant who makes a living on the profits of reselling goods
>without materially improving them is something of a shyster.
Very few people are involved with anything more than reselling a
commodity. This fact doesn't make them "shysters". Don't forget that
St. Thomas Aquinas lived in a far different time than do we. To use a
philosophical argument put forth by someone living little removed from
a barter system in the current day and time is invalid. Please note:
I say this specifically to the applications of goods and services.
>This kind of economic philosophy is sufficient for an agrarian society.
>but it cannot support an economy based upon trade and industry.
Precisely.
[...] argument which I agreed with deleted
>In many ways this alienation of the artistic world from the
>marketplace, this idea that "commercial" and "artistic" are
>irreconcilably alienated, has been one of the great tragedies of modern
>Western history. It has led us to dismiss many capable people as
>"merely illustrators" or "merely draftsmen"
N.C. Wyeth and Andrew Wyeth also fall into this cagetory. While very
popular, they have often been criticised by critics as "illustrators".
> (remember that JMW Turner
>earned his daily bread for many years by doing architectural
>renderings, while doing his own painting in the time that remained --
>we would lose a lot if we were to dismiss him as a "mere draftsman"),
>and to ignore many valid techniques and tools as suitable only for
>illustration, not fine art (consider how slowly acceptance has come for
>the airbrush, primarily because its first uses were in technical and
>commerical illustration).
Possibly it's a bias on my part, but I hate to see airbrushed
"paintings" -- and hope the acceptance continues to lag.
Leigh Kimmel
In article <34e74c9...@news.mindspring.com>
nobody@localhost (D F Russell) writes:
>
> Very few people are involved with anything more than reselling a
> commodity. This fact doesn't make them "shysters". Don't forget that
> St. Thomas Aquinas lived in a far different time than do we. To use a
> philosophical argument put forth by someone living little removed from
> a barter system in the current day and time is invalid. Please note:
> I say this specifically to the applications of goods and services.
True, but the attitudes and underlying philosophies tend to linger long
after the main part of the philosophy is gone. Arthur Lovejoy did an
interesting "biography of an idea" that showed this phenomenon of how
the idea of the Great Chain of Being has lingered long after its origin
was gone.
In fact, I really can't do justice to the intellectual history of the
role of the artist in society in a few hundred lines. It really
deserves a full scholarly monograph, delving into the view the earliest
societies had of their artists and tracing it steadily to the present,
showing how previous, even outdated, modes of thought continue to
affect a present that is based upon a totally different social and
economic structure.
Oh, for the time to do the necessary research to write it up properly!
Re. airbrushes, I've seen some really fine work done by such artists as
Erin McKee. However this is in sf/fantasy art, and in these works the
power comes from the cognitive dissonance of an extremely realistic
representation of things that cannot exist in the world we know. My
personal favorite, which appeared at the art show of Archon 20, was of
a near collision between an SR-71 and a dragon, so beautifully rendered
that it looked like a photograph, except that you intellectually know
it can't be a photograph because dragons are fantasy creatures. (I
wanted it, but alas I couldn't afford it even by the most brutal of
economies in other parts of my budget).
D F Russell
kim...@siu.edu (Leigh Kimmel) wrote:
>In article <34e74c9...@news.mindspring.com>
>nobody@localhost (D F Russell) writes:
>
>>
>> Very few people are involved with anything more than reselling a
>> commodity. This fact doesn't make them "shysters". Don't forget that
>> St. Thomas Aquinas lived in a far different time than do we. To use a
>> philosophical argument put forth by someone living little removed from
>> a barter system in the current day and time is invalid. Please note:
>> I say this specifically to the applications of goods and services.
>
>True, but the attitudes and underlying philosophies tend to linger long
>after the main part of the philosophy is gone. Arthur Lovejoy did an
>interesting "biography of an idea" that showed this phenomenon of how
>the idea of the Great Chain of Being has lingered long after its origin
>was gone.
In this case, it's gone. At least from anyone who has a job. This
mentality tends to pop up in the "artistic" underclass and in Marxism
etc. The basic problem with it is that it's based on flawed logic:
re-sellers do not add value. Making a product available to someone
who otherwise wouldn't have it is adding value.
>
>In fact, I really can't do justice to the intellectual history of the
>role of the artist in society in a few hundred lines.
If you have a very broad definition of "artist" I'd agree. However if
you mean "fine artists," such as painters , they've actually
contributed far less than groups (e.g., engineers).
> It really
>deserves a full scholarly monograph, delving into the view the earliest
>societies had of their artists and tracing it steadily to the present,
Since there is no actual record of what "the earliest societies had of
their artists", it would be difficult to trace.
There is some evidence that early societies used cave paintings etc.
as part of hunting rituals -- but that had little to do with art for
art's sake. Artisans such as jewelers, sword-makers, weavers have
traditionally been held in esteem.
Possibly I have a different concept of "early" than you do...
>showing how previous, even outdated, modes of thought continue to
>affect a present that is based upon a totally different social and
>economic structure.
Very rarely do they continue without cause. Economics has nasty
tendency to eliminate many false assumptions/outdated practices
(e.g., socialism).
>Re. airbrushes, I've seen some really fine work done by such artists as
>Erin McKee. However this is in sf/fantasy art, and in these works the
>power comes from the cognitive dissonance of an extremely realistic
>representation of things that cannot exist in the world we know. My
>personal favorite, which appeared at the art show of Archon 20, was of
>a near collision between an SR-71 and a dragon, so beautifully rendered
>that it looked like a photograph, except that you intellectually know
>it can't be a photograph because dragons are fantasy creatures.
Are they? :>)
mdeli
On 15 Feb 1998 18:47:21 GMT, kim...@siu.edu (Leigh Kimmel) wrote:
>I may be wading into a minefield on this, but I'm going to give it a
>try.
>Snip
> However, the person who presents his or her work as the master's
>original work and thus gains the money that the true work would have
>commanded, deceives the buyer and the viewer and thus commits fraud.
>
However the person who admires a forger who fools a lot of idiot
experts has not committed a crime.
As a student I did drawings that looked antique. These went to
dealers who sold them as-is to people who thought they came across a
masterpiece at a bargain price. Italy makes an industry of this
practice. My view of forgery of this sort, in general is, buyer
beware. (my favorite book on the subject is by Eric Hebborn "Drawn to
trouble." It shows what I always believed namely, what counts is
quality not who did it.
If the Ghent altarpiece turned out to be a forgery it wouldn't be any
less a masterpiece.
Snip
>Even as artists, as well as society in general, were adjusting to the
>shift to the market-based society, there came the development of the
>technology for the mass reproduction, and thus mass marketing, of art
>prints. At first these were monochrome engravings, but as the
>technology improved, it became possible to produce full-color art
>prints at an astonishing level of fidelity to the original, so that
>even the ordinary folk could have attractive prints of fine art in
>their homes. Also, printing technologies led to the development of the
>illustrated magazine, and thus to a market for artists to provide these
>illustrations.
>
>However, to make a living at this, one had to produce things that
>people wanted to buy in sufficient quantity to make the reproduction
>worthwhile. Often these things were not the sort of subjects that the
>traditional aristocracy and clergy had preferred, but more akin to the
>plebian subjects of folk art. This led to the feeling that an artist
>who turned to subjects that sold was "stooping" to the least common
>denominator. The reviling of illustrators as being less than "true"
>artists comes from this same root.
Good point but only partially true. Part of this occurred because of
the evolution of fashion.
>
>In many ways this alienation of the artistic world from the
>marketplace, this idea that "commercial" and "artistic" are
>irreconcilably alienated, has been one of the great tragedies of modern
>Western history. It has led us to dismiss many capable people as
>"merely illustrators" or "merely draftsmen" (remember that JMW Turner
>earned his daily bread for many years by doing architectural
>renderings, while doing his own painting in the time that remained --
>we would lose a lot if we were to dismiss him as a "mere draftsman"),
>and to ignore many valid techniques and tools as suitable only for
>illustration, not fine art (consider how slowly acceptance has come for
>the airbrush, primarily because its first uses were in technical and
>commerical illustration).
Good Points.
The main reason illustration is not considered fine art is that it is
banned from museums becausethey can't risk hanging this near their
coveted Modern Academic Art. After all, people might then take the
liberty to compare. Imagine a Rockwell hanging next to a Hockney or a
Twombely.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
J. J. Novotny
mdeli wrote: (most snipped)
> The main reason illustration is not considered fine art is that it is
> banned from museums becausethey can't risk hanging this near their
> coveted Modern Academic Art. After all, people might then take the
> liberty to compare. Imagine a Rockwell hanging next to a Hockney or a
> Twombely.
>
Personally, I think it would be neat to see Rockwell hanging next to
Hockney -- I like both of those artists! It would serve as an
interesting commentary about the different stages that American culture
has come through in the last century (assuming you chose one of
Hockney's more "Californian" works), and of the great variety
demonstrated in Western art. People need to see more of that, I think.
Best;
J. J.
lauri.levanto
A couple of thoughts in this thread caught attention:
Mani De Li>
> As a student I did drawings that looked antique. These went to
> dealers who sold them as-is to people who thought they came across a
> masterpiece at a bargain price.
> .....
> If the Ghent altarpiece turned out to be a forgery it wouldn't be any
> less a masterpiece.
Dear Mani:
If sold as-is: An unknown piece of of an
unknown painter. If someone likes it, it is OK to buy.
But if you just left the burden of betrayal to the dealer,
you were no more honest.
If I sell my neighbourghs car, it is a criminal act
by law and by common sense.
If I sell a self-made Matisse, it is much the same,
I tamper for profit with something that is not mine.
About the Ghent altarpiece:
I admire the Altamira paintings, without knowing the name of artist,
they may be copies, even forgery :-)
But in your student years Mani, did you make but superficial
look-a-like.
Bryan Ayers>
> It is at least important to question the presumption of genius based
> on quthorship. It is even more important to question genius based solely on
> fame, or money.
* * *
Before reading, I have had the following question in mind:
"What is the value of the original"
On my wall I have two prints.
One is a low-price offset copy of a Munch's litography.
Black and white, very true to the original.
The other is a poster of Raoul Dufy.
Offset print, no doubt. But it is an original
exhibition poster, sold by a gallery with a reasonable price.
I also have one original sheet of graphics.
How are they different?
"Die schwartze Schulpfreden" of Dufy was a draft
for a gobeline. I do not know if the gobeline was ever wowen.
The real original then, was not made by the artist, if made at all.
He painted his idea, A printing house mass-reproduced it.
This is still an original (unsigned) Dufy poster, right?
Why should a handwritten Dufy signature make a difference anyway.
An autograph on the cover does not make a novel any better reading.
Of these three, the "Damen med brosh" of Munch
is for me the most impressive, (tell me Munch coudn't draw :-)
Dufy I like.
The original Piece of Art, the graphic sheet,
I just inherited from my mother.
The value for me is just the opposite to the price.
I do understand that the commercial value has some base.
Signed originals - there are people who pay for rarities.
Fame of the artist - it is a kind of guarantee for investment,
often bought as an investment, to be kept in a vault.
Apraisal of critics - you get a novelty, discussion item,
like a cell-phone or Rubik's cube. You know the risk, the novelty
wears off.
I know several musicians, who are not ashamed of listening records.
Secondhand reproductions, maybe so postprocessed that
the complete piece has never been played through by the artist.
Is there an original somewhere.
* * *
Besides personal appreciation, there seems to be
some kind of consensus in art history
about which names to praise in books.
The beauty is not only in my eyes.
* * *
I think we have inherited from romanticism
too high appreciation of individualism, personality cult.
This closing century, with photography and massive visual noise
has leaded the art world to look too much for novelties
as if anything that is original were good.
All this boils down to two questions
1 Is it only vanity that makes *me* pay more
for a Dufy original than Munch reproduction?
(Museums and galleries have it different)
2 Is it only commercial pressure for publicity
that forces so many artists
to sincerely produde bizarre oddities
(and "drawings that looked antique?" :-)
Lauri Levanto
mdeli
>A couple of thoughts in this thread caught attention:
>
>Mani De Li>
>> As a student I did drawings that looked antique. These went to
>> dealers who sold them as-is to people who thought they came across a
>> masterpiece at a bargain price.
>> .....
>> If the Ghent altarpiece turned out to be a forgery it wouldn't be any
>> less a masterpiece.
>
Interesting message follows:
>Dear Mani:
>If sold as-is: An unknown piece of of an
>unknown painter. If someone likes it, it is OK to buy.
>But if you just left the burden of betrayal to the dealer,
>you were no more honest.
There was no Betrayal. The dealer hung the picture and sold it. He
made no claims. That was the extent of it as far as I know. If you
attend art auctions you will see this sort of stuff constantly. I
recall a friend who bought a painting sold as a "school of Guardi" He
thought it might be real. It was an obvious imitation.
As I have said, I admire quality. I am not saying what others should
admire. Although I have never engaged in forgery I do admire the
genuine forger who deceives. You may consider this an immoral crime
etc. I consider something closer to the deception practiced by a
magician.
If lots of forgers can do what passes for a Matisse or Picasso and it
passes the experts I think it says something about the originals. When
VM passes a Vermeer it also says something about the artists. The best
artists aren't often forged because they are hard to imitate. That is
why with rare exceptions, forgers prey on the worst artists and why
the field is wide open for Modern Academic Art forgers and imitators.
I doubt there are any good Vermeer forgeries in collections, I can't
say the same for Picasso.
>If I sell my neighbourghs car, it is a criminal act
>by law and by common sense.
>If I sell a self-made Matisse, it is much the same,
It is a criminal act in the eyes of the law. It also says something
about the artists who produced the original if the market is rampant
with forgeries and the experts (who are sometimes in on the game).
There is no law against admiring the forger in this case is there?
>I tamper for profit with something that is not mine.
A forgery which is an imitation is the work of the forger not the
artist. It is original in everything except the signature, (if its
signed). That is how it is different from stealing you neighbors car.
>
>About the Ghent altarpiece:
>I admire the Altamira paintings, without knowing the name of artist,
>they may be copies, even forgery :-)
>But in your student years Mani, did you make but superficial
>look-a-like.
I made copies and look alikes.
>Bryan Ayers>
>> It is at least important to question the presumption of genius based
>> on quthorship. It is even more important to question genius based solely on
>> fame, or money.
>* * *
>Before reading, I have had the following question in mind:
>"What is the value of the original"
I'll give you an answer which art critics haven't.
A work of art is in its most primitive sense is a piece of
information. Any copy, good, bad, even the finest facsimile is
ultimately due to the originator of that information. In other words a
reproduction of a Norman Rockwell or a Picasso is due to the
originator of that information. Mind you this says nothing about
quality.
>On my wall I have two prints.
>One is a low-price offset copy of a Munch's litography.
>Black and white, very true to the original.
>The other is a poster of Raoul Dufy.
>Offset print, no doubt. But it is an original
>exhibition poster, sold by a gallery with a reasonable price.
>I also have one original sheet of graphics.
>
>How are they different?
One is an original the other a copy of an original.
>
>"Die schwartze Schulpfreden" of Dufy was a draft
>for a gobeline. I do not know if the gobeline was ever wowen.
>The real original then, was not made by the artist, if made at all.
>He painted his idea, A printing house mass-reproduced it.
>This is still an original (unsigned) Dufy poster, right?
>Why should a handwritten Dufy signature make a difference anyway.
It makes a historical difference. One is an original the other a
repro. One important fact is economic. It makes a difference to buyers
as to what they are willing to pay. And It makes a difference in terms
of supply and demand. One item is rare and desired the other is common
and desired that, influences the price. (if people learned this in
art school they wouldn't be so damned naive.)
>An autograph on the cover does not make a novel any better reading.
Right, but it makes a difference to a buyer and a seller.
>Of these three, the "Damen med brosh" of Munch
>is for me the most impressive, (tell me Munch coudn't draw :-)
Munch couldn't draw. You on the other hand like his work and are
willing to pay the price. If lots of people think it is great, as you
do, the price rises. That is why the forger will tend to forge a
Munch instead of your work.
>Dufy I like.
>The original Piece of Art, the graphic sheet,
>I just inherited from my mother.
>
>The value for me is just the opposite to the price.
What you and I admire doesn't necessarily determine a price. That's
reality isn't it. What seems to puzzle you is that reality doesn't
always makes sense. Perhaps that is why I admire forgers.
>Besides personal appreciation, there seems to be
>some kind of consensus in art history
>about which names to praise in books.
>The beauty is not only in my eyes.
A consensus over time is what determines whether something deserves
the label of "great art," It is a public, not an individual decision.
>* * *
>I think we have inherited from romanticism
>too high appreciation of individualism, personality cult.
Yes, that is why art is often judged by signature rather than quality.
This fact gives most forgers their opening.
>This closing century, with photography and massive visual noise
>has leaded the art world to look too much for novelties
>as if anything that is original were good.
>
> All this boils down to two questions
> 1 Is it only vanity that makes *me* pay more
> for a Dufy original than Munch reproduction?
> (Museums and galleries have it different)
I believe that when someone pays a huge sum for something most anyone
can do it may indeed be vanity. However I have known comic book
collectors who will only pay one 20th the price for the same book if
the cover has a slight crease in the upper corner. Sensible? Not in my
opinion. Understandable? Yes, its the law of supply and demand.
> 2 Is it only commercial pressure for publicity
> that forces so many artists
> to sincerely produde bizarre oddities
I don't know I'm not a mind reader.
> (and "drawings that looked antique?" :-)
Forgers act in secret they are interested in money not publicity.
Leigh Kimmel
In article <34e8d193...@news.mindspring.com>
nobody@localhost (D F Russell) writes:
>
> In this case, it's gone. At least from anyone who has a job. This
> mentality tends to pop up in the "artistic" underclass and in Marxism
> etc. The basic problem with it is that it's based on flawed logic:
> re-sellers do not add value. Making a product available to someone
> who otherwise wouldn't have it is adding value.
>
And that's why I want so badly to do a scholarly intellectual history
study of the history of the role of the artist in society -- to see
what factors led to this break, in which part of the artistic community
successfully made the shift to the Smithian paradigm, while another
part not only failed to, but actively rejected it and turned to
attacking the part that did. How did this gulf between the "fine arts"
and "illustrators and graphic designers" happen, and become an ugly set
of trenches in which each side viciously attacks one another.
Unfortunately, when namecalling begins, the possibility for rational
dialog often ends.
And unfortunately, the rejection of the market has led to some
unfortunate attitudes towards the arts in general. I remember how my
mother would regularly make zaps and digs like "artists are unstable,"
and "it's not surprising he died young/went crazy/ etc, considering he
was an artist" in ways that were very pointedly made to make me feel
bad about my own artistic work and ambitions. I don't think she was
deliberately being cruel or sadistic; I think she sincerely believed
that all artists were starving in garrets, drinking abasinthe (sp?) and
dying young and tragic, and she really wanted to save her beloved child
from such an awful fate. I didn't have sufficient knowledge (and in my
tiny hometown, the library didn't have the resources for me to obtain
that knowledge) that not all the arts is the academic art model, that
there are plenty of artists working as illustrators and graphic
designers, etc., living long, healthy lives that are no worse than the
lives of middle managers, etc. Instead I only heard the message that I
should throw away all my drawings and never use a pen to do anything
more than write practical prose, and that everytime I drew a picture or
wrote a story, I was risking my mental health for selfish pleasure.
That's why I spent a good chunk of my time pursuing degrees and jobs I
hated, solely because they met my parents' approval as "good solid
jobs" and only did doodles that weren't meant to be "serious" and
therefore could be considered harmless. Only in the last two or three
years have I finally gotten back to pursuing my artistic ambitions. If
I knew what I know now, and had the necessary courage and self-esteem
(and the realization that "honoring one's father and mother" doesn't
mean slavishly following their every whim), I would've stayed in art
class in high school, prepared a portfolio and applied to the College
of Fine Arts instead of the program I did, taken classes in
illustration and graphic design as well as the more traditional
academic fine arts classes (and hopefully had the courage to ignore
professors who called illustrators and graphic designers "prostitutes"
and similar nasty terms that only show the speaker's own ignorance,
misogyny, etc.) and learned all the possible ways of marketing my work
instead of cramming myself into one tiny cubbyhole of "this is the only
way the market works" and maybe I would actually be somewhere by now.
(Of course that doesn't guarantee success, but no degree program can
guarantee you that you won't come out to find yourself flipping burgers
at MickyD's. I've known people who went through eminently practical
business degrees and then got only rejections when the job interviews
came up, and wound up having to look for "a job, any job, something to
bring in honest money and stay off welfare." There are no guarantees,
only possibilities.)
> >
> >In fact, I really can't do justice to the intellectual history of the
> >role of the artist in society in a few hundred lines.
>
> If you have a very broad definition of "artist" I'd agree. However if
> you mean "fine artists," such as painters , they've actually
> contributed far less than groups (e.g., engineers).
>
I'm starting with the broadest possible definition of "artist," and
looking at how the modern understanding of "fine artist" broke off from
that broader definition, and then became alienated from the remainder
of artists.
Part of it seems to be a desire to perpetuate the old
peasantry/aristocracy distinction (the "coarse" peasantry had their
folk art, while the "refined" aristocracy had their fine art) long
after industrialization and democratization has made the distinction
obsolete, by deliberately creating inaccessable works that only a few
can appreciate. Sometimes I wonder if there's an "Emperor's New
Clothes" effect, in which people pretend to appreciate incomprehensible
"art" in order to avoid being regarded as hoi polloi.
> > It really
> >deserves a full scholarly monograph, delving into the view the earliest
> >societies had of their artists and tracing it steadily to the present,
>
> Since there is no actual record of what "the earliest societies had of
> their artists", it would be difficult to trace.
>
> There is some evidence that early societies used cave paintings etc.
> as part of hunting rituals -- but that had little to do with art for
> art's sake. Artisans such as jewelers, sword-makers, weavers have
> traditionally been held in esteem.
>
> Possibly I have a different concept of "early" than you do...
>
I am a historian, so I tend to think of "early" as beginning with the
first civilizations to have writing. An anthropologist would have a
different understanding of "early." However, if I ever do get to write
this scholarly work, I may devote a brief chapter to what archaeology
and anthropology tells us about the role of the artist (interpreted
broadly, which sort of includes artisians and craftspeople as well) in
preliterate societies, and then move on to the Sumerians and subsequent
historical civilizations.
il...@hotmail.com
Leigh,
I am sort of on the run right now, but I hope to respond later at more
length. For now I have just a couple of questions about the following
from your post. I don't mean to lift them so much out of context, but
they are actually things that have come up in earlier posts of yours as
well.
Leigh Kimmel wrote:
snip
>How did this gulf between the "fine arts"
> and "illustrators and graphic designers" happen, and become an ugly set
> of trenches in which each side viciously attacks one another.
> Unfortunately, when namecalling begins, the possibility for rational
> dialog often ends.
>
snip
>I would've stayed in art
> class in high school, prepared a portfolio and applied to the College
> of Fine Arts instead of the program I did, taken classes in
> illustration and graphic design as well as the more traditional
> academic fine arts classes (and hopefully had the courage to ignore
> professors who called illustrators and graphic designers "prostitutes"
> and similar nasty terms that only show the speaker's own ignorance,
> misogyny, etc.)
What I am curious about is the fact that, at least in all my various
associations with artists and graphic designers, and in all the academic
programs I have attended or taught in, I have never experienced the
extreme virilence, name-calling, or disrespect you seem to suggest
exists between the "fine arts" and graphic design or illustration.
Can you elaborate where you are finding this. Do you think it exists
between the practising individuals themselves of the different
disciplines, or are you refering to something more along the lines of
what is written by critics, etc. I am genuinely puzzled as I have just
truly never felt this supposed animosity --at least from the group I
know best, which are painters. In this and another post you have
brought up the image of "professors who called illustrators and graphic
designers "prostitutes"and similar nasty terms that only show the
speaker's own ignorance, misogyny, etc.". I can only approach this as
an aberration, as I have never, ever heard a professor be so hateful,
spiteful, or even critical of those in other fields. Again, where are
you sensing this? At least it would help me to understand better where
you are coming from on this, as I have often sensed a real and honest
anger and frustration on your part with those of us who are painters,
sculptors, printmakers, etc.
Isaac
il...@hotmail.com
Kerry Eady
(il...@hotmail.com) writes:
> What I am curious about is the fact that, at least in all my various
> associations with artists and graphic designers, and in all the academic
> programs I have attended or taught in, I have never experienced the
> extreme virilence, name-calling, or disrespect you seem to suggest
> exists between the "fine arts" and graphic design or illustration.
> Can you elaborate where you are finding this. Do you think it exists
...
> anger and frustration on your part with those of us who are painters,
> sculptors, printmakers, etc.
I went to the Ontario College of Art between 1989-1993. There was a
definitive gulf between the art stream and the design stream. It was a
little bizarre actually, we had TWO drawing/painting programs at that
time, Fine Arts and Experimental Arts and they were on seperate CAMPUSES,
Experimental Arts shared a building on College Street with Foundation
Studies, The New Media Program, Holography, and part of the
Sculpture/Installation program. The McCaul Street Campus had Fine Arts,
Photovision, Communications and Design, Applied Art and Design,
Environmental Design, Industrial Design and the Printmaking departments,
as well as the woodshop, Foundery, etc.
I experienced that vitriol a number of times, in Foundation Year we all
took 2-D design, in the 1st sememster you had to take it with the
instructor assigned, in 2nd term you could transfer to another
instructor. My 1st semester instructor made derisive comments about the
art programs in EVERY class. He was a complete jerk.
One of our exhibition spaces was an atrium in the McCaul building, and it
housed short term exhibitions, dramatic stuff, readings, and performances
after hours and during the lunch break. The design program students would
throw things down on people during performances constantly.
AND I remember a group of Foundation (Art) instructors trying to
pressure one woman in my class NOT to go into the environmental design
program, trying desperately to get her to go into sculpture installation.
They were really going over the line, and they expected support from the
Art stream students in how they approached her.
I *know* that some of the vitriol is sour grapes, designers who now see
art as as a pastime - because they've become management...or well
established artists who still need to teach part time because they can't
support a family well on a painters' annual income, but those are the
people who instill it in students and they get to them because students
see the same fork in the road too, and the way most art school programs are
set up they discourage cross pollination between disciplines.
I still see this in the dinky little art school I do an open figure
workshop at. I don't do figurative work (it's that conceptual
installation work so many of you hate) but drawing the figure is like mind
candy for me, it's the equivalant of reading comic books and I do
it to relax for 3 hours a week. 1/3 of the people I draw with are
retirees who finally get to make art, 1/3 are design-illustration people,
and 1/3 fit into the "art" stream. The three groups don't really talk
with each other, not at the break, not while we're waiting for the model,
not after our time is up. Three little camps.
I don't see why there should be the divisions, don't "fine" artists
appreciate good design and well done ads, and layouts, and great
furniture, beautiful fabrics? Don't designers appreciate fine art, go to
galleries, hang art on their walls?
kerr
Leigh Kimmel
In article <34EB7A...@hotmail.com>
il...@hotmail.com writes:
> What I am curious about is the fact that, at least in all my various
> associations with artists and graphic designers, and in all the academic
> programs I have attended or taught in, I have never experienced the
> extreme virilence, name-calling, or disrespect you seem to suggest
> exists between the "fine arts" and graphic design or illustration.
> Can you elaborate where you are finding this.
Now that I think about it, it was very rarely said straight out. IOW,
you'd almost never hear someone sit down and tell students, "now you
mustn't ever create for the market, for that would be prostituting
yourself," or the like.
Rather, it was done with presupposition, often through comments judging
a specific person, or implying that his/her misfortunes came from
having "prostituted" his/her abilities to the market.
Presupposition is very hard to fight, because it often goes
unrecognized, and if it is, trying to point it out often meets with
adamant denial. I can't count the times that I tried to call someone on
their presuppositions, only to be told that I was imagining things.
Brother Alphabet
A criteria that seems to be readily and frequently ignored on the
part of most people who examine any form of artwork is the intent of the
artist in creating the work.
Whether an object is graphic/commercial in nature or 'fine'
nature is not really the point. A fine work can be intended as commercial
work. An artist can create paintings specifically to be sold in galleries.
A graphic artist can produce work intended to be displayed in a frame on a
wall.
The first instance is known as "illustration". The second is
called (by me) 'selling-out' or basically 'tailoring one's work to suit a
market' which is (to me) artistically invalid. I often use graphic
elements in my paintings...Collage materials appropriated from ads in
magazines, text, etc. I also often create purely graphic 'objects' which I
regard as not so much 'commercial art' as 'non-objective design'. It
wouldn't function in a commercial-art capacity, yet it is constructed of
the same elements, text arranged in a space...
In this discussion, there are some forms of 'commercial' art that
ARE 'fine' in quality (and which SHOULD be ideally). There are also those
elements that are NOT of a fine quality. One of the easiest, cheesiest,
sleaziest design jobs to get is the newspaper layout job. While graphic in
nature I'd hardly expect anyone to honor "Lose weight now with FoopyTrim"
ads by giving them the status of fine art. Conversely, I would expect
commercial illustration, photography, package design and other branches of
the field to be examined on a higher level than JUST functionality. There
is certainly plenty of ROOM for better, more conscientious design out
there when taking into consideration how much BAD design there is in the
world.
Also, much of the graphic design of the past is now considered on
a fine art level: Tolouse Lautrec's posters, M.C.Escher's prints, Norman
Rockwell's Saturday Evening Post covers, Picasso's book illustrations,
N.C. Wyeth's book jackets, H.R. Geiger's aliens, and of course, Dadaist
and Surrealist magazines. Then, there is the photographic field: Stills,
film and video...Photography probably has the easiest time coexisting
under both graphic and fine categories next to computer art. (Ah, computer
art, the next, and current, big hybrid...Animation, Multimedia, plus
hard-copy output...) Don't forget almost every form of printmaking outside
monotype has been or is currently, used in commercial media.
The point to look at is not the media or form but the intent of
the artist.
In regard to the perception of Graphic Design vs. Fine Art as
opposite inequals, I think there is a friendly and humorous
(good-spirited) rivalry in the educational system, or at least there was
where I went to school.
We would joke about the Graphic Designers not comprehending
certain visual concepts or art theories...We also had the same fun with
3-D majors...The sculpture guys would make fun of the painters' inability
to see in more than 2 dimensions, and we would retort with remarks about
how it's harder to compose the illusion of 3d than it is to make 3d
objects...And there was the same false rivalry between 'fine' artists and
the loathesome photo majors...But this was all in fun and not meant to be
actually believed in. (Only occasionally did the mal-informed 'purist'
arguments arise) A good graphic designer will not be good without
compositional skills, color sense, and all the other skill-related
elements that apply to any other artform...The same basic principles apply
to making ANYthing visually successful.
Hutto
-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-
"I paint what I think, not what I see..." - Pablo Picasso
"You're not the boss of me!..." - J. A. Hutto (Pre age 3)
http://www2.msstate.edu/~jah10 + ja...@ra.msstate.edu
mdeli
On 19 Feb 1998 02:22:12 GMT, aj...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Kerry Eady)
wrote:
> 1/3 of the people I draw with are
>retirees who finally get to make art, 1/3 are design-illustration people,
>and 1/3 fit into the "art" stream. The three groups don't really talk
>with each other, not at the break, not while we're waiting for the model,
>not after our time is up. Three little camps.
>
>I don't see why there should be the divisions, don't "fine" artists
>appreciate good design and well done ads, and layouts, and great
>furniture, beautiful fabrics? Don't designers appreciate fine art, go to
>galleries, hang art on their walls?
So called fine artists are snobs in this respect. Usually their
paintings are inferior to good design and illustration. They
rationalize this by denying that it is art, claiming its just
commercial kitsch.
Test my idea. Tell them you are a plumber interested in buying their
paintings and they will come out of their clam shell in a snap. Then
tell them you don't like the illustrators and get them talking about
it. You will probably hear the usual.
Abstract schmierers don't like fine fabrics because it shows them up
and fine classical furniture is in their eyes pure kitsch.
Vince Rhea
Brother Alphabet wrote:
snipped
> ...We also had the same fun with
> 3-D majors...The sculpture guys would make fun of the painters' inability
> to see in more than 2 dimensions, and we would retort with remarks about
> how it's harder to compose the illusion of 3d than it is to make 3d
> objects..
I can relate to this even though I've had no formal art training--I can
sculpt (learning) but can't draw or paint. When many people have seen my
sculpting, they can not believe it when I say I did not have any drawings to
go by and I just start sculpting. And then if I tell them I never learned to
draw, they think I'm fibbing. So for me, I'm sure sculpting is easier. I work
in clay and know that if I worked in stone or wood, I would have to learn to
draw very well first. Just since I started reading this nsg two weeks ago, I
have attempted drawing. I've learned a lot from you all (even with all the
discussions that I find difficult to relate to at times). I'm also like the
person who wrote saying that he wished he had pursued his desire to study
art. I'm lucky in that I see (really see) differences in art although it may
not be fine art and I've always gone to museums and art galleries.One last
question---are males the only humans who love to get so involved in such deep
discussions on art? Rarely see females postings on the heated discussions.
As a female, I feel like I understand why, and at times when reading postings,
I wish a woman would step forward (similar to how I feel right now about
wishing a woman would come forward and want the job as the President.) OTH,
maybe women don't see importance in some of this discussion, are more willing
to let someone else figure things out, just don't want to bothered, or maybe
they think they know the answers, but don't want to share, or any other number
of reasons. I've noticed a similar pattern in some other nsgs. So all you
female artists, have I just not been around long enough to have found you or
are you so busy making your art, there's no time left? Wondering....
Jeanne
Kerry Eady
mdeli (hug...@interlog.com) writes:
> On 19 Feb 1998 02:22:12 GMT, aj...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Kerry Eady)
> wrote:
>>I don't see why there should be the divisions, don't "fine" artists
>>appreciate good design and well done ads, and layouts, and great
>>furniture, beautiful fabrics? Don't designers appreciate fine art, go to
>>galleries, hang art on their walls?
>
> So called fine artists are snobs in this respect. Usually their
> paintings are inferior to good design and illustration. They
> rationalize this by denying that it is art, claiming its just
> commercial kitsch.
I hate to point this out, but I'm one of those "fine" artists, and I
*love* good design work, good contemporary craft, architecture, etc. Now
I might be lucky in that throughout school I worked for the Ontario Crafts
Council and the provincial government's culture and communications
ministry, and I was exposed to a really wide variety of artists and designers.
The curators I respect the most are well rounded individuals too -
Like Alan Elder who curated for the Craft gallery before moving on to
the Power Plant Gallery. Very exacting standards for both design
and "fine" art.
To say that the division between the "design" arts and "fine" arts is the
fault of hack fine artists is ridiculous. I know just as many bad
designers as I do bad painters, and bad sculptors. I can't do animation
but I don't claim that animators aren't good artists because my skills are
in another area.
> Abstract schmierers don't like fine fabrics because it shows them up
> and fine classical furniture is in their eyes pure kitsch.
Why is it that you always draw comparisions between non representational
art and "classical" arts? You know, when I studied art history we looked
at art, music, architecture, theatre, literature, sometimes fashion from
the same period to draw comparisions and find movements, we didn't compare
rennaissance painting with Frank Lloyd Wright's architectural work.
Throughout history designers and artists have drawn inspiration from each
other and the movements they help create. In the past century a gulf between
the two has formed and it has nothing to do with abstract artists - a
few of the members of the group of seven weren't respected because they
came onto the painting scene from a background in illustration.
The gulf between the two has nothing to do with skill sets.
Kerr
Leigh Kimmel
In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.98022...@Ra.MsState.Edu>
Brother Alphabet <ja...@isis.msstate.edu> writes:
> In this discussion, there are some forms of 'commercial' art that
> ARE 'fine' in quality (and which SHOULD be ideally). There are also those
> elements that are NOT of a fine quality. One of the easiest, cheesiest,
> sleaziest design jobs to get is the newspaper layout job. While graphic in
> nature I'd hardly expect anyone to honor "Lose weight now with FoopyTrim"
> ads by giving them the status of fine art. Conversely, I would expect
> commercial illustration, photography, package design and other branches of
> the field to be examined on a higher level than JUST functionality. There
> is certainly plenty of ROOM for better, more conscientious design out
> there when taking into consideration how much BAD design there is in the
> world.
I do not disagree for a moment that a lot of graphic design work,
particularly in advertizing, is not of a fine art caliber. What I do
take objection to is seeing it treated as though it were an
illegitimate way of earning a living in order to have the money that
pays the bills while you're trying to get your fine-art work to a level
that you can make a living through it. IOW, I don't like to see an
honest occupation treated as something on the moral level of robbing
banks or running pyramid schemes.
To give an analogy, McDonald's is not of the same caliber as a
five-star gourmet restaurant, but there's nothing inherantly morally
wrong about running a McDonald's, or working at one, or eating at one,
so long as it's not being misrepresented as something other than the
fast food it is. An aspiring chef should not be lambasted for
"prostituting" his/her abilities by working at McDonald's in order to
put him/herself through chef's school, or to keep honest money coming
in while looking for work at a gourmet restaurant.
mdeli
On 21 Feb 1998 04:27:15 GMT, aj...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Kerry Eady)
wrote:
You are quite correct here. I should have said, " MANY so called fine
artists are snobs in this respect." Etc..
>> Abstract schmierers don't like fine fabrics because it shows them up
>> and fine classical furniture is in their eyes pure kitsch.
>
>Why is it that you always draw comparisions between non representational
>art and "classical" arts?
I usually don't. I find that modern abstract art compares best to any
sort of design because it doesn't reach beyond that level and is
usually not even up it. It also fails to reach the level of the
abstract art of the past, by comparison.
>You know, when I studied art history we looked
>at art, music, architecture, theatre, literature, sometimes fashion from
>the same period to draw comparisions and find movements, we didn't compare
>rennaissance painting with Frank Lloyd Wright's architectural work.
Did you compare classical architecture with the Gothic and note the
differences etc.. Of course you did.
All art can be compared depending on categories.
>Throughout history designers and artists have drawn inspiration from each
>other and the movements they help create.
...and always the art of the past.
> In the past century a gulf between
>the two has formed and it has nothing to do with abstract artists - a
>few of the members of the group of seven weren't respected because they
>came onto the painting scene from a background in illustration.
>>The gulf between the two has nothing to do with skill sets.
It has everything to do with skill. The gulf between Modern Academic
Art and the past and the art of the present which museum curators
would have you imagine doesn't exist, is a matter of incompetence vs.
competence.
Mani DeLI
...no skill no art
mdeli
Chapter, "Dali" from, Modern Art, a Skeptical View
Dali, unlike other famous artists, lets everybody know that his art is
only a means to attain what he is really interested in, money. This
was perhaps Dali's worst offense against the Greenbergian moral code.
Dali said of money that he aims "to become to the greatest possible
extent a bit of a multimillionaire." He also said that "the simplest
way of refusing any concession to gold is to have some." And of the
MAA critic's money moralizing, he said, "The pure critics who have
consistently despised money and been afraid to dirty their hands by
touching it may rest assured: the abstract values that they defend in
modern paintings will inevitably be converted into absolutely clean,
wholly inoffensive and immaterial money. It will be purely abstract
money."
And of commercial activity, "It's been going on since the Renaissance.
Leonardo da Vinci did gardening. He also designed the garters for the
pope's Swiss guard. He designed a whole mass of everyday objects. My
friends were up in arms when I began designing ties and wallpaper
twenty-five years ago. They said: Dali is prostituting himself by
designing neckties.
I think they were simply jealous because they had not received the
offers. Ten years later, Miro, Picasso and associates began designing
upholstery patterns, tablecloths, plates, and hundreds of other less
noble objects."
Dali's anti-MAA campaign has managed to divide the critics into two
schools. One school makes believe he doesn't exist by never mentioning
him. This is best exemplified by innumerable books on art history
especially when the subject is the history of Surrealism, which make
little or no reference to Dali. The other school heaps scorn on Dali
at every opportunity. An Art News article some years ago voted Dali
in the ranks among the worst painters of the twentieth century.
(and lots more)
Kerry Eady
mdeli (hug...@interlog.com) writes:
> On 21 Feb 1998 04:27:15 GMT, aj...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Kerry Eady)
> wrote:
>>To say that the division between the "design" arts and "fine" arts is the
>>fault of hack fine artists is ridiculous. I know just as many bad
>>designers as I do bad painters, and bad sculptors. I can't do animation
>>but I don't claim that animators aren't good artists because my skills are
>>in another area.
>>
> You are quite correct here. I should have said, " MANY so called fine
> artists are snobs in this respect." Etc..
What about the designers who are snobs in this respect, as I said there
are as many bad designers out there as there are bad fine artists. There
are as many good designers that malign painters as there are good painters
that malign commercial designer. It has more to do with the attitudes in
the schools than skill sets.
>>You know, when I studied art history we looked
>>at art, music, architecture, theatre, literature, sometimes fashion from
>>the same period to draw comparisions and find movements, we didn't compare
>>rennaissance painting with Frank Lloyd Wright's architectural work.
>
> Did you compare classical architecture with the Gothic and note the
> differences etc.. Of course you did.
> All art can be compared depending on categories.
Looking at architecture and furniture design throughout the ages, or the
history of painting is not the same thing as what you do (in comparing a
contemporary abstract painting, the school of thought wasn't defined, and
classical furniture design) trying to draw comparisons between lets say -
the Bayeux Tapestry and the work of Le Corbusier is useless there's no
linear history that connects them.
>>Throughout history designers and artists have drawn inspiration from each
>>other and the movements they help create.
>
> ...and always the art of the past.
I thought you dismissed post modernism as academic bullshit?
>> In the past century a gulf between
>>the two has formed and it has nothing to do with abstract artists - a
>>few of the members of the group of seven weren't respected because they
>>came onto the painting scene from a background in illustration.
>>The gulf between the two has nothing to do with skill sets.
>
> It has everything to do with skill. The gulf between Modern Academic
> Art and the past and the art of the present which museum curators
> would have you imagine doesn't exist, is a matter of incompetence vs.
> competence.
What does this have to do with the gulf between "fine" artists and
"design" artists? You're like a broken record here.
kerr
Erik Johnson
On Sun, 22 Feb 1998 02:20:18 GMT, hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>
>Chapter, "Dali" from, Modern Art, a Skeptical View
>
>snip<
Thanks for the $urreal post.
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Erik Johnson erik@ phidias.colorado.edu
http://phidias.colorado.edu/ejvgallery
http://phidias.colorado.edu/phidias
mike doyle
Brother Alphabet wrote:
One of the easiest, cheesiest,
> sleaziest design jobs to get is the newspaper layout job.
I've done comercial layout before
I didn't find it easy...cheesy or sleazy.
> A good graphic designer will not be good without
> compositional skills, color sense, and all the other skill-related
> elements that apply to any other artform...The same basic principles >apply
> to making ANYthing visually successful.
agreed...
in comercial art...you must say the same thing..."buy this widget"
that everyone else is saying...and get noticed...(and get the
phone # right)...while in fine art all you have to do is get noticed.
once you get noticed...people will either buy or not...
but first you gotta' get it out there.
Now stop talking, all you fine artists...and get it out there!
been up since 4 chipping on some plaster...trying to get
the line of a woman's hip...I believe if you get the line
right...everything else falls into place...
later
m