Art and skill
mdeli
others can't do and thus creating something that people want.
In the arts there are the learned skills namely those of which the
basics can be taught in a rote sense like drawing, color, painting
technique etc. These are essential fundamental skills. It is these
skills which one should expect to acquire in school. It is these to
which I refer to when I say, "no skill no art."
After practicing and mastering fundamental skills one combines this
foundation with ones talents and perseverance and attempts to create
what is regarded by others as artwork. This results in an ability to
create something people want and sometimes to creating something a
great number of people treasure for a long time (great art.)
I offer a musical analogy. Anyone can be taught the scales and if they
persevere they can learn to play the piano fairly well. All must learn
a degree of rote. Few become great pianists. Few have the mysterious
gift necessary to become great pianists. Yet all great pianists master
technique.
To all those who believe that I advocate nothing more than learned
skills I can only say that they are mistaken. I do advocate that all
art must rest on a foundation of the fundamental skills and that
anything which lacks this foundation and is presently classed as great
art will fail to withstand the test of time.
I maintain that the vast majority of Modern Art which inhabits our
museums does not even possess a modicum of the fundamental skills.
That is why I predict that when the tide of fashion changes Modern Art
will be reassessed
I do not believe that art must return to the realism or the subject
matter of the past. I do not even favor realism over abstraction. I do
not advocate any one style of subject matter as necessarily being
better than another.
However I see no merit whatever in work claiming to be great art which
anyone with even a modicum of skill can imitate and even forge. I see
no merit in a work's claim of being first when it exhibits nothing
more than flat drips, stripes or schmiers. I regard such work in spite
of present day adulation to fall into a category of which should be
called STUPID ART.
And I regard anyone claiming to produce artwork whose product shows
that he lacks fundamental artistic skills (no matter how brilliant at
other things) as a potential failure.
And I regard anyone who doesn't possess fundamental skills and claims
he teaches art as a STUPID ART TEACHER.
If an artist hasn't the skill to do something most others can't do his
only real alternative is Bullshit.
Mani DeLi
Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
Maharat1
The deffinition of art you assert went, in my opinion, out the door in the late
1800's. What you describe as the accusition of skill and repetition of the
skill (such as labor intensive studio work) is craft. I believe it is commonly
accepted artist, or to be an artist, is to posses a certain magic, to have
abilities, insights, perspectives, no ordinary person can have or attain. In
short, art cannot be taught. Tole painting can be taught. Old master
technique can be taught. Representational drawing can be taught, Bronze
casting, whatever, is all craft unless the individual brings the magic to it,
the mystique, which makes it fine art. A computer can produce technically
superior paintings. A computer can run a lathe. A computer, however, cannot
be an artist. I believe the attack on modern artist is unwarranted, espically
since it is not the artist, but the people and the society who wanted them, who
made them masters and made the works of art great. Great works of art have
always been defined by the patrons, never the artist.
Thomas Ziorjen
Maharat1 wrote:
> Dear Craftsperson,
> The deffinition of art you assert went, in my opinion, out the door in the late
> 1800's. [...]
Better get used to it, there's a lot of that around here.
BTW, I agree about Duchamp, he pretty much laid down the
framework for the entire conceptual wing of 20th/21st
century art.
jeff_l...@my-deja.com
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
> Skill in the most general sense is the ability to make or do something
> others can't do and thus creating something that people want.
What if some people want different things to yourself? What if they
don't care about how something is made, and only care for the result?
>
> In the arts there are the learned skills namely those of which the
> basics can be taught in a rote sense like drawing, color, painting
> technique etc. These are essential fundamental skills. It is these
> skills which one should expect to acquire in school. It is these to
> which I refer to when I say, "no skill no art."
Fundamental to what? Why should one expect?
>
> After practicing and mastering fundamental skills one combines this
> foundation with ones talents and perseverance and attempts to create
> what is regarded by others as artwork. This results in an ability to
> create something people want and sometimes to creating something a
> great number of people treasure for a long time (great art.)
What if what others regard as artwork is at variance with your own
regard? What if others want different things to yourself?
>
> I offer a musical analogy. Anyone can be taught the scales and if they
> persevere they can learn to play the piano fairly well. All must learn
> a degree of rote. Few become great pianists. Few have the mysterious
> gift necessary to become great pianists. Yet all great pianists master
> technique.
Keyboard technique is part of what the audience is paying for in a
performance as much as competent and safe wiring is from an
electrician. But wouldn't you expect the way an electrician's handiwork
and skillset to change according to the demands of electrical
technology's continuing change? Wouldn't you expect he/she to adapt to
today's problems? Would you expect them to know about wiring if wiring
was replaced with something completely different?
>
> To all those who believe that I advocate nothing more than learned
> skills I can only say that they are mistaken. I do advocate that all
> art must rest on a foundation of the fundamental skills and that
> anything which lacks this foundation and is presently classed as great
> art will fail to withstand the test of time.
>
> I maintain that the vast majority of Modern Art which inhabits our
> museums does not even possess a modicum of the fundamental skills.
> That is why I predict that when the tide of fashion changes Modern Art
> will be reassessed
>
> I do not believe that art must return to the realism or the subject
> matter of the past. I do not even favor realism over abstraction. I do
> not advocate any one style of subject matter as necessarily being
> better than another.
>
> However I see no merit whatever in work claiming to be great art which
> anyone with even a modicum of skill can imitate and even forge. I see
> no merit in a work's claim of being first when it exhibits nothing
> more than flat drips, stripes or schmiers. I regard such work in spite
> of present day adulation to fall into a category of which should be
> called STUPID ART.
What if the person appreciating and buying a piece of work didn't care
for the said item's copyability (excusing the word invention) and still
wished to make the purchase? I've looked at your site and wonder who
you're trying to protect? And Why? Are you trying to clear the film
from gullible peoples' eyes?
>
> And I regard anyone claiming to produce artwork whose product shows
> that he lacks fundamental artistic skills (no matter how brilliant at
> other things) as a potential failure.
What do you mean by other things?
>
> And I regard anyone who doesn't possess fundamental skills and claims
> he teaches art as a STUPID ART TEACHER.
>
> If an artist hasn't the skill to do something most others can't do his
> only real alternative is Bullshit.
What if the skills the artist has that others don't have do not meet
with your definition of fundamental?
>
> Mani DeLi
>
> Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
> ...no skill no art
> Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
> http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
>
I ask you all these questions because I found your site very passionate
in its beliefs and broad in scope. I would be interested to know what
your thoughts are on the content of my own site:-
http://website.lineone.net/~jeff_lee
Cheers, Jeff.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Sharon Barcone
"Maharat1" <maha...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000830123646...@ng-me1.aol.com...
> Dear Craftsperson,
> The deffinition of art you assert went, in my opinion, out the door in the
late
the
> skill (such as labor intensive studio work) is craft. I believe it is
commonly
> accepted artist, or to be an artist, is to posses a certain magic, to have
> abilities, insights, perspectives, no ordinary person can have or attain.
In
> short, art cannot be taught. Tole painting can be taught. Old master
> technique can be taught. Representational drawing can be taught, Bronze
> casting, whatever, is all craft unless the individual brings the magic to
it,
> the mystique, which makes it fine art.
I believe you are a bit idealist in your assessment. Dali expressed a
similar thought in "50 Secrets of Magic Craftsmanship". His requisite was
that you must have an angel on your shoulder to be a great artist though
his remark was a bit tongue-in-cheek. There is no magic in creating great
art. It is the process of study, determination, hard work and the interplay
of intelligence, thought, imagination and communication that will define the
great artist and great artwork. An ordinary person is capable of reaching
that level if that person is willing to do the work and to put faith in
themselves. One must be willing to put ones own values on the line and not
be put off by others who claim that some special quality that they do not
possess is necessary. Yes, skills can be taught but I believe that one can
also be taught to find their own visions, exercise their own imaginations,
and trust their own values. Dali also had secrets for doing just that.
> A computer can produce technically
> superior paintings. A computer can run a lathe. A computer, however,
cannot
> be an artist. I believe the attack on modern artist is unwarranted,
espically
> since it is not the artist, but the people and the society who wanted them
, who
> made them masters and made the works of art great. Great works of art
have
> always been defined by the patrons, never the artist.
If this is so, why have so many artists over the centuries called great
today made no money in their own time. Their patrons could not see the value
we see in that work today. Popular opinion is fickle, and the general
viewing population is governed by mood, education and the idea of being with
the in group. These are not the elements that define great art. Art must
stand the test of time and be relevant to future generations as well as
current populations. I believe the attack on modern artists is warranted.
There is no illusive magic, unless one is willing to do the homework and
develop one's own ideas and skills and philosophies the masterpiece will
always elude them.
sharon
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Sharon Barcone
"mdeli" <hug...@interlog.com> wrote in message
news:39addd27...@news.psi.ca...
Mani, I appreciate your comments and the premise behind them. However I am
coming to the realization that "Modern Academic Art" and the "artzy-fartzy"
are of a different breed than the true artist as the word is often
considered.
These modern artists know they are artists because it is what they put on
their tax forms under the heading "Occupation". And the schools they attend
teach copyright law, art accounting methods and other aspects of the
business end of art. Rather than teaching fundamental skills they teach how
to make money. The supporting institutions i.e. museums, magazines, critics,
and art promoters of modern art are in it for the same reason.
These artists work from a different premise and must provide a different
basis for their work. They have disengaged from thought, intelligence, and
imagination and instead have turned to the philosophies of life provided by
others. What value can art have when an artist rejects his own philosophies
of life or has none of his own to express. What value can there be when
one's own intelligence and imagination are disconnected from one's hand.
What can we expect when the word spontaneous becomes more important than the
word skill. What can we expect when motive is money. What content can there
be in art that is produced in an effort to obtain a contract or government
grant. To them art is an occupation, to the true artist art is a pursuit and
ambition where the journey is the reward. The true artist bases his judgment
on his own values and trusts his own ideas. What can we expect from an
artist whose goal is to make money and whose reward is a boost to the ego.
Who is John Galt?
William Engell
Are you actually, or by inclination, an objectivist?
Sharon Barcone wrote in message <39ae5...@corp.newsfeeds.com>...
Sharon Barcone
"William Engell" <wen...@erie.net> wrote in message
news:squ094t...@corp.supernews.com...
I do not like to put or acknowledge labels or categories on my philosophies
of life. I have been called by some an idealist, romantic and a dreamer but
I have also been called a realist, pragmatic and cold. Not much consensus
there. But I may well be a little of each.
I will say that I am somewhat sympathetic to Rand's philosophies and I
believe there is much to consider in what she says.
Consider, at one time some of our "Great Minds", the scientists, stated that
in all the universe life was possible only on earth, never could be and
never will be anywhere else. Now those same great minds admit that certain
evidence may indicate otherwise. I believe that we have not yet discovered
all there is to know about our universe or ourselves and our minds.
I must say I am also sympathetic to the philosophies of "life as a warrior"
from Castaneda's "Don Juan, A Yaqui way of Knowledge", and to the
"coincidences of life" expressed in James Redfield's "The Celestine
Prophesy".
I believe we have only begun to tap the potential of the human mind.
rob...@my-deja.com
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
> Skill in the most general sense is the ability to make or do something
> others can't do and thus creating something that people want.
I do think having a basic understanding of the fundamentals of art is
important but I don't think of it as a necessary requirement of the
creative process.
Since when does art have to be great art? I seriously doubt if the
painters which you consider great sat around and thought about whether
or not they were great. (I hope they had better things to do, like
paint) :)
I do agree that skill can be taught. However, skill is not the only
element of art. Creativity, intelligience, dedication, time, money,
society and personality all have their role in creating and shaping art.
(snip)
> That is why I predict that when the tide of fashion changes Modern Art
> will be reassessed
Well....I wish someone would reassess all of art history. I'm tired of
the Eurocentric male slant of most art history books. Art is universal.
(snip)
> However I see no merit whatever in work claiming to be great art which
> anyone with even a modicum of skill can imitate and even forge. I see
> no merit in a work's claim of being first when it exhibits nothing
> more than flat drips, stripes or schmiers. I regard such work in spite
> of present day adulation to fall into a category of which should be
> called STUPID ART.
So, to be skilled you must be able to do something better than anyone
else and that people would want it. If I follow this logic then, a
highly skilled person/artist would be the first to do something because
1)no one else could do it at all or as well and people actually want to
see it. But how do people know that it is good art? Mandatory art
classes for all of American society? Well, actually, that's not such a
bad idea.... :)
By the way, I have an exhibit coming up in the fall. Stupid art would be
a wonderful title... :)
--
robin
http://www.robinart.com
Thomas Ziorjen
Sharon Barcone wrote:
[...]
> I believe the attack on modern artists is warranted.
> There is no illusive magic, unless one is willing to do the homework and
> develop one's own ideas and skills and philosophies the masterpiece will
> always elude them.
Oh, and how have the masterpieces eluded you, Sharon?
There is no need to attack contemporary art just because it doesn't fit your
beliefs, unless you are terribly insecure about your beliefs.
How about some tolerance for a diversity of forms in art? If postmodernism has
taught us anything, it is that there is no right way, no hard and fast, no mode
that has value above all others.
Besides, it can be interesting and exhilarating to explore the whole gamut.
Thomas
http://artlives.homestead.com/Thomas.html
Erik A. Mattila
This makes me think that maybe 'insecurity' is the key here, Thomas.
Natually, abstract or non-objective art would abandon all reference, and not be
'illusive' at all. So what's left? Just the painting, to be apprehended on its
own terms rather than as a mediator between the viewer and something else (that
which illusion refers to). So the viewer then merely decides if the image is
interesting by its own, intrinsic merits. It's interesting to note that the
anti-abstract faction has a lot of trouble with this. I think it is insecurity -
specifically a sense of something missing, i.e. the referent. Then, to put
philosophies and theories up as referents, it becomes a form of compensation.
The rather pastiche complaint that the viewer must 'study philosophy' to
appreciate modern art really only says that you want the painting to refer to
something, or that you can only accept art if it does this. It also says that you
can't grok a painting simply because it looks good.
Erik
mdeli
>In article <39addd27...@news.psi.ca>,
> hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>> Skill in the most general sense is the ability to make or do something
>> others can't do and thus creating something that people want.
>
>What if some people want different things to yourself? What if they
>don't care about how something is made, and only care for the result?
Fine, but if you want to make art a profession you have to make the
viewer care about the result.
>
>>
>> In the arts there are the learned skills namely those of which the
>> basics can be taught in a rote sense like drawing, color, painting
>> technique etc. These are essential fundamental skills. It is these
>> skills which one should expect to acquire in school. It is these to
>> which I refer to when I say, "no skill no art."
>
>Fundamental to what? Why should one expect?
>
Something far better than the stuff on your web site.
>> After practicing and mastering fundamental skills one combines this
>> foundation with ones talents and perseverance and attempts to create
>> what is regarded by others as artwork. This results in an ability to
>> create something people want and sometimes to creating something a
>> great number of people treasure for a long time (great art.)
>
>What if what others regard as artwork is at variance with your own
>regard? What if others want different things to yourself?
What then?
>>
>> I offer a musical analogy. Anyone can be taught the scales and if they
>> persevere they can learn to play the piano fairly well. All must learn
>> a degree of rote. Few become great pianists. Few have the mysterious
>> gift necessary to become great pianists. Yet all great pianists master
>> technique.
>
>Keyboard technique is part of what the audience is paying for in a
>performance as much as competent and safe wiring is from an
>electrician. But wouldn't you expect the way an electrician's handiwork
>and skillset to change according to the demands of electrical
>technology's continuing change? Wouldn't you expect he/she to adapt to
>today's problems? Would you expect them to know about wiring if wiring
>was replaced with something completely different?
I expect that a person should have enough skill to practice art as a
profession. If an art school produces 98% failures I suspect its has
something to do with what they claim to teach. The excuse that they
are supposedly teaching you something new is nonsense. The work on
your web site is a good example
>What if the person appreciating and buying a piece of work didn't care
>for the said item's copyability (excusing the word invention) and still
>wished to make the purchase? I've looked at your site and wonder who
>you're trying to protect? And Why? Are you trying to clear the film
>from gullible peoples' eyes?
You'll have to figure that out for yourself.
>>
>> And I regard anyone claiming to produce artwork whose product shows
>> that he lacks fundamental artistic skills (no matter how brilliant at
>> other things) as a potential failure.
>
>What do you mean by other things?
i.e. Toilet training.
>What if the skills the artist has that others don't have do not meet
>with your definition of fundamental?
How should I know.
>
>I ask you all these questions because I found your site very passionate
>in its beliefs and broad in scope. I would be interested to know what
>your thoughts are on the content of my own site:-
>
You wrote in your web site:
"The first thing we did on Foundation was spend a semester drawing - -
-. We worked toward naturalistic drawing from abstraction - - -. Its
what Picasso came to call drawing what he knew not what he saw."
Which in my opinion shows that Picasso didn't know very much and that
you never learned any fundamentals. I see some talent here and no
particular skill the result of which are pictures of little or no
interest.
Maharat1
What a fine craftsperson you are, your skill is certainly quite above
average. However, I believe a long time ago, "skill" in the fine arts got to
the point where it ceased to be amusing, hence for the constant redefinition of
the term art. The difference, and really, the only major difference, between
art and craft is the context in which it is being created. A representational
work, however skillful, would have been truly fine art, oh say, 100 years ago?
Maybe back in the 1700's? However, the definition of art has changed slightly
since the Rococo, and those who still practice the tedium and schooled strokes
of the days of old are crafts people. Craftspeople can be artist, and vice
versa, but there is a difference between craft and art. This is the time of
modern art. Just as the old confederacy still holds strong in the hearts of
many who won't let go, so the "skillful" opponents of change and exploration in
the arts raise their iron heels to squash the new members of the avant guarde.
As it has been done, so it shall continue. Same for this necessary, although
at times tedius, debate.
Maharat1
I agree with certain elements of your reply to my assertions about
craftpersonship and fine art. However, I stand my ground on other's opinion
making art great or not.
As an creative exercise and a telling story of the times and context in
which the art was created, every work of art is essentially great. Every work
tells a very complex story, one which art historians are usually keen on
figuring out. However, it is the patrons of the arts who ultimately determine
what art is great, even over the passage of time. The patrons are the ones who
fund the museums and buy from the galleries, and they inderectly dictate what
work gets attention and what doesn't, and when it does and when it doesn't. As
a artist, we live in this dicotomy (sp?) where who have to acknowledge and deny
this simultainously. Even art after the death of the artist is in the hands of
the patrons. And I agree with you about public opinion being fickle; public
opinion has little bearing on the fine arts. The patrons are not the general
public, the are people with money and influence, and their opinion is crucial
to wether something survives in the archives of art history.
Anyway, that is just my experience in art business and politics.
Thanks for your time, and I look forward to more of your valuable and
insighful input.
David
Maharat1
>> > I believe the attack on modern artists is warranted.
>> > There is no illusive magic, unless one is willing to do the homework and
>> > develop one's own ideas and skills and philosophies the masterpiece will
>> > always elude them.
>>
>> Oh, and how have the masterpieces eluded you, Sharon?
>There is no need to attack contemporary art just because it doesn't fit your
>> beliefs, unless you are terribly insecure about your beliefs.
>>
>How about some tolerance for a diversity of forms in art? If postmodernism
>has
>> taught us anything, it is that there is no right way, no hard and fast, no
>mode
>> that has value above all others.
>>
>> Besides, it can be interesting and exhilarating to explore the whole gamut.
>
>
>'
Erik wrote:
>
>This makes me think that maybe 'insecurity' is the key here, Thomas.
>
>Natually, abstract or non-objective art
>would abandon all reference, and not be
>'illusive' at all. So what's left? Just the painting, to be apprehended on
>its
>own terms rather than as a mediator between the viewer and something else
>(that
>which illusion refers to). So the viewer then merely decides if the image is
>interesting by its own, intrinsic me
>erits
>It's interesting to note that the
>anti-abstract faction has a lot of trouble with this. I think it is
>insecurity -
>specifically a sense of something missing, i.e. the referent. Then, to put
>philosophies and theories up as referents, it becomes a form of
>compensation.
>
>The rather pastiche complaint that the viewer must 'study philosophy' to
>appreciate modern art really only says that you want the painting to refer to
>something, or that you can only accept art if it does this. It also says
>that you
>can't grok a painting simply because it looks good.
>
>Erik
>
Ok..I think I side with Erik. Last time I went to the National Gallery, people
just went through the old masters and said "nice" and "That's really good."
However, the mood in the Modern Art museum was, "where the heck did her/she
come up with that?" The later seems to point toward a more "magical"
perception of the work. I really think the magic in art is in the modern art
world, not so much in the contemporary and representational art world. This is
not to slight the relationship between the artist and their medium, or the
intimate experience which occurs in the studio; this is more a refrence on the
perceptions of art I have experienced, and the perception of art I have as an
artist. while the experience of the artist is inextricable from the
"finnished" work of art, I do tend to view some work as more inspired, and some
work as more mechanical.
David
>
>
>
>
John Haber
>just went through the old masters and said "nice" and "That's really good."
>However, the mood in the Modern Art museum was, "where the heck did
>her/she come up with that?"
Sounds like they were either admiring the leap of imagination they'd
never have made or expressing not so much an air of mystery as their
own mystification. I guess both are typical of the culture of art
since the birth Modernism -- a culture that reflects both more freedom
for the creative individual and a greater disconnect between artistic
experiment and the public. In other words, one got the idea of an
avant-garde!
This isn't necessarily either good or bad in itself. (Renaissance art
was pretty good, too.) It just doesn't convince me that this century
got more magical. Heck, I'd have expected you to argue the reverse,
since this century comes with art movements, meaning ideological
baggage up the wazoo, which most people complain make art less
unmediated, not that nice pretty, mystical stuff they loved to look
at. I'd have disliked that response, too, but it's worth remembering
both contrasting responses, because they cast pretty sever doubt on
each other.
John
jeff_l...@my-deja.com
maha...@aol.com (Maharat1) wrote:
> >>
> >> > I believe the attack on modern artists is warranted.
> >> > There is no illusive magic, unless one is willing to do the
homework and
>
> >> > develop one's own ideas and skills and philosophies the
masterpiece will
> >> > always elude them.
> >>
> >> Oh, and how have the masterpieces eluded you, Sharon?
>
> >There is no need to attack contemporary art just because it doesn't
fit your
> >> beliefs, unless you are terribly insecure about your beliefs.
> >>
>
> >How about some tolerance for a diversity of forms in art? If
postmodernism
> >has
> >> taught us anything, it is that there is no right way, no hard and
fast, no
> >mode
> >> that has value above all others.
> >>
>
> >> Besides, it can be interesting and exhilarating to explore the
whole gamut.
>
> >
> >
> Erik wrote:
>
> >
> >This makes me think that maybe 'insecurity' is the key here, Thomas.
> >
> >Natually, abstract or non-objective art
>
> >would abandon all reference, and not be
> >'illusive' at all. So what's left? Just the painting, to be
apprehended on
> >its
> >own terms rather than as a mediator between the viewer and something
else
> >(that
> >which illusion refers to). So the viewer then merely decides if the
image is
> >interesting by its own, intrinsic me
>
>
> >It's interesting to note that the
> >anti-abstract faction has a lot of trouble with this. I think it is
> >insecurity -
> >specifically a sense of something missing, i.e. the referent. Then,
to put
> >philosophies and theories up as referents, it becomes a form of
>
> >compensation.
> >
> >The rather pastiche complaint that the viewer must 'study philosophy'
to
> >appreciate modern art really only says that you want the painting to
refer to
> >something, or that you can only accept art if it does this. It also
says
> >that you
> >can't grok a painting simply because it looks good.
> >
> >Erik
> >
>
Gallery, people
> just went through the old masters and said "nice" and "That's really
good."
> However, the mood in the Modern Art museum was, "where the heck did
her/she
> perception of the work. I really think the magic in art is in the
modern art
> world, not so much in the contemporary and representational art world.
This is
> not to slight the relationship between the artist and their medium, or
the
> intimate experience which occurs in the studio; this is more a
refrence on the
> perceptions of art I have experienced, and the perception of art I
have as an
> artist. while the experience of the artist is inextricable from the
> "finnished" work of art, I do tend to view some work as more inspired,
and some
> work as more mechanical.
> David
> >
> >
> >
> >
Isn't it interesting how so many visitors to galleries will nod and say
'interesting', 'nice', 'good' and other non-descript descriptives to
both pre-20th century 'representational' art (assuming rennaisance
cyclops perspective 'represents' experience), and equally use these
words to describe modern art. Modern art has this whole baggage of how
the label is more important than the work, according to some at least,
and yet, in order to understand an old master, just as much text, if not
more, is spilled!
I dunno. Maybe all visuals need verbal context?
Jeff
Anon votes appreciated...
http://website.lineone.net/~jeff_lee/Submit/index.html
John Haber
Well, they all need not to be cut off from their contexts (plural) --
in other works, in other lives. We learn those contexts in lots of
ways -- from words, from works, from experience. I think of words as
being the best way to wake people up, though, so they start learn a
little of what they otherwise wouldn't. Everyone's favorite is the
work that gives the illusion works never need any prior knowledge --
Monet, say. That comforts people into thinking their point of view is
common sense.
John
Caren
of sales. I just stack them up in a corner after spending 100+ hours on one
painting spread over 1-3 years (I have a day job. Used to turn them out in
a month). My needs seem to be met simply by showing them on the web. I
like getting "strokes". That is to say I like having people like what I do.
As for painting the work itself, I refer back to my first drawing teacher at
Broward Community College in Fort Lauderdale. She told us about "peak
experiences". When I did a drawing well I knew what she meant. I am
adicted to those occasional "peak experiences" I crave after them. Does
anyone else know what I am referring to? I assume you all do. These are
the magic in art, at least for the artist.
I often wonder if non-artist have similar peak experiences when viewing art.
Mine seem to be limited to the creating of visual art, but I have similar
sensations when listening to music. Music is something I can't make on my
own.
--
Caren Keyser
Keys...@go.to
"mdeli" <hug...@interlog.com> wrote in message
news:39b99632...@news.psi.ca...
rob...@my-deja.com
n article <Y5Tx5.660$W45....@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>,
"Caren" <cke...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
When I did a drawing well I knew what she meant. I am
> adicted to those occasional "peak experiences" I crave after them.
Does anyone else know what I am referring to? I assume you all do.
These are the magic in art, at least for the artist.
> I often wonder if non-artist have similar peak experiences when
viewing art.
time when I actually achieved what it was in my head that I was trying
to do. In other words, the painting or the particular part of the
painting really reflected my mind's vision of it. I think it's probably
similiar for the inventor(the eureka! moment) as well as others. I
wonder if it's biochemical in any way? Perhaps, like the
runner's/athlete's "high" ?
--
robin
robin's rummage sale through sept. 30!
http://www.robinart.com
jeff_l...@my-deja.com
> Everyone's favorite is the
> work that gives the illusion works never need any prior knowledge --
> Monet, say. That comforts people into thinking their point of view is
> common sense.
>
> John
>
John
Illusion is the key word too. Anyone seeking the comfort that Monet's
work doesn't need prior knowledge would show no consideration of, say,
the effect of photography on 19th Century painting for example. Common
sense is common to whom? Perhaps the royal 'we' favoured by politicians.
Jeff
http://website.lineone.net/~jeff_lee/Submit/index.html
jeff_l...@my-deja.com
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 10:43:31 GMT, jeff_l...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >In article <39addd27...@news.psi.ca>,
> > hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
> >> Skill in the most general sense is the ability to make or do
something
> >> others can't do and thus creating something that people want.
> >
> >What if some people want different things to yourself? What if they
> >don't care about how something is made, and only care for the result?
>
> Fine, but if you want to make art a profession you have to make the
> viewer care about the result.
> >
Do you think viewers don't already care? I ask you this but can I infer
that you mean there's a degree to which the producer needs to inform
the audience? It's interesting. What does making art a profession mean?
> >>
> >> In the arts there are the learned skills namely those of which the
> >> basics can be taught in a rote sense like drawing, color, painting
> >> technique etc. These are essential fundamental skills. It is these
> >> skills which one should expect to acquire in school. It is these to
> >> which I refer to when I say, "no skill no art."
> >
> >Fundamental to what? Why should one expect?
> >
> Something far better than the stuff on your web site.
>
It's funny, I'd guess most people in the visual arts, whatever their
practices, spend time on these 'fundamental skills' as you call them.
Tate Modern has Bill Viola's 'Nantes Triptych' showing right now. I've
rarely seen such a strong reaction from an audience, but there's no
display of drawing or painting or 'etc'. When you mean 'far better',
are you referring to my mark making? Please be a bit more specific.
> >> After practicing and mastering fundamental skills one combines
this
> >> foundation with ones talents and perseverance and attempts to
create
> >> what is regarded by others as artwork. This results in an ability
to
> >> create something people want and sometimes to creating something a
> >> great number of people treasure for a long time (great art.)
> >
> >What if what others regard as artwork is at variance with your own
> >regard? What if others want different things to yourself?
>
> What then?
> >>
'create what is regarded by others as artwork'
Others might include the others who regard as artwork the kind of
artwork you don't (e.g. Pollock, Twombly).
> >> I offer a musical analogy. Anyone can be taught the scales and if
they
> >> persevere they can learn to play the piano fairly well. All must
learn
> >> a degree of rote. Few become great pianists. Few have the
mysterious
> >> gift necessary to become great pianists. Yet all great pianists
master
> >> technique.
> >
> >Keyboard technique is part of what the audience is paying for in a
> >performance as much as competent and safe wiring is from an
> >electrician. But wouldn't you expect the way an electrician's
handiwork
> >and skillset to change according to the demands of electrical
> >technology's continuing change? Wouldn't you expect he/she to adapt
to
> >today's problems? Would you expect them to know about wiring if
wiring
> >was replaced with something completely different?
>
> I expect that a person should have enough skill to practice art as a
> profession. If an art school produces 98% failures I suspect its has
> something to do with what they claim to teach. The excuse that they
> are supposedly teaching you something new is nonsense. The work on
> your web site is a good example
>
I expect art schools do provide enough skills for their students to
practice art as a profession -whether there's a market for them or not.
What's the 'excuse' you refer to? I suspect most of what's taught isn't
particularly new.
> >What if the person appreciating and buying a piece of work didn't
care
> >for the said item's copyability (excusing the word invention) and
still
> >wished to make the purchase? I've looked at your site and wonder who
> >you're trying to protect? And Why? Are you trying to clear the film
> >from gullible peoples' eyes?
>
> You'll have to figure that out for yourself.
Are you trying to protect yourself?
> >>
> >> And I regard anyone claiming to produce artwork whose product shows
> >> that he lacks fundamental artistic skills (no matter how brilliant
at
> >> other things) as a potential failure.
> >
> >What do you mean by other things?
>
> i.e. Toilet training.
>
> >What if the skills the artist has that others don't have do not meet
> >with your definition of fundamental?
>
> How should I know.
Let me put it to you that your definition of fundamental is that the
end product must show drawing, painting 'etc'. We live in an age where
art competes for attention against TV and computer games. Would it not
follow that some foundation in, say, storyboarding for time-based
media, can be seen as fundamental?
> >
> >I ask you all these questions because I found your site very
passionate
> >in its beliefs and broad in scope. I would be interested to know what
> >your thoughts are on the content of my own site:-
> >
>
> You wrote in your web site:
> "The first thing we did on Foundation was spend a semester drawing - -
> -. We worked toward naturalistic drawing from abstraction - - -. Its
> what Picasso came to call drawing what he knew not what he saw."
>
> Which in my opinion shows that Picasso didn't know very much and that
> you never learned any fundamentals. I see some talent here and no
> particular skill the result of which are pictures of little or no
> interest.
We took some principles of Cubist drawing as a starting point for
abstraction. Cubism was the first challenge for over 4 centuries to the
dogma that renaissance perspective is the way we normally see things.
Drawing is something that can be used as a tool to get from A to B. It
is also something that can restrict by being a sacred cow. We moved on
from this starting point through various 2 and 3D grid methods and
sight-sizing. I couldn't possibly comment on what Picasso knew. Whether
what I learned was 'fundamental' (all these fundamentals are making me
feel like an Islamic extremist) or not I cannot say, but trying a gamut
of drawing experiences rather than slavishly going through books like
Drawing On The Right Side Of The Brain over and over ad infinitum was
useful in appreciating the breadth of possibilities with how marks can
be a strategy. I agree with you that these drawings are of little
interest. They are parts of an exercise.
Looking forward to your replies and thanks for taking the time to go
over my site.
Cheers, Jeff.
http://website.lineone.net/~jeff_lee
>
> Mani DeLi
>
> Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
> ...no skill no art
> Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
> http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
>