This talk about realism...
Electric Nachos
... is similar to the result of looking through the focus lens of a camera?
We each have our own definition of what is acceptably "in or out of focus."
We each have our own definition of what is acceptably realistic. Twist and
turn the focus lens all you want - 10 people will have 10 different settings
to define a "focused" or "realistic" image.
What is the accepted "setting" for realism in art? I.E. which way do we turn
that "focus thingy".
===============
Random Thoughts
John Ng
You talked as if the art itself has feelings. Is it the perceiver of
the painting that feels or is it the painting itself? Thus, a
machine-produced piece of art can evoke feelings (and in your term,
the machine is creative). Likewise, an accidental ink splatter can
evoke feelings as well as Bouguereau's paintings. On the reverse, a
painting by Pollock is nothing more than a feelingless splatter to me,
therefore in your definition, it is not art.
So what are you suggesting that emotions the only thing necessary to
art? If that is the case, art is defined only by the perceiver,
therefore every thing is art and every thing is not. This is sheer
nonsense, and nothing more than a philosophical blabber.
John Ng
Advocates an art renewal and the return to sensible art
http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
Electric Nachos
John Ng wrote in message ...
>"Electric Nachos" <aint_...@chew.foo> wrote in message
>
>You talked as if the art itself has feelings. Is it the perceiver of
>the painting that feels or is it the painting itself?
I feel as though I've been VERY PATIENT with this newsgroup, but when you
people say shit like this - you enrage me to a point where the entire lot of
you warrants eXtermination!
FIRST you write an entire essay on the 'difference' between the SAME DAMN
picture. THEN you admitted that MAYBE your argument was flawed.
(Maybe?!?!?!) NOW you say I attribute feelings to art?
Are you INSANE?!?
I WROTE:
--------
This talk about realism...
--------
Now WHERE do you see ***any*** thing that remotely resembles the word,
"feelings"?? Where did I use the word "emotion"?? Where did I say a damned
MACHINE is creative?!?
What the FUCK?
Philosophical blabber my ass! You have a serious problem and apparently
share the same intellectual status as Mani!
========
"Stupid people. Stupid, stupid people." - Shii Ann
Bob C
> This talk about realism...
>
> What is the accepted "setting" for realism in art? I.E. which way do we turn
> that "focus thingy".
>
The most "realistic" art would be art which is indistinguishable from
the subject being depicted. Warhol's Brillo Boxes are completely
realistic. Trompe L'oil paintings accomplish this for limited subject
matter viewed under the right conditions. It is not possible for most
art for a variety of reasons, and is rarely what the artist wants to
accomplish anyway. In painting, then, the most realistic art is not that
which fools our senses but that which stimulates us into imagining it as
real. And this necessarily makes realistic subjective, because what
stimulates one person's imagination will not necessarily stimulate
someone else's.
Which is more realistic: the painting which stimulates our imagination
at first glance with little effort but with the artifice becoming
apparent as we continue to view, or the one in which the artifice is
immediately obvious but which can stimulate our imaginations even
further if we make an effort to help that happen? Is it the traditional
through-the-window painting which makes us feel like we can walk into
the space created or a flat modern one in which we can imagine the
subject taking form and emerging from the surface of the canvas into our
own world?
- Bob C
Thur
"Bob C" <bob...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:41011875...@erols.com...
There is no one answer to that.
I think you have overstated where you refer to "the traditional
through-the-window painting".
Most of these paintings that I believe you refer to used a mixture
of illusions, symbols, and other methods which accompanied their
"realism".
You seem to be comparing these paintings to ("a flat modern one")
Modern Abstract. Fair enough, so long as I am clear about your
question.
It is clear that you are with Modern Abstract works.
What is possible via your imagination is possible by the earlier "realist"
ones, or just by looking at the flames and smoke in a fire, or at the
formations
of cloud and sky.
To have a value, the art object must aid this imagination, and even point
it.
Where we see painting becoming simpler, such as a simple portrait, or
in an Abstract work, reduced to little more than one or two shapes, it
cannot be claimed that the work of art has done much for your imagination.
I would rather acclaim your imagination than the work of art.
Thur
Electric Nachos
Bob C wrote in message <41011875...@erols.com>...
>Electric Nachos wrote:
>
>> This talk about realism...
>>
>
>
>> What is the accepted "setting" for realism in art? I.E. which way do we
turn
>> that "focus thingy".
>>
>
>
>The most "realistic" art would be art which is indistinguishable from
>the subject being depicted.
Yup. That would be it.
>Warhol's Brillo Boxes are completely
>realistic. Trompe L'oil paintings accomplish this for limited subject
>matter viewed under the right conditions. It is not possible for most
>art for a variety of reasons, and is rarely what the artist wants to
>accomplish anyway. In painting, then, the most realistic art is not that
>which fools our senses but that which stimulates us into imagining it as
>real.
I disagree. Real things don't need an imagination (unless you want to go off
into a different direction ;-)
>And this necessarily makes realistic subjective, because what
>stimulates one person's imagination will not necessarily stimulate
>someone else's.
Right. So then it's not realism. Realism (in this environment) is not
subjective. A rock is not subjective. A verbal description about a rock,
however, is.
>Which is more realistic: the painting which stimulates our imagination
>at first glance with little effort but with the artifice becoming
>apparent as we continue to view, or the one in which the artifice is
>immediately obvious but which can stimulate our imaginations even
>further if we make an effort to help that happen?
The second. Although the imagination is irrelevant.
>Is it the traditional
>through-the-window painting which makes us feel like we can walk into
>the space created or a flat modern one in which we can imagine the
>subject taking form and emerging from the surface of the canvas into our
>own world?
The first. You see, my computer is "real." I don't have to imagine it taking
form or emerging from the surface of my desk into this world to appreciate
it. The imagination is not real - UNLESS you wish to talk of different
dimensions and the physical make-up of constructs...
That's a conversation too advanced for cretins like Mani and his 'mini-me'
Johnny. But it would be a fun discussion none-the-less.
>- Bob C
>
Bob C
> Bob C wrote in message <41011875...@erols.com>...
>
> Right. So then it's not realism. Realism (in this environment) is not
> subjective. A rock is not subjective. A verbal description about a rock,
> however, is.
"rock" is not subjective because it refers to an object of which we can
usually agree what that object is (and even then there are subjective
areas of things that one person may call a rock and another person might
call compressed clay). "Realism" does not. I was using a definition, put
simply, in which realism is making a viewer feel like they are looking
not at a painting but at the actual objects depicted in the painting. If
yours is different, perhaps you could explain.
> Although the imagination is irrelevant.
And using my definition it is completely relevant, because no matter how
"realistic" the painting, I always know that it is a painting and that
I'm not looking at the actual objects being depicted. Our entire process
of vision is designed to gather information, not images, and so my
vision process wants me to know that I'm looking at a painting of a
subject and not the subject itself. I may be fooled at first glance, but
eventually the only way I can forget that it is a painting and see it as
a subject is by making an effort to do so. That's what I was calling
imagination. What do you call it?
In fact, there is often a reverse effect where the more optically
accurate and convincing the space is in a painting, the harder my vision
process will work to tell me that it really is a painting. And so I
really have to work harder to see it as anything other than a painting,
and it may become impossible to imagine the space in the painting
actually being a real space. On the other hand, when looking at a
painting by someone like Monet or Van Gogh, it is so obviously a
painting that my vision process doesn't have to tell me anything - thus
freeing me to experience it as more realistic than the traditionally
realistic one. I can't think of any artist who more realistically
depicts the effect of sun in my eyes as Van Gogh does, but he doesn't do
it with traditional realistic rendering.
In any case, viewing art is never a purely passive act for me. I can't
imagine why I'd want to experience a work of art without allowing its
effect on my imagination to contribute to that experience.
- Bob C.
Bob C
> "Bob C" <bob...@erols.com> wrote in message
>>
>>Which is more realistic: ...
>
> There is no one answer to that.
I was hoping that it was recognized as a rhetorical question, since I
was arguing that realism is subjective.
> I think you have overstated where you refer to "the traditional
> through-the-window painting".
> Most of these paintings that I believe you refer to used a mixture
> of illusions, symbols, and other methods which accompanied their
> "realism".
And I'm well aware that creating a convincing pictorial space in a
painting requires much more than just optical accuracy.
>
> You seem to be comparing these paintings to ("a flat modern one")
> Modern Abstract. Fair enough, so long as I am clear about your
> question.
> It is clear that you are with Modern Abstract works.
I am pretty much with most types of art. My favorite styles are probably
High Renaissance and Baroque, but not because I perceive them as being
any more realistic than any other style. Nor do I expect
non-representational or highly abstract art to stimulate my imagination
towards realism. What I do is try to appreciate whatever it is that the
art is trying to offer me, and I can usually find much of value,
regardless of style, if the artist has put any real feeling and effort
into their work.
> What is possible via your imagination is possible by the earlier "realist"
> ones, or just by looking at the flames and smoke in a fire, or at the
> formations
> of cloud and sky.
I'm not much interested in the earlier "realist" art if it doesn't
stimulate my imagination. Without imagination, I'm just looking at
pigment and binder on a support, no matter how convincing the illusion
of pictorial space.
- Bob C.
Electric Nachos
Bob C wrote in message <4101B0F2...@erols.com>...
>Electric Nachos wrote:
>
>> Bob C wrote in message <41011875...@erols.com>...
>>
>> Right. So then it's not realism. Realism (in this environment) is not
>> subjective. A rock is not subjective. A verbal description about a rock,
>> however, is.
>
>
>"rock" is not subjective because it refers to an object of which we can
>usually agree what that object is (and even then there are subjective
>areas of things that one person may call a rock and another person might
>call compressed clay). "Realism" does not. I was using a definition, put
>simply, in which realism is making a viewer feel like they are looking
>not at a painting but at the actual objects depicted in the painting. If
>yours is different, perhaps you could explain.
Okay, well how about if we 'solidify' your definition of artistic realism as
a -- device -- to trick its viewer. It (artistic realism) then becomes an
object (a device). Now both the rock and this device are nouns - they are
objects.
>> Although the imagination is irrelevant.
>
>
>And using my definition it is completely relevant, because no matter how
>"realistic" the painting, I always know that it is a painting
Stop. If you are in a state of "knowing," then the above descrived "device"
fails in it definition. If it doesn't live up to its definition, it can not
be labeled as realism.
Arr arrr arrr.
Going back to the rock analogy - if the functions of an object fail to
perform as a rock, the object can not be called a rock.
>and that
>I'm not looking at the actual objects being depicted. Our entire process
>of vision is designed to gather information, not images, and so my
>vision process wants me to know that I'm looking at a painting of a
>subject and not the subject itself.
Mmmmnnnnnoooo ... vision is just a result of the brain interpreting images.
Vision doesn't want you to know anything - It's your brain that wants to
know.
>I may be fooled at first glance, but
>eventually the only way I can forget that it is a painting and see it as
>a subject is by making an effort to do so.
Well what are you talking about? You're talking about looking at a less
realistic work of art now? If you were fooled, then realism, as a "device"
worked. Why would you need to forget that an artwork is a painting if you
are under the illusion of this device??
>That's what I was calling
>imagination. What do you call it?
Dude - I don't know what the hell you're talking about. Imagination to me is
stuff I make up. Pretend shit. You know,.. B.S. It does not physically exist
outside of my body. I can't touch anything in there.
>In fact, there is often a reverse effect where the more optically
>accurate and convincing the space is in a painting, the harder my vision
>process will work to tell me that it really is a painting. And so I
>really have to work harder to see it as anything other than a painting,
>and it may become impossible to imagine the space in the painting
>actually being a real space.
Huh?? If you have to work hard to break free from the illusion of this
device, why would you have to work harder to 'imagine' the illusion is
real?? What has your imagination have to do with it? Leave that nasty little
thing alone. Are you talking about perception instead?
>On the other hand, when looking at a
>painting by someone like Monet or Van Gogh, it is so obviously a
>painting that my vision process doesn't have to tell me anything - thus
>freeing me to experience it as more realistic than the traditionally
>realistic one.
WhAt?!? Lol - Um... what I think instead is that the painting freed you to
use your --imagination--.
>I can't think of any artist who more realistically
>depicts the effect of sun in my eyes as Van Gogh does, but he doesn't do
>it with traditional realistic rendering.
Van Gogh does not employ the use of our little "device." And the effect of
sun does not produce crazy little lines and wavy shapes - okay not in *my*
eyes. I will see white blurs and wlil become temporarily blinded! But I
don't see what Gogh portrays.
>In any case, viewing art is never a purely passive act for me. I can't
>imagine why I'd want to experience a work of art without allowing its
>effect on my imagination to contribute to that experience.
Hm... Okay, so the art is a jumpboard for the craziness that goes on in your
mind. You DO realize that the real entertainment is going on inside your
brain - and not outside of it - don't you?
Is this a control (or lack of) issue?
>- Bob C.
>
>
Electric Nachos
Bob C wrote in message <4101B378...@erols.com>...
>And I'm well aware that creating a convincing pictorial space in a
>painting requires much more than just optical accuracy.
What else is required?
>- Bob C.
>
artbuyer
and saying. does this look real? if not, learn more about the laws of
texture and vision. look up da vinci's ideas. that is old technology.
i prefer some roughness to completely smooth realism, because when i try
to work toward smooth realism, i get close, then i get so pissed at the
lifelessness of the work, i paint over it.
Bob C
> Realism, is created, by painting something, stepping back about 15 feet,
> and saying. does this look real?
Are you familiar with the concept of circular logic?
If we were to create a painting so realistic that our senses could not
distinguish between the painting and the subject, it could only be done
using a high degree of polished optical accuracy.
But realistic paintings do not completely fool our senses. Does it
logically follow then that the highest degree of realism must still be
done using a high degree of polished optical accuracy? No, it doesn't.
In logic, that's called the fallacy of the second best. You may still
have reason to believe it to be true, but it is not supported by
deductive logic.
I personally believe that it isn't true, that once you realize that you
aren't fooling the senses, you may achieve a higher degree of realism
(as a concept, not a style) by choosing to heighten different aspects
which manipulate a viewer's perceptions at the expense of optical
accuracy. In saying this, however, realize that I am not measuring
realism based purely on the first impression I get glancing at a
painting, but rather the impression which I get through a more extended
viewing period, and is also based on the fact that it makes a difference
whether or not I choose to view something as if it were creating a
realistic pictorial space.
- Bob C.
Bob C
>
> Mmmmnnnnnoooo ... vision is just a result of the brain interpreting images.
> Vision doesn't want you to know anything - It's your brain that wants to
> know.
>
Mmmmmmmmnnnnnnoooooooo ... vision is the brain receiving a very complex
continuous stream of data from the optical nerve and turning that data
into useful higher-order information.
- Bob C.
John Ng
> FIRST you write an entire essay on the 'difference' between the SAME DAMN
> picture. THEN you admitted that MAYBE your argument was flawed.
> (Maybe?!?!?!) NOW you say I attribute feelings to art?
Did I even suggest my argument is flawed. NOT AT ALL!
John Ng
Electric Nachos
John Ng wrote in message ...
You wrote: "Okay, maybe I have been deceived by the error of the page."
Now STFU - There's something wrong with you!