Does this news-group have an FAQ...?
Iian Neill
Greetings to all.
I am a student doing Fine Arts in Tasmania, and I am curious as to the
majority of artistic opinions held in this news-group.
In particular, I am interested in hearing from people who despise "modern
art" for the sham it is, and admire various aspects of pre-20th century
art-forms.
I make no apologies for the harshness of my opinions, but I am willing to
justify them if others severely disagree.
-- Iian Neill
"O, Miserable mortals, open your eyes!" -- Leonardo da Vinci
Jay Magidson
Stay in school, perhaps they can pry a crow-bar into your rediculously
closed mind.
Bruce Attah
In article <3209B5...@magidson.com>, Jay Magidson
<magi...@magidson.com> wrote:
Walk around with your mind wide open like that and all sorts of
superstitious rubbish will fall in it and make a nest.
If Iian Neill is so close-minded as you suggest, then surely there would
be no willingness to justify the opinions expressed "if others severely
disagree"?
Are you, Jay Magidson, one of those many who, while congratulating
themselves on the openness of their mind to all that is fashionable, are
yet unwilling to hear any alternatives to the current mode?
If not, then why not take up Iian's challenge, instead of merely flinging
insults about?
Darren Reynolds
In article <Bruce.Attah-09...@support-neptune.isltd.insignia.co,
Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah) wrote:
Perhaps we should still be creating statues of Greek gods or painting
religious icons? Or is this the 20th century?
Iian, you might like pre-2oth century art, but it was created in pre-2oth
century culture. You can like it but you can't put it forward as an
alternative for the 'modern'. Can't go back I'm afraid.
Just what was Iian's challenge anyway? At least the 'insults' made sense.
Darren
Bob Speel
In article: <AE32DEA2...@reinwood.demon.co.uk>
dar...@reinwood.demon.co.uk (Darren Reynolds) writes:
>
<snip>
> Perhaps we should still be creating statues of Greek gods or painting
> religious icons? Or is this the 20th century?
>
> Iian, you might like pre-2oth century art, but it was created in pre-2oth
> century culture. You can like it but you can't put it forward as an
> alternative for the 'modern'. Can't go back I'm afraid.
>
> Just what was Iian's challenge anyway? At least the 'insults' made sense.
> Darren
> dar...@reinwood.demon.co.uk
The Romans were still copying statues of the Greek gods 500 years after the
originals, because they recognised that the Greek sculpture had never been
surpassed. In the 19th century, the Victorians created huge pillared
structures such as the British Museum, directly inspired by the temples of
the Greeks. All art students studied from the works of the masters, and the
centres of learning had 'cast galleries' where students could study form and
shadow as interpreted by those same Greeks.
Having learnt a degree of skill in this way, the student could then go on to
make their own style or interpretation, confident in the knowledge that they
could produce what they wanted to. The Victorian sculptors worked from the
same human form that the ancients did, yet found their own, new style.
Picasso learnt a certain degree of draughtsmanship when young that showed he
could depict what he wanted to. When we see the strange paintings he made
later, we can like them or not, but have to take them seriously - here was a
man who could paint just what he was thinking of, and this is what he chose
to produce. But when we see much modern painting and sculpture, produced
as aimless shapeless blobs and lumps by people who have never shown any sign
of being in control of what they do, why should we bother looking at it? If
a so-called artist was never prepared to spend any time learning how to draw
accurately, why should we waste any time considering what they make? When
our gut reaction is 'a 5-year old child could do that' it is probably
because we are looking at the work of someone who has no more skill than a
5-year old, and probably less creativity, this having been squandered at a
modern art school for the more lucrative gimmickry.
IMHO anyway
bob
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Speel EMail b...@speel.demon.co.uk
"ignorant but never silent"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Darren Reynolds
>
>The Romans were still copying statues of the Greek gods 500 years after the
>originals, because they recognised that the Greek sculpture had never been
>surpassed.
Sounds like a poor reason. Rather like trying to do a remake of Casablanca
- pointless, or is it sacrilige to mention movies in the same breath? Find
your own form of expression, relevant to your times.
>
>Having learnt a degree of skill in this way, the student could then go on to
>make their own style or interpretation, confident in the knowledge that they
>could produce what they wanted to. The Victorian sculptors worked from the
>same human form that the ancients did, yet found their own, new style.
>Picasso learnt a certain degree of draughtsmanship when young that showed he
>could depict what he wanted to. When we see the strange paintings he made
>later, we can like them or not, but have to take them seriously - here was a
>man who could paint just what he was thinking of, and this is what he chose
>to produce. But when we see much modern painting and sculpture, produced
>as aimless shapeless blobs and lumps by people who have never shown any sign
>of being in control of what they do, why should we bother looking at it? If
>a so-called artist was never prepared to spend any time learning how to draw
>accurately, why should we waste any time considering what they make? When
>our gut reaction is 'a 5-year old child could do that' it is probably
>because we are looking at the work of someone who has no more skill than a
>5-year old, and probably less creativity, this having been squandered at a
>modern art school for the more lucrative gimmickry.
>
Art isn't about showing how clever you are. Not in my book anyway. You seem
to be talking about craft. And is there a purpose in being able to draw a
perfect figure today? Ever heard of photography? The practise of Greek
sculpture was fed by the need to recreate what they saw. That need is dead.
They didn't do it to show off!
The idea that any art created by someone who can't 'draw properly' is
unworthy is hopelessly out of date. There are many artforms and the ability
to draw a perfect figure is not neccesary to all of them. Your definition
of art is steeped in the old notions that preceded the advent of
photography. Your definition of art doesn't seem to take into consideration
cultural realities.
Perhaps you should have sent your message by stone-tablet.
Darren
Jay Magidson
Bob Speel wrote:
> <snip>
> > Perhaps we should still be creating statues of Greek gods or painting
> > religious icons? Or is this the 20th century?
> >
> > Iian, you might like pre-2oth century art, but it was created in pre-2oth
> > century culture. You can like it but you can't put it forward as an
> > alternative for the 'modern'. Can't go back I'm afraid.
> >
> > Just what was Iian's challenge anyway? At least the 'insults' made sense.
> > Darren
> > dar...@reinwood.demon.co.uk
>
> The Romans were still copying statues of the Greek gods 500 years after the
> originals, because they recognised that the Greek sculpture had never been
> surpassed. In the 19th century, the Victorians created huge pillared
> structures such as the British Museum, directly inspired by the temples of
> the Greeks. All art students studied from the works of the masters, and the
> centres of learning had 'cast galleries' where students could study form and
> shadow as interpreted by those same Greeks.
>
> Having learnt a degree of skill in this way, the student could then go on to
> make their own style or interpretation, confident in the knowledge that they
> could produce what they wanted to. The Victorian sculptors worked from the
> same human form that the ancients did, yet found their own, new style.
> Picasso learnt a certain degree of draughtsmanship when young that showed he
> could depict what he wanted to. When we see the strange paintings he made
> later, we can like them or not, but have to take them seriously - here was a
> man who could paint just what he was thinking of, and this is what he chose
> to produce. But when we see much modern painting and sculpture, produced
> as aimless shapeless blobs and lumps by people who have never shown any sign of being in control of what they do, why should we bother looking at it?
If a so-called artist was never prepared to spend any time learning how to
draw
> accurately, why should we waste any time considering what they make? When
> our gut reaction is 'a 5-year old child could do that' it is probably
> because we are looking at the work of someone who has no more skill than a
> 5-year old, and probably less creativity, this having been squandered at a
> modern art school for the more lucrative gimmickry.
>
Photography illiminated the need for highly realistic painting. Modern art
is man attempting to express himself further. Not being limited to that
which can be understood instantly.
If you don't understand a certain type of art, why does that make you hate
it? You can look away, come back when you have more experience, perhaps then
you will get something out of it.
The past is gone. Learn from it and move forward. Yes greek sculptures were
brilliant. But Rodin was far more expressive. Can't you experience both in
their own greatness. It is not necessary to compare them. Both are great,
period.
"Any 5 year old could do it." How can one argue this point. You don't like
or understand abstract work. That is too bad for you, but so what. Many
people do understand and love this type of work. I find most realistic art
tedious and stiff. Does that make it bad and the other good. Hardly.
The absolutes expressed in many writings on this newsgroups are signs of fear
and misunderstanding. Modern art is not better or worse than past forms. It
is art of our culture, our time. It represents us, now.
Doesn't it seem unlikely that a whole century went by without talent. To me,
the 20th Century has produced more artistic genious than all other periods
combined. We have been freed from the yoke of only replicating nature. We
can now express imagination, emotion, even thought in art.
If you have trouble understanding and appreciating modern or contemporary
art; you are going to have even more trouble in the future. If you hate it
now, you're going to loathe it in the future.
Bruce Attah
In article <321478...@magidson.com>, Jay Magidson
<magi...@magidson.com> wrote:
> Photography illiminated the need for highly realistic painting.
There never was a *need* for "highly realistic painting" (what was it
needed for?), but there was a demand (in the economic sense) for such, and
there still is, to judge by the prices that highly realistic paintings
fetch on the open market.
Photography largely killed off certain markets: topographical drawings as
souvenirs for tourists; painted portraiture at the lower end of the
market; hand-engraved reproductions of paintings, but it has certainly not
eliminated the widespread desire to see and own highly realistic painting
by any means. More paintings of this sort are sold now than ever before,
and they fetch higher prices than ever before.
The trepidation that nineteenth century painters experienced on the advent
of photography was largely misplaced, and the reaction that you call "man
attempting to express himself further" was an unwarranted retreat. As for
the notion that modernist painting, in contrast to "highly realistic"
premodern painting, is "not being limited to that which can be understood
instantly", much premodern painting could not be understood instantly,
even by contemporaries, who, having seen what was *depicted*, might still
have to interpret this in terms of current ideas, as well as to discover
nuances in the depiction that also carried meaning. Plenty of abstract or
semi-abstract painting is far simpler in its network of meaning than some
premodern painting.
> To me,
> the 20th Century has produced more artistic genious than all other periods
> combined.
The 20th century has produced more artists than all past centuries
combined. As to the number of geniuses, I am not sure. Artistic genius
is not nurtured in this century, because the market has standards that are
too low, so people with real talent (Picasso, for instance) turn to
schlock-and-shock instead of stretching themselves fully.
> We have been freed from the yoke of only replicating nature.
You accused Bob Speel of not understanding abstract art, though his post
gave no indication that he did not understand abstract art, merely that he
did not *like* it as much as the art of the 19th century.
Meanwhile, your statement above shows clearly that you do not understand
"realistic" art. Such art is NOT about "only replicating nature", and
never has been.
> We can now express imagination, emotion, even thought in art.
We always could, and we always did. I further contend that we did it
better, on the whole, before modernism came along.