Please explain "Still Life With Guitar" of Picasso
vanessa
Hi,
Please help me to understand of the painting of Picasso, "still life
with guitar"
The picture of the painting can be seen here:
http://www.abcgallery.com/P/picasso/picasso194.html
I see guitar in the right side, but what is in the left side?
If you can, pleas explain one by one in detail what you see in the
painting?
What is the whole theme/idea of this painting?
Thanks for your help.
Bill
who spent most of his life sticking his finger in the eye of artists
better than himself, and trying to denigrate a thousand years of great
art which focused on the Christian heritage of Europe. Don't look for
meaning in his doodles. It HAS none! And without the force of his
ethnic community propping up demand for his work by bogus claims of
sales at high prices, no one would allow his work to hang on their
walls. Picasso was good at two things: abusing women and self promotion.
Erik A. Mattila
Ah, come on. I told you not to believe the sinage of those "Degenerate
Art" exhibits in Berlin.
Erik A. Mattila
Vanessa, what you have to do is a bit of reading of art history. If you
go after a explicit definition of cubism, however, you'll be frustrated,
but at the same time you will be introduced to some important thoughts
about art and artist's motives for painting what they have painted.
The first phase of cubism, "analytic cubism," was probably inspired by
several sources. George Braque was interested in chasing down painting
ideas championed by Cezanne, while Picasso's motives are more obscure.
Many critics, including Appolinaire, believe both were inspired by
Einstein's "General Theory of Relativity" which theorized that space and
time were inseperable, so a painting which only represented an object in
space was not true to nature, since it didn't include time. The
multi-perspective eye-point in analytic cubist paintings represented a
time element, which derives from the actual experience of seeing, which
is always under the conditions of movement and the passage of time. But
Picasso himself denied this, and insisted that the invention of analytic
cubism was not inspired by sources outside of the tradition of painting.
The painting you have cited is of a later development, "synthetic
cubism." There are many theories about this, but just based on
observation it shows the seed of painting itself declaring independence
from the real world - on the trajectory to pure abstraction. In other
words, the painting itself is the model, and it is independant from any
specific reference in the real world. In terms of art appreciation, it
should be regarded thusly. If your expectation for a painting is that
it ought to be a representation of reality, then you will be
dissappointed. But it should be kept in mind that the artist didn't
intend to throw paint on a carrier to represent anything other than the
painting itself. If you look at the painting and like it on it's own
merits, that's the point. If you expect it to be something besides
itself you will feel cheated. That's just the way it is.
Bill
the English language. "Sinage" may nean something to you. It means
nothing to me. Or to the people who wrote my dictionary.
Bill
reading.
Have a nice day. Bill.
Bill McCarty
>>
> Vanessa, what you have to do is a bit of reading of art history. If you
> go after a explicit definition of cubism, however, you'll be frustrated,
> but at the same time you will be introduced to some important thoughts
> about art and artist's motives for painting what they have painted.
>
> The first phase of cubism, "analytic cubism," was probably inspired by
> several sources.
You forget the inspiration caused by realization that cameras can do a
better job of representing the real world than any artist.
If you look at the painting and like it on it's own
> merits, that's the point. If you expect it to be something besides
> itself you will feel cheated. That's just the way it is.
Yes Vanessa. if you like it, it's good and maybe great art,
depending on your sense of confidence in your own judgment. And if you
think it's a putrid, meaningless fraud worthy only of the daubings of a
demented jackass with a brush tied to its tail, your opinion is probably
worth more than that of any so- called art expert or major domo of a
leading art auction house - provided you can find one who has not been
convicted of cheating, fraud and/or rigging of auction prices.
Abstract art began a milion years ago in a cave in the south of
France (where else) when the first con man met the first fool and
convinced him that the mud images he had put on the wall of the cave
were important, significant images that had real and maybe even
supernatural significance that was worthy of the most serious respect.
It took a little longer before this "art" was translated into money but
they managed it and the French are still hard at work in that area. You
didn't think you could get in to see it without paying did you ?
Abstract art proves once again that when some one with money meets
someone with experience, the one with experience will get the money and
the one with money will have an "experience". Picasso is a fraud and a
tribute to what carefully controlled PR can be accomplished by a small
but dedicated group of shysters. Look at art with your head not just
your eyes.
Have anice day. Bill
Erik A. Mattila
You could have passed it off as a typo. Signage. Now that we have that
cleared up, what's your argument?
Peter H.M. Brooks
Bill appeared with much the same set of prejudices. Is this just a
coincidence or a genuine sock puppet exchange?
--
O how I cried when Alice died
The day we were to have wed!
We never had our Roasted Duck
And now she's a Loaf of Bread!
At nights I weep an cannot sleep,
Moonlight to me recalls
I never saw her Waterfront
Nor she my Waterfalls
- W.H. Auden verses for 'The Dog Beneath the Skin'
* TagZilla 0.057 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
Erik A. Mattila
>
>>>
>> Vanessa, what you have to do is a bit of reading of art history. If
>> you go after a explicit definition of cubism, however, you'll be
>> frustrated, but at the same time you will be introduced to some
>> important thoughts about art and artist's motives for painting what
>> they have painted.
>>
>> The first phase of cubism, "analytic cubism," was probably inspired by
>> several sources.
>
>
> You forget the inspiration caused by realization that cameras can do a
> better job of representing the real world than any artist.
No, I didn't forget that - how is it relevant to cubism?
>
> If you look at the painting and like it on it's own
Yes, I think that's the point.
>
>> merits, that's the point. If you expect it to be something besides
>> itself you will feel cheated. That's just the way it is.
>
>
> Yes Vanessa. if you like it, it's good and maybe great art,
> depending on your sense of confidence in your own judgment. And if you
> think it's a putrid, meaningless fraud worthy only of the daubings of a
> demented jackass with a brush tied to its tail, your opinion is probably
> worth more than that of any so- called art expert or major domo of a
> leading art auction house - provided you can find one who has not been
> convicted of cheating, fraud and/or rigging of auction prices.
Well, sure, if art is just that...a private evaluation. But it is
probably much more, don't you agree? I mean, what are artist's striving
for if not some sort of consensus in culture that his/her work is
signifiant? Recreational painting? You tell me.
> Abstract art began a milion years ago in a cave in the south of
> France (where else) when the first con man met the first fool and
> convinced him that the mud images he had put on the wall of the cave
> were important, significant images that had real and maybe even
> supernatural significance that was worthy of the most serious respect.
> It took a little longer before this "art" was translated into money but
> they managed it and the French are still hard at work in that area. You
> didn't think you could get in to see it without paying did you ?
> Abstract art proves once again that when some one with money meets
> someone with experience, the one with experience will get the money and
> the one with money will have an "experience". Picasso is a fraud and a
> tribute to what carefully controlled PR can be accomplished by a small
> but dedicated group of shysters. Look at art with your head not just
> your eyes.
>
> Have anice day. Bill
Bill, it's pretty strange that you're offering that hype in response to
an honest question. Why don't you retreat a bit, study art history, and
get back to us with an intellegent response? Don't you have any sense
of responsibility?
Erik A. Mattila
> Erik A. Mattila wrote:
>
>> Bill wrote:
>>
>>> Apparently you didn't believe in what they tried to teach you about
>>> the English language. "Sinage" may nean something to you. It means
>>> nothing to me. Or to the people who wrote my dictionary.
>>>
>> You could have passed it off as a typo. Signage. Now that we have
>> that cleared up, what's your argument?
>
> >
> Is 'Bill' a new incarnation of Mani? Mani seems to have disappeared and
> Bill appeared with much the same set of prejudices. Is this just a
> coincidence or a genuine sock puppet exchange?
Not a chance, Pete. Mani is pretty politically astute, in my opinion.
I just take issue with him on art topics. Mani would never claim
Picasso was Jewish, and even if he did make such an absurd claim, Mani
wouldn't use Jewishness to debase a modern artist, I'm sure.
But wait a minute...if this is a "sock puppet exchange" wouldn't I have
to be one of the sock puppets? Hmmm.... I'm not sure I could agree to
that. ;-)
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
>
>> Erik A. Mattila wrote:
>>
>>> Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>> Apparently you didn't believe in what they tried to teach you about
>>>> the English language. "Sinage" may nean something to you. It means
>>>> nothing to me. Or to the people who wrote my dictionary.
>>>>
>>> You could have passed it off as a typo. Signage. Now that we have
>>> that cleared up, what's your argument?
>>
>>
>> >
>> Is 'Bill' a new incarnation of Mani? Mani seems to have disappeared
>> and Bill appeared with much the same set of prejudices. Is this just a
>> coincidence or a genuine sock puppet exchange?
>
>
> Not a chance, Pete. Mani is pretty politically astute, in my opinion. I
> just take issue with him on art topics. Mani would never claim Picasso
> was Jewish, and even if he did make such an absurd claim, Mani wouldn't
> use Jewishness to debase a modern artist, I'm sure.
>
> But wait a minute...if this is a "sock puppet exchange" wouldn't I have
> to be one of the sock puppets? Hmmm.... I'm not sure I could agree to
> that. ;-)
>
different form of barmy rant.
--
That which we can only maintain by force we should try to do without -
Quinten Crisp, Resident Alien
Bill
artists believe it is pointless to try to compete with them. So they
don't try. Instead they try to paint a non- real world or their
impressions of the real world. (As if any one cared what their
impressions were.) The real world is made up of smooth curves and
gentle slopes and not straight lines, rectangles and squares. But
cubism seeks to suggest that rectangles and cubes are a valid way of
depicting reality. It isn't. And those who pretend to be impressed by
it are either liars or fools. Or both.
Study a bit of art history ? But I have. Enough to recognize a
scam when I see it. Tell you ? Tell you what ? I gave an honest
answer to an honest question from someone who may need help in
recognizing the scams which ABOUND in the art business. As for
responsibility, telling the truth is the best way of showing that.
I'm doing my part. Why not surprise us all by trying to do your part ?
Have a nice day. Bill
Why not start today by forgetting the party line regarding what is or
is not great art ?
chris
simply does the job more consistently, and more predictably. It was one
of the first heralds of the mass production age, where even perception
became standardized, sanitized, and controllable. Consider the art of
the period as the first major stand against the McDonaldization of
perception. One doesn't have to like it; but denying its importance, or
the lessons it holds for future artists, is simply idiotic.
A delightful side aspect of the art of the period (from the end of
Impressionism to the early 20's) is that artists discovered that by
challenging standardized perception their work could be used as a
litmus test of social conciousness; ideally by provoking a reaction,
one can address it. Think of "A Doll's house" as one of the first
artistic steps towards making mysogeny unacceptable (even if it is
never erased), or "The Rite of Spring" a a provocation that helped
force the middle classes into understanding their natural xenophobia.
Picasso is a case in point; he was often cast as supporting what ever
some critic or other feared most. In 1910 France, he was considered a
German influence. The Nazi's found him black, you find him Jewish.
1950's America found him Communist. In that sense he's reflected your
reality much more profoundly than just about any photograph could.
Cheers;
Chris
Thur
"chris" <caldwell...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126008270....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Several points, and well enough made.
However, there still remains the problem of interpreting works
that seem to have never been meant to be fully understood.
At least with many works he gives us a clue: e.g. "Guernica".
The trouble with casting aside "standardized perception" is that
people do not have any knowledge of the new language.
It's like trying to read Shakespeare without a working understanding
of English.
There is no Bible for reference to Picasso's language. Choose any
Picasso book and they will all inevitably interpret differently.
Maybe this always happens when a new avenue of art is opened up,
where only a few who knew the artists involved had some idea
what was going on and why.
Where is the "Lives" of these artists?
Is there a Georgio Vasari who writes today?
--
Thur
chris
Thur wrote:
[....]
> There is no Bible for reference to Picasso's language. Choose any
> Picasso book and they will all inevitably interpret differently.
> Maybe this always happens when a new avenue of art is opened up,
> where only a few who knew the artists involved had some idea
> what was going on and why.
I think you are right about that; but it's not just a side effect of
new art. The problem of acceptance is the same with new science -
Galileo, Einstein, Darwin, Mandelbrot, Cantor, etc. all faced a strong
degree of inanity from a public threatened by their rearrangement of
perception. However the scientific work tends to be more objective -
folks who understand Einstein can build better bombs than those that
can't - so the scientific argument has cooled except on the fringes.
But at the cost of giving up on the more profound analysis when it was
a branch of philosophy, rather than engineering.
The arts issue is much more challenging. In the West, we are on the
tail end of a cultural shockwave that really got underway maybe 150
years ago, resulting in all kinds of effects that we are not by nature
designed to cope with - urbanization, mechanization, the general
dehumanization of society. Art has a huge role to play in coming to
terms with that.
> Where is the "Lives" of these artists?
> Is there a Georgio Vasari who writes today?
Unfortunately, the best you can hope for too often appears to be
potboilers like "Lust for Life" :) But seriously, I don't think we are
going to be able to understand art in the formulaic manner that was
once (thought) possible; it seems more destined to remain a source of
questions, rather than of answers. But then again, great art has always
been like that. After all, who really understands Shakespeare - or even
the Bible? I'd say only those people who evade the deeper issues posed
by the work.
Cheers;
Chris
Mani Deli
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>Is 'Bill' a new incarnation of Mani? Mani seems to have disappeared and
>Bill appeared with much the same set of prejudices.
I'm still here you dumb asshole and I have nothing to with that guy's
stupid message.
>Is this just a
>coincidence or a genuine sock puppet exchange?
Its wishful thing by your lame brain.
Mani Deli
>"Erik A. Mattila" <e...@nospamimpix.com> wrote:
>Mani is pretty politically astute, in my opinion.
>> I just take issue with him on art topics. Mani would never claim
>> Picasso was Jewish, and even if he did make such an absurd claim, Mani
>> wouldn't use Jewishness to debase a modern artist, I'm sure.
>>
>> But wait a minute...if this is a "sock puppet exchange" wouldn't I have
>> to be one of the sock puppets? Hmmm.... I'm not sure I could agree to
>> that.
>
>Hi, Erik --
>
>Actually, you *are* one of the sock puppets. You didn't see the memo?
>
>Well, usenet continues to be a gathering place for kooks and bigots of all
>types. Fascinating.
>
>Mani is a nut; however, he comes on as a liberal and I would have agreed
>with you and Peter about his politics and lack of bigotry until recently --
>but he responded to a black guy's post by calling him a 'slumbunny.'
It doesn't always mean that in NYC.
Mani Deli
<e...@nospamimpix.com> wrote:
>The painting you have cited is of a later development, "synthetic
>cubism." There are many theories about this, but just based on
>observation it shows the seed of painting itself declaring independence
>from the real world - on the trajectory to pure abstraction.
The painting is on a level of student university failure 2D design.
Most Modern Academic Art theories are inflated verbal bullshit devised
to cover up obvious incompetence.
In other
>words, the painting itself is the model, and it is independant from any
>specific reference in the real world. In terms of art appreciation, it
>should be regarded thusly. If your expectation for a painting is that
>it ought to be a representation of reality, then you will be
>dissappointed. But it should be kept in mind that the artist didn't
>intend to throw paint on a carrier to represent anything other than the
>painting itself. If you look at the painting and like it on it's own
>merits, that's the point. If you expect it to be something besides
>itself you will feel cheated. That's just the way it is.
What a load of meaningless baloney.
Mani Deli
> Since a camera can do a better job of reflecting reality, many
>artists believe it is pointless to try to compete with them. So they
>don't try. Instead they try to paint a non- real world or their
>impressions of the real world. (As if any one cared what their
>impressions were.) The real world is made up of smooth curves and
>gentle slopes and not straight lines, rectangles and squares. But
>cubism seeks to suggest that rectangles and cubes are a valid way of
>depicting reality. It isn't. And those who pretend to be impressed by
>it are either liars or fools. Or both.
Cubism is patterns mostly done in axonometric perspective in order to
give the painting a bit of spatial illusion along with glued on
newspaper and an occasional poorly painted semi abstract real object
thrown in. Its mostly done in shit browns in order to shock the viewer
of the period. Later stuff is somewhat simpler done in bright colors.
Its bullshit but it still impresses students who learn nothing from
their incompetent teachers because the can easily imitate that sort of
stuff. As it fades into the past even some critics are beginning to
question its validity. This is dangerous because a lot of rich idiots
and art business men have gobs of money tied up in it along with
museum curators who have staked their reputations that sort of crap,
So for the moment most criticism is kept hidden.
Mani Deli
>Mani, you now have serious competition in the ignorant bigot department.
>Better get in here quickly with some more racial slurs like you aimed at
>me.
Bigoted according to you means they don't like what you like. I know a
incompetent jerk like you has to imagine that those who disagree with
you are bigoted. I suppose you need this sort of rationalization to
make yourself feel better.
>You can call me a jew, too, if you want to, Mani (I'm not, but neither was
>picasso -- but since when has the truth bothered a bigot?)
I don't give a shit what color you are or the character of your
superstitions, Your messages here generally refer to the character of
those you don't like here and rarely answer points. That's why I call
you Bimbo White. The rest is your fucked up imagination.
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
Mani Deli wrote:
> On 5 Sep 2005 23:10:21 -0700, "Bill" <billm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Since a camera can do a better job of reflecting reality, many
> >artists believe it is pointless to try to compete with them. So they
> >don't try. Instead they try to paint a non- real world or their
> >impressions of the real world. (As if any one cared what their
> >impressions were.) The real world is made up of smooth curves and
> >gentle slopes and not straight lines, rectangles and squares. But
> >cubism seeks to suggest that rectangles and cubes are a valid way of
> >depicting reality. It isn't. And those who pretend to be impressed by
> >it are either liars or fools. Or both.
>
> Cubism is patterns mostly done in axonometric perspective in order to
> give the painting a bit of spatial illusion along with glued on
> newspaper and an occasional poorly painted semi abstract real object
> thrown in.
>
> their incompetent teachers because the can easily imitate that sort of
> stuff. As it fades into the past even some critics are beginning to
> question its validity.
Could you name three critics who question the validity of cubism?
Mani Deli
>> Mani Deli wrote:
>
>snip ---
>
>> > Its [Cubism is] bullshit but it still impresses students who learn
>> > nothing from their incompetent teachers because the can easily imitate
>> > that sort of stuff. As it fades into the past even some critics are
>> > beginning to question its validity.
>>
>> Could you name three critics who question the validity of cubism?
True, I can't name any famous critics. I read art mags and get an
occasional statement that borders on sarcasm. I don't keep records on
the matter so I can't even refer you to it. However, years ago there
wasn't a peep that questioned Picasso. A recent issue of Art news had
an evaluation of artists (20th century I think) and had some negitive
things to say. It surprised me a bit as some of the guys they praised
were far worse than Picasso.
>You won't get an answer to this question! Just like Mani never responded
>when I countered his claim that french academic painting (like bougereau)
>was growing in popularity while 'frauds' like picasso were fading.
I never made that statement. Picasso isn't fading in any large sense
for the reasons I gave.
Mani
>does book counts in stores (!)
and poster stores which I consider a good evaluator of peoples tastes.
-- i made a quick trip to amazon.com which
>showed about 20 books for the boog and nearly 2000 for picasso.
There were none before five years ago. However the Popularity of B.
shows on commercial things. Reproductions of his work appear all over
the commercial place although is name is publicly unknown. I suspect
this jerk imagines B. is the only artist I like.
>when his lies are exposed he retreats in silence, never mentioning the
>topic again (well, at least not until he thinks everyone's forgotten about
>his past embarassment).
You are as full of shit as usual. And I expect you will repeat this in
a few weeks. I'll send the same answer.
Marc Sabatella
> impressions were.)
If no one cared in the imrperssions of artists, there would be no point in
art at all. I am sorry *you* don't care about anyone's impressions but your
own, but trust me - billions of others do.
> The real world is made up of smooth curves and
> gentle slopes and not straight lines, rectangles and squares. But
> cubism seeks to suggest that rectangles and cubes are a valid way of
> depicting reality. It isn't. And those who pretend to be impressed by
> it are either liars or fools. Or both.
Agreed - those who *pretend* to be impressed are foolish. Not nearly as
foolish, however, as those who go about insult people who people who are
interested in seeing the world through the eyes of others.
---------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
The Outside Shore
Music, art, & educational materials:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
Mani Deli wrote:
> Bimbo White wrote:
>
> >> Mani Deli wrote:
> >
> >snip ---
> >
> >> > Its [Cubism is] bullshit but it still impresses students who learn
> >> > nothing from their incompetent teachers because the can easily imitate
> >> > that sort of stuff. As it fades into the past even some critics are
> >> > beginning to question its validity.
> >>
> >> Could you name three critics who question the validity of cubism?
>
> True, I can't name any famous critics. I read art mags and get an
> occasional statement that borders on sarcasm. I don't keep records on
> the matter so I can't even refer you to it. However, years ago there
> wasn't a peep that questioned Picasso.
I'm not sure what magazines you've been reading but John Berger's "The
Success and Failure of
Picasso" was published in 1965.
A recent issue of Art news had
> an evaluation of artists (20th century I think) and had some negitive
> things to say. It surprised me a bit as some of the guys they praised
> were far worse than Picasso.
Well I'm not sure of what criteria you are using to determine "worse"
but again the devil is in the details. Who exactly are the artists and
where did they succeed in the writer's eyes where Picasso failed?
> >You won't get an answer to this question! Just like Mani never responded
> >when I countered his claim that french academic painting (like bougereau)
> >was growing in popularity while 'frauds' like picasso were fading.
>
> I never made that statement. Picasso isn't fading in any large sense
> for the reasons I gave.
>
> Mani
> >does book counts in stores (!)
>
> and poster stores which I consider a good evaluator of peoples tastes.
> -- i made a quick trip to amazon.com which
> >showed about 20 books for the boog and nearly 2000 for picasso.
>
> There were none before five years ago. However the Popularity of B.
> shows on commercial things. Reproductions of his work appear all over
> the commercial place although is name is publicly unknown. I suspect
> this jerk imagines B. is the only artist I like.
>
Actually according to the Library of Congress there really hasn't been
major publication for the past ten years. Are you sure you're not
thinking of someone like Alma Tadema or Hippolyte Flandrin?
William Adolphe Bouguereau : ... exhibition ... organized by Mario
Amaya, the New York Cultural Center, in association with Fairleigh
Dickinson University, 13 December 1974 to 2 February 1975 : catalogue
and selection / by Robert Isaacson. 1975
Bouguereau, William Adolphe, 1825-1905 Bouguereau, William Adolphe,
1825-1905. William Bouguereau, 1825-1905 : Musée du Petit-Palais,
Paris, 9 February-6 May 1984, the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts, 22
June-23 September 1984, the Wadsworth Atheneum, Hartford, 27 October
1984-13 January 1985. 1984
William Adolphe Bouguereau : ... exhibition ... organized by Mario
Amaya, the New York Cultural Center, in association with Fairleigh
Dickinson University, 13 December 1974 to 2 February 1975 : catalogue
and selection / by Robert Isaacson.
[New York] : The Center, [1975?]
51 p. : ill. ; 26 cm.
Wissman, Fronia E.
Bouguereau / Fronia E. Wissman.
1st ed.
San Francisco : Pomegranate Artbooks, c1996.
125 p. : ill. (some col.) ; 30 cm.
Bill
Are you bragging or complaining ? My pea brain tells me there is
more sheep dip and hog wash associated with the business of art than
there is with any other business save the columns of newspaper drivel
devoted to astrology. Critics ? No one ever raised a monument to a
critic. No one gives a fiddler's fart what a critic thinks of art or
artists. Unless pea brains have become a pandemic disease. As for
Picasso, his work can be duplicated by any retarded child with a box
of crayons.
Wake up ! If you produce a PERFECT copy of a Picasso painting,
exact in every detail, do you think the art hucksters are going to sing
your praises and assign a monetary value to it equal to the original
work ? No ! Because artistic merit has NOTHING to do with the value
assigned to a daubing by Picasso. It's 98% hype ! Given enough of the
same sort of hype YOUR work will bring high prices too. But don't for a
minute believe that artistic merit has the slightest bearing on the
matter. Scam is too kind a word for what is behind the rise and fall
of so called important names in the so called world of art.
Erik A. Mattila
tastes just like piss. Scam is everywhere - we are the people of scam.
I always buy "heavy duty" motor oil because it costs less than "super
heavy duty." I couldn't find an "regular duty" for the life of me.
Mani Deli
>"Bill" <billm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > I'm black and gay -- I'll bet that makes your little pea-brain tingle.
>>
>> Are you bragging or complaining ?
>
>I brought it up because most anti-semites are also bigots and homophobes.
>Looks like you fit right in.
>
>Since this thread started somebody emailed me that Mani is jewish ...
>Remember Roy Cohen, that fag who beat up fags? must be that self-hate
>thing going on with our toronto bigot.
Notice that this crank spends most of his time criticizing peoples
character. He thinks everyone who disagrees with him is persecuting
him. He sees bigots and homophobes coming out of the woodwork.
I lived in the West Village NY for ten years and grew up in NYC and
attended art schools there. Its hard to be a bigot under those
circumstances.
Peter H.M. Brooks
difficult circumstances so completely.
--
A young lady who faints, must be recovered; questions must be
answered, and surprises be explained. Such events are very interesting,
but the suspense of them cannot last long. A few minutes made Emma
acquainted with the whole. - Emma, Jane Austen
Mani Deli
>
>Mani Deli wrote:
>> Bimbo White wrote:
>>
>> >> Mani Deli wrote:
>> >
>> >snip ---
>> >
>> >> > Its [Cubism is] bullshit but it still impresses students who learn
>> >> > nothing from their incompetent teachers because the can easily imitate
>> >> > that sort of stuff. As it fades into the past even some critics are
>> >> > beginning to question its validity.
>> >>
>> >> Could you name three critics who question the validity of cubism?
>>
>> True, I can't name any famous critics. I read art mags and get an
>> occasional statement that borders on sarcasm. I don't keep records on
>> the matter so I can't even refer you to it. However, years ago there
>> wasn't a peep that questioned Picasso.
>
>I'm not sure what magazines you've been reading but John Berger's "The
>Success and Failure of
>Picasso" was published in 1965.
"If I wrote hardly a peep." would that satisfy you. Sure, there's Tom
Wolf's book and other stuff but its not much compared to the bullhorn
praise at every Picasso show without a peep allowed by the other side.
> A recent issue of Art news had
>> an evaluation of artists (20th century I think) and had some negitive
>> things to say. It surprised me a bit as some of the guys they praised
>> were far worse than Picasso.
>
>Well I'm not sure of what criteria you are using to determine "worse"
>but again the devil is in the details. Who exactly are the artists and
>where did they succeed in the writer's eyes where Picasso failed?
I was referring to my opinion.
>
>> >You won't get an answer to this question! Just like Mani never responded
>> >when I countered his claim that french academic painting (like bougereau)
>> >was growing in popularity while 'frauds' like picasso were fading.
>>
>> I never made that statement. Picasso isn't fading in any large sense
>> for the reasons I gave.
>>
>> Mani
>> >does book counts in stores (!)
>>
>> and poster stores which I consider a good evaluator of peoples tastes.
>
>
>
>
>> -- i made a quick trip to amazon.com which
>> >showed about 20 books for the boog and nearly 2000 for picasso.
>>
>> There were none before five years ago. However the Popularity of B.
>> shows on commercial things. Reproductions of his work appear all over
>> the commercial place although is name is publicly unknown. I suspect
>> this jerk imagines B. is the only artist I like.
>>
>
>Actually according to the Library of Congress there really hasn't been
>major publication for the past ten years. Are you sure you're not
>thinking of someone like Alma Tadema or Hippolyte Flandrin?
I don't consider museum catalogs major publications. In fact I have
several that you mention. None of these are available on the regular
market. I have the Pomegranate book, its the only one. Perhaps I
should have checked the date. B. is certainly mentioned in many recent
books about the period more and more and his auction prices are rising
steadily. But public his name is essentially unknown.
There is a recent Alma Tedema book (Abrams?)
Marc Sabatella
> exact in every detail, do you think the art hucksters are going to sing
> your praises and assign a monetary value to it equal to the original
> work ? No !
Correct, and a good thing, too, because it is *originality* that is
important. I could type up a perfect replica of a Shakespeare play, too,
but that doens't make me a literary genius. They guy who comes up with the
idea deserves the credit.
Bill
Agreed - those who *pretend* to be impressed are foolish. Not nearly
as
foolish, however, as those who go about insult people who people who
are
interested in seeing the world through the eyes of others.
Keep it up Marc. One of these days you're going to put some English
words together that actually form a sentence. And they might even make
some kind of sense.
Have a nice day. BMc.
Mani Deli
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>Mani Deli wrote:
>> On 08 Sep 2005 13:55:54 GMT, biljo...@yahoo.com(Biljo White) wrote:
>>
>> I lived in the West Village NY for ten years and grew up in NYC and
>> attended art schools there. Its hard to be a bigot under those
>> circumstances.
> >
>I'm sure that we all admire the magnificent way you overcame such
>difficult circumstances so completely.
I'm sure a dumb asshole like you imagines that he speaks for "we all."
Mani Deli
<ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>Correct, and a good thing, too, because it is *originality* that is
>important.
There's nothing original about Picasso by that time. All he did was
repeat his stuff.
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
Mani Deli wrote:
> On 7 Sep 2005 21:30:58 -0700, s_l_a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> >Mani Deli wrote:
> >> Bimbo White wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Mani Deli wrote:
> >> >
> >> >snip ---
> >> >
> >> >> > Its [Cubism is] bullshit but it still impresses students who learn
> >> >> > nothing from their incompetent teachers because the can easily imitate
> >> >> > that sort of stuff. As it fades into the past even some critics are
> >> >> > beginning to question its validity.
> >> >>
> >> >> Could you name three critics who question the validity of cubism?
> >>
> >> True, I can't name any famous critics. I read art mags and get an
> >> occasional statement that borders on sarcasm. I don't keep records on
> >> the matter so I can't even refer you to it. However, years ago there
> >> wasn't a peep that questioned Picasso.
> >
> >I'm not sure what magazines you've been reading but John Berger's "The
> >Success and Failure of
> >Picasso" was published in 1965.
>
> "If I wrote hardly a peep." would that satisfy you. Sure, there's Tom
> Wolf's book and other stuff but its not much compared to the bullhorn
> praise at every Picasso show without a peep allowed by the other side.
Well again you're changing the subject because you have a fairly weak
argument.
You wrote "As it fades into the past even some critics are beginning to
question its [Cubism's] validity." Firstly, since cubism is not
exclusively associated with Picasso, examples of critics criticizing
*cubism* Braque, Gris, Metzinger etc would be called for.
Since I've already shown that criticism of Picasso is hardly a recent
phenomenon, and if you really require it, I can supply scores of other
prominant critics. The problem is you have not yet really said anything
intelligible about the painting.
> > A recent issue of Art news had
> >> an evaluation of artists (20th century I think) and had some negitive
> >> things to say. It surprised me a bit as some of the guys they praised
> >> were far worse than Picasso.
> >
> >Well I'm not sure of what criteria you are using to determine "worse"
> >but again the devil is in the details. Who exactly are the artists and
> >where did they succeed in the writer's eyes where Picasso failed?
>
> I was referring to my opinion.
Well no you were also referring to a recent issue of Art news and the
negative things said about Picasso in comparison to artists that you
felt were were. Can you recall what exactly was the rationale behind
the negative evaluations?
> >
> >> >You won't get an answer to this question! Just like Mani never responded
> >> >when I countered his claim that french academic painting (like bougereau)
> >> >was growing in popularity while 'frauds' like picasso were fading.
> >>
> >> I never made that statement. Picasso isn't fading in any large sense
> >> for the reasons I gave.
> >>
> >> Mani
> >> >does book counts in stores (!)
> >>
> >> and poster stores which I consider a good evaluator of peoples tastes.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> -- i made a quick trip to amazon.com which
> >> >showed about 20 books for the boog and nearly 2000 for picasso.
> >>
> >> There were none before five years ago. However the Popularity of B.
> >> shows on commercial things. Reproductions of his work appear all over
> >> the commercial place although is name is publicly unknown. I suspect
> >> this jerk imagines B. is the only artist I like.
> >>
> >
> >Actually according to the Library of Congress there really hasn't been
> >major publication for the past ten years. Are you sure you're not
> >thinking of someone like Alma Tadema or Hippolyte Flandrin?
>
> I don't consider museum catalogs major publications. In fact I have
> several that you mention. None of these are available on the regular
> market. I have the Pomegranate book, its the only one. Perhaps I
> should have checked the date. B. is certainly mentioned in many recent
> books about the period more and more and his auction prices are rising
> steadily. But public his name is essentially unknown.
Well no his name is fairly well known. It's part of the "standard
issue" history of Modernism.
Perhaps the use of his name is unfair, the majority of his work is
better than the famous "bad examples". But yes his work by freezing
unnatural glassy eyed smiles did not respond to photography very well,
his allegorical works have a perversity at odds with the lofty ideals
they intended to extol and his compositions are often glutted. He aint
no Vermeer.
Mani Deli
>You wrote "As it fades into the past even some critics are beginning to
>question its [Cubism's] validity." Firstly, since cubism is not
>exclusively associated with Picasso, examples of critics criticizing
>*cubism* Braque, Gris, Metzinger etc would be called for.
So what?
>
>Since I've already shown that criticism of Picasso is hardly a recent
>phenomenon, and if you really require it,
I do. I have rarely seen anything substantial from any major critic.
Indeed there are soft statements like, "His work since the 1930's has
declined --."
> I can supply scores of other prominant critics.
Supply three.
>The problem is you have not yet really said anything
>intelligible about the painting.
Check my former messages and my web site. However I doubt that any
Picassoholic here finds anything I say as substantial.
>> I was referring to my opinion.
>
>Well no you were also referring to a recent issue of Art news and the
>negative things said about Picasso in comparison to artists that you
>felt were were. Can you recall what exactly was the rationale behind
>the negative evaluations?
>
No, but if I go to the art library I'll refer you to the issue.
>> I don't consider museum catalogs major publications. In fact I have
>> several that you mention. None of these are available on the regular
>> market. I have the Pomegranate book, its the only one. Perhaps I
>> should have checked the date. B. is certainly mentioned in many recent
>> books about the period more and more and his auction prices are rising
>> steadily. But public his name is essentially unknown.
>
>Well no his name is fairly well known. It's part of the "standard
>issue" history of Modernism.
Yes, always as a mention along with the evils of academic art in the
standard slanted art history of the 19th century..
>Perhaps the use of his name is unfair, the majority of his work is
>better than the famous "bad examples". But yes his work by freezing
>unnatural glassy eyed smiles did not respond to photography very well,
?
>his allegorical works have a perversity at odds with the lofty ideals
>they intended to extol and his compositions are often glutted. He aint
>no Vermeer.
So what!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd
pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Mani Deli
Three abstract paintings by a chimpanzee named Congo have been sold
for
£12,000 - after being given a price tag of just £800.
The animal art, painted when the chimp was three, went under the
hammer
on Tuesday at auction house Bonhams in central London.
Congo's work was included in a 1957 chimp art exhibition curated by
animal behaviourist Desmond Morris.
The three works were bought by US modern art enthusiast Howard Hong.
Bonhams said there had been a "fantastic" amount of interest in the
paintings, which had been sold as one lot. "I would sincerely doubt
that chimpanzee art has ever been auctioned
before," said Howard Rutkowski, director of modern and contemporary
art at Bonhams.
He added: "I don't think anybody else has been crazy enough to do
this.
I'm sure other auction houses think this is completely mad."
Thur
"Biljo White" <biljo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20050909085504.758$v...@newsreader.com...
> Mani always says that his critics 'don't respond to my points.' mani
> doesn't make points, he hurls childish abuse. as you point out, he doesn't
> respond to the points of others. he is massively ignorant of art and art
> history and displays his ignorance often, usually without realizing it.
> just a failed painter turned net kook.
> Mani always says that his critics 'don't respond to my points.' mani
> doesn't make points, he hurls childish abuse. as you point out, he doesn't
> respond to the points of others.
?
!
:-)
--
Thur
Thur
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:vr53i1l7lb6q4sfgd...@4ax.com...
Quote: "Check my former messages and my web site. However I doubt that any
Picassoholic here finds anything I say as substantial."
There seem to be amongst each group I have visited, a core of
posters who use it much like a social club rather than a debating
area.
They seek out views like their own and mainly send posts agreeing
with each other rather than trusting their own to debate.
Thus those you are trying to convince (mainly) are not worth the
effort for this reason alone.
As far as Piccasso goes, most of his work seems to me to be more
suitable as a collection of trial works, which are now overblown
as would be if they were complete and meaningful works of great
importance.
Re: the title,
I ask how would the guitar have looked from an aesthetic and artistic
meaning, if it were distorted just slightly in other ways?
If the object were given depth, or the painting was more carefully
painted and finished, would it have had more appeal?
What does it mean? In what way(s) did Piccasso try to pass any
communication to the viewer? Are there hidden clues in the painting,
is it a really complex work that my eyes are failing to see?
My question is mainly where is the language, the format, where any
kind of judgement can be applied?
If none then what art and what artist is of lesser note?
How can we tell?
The trouble is fundamental.
The definition of a work of art as applied to a painting differs so much
between groups of people that some will never accept Modernist
Abstraction of any sort. ( I have that problem)
I can only think of say, 10 of his works that make me give more than a
glance.
He will always be noted by Art Historians for the great success he
had, and as a signpost for one way Modern Art moved in the first part
of the 20th Century.
This will not mean that criticism and judgement will be applied any
less harshly.
--
Thur
Mani Deli
>just for laughs i looked up posts in google with mani's name on them --
>early, like early 1990s. he has really been here since 1994! saying
>exactly the same things, the same way.
Gee, that's a crime in the Bimbo's mind. Repetition, things the Bimbo
disapproves of.
>funny one: in a post about mani in 1994 in rec.arts.fine, one guy says
>that mani got kicked off of alt.artcom for his rants. 'i hope he doesn't
>find here here![RAF]'
>
I guess you wish it was true. Nobody can get kicked off conferences.
Even an asshole like you is immune to that possibility.
Mani Deli
>Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> >
>> >Since I've already shown that criticism of Picasso is hardly a recent
>> >phenomenon, and if you really require it,
>>
>> I do. I have rarely seen anything substantial from any major critic.
>> Indeed there are soft statements like, "His work since the 1930's has
>> declined --."
>
>
>Clem Greenberg stated flatly: 'since cubism Picasso lost his stuff.' this
>was Greenbergian for being washed up, finished.
Full of crap as usual! Instead of being a lazy slug why don't you try
to back up what you say.
G.. wrote " once a master -always to some extent- a master."
Read G.s essay "Picasso at seventy-five."
Mani Deli
massive "Fishermen of Antibes." To compliment this work Dali sent
Picasso a telegram.
"Pablo thanks!
Your last ignominious paintings have killed modern art. But for you
with the taste and moderation that are the very virtues of French
prudence we should have had painting which was more and more ugly for
at least one hundred years...you...have achieved the limits and the
final consequences of the abominable in a mere few weeks... etc."
signed S, Dali
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
Mani Deli wrote:
> On 8 Sep 2005 22:13:27 -0700, s_l_a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >You wrote "As it fades into the past even some critics are beginning to
> >question its [Cubism's] validity." Firstly, since cubism is not
> >exclusively associated with Picasso, examples of critics criticizing
> >*cubism* Braque, Gris, Metzinger etc would be called for.
>
> So what?
> >
Because without proof your statement "As it fades into the past even
some critics are beginning to
question its [Cubism's] validity" is blather.
> >Since I've already shown that criticism of Picasso is hardly a recent
> >phenomenon, and if you really require it,
>
> I do. I have rarely seen anything substantial from any major critic.
> Indeed there are soft statements like, "His work since the 1930's has
> declined --."
>
>
> > I can supply scores of other prominant critics.
>
> Supply three.
>
Clement Greenberg, Griselda Pollock, Lucy Lippard
>
> >The problem is you have not yet really said anything
> >intelligible about the painting.
>
> Check my former messages and my web site. However I doubt that any
> Picassoholic here finds anything I say as substantial.
>
Neither would any knowlegable art critic.
>
> >> I was referring to my opinion.
> >
> >Well no you were also referring to a recent issue of Art news and the
> >negative things said about Picasso in comparison to artists that you
> >felt were were. Can you recall what exactly was the rationale behind
> >the negative evaluations?
> >
>
> No, but if I go to the art library I'll refer you to the issue.
Well if you cannot recall the rationale behind the negative
evaluations, why bother to mention
them in the first place? Is your argument so weak that "somebody said
something bad about
Picasso" is sufficient to support your views, without you actually
remembering what was said?
>
> >> I don't consider museum catalogs major publications. In fact I have
> >> several that you mention. None of these are available on the regular
> >> market. I have the Pomegranate book, its the only one. Perhaps I
> >> should have checked the date. B. is certainly mentioned in many recent
> >> books about the period more and more and his auction prices are rising
> >> steadily. But public his name is essentially unknown.
> >
> >Well no his name is fairly well known. It's part of the "standard
> >issue" history of Modernism.
>
> Yes, always as a mention along with the evils of academic art in the
> standard slanted art history of the 19th century..
>
> >Perhaps the use of his name is unfair, the majority of his work is
> >better than the famous "bad examples". But yes his work by freezing
> >unnatural glassy eyed smiles did not respond to photography very well,
>
> ?
His paintings look like stiffly posed photographs, when they seem to be
aiming for grace.
In other words they fail to achieve their goal.
> >his allegorical works have a perversity at odds with the lofty ideals
> >they intended to extol and his compositions are often glutted. He aint
> >no Vermeer.
>
> So what!
So B. exemplifies the weaknesses of the Academy that spurred the avant
guard.
>
> Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd
> pretensions of the modern art establishment?
>
> Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
And you will find Mani's own indecipherable imbecilities and absurd
pretensions.
Mani Deli
>Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> On 09 Sep 2005 19:10:14 GMT, biljo...@yahoo.com(Biljo White) wrote:
>>
>> >Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Clem Greenberg stated flatly: 'since cubism Picasso lost his stuff.'
>> >this was Greenbergian for being washed up, finished.
>>
>> Full of crap as usual! Instead of being a lazy slug why don't you try
>> to back up what you say.
>
>OK. Here's Clem, as quoted by critic Julia Copeland:
>
>I remember when I met Greenberg, he was saying, in his inimitable style,
>'Picasso lost his stuff in the late 1920s.'
>
>This is a very well-known quote. Too bad you never heard of it. I'm
>becoming more convinced than ever that you have no art background
>whatsoever. Just a big mouth and a rage at having failed as an artist.
Stay convinced.
Mani Deli
Mani Deli
>
>Mani Deli wrote:
>> On 8 Sep 2005 22:13:27 -0700, s_l_a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >You wrote "As it fades into the past even some critics are beginning to
>> >question its [Cubism's] validity." Firstly, since cubism is not
>> >exclusively associated with Picasso, examples of critics criticizing
>> >*cubism* Braque, Gris, Metzinger etc would be called for.
>>
>> So what?
>> >
>
>Because without proof your statement "As it fades into the past even
>some critics are beginning to
>question its [Cubism's] validity" is blather.
>
Consider it whatever you wish
>
>> >Since I've already shown that criticism of Picasso is hardly a recent
>> >phenomenon, and if you really require it,
>>
>> I do. I have rarely seen anything substantial from any major critic.
>> Indeed there are soft statements like, "His work since the 1930's has
>> declined --."
>>
>>
>> > I can supply scores of other prominant critics.
>>
>> Supply three.
>>
>
>Clement Greenberg, Griselda Pollock, Lucy Lippard
>
I don't see Greenberg in this and the I don't consider the others
major critics. However you might quote them.
and you carefully left out G.s statement
G.. wrote in the late 60's " once a master -always to some extent- a
master." Read G.s essay "Picasso at seventy-five." in Art and
Culture"
Indeed, the day will come when a major critic starts to pan Picasso.
He will buck the trend and perhaps some honest contraversity will at
last occur.
>So B. exemplifies the weaknesses of the Academy that spurred the avant
>guard.
>
>>
>> Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd
>> pretensions of the modern art establishment?
>>
>> Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
>
>
>And you will find Mani's own indecipherable imbecilities and absurd
> pretensions.
Please do so and judge for yourself
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
Mani Deli wrote:
> On 9 Sep 2005 23:54:13 -0700, s_l_a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> >Mani Deli wrote:
> >> On 8 Sep 2005 22:13:27 -0700, s_l_a...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >You wrote "As it fades into the past even some critics are beginning to
> >> >question its [Cubism's] validity." Firstly, since cubism is not
> >> >exclusively associated with Picasso, examples of critics criticizing
> >> >*cubism* Braque, Gris, Metzinger etc would be called for.
> >>
> >> So what?
> >> >
> >
> >Because without proof your statement "As it fades into the past even
> >some critics are beginning to
> >question its [Cubism's] validity" is blather.
> >
> Consider it whatever you wish
Well why do you consider your statement "As it fades into the past even
some critics are beginning to
question its [Cubism's] validity" a valid one? You haven't identified
any of the critics or the reasons they gave for questioning the
validity of cubism. Why would anyone agree with you if you cannot offer
any support?
> >
> >> >Since I've already shown that criticism of Picasso is hardly a recent
> >> >phenomenon, and if you really require it,
> >>
> >> I do. I have rarely seen anything substantial from any major critic.
> >> Indeed there are soft statements like, "His work since the 1930's has
> >> declined --."
> >>
> >>
> >> > I can supply scores of other prominant critics.
> >>
> >> Supply three.
> >>
> >
> >Clement Greenberg, Griselda Pollock, Lucy Lippard
> >
> I don't see Greenberg in this and the I don't consider the others
> major critics. However you might quote them.
Well Mani, that's the problem. You haven't read (or retained) much
recent art criticism, so you
end up tilting at windmills that have long since been toppled. Lippard
and Pollock arn't major
critics? Have you tried Googling them? Who do you consider the major
critics of the past twenty years?
Why don't you see Greenberg in this? Your original argument was that
not a peep of criticism of Picasso was "allowed" in art circles. I (and
Biljo) given you four examples.
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
Haven't read it, but the following dispells your notion that "hardly a
peep" of criticism of Picasso is "allowed".
G: Something about Picasso? You'll have to be more specific than that,
sir.
Q: How about an anecdote?
G: I never met him.
Q: What do you think of his stuff?
G: Oh, he was a very great artist when he had it. And he stopped having
it about 1926 and he had it somewhat until about 1940 and then I think
he lost it except here and there in sculpture and he was always a good
draftsman, a good printmaker. I think he stayed a good draftsman, a
good printer, until the end of his life. But as a painter he went
downhill after '26. That's my opinion.
http://www.sharecom.ca/greenberg/taste.html
Mani Deli
"He had a feel for adjectives, but few ideas. He listened to me and
gratified me with answers full of modifiers. His whole brilliance lay
in his skill as plagiarist and stager--as a jewel-setter. When all was
said and done, Picasso was a duettist. He always needed a partner:
Ingres, Delacroix, Velazquez, and others I forgot. But he was a
eunuch, a caricaturing imitator who tore down and made fun of what he
could not outdo. All he knew how to do was distort as he copied."
[Dali #257 confessions]
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
Jealousy really made him say some silly things, especially in light of
how often Dali
parodied other painters.
Once again this is an old troll Mani.
Have you read *any* recent art criticism?
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
His targets are certainly rather odd, but I think they are chosen to
facilitate the silly claims about "skill".
I mean what's he gonna do? Attack Matthew Barney for being sloppy? Jake
and Dinos Chapman?
Who was the last AbEx painter shown at the Whitney Biennale?
Mani Deli
Have you?
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
Yes
chris
Garnoud wrote:
> Schoolyard taunts. Mani is still back in the third grade emotionally.
> We're wasting time on a case of arrested development.
But what's always suprising/amusing is the level of vitriolic responses
he manages to inspire. Sometimnes he must feel like an atheist in
Tehran....
Chris
Mani Deli
What might happen:
If the economy sinks and the gas price along with everything else
rises substantially, the party for the gangsters that run the
government might be over unless they can effectively create damage
control. The worse the economic situation the more unlikely that will
be.
But what probably will happen:
The stupid amnesia prone populace will become even more anesthetized
as our blowhard politicians bullhorn the usual "we'll rebuilt,
glorious day are ahead etc." Even though it will be about as effective
as the war, most people will eat the message which they will
constantly see as they surf from sit-coms past the news to sports on
their TVs. An era of graft will follow that will make the 19th century
robber barons and our present government crooks seem like peanut
vendors.
As ever more money concentrates in the hands of the upper one percent,
even more will be available to fix elections and hoodwink the public.
Our bribed corporate socialist government will continue to protect
itself by making the crimes they need to prosper legal. Any
documentation of unaccounted tax dollars will continue to go to the
shredders. Government positions will be filled by even more
unqualified hacks and the courts will be packed with political shills.
The ruin to the educational system will continue while we militarize
ever more and further curtail the Constitution. Expect religious pep
talks and political photo ops along with artificial problems designed
to heighten fear and hysteria to saturate the media news. Opposition
will be quashed, at first gently but with increasing severity. People
who talk too much will quietly be hounded by the I.R.S. and their
savings will be threatened. If they get too loud they will be publicly
accused of being unpatriotic traitors. More tax free religious
worthies will prosper. American flag and fancy Bible publication may
become big industries.
Public hysteria will be enhanced by any possible means in order to
keep us unaware of exactly how we are being screwed, while our trip on
our road to fascism will end with its total implementation.
Is this a grim view of the future? No, I believe it already a grim
view of the present.
God bless Oily Dick Cheney
Mani Deli
of Van Gogh) "Fish soup for fish soups sake.
As to Pollock, "The same fish-soup as Monticelli, but far less tasty,
merely the indigestion that goes with it."
ineffab...@gmail.com
Bill wrote:
> Since a camera can do a better job of reflecting reality, many
> artists believe it is pointless to try to compete with them. So they
> don't try. Instead they try to paint a non- real world or their
> impressions of the real world.
Bill, you are vastly wrong on this point. The camera flattens
and distorts, eliminating the nuances found in shadow areas, and the
human eye sees more colors than color film ever could. You may be
familiar with art history, but if you draw from life for a few years
you can really appreciate this fact.
Thur
<ineffab...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126928231....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
represent "true" reality, but to offer an alternative to the viewer with
an intention to engage in a form of communication.
Therefore photographers who strive to achieve technical components
which are an attempt to present a picture as close as possible to
real vision are technicians, if that is all they are about.
Similarly, painters who try to do the same - and I can't think of any within
the known world of art - are also technicians.
Even the few "photo-realist" images that I have seen have had some kind
of agenda, some effort to subtly present the world as it is, but suggesting
all kinds of other worlds.
Landscapist efforts of any note are reconstructions, assemblies of the
world in a more ideal sense, and usually have a composition at their heart.
Realism is no criticism on it's own, but it tries to slur by suggesting that
all a work is is a simple copy of reality.
This may be true for beginners, who are struggling to master the challenges
of their medium, but professionals and even practiced amateurs need not
worry about such accusations, since those accusations never come with
any argument of any worth.
--
Thur