Painting vs. Photography
Amy P Crisostomo
art, the only photographers that are named and seem to be considered
"artists" are ansel adams and cindy sherman?
doesn't anyone know any other photographers?
Bruce Attah
<ap...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
I just use whatever names come up, since it's not my aim to discuss
individual photographer's styles or techniques.
I do wonder, though, to what extent Cindy Sherman is a photographer. OK,
so we know the work through photographs, but is it her *photography* as
such that her fans admire, or the performances that she photographs?
Thomas C. Waters
<Bruce.Attah-23...@support-neptune.isltd.insignia.com>
Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah) writes:
> I do wonder, though, to what extent Cindy Sherman is a photographer. OK,
> so we know the work through photographs, but is it her *photography* as
> such that her fans admire, or the performances that she photographs?
Good question Bruce. Is it possible that your definition of
photographer/photography is a little bit limited. Sherman is everybit
a photographer, especially her newer work, which since you mention
performaance, I have a feeling you may be unaware of anything she has
done for oh.. five or so years.
Seems to me, that what is "admired" is both content and symbol. both
object and subtext/concept.
--
Thomas C. Waters
twa...@pitt.edu
I always assume someone is gay unless they tell me otherwise.
"When evil men plot, good men must plan. When evil men burn and bomb,
good men must build and bind. When evil men shout ugly words of
hatred,
good men must commit themselves to the glories of love."
Martin Luther King Jr.
******************************************************************
Thomas C. Waters
cei...@inav.net (Charles Eicher) writes:
> to which I might add: The subtext and concept becomes pretty clear, when
> some of her work is subtitled 'Film Still'.. Some of her work clearly
> refers to historical examples of film and photography, thus, part of her
> subject is photography, not just the photographed subjects.
Yes, but the film still work is OLD!!!! OLD OLD work for her. I liked
it all, found it interesting, the idea of freezing time and what that
meant. The value and meaning of gesture as symbol, as well as the
other thoughts that lay below the work. But focusing on her old work
is to really be out of step with who she is as an artist. Not only her
but others as well.
--
Thomas C. Waters
twa...@pitt.edu
I always assume someone is gay unless they tell me otherwise. Straight
society has been doing the same in reverse forever, and I'm tired of
it.
Andrew Werby
> doesn't anyone know any other photographers?
>
>
URLs so we can see for ourselves.]
Andrew Werby - United Artworks
Charles Eicher
C. Waters) wrote:
> Good question Bruce. Is it possible that your definition of
> photographer/photography is a little bit limited. Sherman is everybit
> a photographer, especially her newer work, which since you mention
> performaance, I have a feeling you may be unaware of anything she has
> done for oh.. five or so years.
>
> Seems to me, that what is "admired" is both content and symbol. both
> object and subtext/concept.
to which I might add: The subtext and concept becomes pretty clear, when
some of her work is subtitled 'Film Still'.. Some of her work clearly
refers to historical examples of film and photography, thus, part of her
subject is photography, not just the photographed subjects.
----------------
Charles Eicher
cei...@inav.net
----------------
Charles Eicher
C. Waters) wrote:
> Yes, but the film still work is OLD!!!! OLD OLD work for her. I liked
> it all, found it interesting, the idea of freezing time and what that
> meant. The value and meaning of gesture as symbol, as well as the
> other thoughts that lay below the work. But focusing on her old work
> is to really be out of step with who she is as an artist. Not only her
> but others as well.
hey, I never said it wasn't old, I said 'some of her work'.. But at least
that did establish some the precedent that the subject of photography as a
medium itself is present in the work..
Anyway, I've seen some of her really recent work.... Very odd.. the best
thing I can say about it is that I can't find the words to describe my
feelings about it (and I'm not often at a loss for words)..
Thomas C. Waters
cei...@inav.net (Charles Eicher) writes:
> Anyway, I've seen some of her really recent work.... Very odd.. the best
> thing I can say about it is that I can't find the words to describe my
> feelings about it (and I'm not often at a loss for words)..
I agree. Her work in the recent/ongoing Carnegie International is the
strangest I've seen so far. The images are more
construction/sculptures that are deconstructive, and the photographic
aspect implies a documentation of their "reality". The prints, all
Cibachromes, are very cool tonally if I remember right, and even if
tonally warm, they have a coldness, a detachment and a, almost gory
quality. Quite odd.
--
Thomas C. Waters
twa...@pitt.edu
I always assume someone is gay unless they tell me otherwise.
"When evil men plot, good men must plan. When evil men burn and bomb,
good men must build and bind. When evil men shout ugly words of
hatred,
good men must commit themselves to the glories of love."
Martin Luther King Jr.
******************************************************************
mprice
On Tue, 23 Jan 1996, Bruce Attah wrote:
> In article <Ql15E9i00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, Amy P Crisostomo
> <ap...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>
> > i was just wondering why during all these discussions of photography vs.
> > art, the only photographers that are named and seem to be considered
> > "artists" are ansel adams and cindy sherman?
> >
> > doesn't anyone know any other photographers?
>
> I just use whatever names come up, since it's not my aim to discuss
> individual photographer's styles or techniques.
>
> I do wonder, though, to what extent Cindy Sherman is a photographer. OK,
> so we know the work through photographs, but is it her *photography* as
> such that her fans admire, or the performances that she photographs?
>
>
Cindy Sherman stated in various inteviews that she does not consider
herself to be a "photographer"; she is an "artist" who uses photography
because it is the medium of the issues she is addressing (i.e. portrayal of
women in mass media, etc.). Beaumont Newhall in an interview said he did not
consider Sherman a "photographer" because she did not bring anything new
or challenging to photography. Some suggest that her work and that of
others is simply illustration to comtemporary art theory.
Thomas C. Waters
<Pine.SOL.3.91.960126...@lonestar.jpl.utsa.edu>
mprice <mpr...@lonestar.jpl.utsa.edu> writes:
> Cindy Sherman stated in various inteviews that she does not consider
> herself to be a "photographer"; she is an "artist" who uses photography
> because it is the medium of the issues she is addressing (i.e. portrayal of
> women in mass media, etc.). Beaumont Newhall in an interview said he did not
> consider Sherman a "photographer" because she did not bring anything new
> or challenging to photography.
I'm not sure how this relates to the discussion at hand. Do you mean
to imply that since she is not a photographer, then her images are not
photopgraphs?? And how does the term one uses to describe him/herself
relate to the status of the object produced by that individual?
>Some suggest that her work and that of
> others is simply illustration to comtemporary art theory.
Seems to me most artists work illuistrates art theory since art theory
is an attempt to explain art.. right? That doesn't change the fact
that she makes Art objects. Bruce does not consider these Fine Art,
where as I would consider them as such.
I think the real issue being discussed is the parameters of Fine art vs
Art in general...
--
Thomas C. Waters
twa...@pitt.edu
I always assume someone is gay unless they tell me otherwise. Straight
society has been doing the same in reverse forever, and I'm tired of
it.
"When evil men plot, good men must plan. When evil men burn and bomb,
Brian Daniels
In article <Ql15E9i00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, Amy P Crisostomo (ap...@andrew.cmu.edu) writes:
>i was just wondering why during all these discussions of photography vs.
>art, the only photographers that are named and seem to be considered
>"artists" are ansel adams and cindy sherman?
>
> doesn't anyone know any other photographers?
>
>
Here is a short list of a few others:
Christopher Burkett
Paul Caponigro
Brett Weston
Matthew Brady
(a few that come immediately to mind)
Any chimpanzee cannot take a picture. There is a difference
between how a chimpanzee interprets the world and how a human
interprets the world. When we say that art is the ability for an
individual to capture a mood or a feeling, photography becomes
another vehicle for expression.
Thomas C. Waters
bdan...@elaria.win.net (Brian Daniels) writes:
> Any chimpanzee cannot take a picture. There is a difference
> between how a chimpanzee interprets the world and how a human
> interprets the world. When we say that art is the ability for an
> individual to capture a mood or a feeling, photography becomes
> another vehicle for expression.
I don't disagree that making a photograph is another form of
expression, but that really adds nothing to the discussion at all.
Nor is it true that making a photo is about "capturing a mood" Nothing
is captured except some light that hits the film. The image, a set of
symbols, lines forms, etc may contain gesture et al that portrays a
mood, but that is as far as it goes.
Consider the Viet Nam war photo of the naked screaming children after a
napam attack. When printed that image is usually cropped to show only
the kids. The "mood" is one of terror. But the negative also contains
a group of marines or other US personell walking casually down the road
laughing and lighting cig's. THAT mood and the mood of the overall
image is very different than whgat we see from the image as cropped and
usually seen. The photmaker didn't capture a mood. Rather, a mood is
expressed depending upon the symbols and elements shown in the image
viewed.
Thomas C. Waters
<Bruce.Attah-31...@support-neptune.isltd.insignia.com>
Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah) writes:
> Oh, wow. I find myself agreeing with Thomas C. Waters! (Well, I'm sure
> we agree on lots of things, really.) "Capturing a mood or a feeling" is
> one of many things that art can do, but it does not count as a definition
> of art, and as for "expression", all sorts of things are "vehicles for
> expression" that are not art.
My guess is that yes we agree and yes we agree on many things. IMHO we
are both intellegent people who know what we are talking about, and all
these subjects are open to discussion and differences of opinions.
I don't think any art captures moods though. Some moods, such as
"happy" may be easier to communicate, but it isn't captured, it is
merely being communicated.
Cassirer claims that there are three modes of expression outside the
realm of rational thinking. Art, Language, and Myth. I think I agree
with him.
Bruce Attah
C. Waters) wrote:
> In article <4...@elaria.win.net>
> bdan...@elaria.win.net (Brian Daniels) writes:
>
> > Any chimpanzee cannot take a picture. There is a difference
> > between how a chimpanzee interprets the world and how a human
> > interprets the world. When we say that art is the ability for an
> > individual to capture a mood or a feeling, photography becomes
> > another vehicle for expression.
>
> I don't disagree that making a photograph is another form of
> expression, but that really adds nothing to the discussion at all.
> Nor is it true that making a photo is about "capturing a mood" Nothing
> is captured except some light that hits the film. The image, a set of
> symbols, lines forms, etc may contain gesture et al that portrays a
> mood, but that is as far as it goes.
Oh, wow. I find myself agreeing with Thomas C. Waters! (Well, I'm sure
Jon Jablonski
>
> In article <Ql15E9i00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, Amy P Crisostomo
(ap...@andrew.cmu.edu) writes:
> >i was just wondering why during all these discussions of photography vs.
> >art, the only photographers that are named and seem to be considered
> >"artists" are ansel adams and cindy sherman?
> >
> > doesn't anyone know any other photographers?
> >
> >
>
> Here is a short list of a few others:
>
> Christopher Burkett
> Paul Caponigro
> Brett Weston
> Matthew Brady
>
Berenice Abbott
Diane Arbus
Eugene Atget
George Barnard
Margaret Bourke-White --ok, she's a journalist.
Brassai
Harry Callahan
Julia Margaret Cameron
Robert Capa --another journalist. but with fine art work and
a filmmaker too!!
Lewis Carroll --the argument can also be made that he was
a pormographer
Henri Cartier-Bresson
Bruce Davidson
F Holland Day
Robert Demachy
Robert Doisneau --if your going to call that annoying lithographer who
the stylized pictures of women that are ubiquitous
hair salons an artist (what's his damn name?), then
you have to include to sappy work of Doisneau
THomas Eakins
Alfred Eisenstaedt
Walker Evans
Roger Fenton
Robert Frank
Lee Friedlander
John Heartfield
Lewis Hine --as much an artist as Upton SInclair
Gertrude Kesebier
Andre Kertesz --as much an artist as Vaclaw Havel
Dorothea Lange
Danny Lyon
Man Ray --can anyone argue that he hasn't been acknowledged by
history as being an artist?
Meatyard
Joel Myerowitz
Laszlo Moholy-Nagy
Edward Muybridge --gee--a scientist in an art museum. Anyone ever hear
of DaVinci. (by the way--this is the man that proved
that at certain points of a horses running stride, all
four feet are off of the ground
Nadar
Irving Penn --Oscar Rejlander
Jacob Riis
August Sander
Aaron Siskind
W Eugenen SMith
Ed Steichen
Alfred Steiglitz
Paul Strand
Josef Sudek
Weegee
Brett Weston
Ed Weston
Garry Winogrand
Joel Peter Witkind
How's that for off the top of my head. And in alphabetical order. And I
didn't mention Ansel Adams (in my and Ed Steiglitz's opinion, a hack who
sold pictures to rich California doctors to hang in their offices). These
are people I consider artists. And you know, most art-historians would
too.
A couple someone else's wrote:
>Since you brought up Adams, let us reflect on his example. How many
>photographers do you think could produce landscape photographs that were
>convincingly Adams-like, given the equipment and access to the same
>scenery? Now consider Caravaggio: how many painters, given the
>equipment and the models, could paint pictures like his?
>
>The answer to the first question is "rather a lot", while the answer to
>the second is "very few".
>
>------------
>
>Notwithstanding the inferences the author suggested in "rather a lot",
>the true answer is probably one in a million. This is the reason the
>photograph "Moonrise" is fine art.
>
>Rather than ask for 'Why?', I will point out that in this photograph,
>there are several rare moments which were in conjunction at the singular
>moment at which Mr. Adams tripped the shutter. Thus, the odds that any
>photographers alive today can replicate the image are minimal.
>
>1. The sun was quite low in the sky so that it illuminated the
>tombstones, and reflected light from them toward the road along which Mr.
>Adams was traveling.
>
>2. The clouds covered only a portion of the sky both vertically and
>horizontally, as well as toward the camera.
>
>3. The moon was in a particular position in the sky, which will not be
>repeated for several centuries, in the particular relation to the sun.
>
>Finally, Mr. Adams came along the road at a given instant, saw the scene;
>had the interest in taking the photograph; had the eye to see the scene;
>had the skill to set up and take the photograph within the estimated five
>minutes when all factors were in place; and had the knowledge to process
>the film and make the print.
Well, actually it seems that the person who is defending Adams is arguing
the other point. He just 'happened to come along.' It's as if Caravaggio
just happened to come walking along and say a fresh batch of plaster wall
and painted it.
There are many anecdotes about the photograph in question. One is that
Ansel was really fond of using a red filter, which yielded a very dark
sky. So it is rather conceivable (I don't remember the phase of the moon)
that the picture was taken in the middle of the day. It almost certainly
was winter, so that could explain the low shadows. Ansel sold hundreds of
prints of this picture. Mostly printed by his assistants. This speaks to
a long history of 'from the artist's studio.' Is a Rembrandt print pulled
by one of his apprentices (or someone now) not a Rembrandt print. If a
Rodin cast is made today, is it not a Rodin? These questions of
originality are not unique to photography. And, you know, they really
haven't been dealt with too much in 'critical theory' in the last thirty
years. Well, ok, they have been, but mostly in response to bodies of work
written in the first half of this century.
Then we had from Mr. Bruce:
>
> Then John Peele <jpe...@pepperdine.edu> came in with an argument that
> "Moonrise" could never be photographed again, because the moon, sun,
> clouds etc. will never again be in the same position. He also averred:
>
> > This is the reason the photograph "Moonrise" is fine art.
>
> No, it is not. Nor is the unrepeatability of the photograph relevant to
> issue being discussed above. Almost all photographs are unrepeatable,
> nature being ever changing. Even those who believe that some photographs
> are fine art do not usually believe that it is their unrepeatability that
> makes them so. For if it were, Ansell Adams would be no more of an artist
> than any two-year-old who clicked a shutter.
>
> The point I was making earlier was that the degree of skill exhibited in
> masterpieces of fine art is far more exceptional than that displayed in
> 'masterppieces' of photography. It related to an argument intended to
> show that whether a practice is rightly called a 'fine art' depends, in
> part, on the extent to which that practice is able to show off the
> exceptional skill of the practitioner when such skill exists, or its
> absence when it is lacking.
I would love to see you try to make a gum print. Or platinum. How about
throwing a pot? Producing a quilt. What is the difference between craft
and art? If it is technically well made, but trite, is it art? I'm
sorry, but the guy on PBS who churns out paintings in 30 minutes is a good
painter, but is he an artist? I'm not sure. I don't see him adding
anything to the tradition of painting. He's just makin pictures.
Then we had a discussion of that damn moon again:
In article <4et90b$r...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, Arm...@shell.com (Ima
Dillo) wrote:
> In article <ceicher-0102...@ceicher.inav.net>, cei...@inav.net
says...
>
> >And, this particular print was manipulated during the printing process
> >too..
>
> Manipulated is right. You will never see a moon that size in relation
> to the landscape as depicted in MOONRISE. I don't know what the
> manipulation of the moon's size involved, but anyone who has ever
> tried to duplicate this photograph by photographing a moon over
> mountains knows it is impossible to do with a straight-forward shot.
> And for those who suggest he used a telescopic lens, that won't
> work either. The mountains enlarge in proportion to the moon's
> enlargement. It has to be a double exposure, or a manipulation
> when printing. Ima Dillo.
Hmmm...did he completely fake it? His assistants say no. Yes it is
possible to achieve that size moon, but you've got a good point about the
mountains and compression of distance. He was using an 8x10 view
camera...do you know how the optics of, say, a 14 inch lens would render
that scene?
So...does extenive manipulation make a photograph art? There's a school
of thought in photography that screams bloody murder when you manipulate.
There was also a widely reprinted picture of Margaret Thatcher that had a
microphone edited out of it because it looks like she was using a dildo.
Was that art?
Anywho, that's my two cents worth.
-jon
jonjab...@nwu.edu
--
Jon Jablonski
Northwestern University
jonjab...@nwu.edu
Bruce Attah
jonjab...@nwu.edu (Jon Jablonski) raised some good points, including:
> Is a Rembrandt print pulled
> by one of his apprentices (or someone now) not a Rembrandt print. If a
> Rodin cast is made today, is it not a Rodin? These questions of
> originality are not unique to photography. And, you know, they really
> haven't been dealt with too much in 'critical theory' in the last thirty
> years. Well, ok, they have been, but mostly in response to bodies of work
> written in the first half of this century.
...deserving of a thread of its own...
> If it is technically well made, but trite, is it art? I'm
> sorry, but the guy on PBS who churns out paintings in 30 minutes is a good
> painter, but is he an artist? I'm not sure. I don't see him adding
> anything to the tradition of painting. He's just makin pictures.
...also deserving another thread of its own...
> So...does extenive manipulation make a photograph art? There's a school
> of thought in photography that screams bloody murder when you manipulate.
> There was also a widely reprinted picture of Margaret Thatcher that had a
> microphone edited out of it because it looks like she was using a dildo.
> Was that art?
This could spawn a couple of threads, too, but some of the possible
answers are definitely on topic for this thread, such as the answer that
I'm going to suggest here, namely, that an unmanipulated photograph is not
fine art, and that it doesn't matter how much you then manipulate it, it
doesn't become fine art as long as the techniques of manipulation employed
are themselves photographic and the result of the manipulations is a
photograph.
This is a bold claim, and here is how I defend it: In my earlier posts, I
have argued that photography is not a fine art medium because nature
impinges too much on it (in the shape of an image), while the artificial
(in the shape of human control) impinges not enough, or is not
*demonstrated* enough. In the case of a photograph that has not been much
manipulated in the darkroom, this point is easy to see (even if one
disagrees), but in the case of a heavily manipulated photograph, the point
is obviously weakened. However, another problem arises: economy of
means. If a photograph is manipulated to the extent that the human
authorship of every part of it is not open to doubt, it is sure to have
been created by means more elaborate than those required to paint the same
image. Such uneconomical production stresses absurdity rather than
purpose, so the result is not fine art, but a virtuoso display of
craftmanship.
So, a straightforward photograph is not fine art because it is too natural
or automatic, and a heavily manipulated photograph is not fine art because
has been created by absurdly difficult means.
Bruce Attah
C. Waters) wrote:
> Cassirer claims that there are three modes of expression outside the
> realm of rational thinking. Art, Language, and Myth. I think I agree
> with him.
The main problem that I have with that claim is that it sets rational
thinking apart as far too special. We use language as a tool in rational
thinking, and images, too. We use rational thinking in constructing art
and myth, and in evaluating the art and myth that we see. For instance,
when watching a late night television film, we might say "That guy's
stupid, why doesn't he call the police?" or "How could anyone *possibly*
do that?" What's more, "rational thinking" at its most rational (in
science and philosophy) can be shown not to be quite free of the taint of
emotion, myth and story-telling (as Paul Feyerabend's discussions of the
history of science reveal).
Another difficulty, I find, is that the three things, Art, Language and
Myth, are not three things of a kind. Language is a tool of
communication. We can use language to create art, or to ask someone to
pass the salt. We can use language to narrate a myth, or to order extra
pepperoni's on our pizza. Language does not belong with the other two.
If I were categorising these things, I would suggest
Art & Myth -------------------- Language & Reason
(what we make with) ........... (what we use to make)
Wendy Thurman
> So, a straightforward photograph is not fine art because it is too natural
> or automatic, and a heavily manipulated photograph is not fine art because
> has been created by absurdly difficult means.
Bruce-
You make your points well and logically. But I submit that entire systems
of logic can be constructed that exist outside of reality. A game, if you
will...
McLuhan aside, I feel that the medium is NOT the message- it is merely a
tool used to convey a deeper message. I use photography, and I am admittedly
biased towards its inclusion in the world of fine art. Thankfully so are most
critics, collectors, and curators!
Man Ray did say "Photography is not art, nor is art photography." Now I
have yet to figure out exactly how I feel about this statement, but I do
feel that "La Violin de Ingres" and "Noir et Blanche" are defintely works
of art (and fine ones at that!). I know that you will disagree, as is your
right. But I thank you for the thought provoking comments you have made.
They are so, well, British!!
Wendy Thurman
William DeRaymond
>
> I've already explained this to you a dozen times: There is no way
> to *prove* (using science or logic) that Henri Matisse (for example)
> was a great artist. It is simply a historical consensus: it is the
> informed opinion of the vast majority of knowledgeable art lovers.
>> -Ross
It's true that maybe you can't 'prove' Matisse was a great Artist to a mind
and heart that is not going to listen to an argument with openness, but to
say it is simply historical consensus is to show a lack of knowledge in my
opinion. What is it that 'informs' the vast majority of knowledgeable art
lovers? Or is this (the above statement) sarcasm?
>
--
William DeRaymond/Artist
http://www.worldlightproductions.com
'The abstract nature of reality is the source of beauty.' - William
Nick Jackson
>
> Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah) wrote:
>
> > So, a straightforward photograph is not fine art because it is too natural
> > or automatic, and a heavily manipulated photograph is not fine art because
> > has been created by absurdly difficult means.
>
> have yet to figure out exactly how I feel about this statement, but I do
> feel that "La Violin de Ingres" and "Noir et Blanche" are defintely works
> of art (and fine ones at that!). I know that you will disagree, as is your
> right. But I thank you for the thought provoking comments you have made.
> They are so, well, British!!
The visualisation of the photograph is a creative act much as the conception of a painting is-
the moment of recording an image in the photographer's chosen manner is inevitably a
manipulation, as is every other moment in the process - but they are all related to the initial
moment of imagination. The image can be worked and refined much as a painting is - light is
manipulated in the image in much the same way as a painter does in a painting. Both are
interpreting and manipulating...and much "art" is absurdly difficult.
I am an architect - can you consider architecture as art? - it doesn't really matter unless you're
worried about it....
I had never heard the Man Ray comment - when did he say this and to whom? I don't think
Breton cared about "art" either..
Nick Jackson
Kuala Lumpur
P.S.Gunns
>Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah) wrote:
>
>> On second thoughts, Greg, I'm sure you're a vastly clever
>> individual. It's just that, in this forum, you prefer to expend
>> your energies by slagging off those you disagree with,
>
>Note: "slagging off" is British slang for "mocking" or "deriding"
>--"to slag someone down" means to give someone hell.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[flab cut]
Oh, it does? I'm sorry, but i've never heard that expression before. Still,
being as you are obviously an expert in English idiom, i'll amend my
dictionary. Thanks!
--
Philip Gunns - University of Kent at Canterbury - Philosophy & Politics
-=-=-=+=-=+=- -=-=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=-=- -=-=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=-=- -=+=-=+=-=-=-
Larry Boswell
the game of egos whimpers onwards. just when I'd thought
Bruce was down for the count, and Greg was dumbfounded by
his opponents' distinctive lack of wit, out of nowhere comes
Philip whipping them both to the floor with a swipe of his
dictionary.
now if lurkers were scoring the wit of this ongoing exchange,
who would you put ahead on technigue? out of a perfect score
of 6? how about on artistic merit?
come on Bruce, you're not down and out, go get him! (oh for
a bit of wit in these collective tantrums!)
L.
Bruce Attah
> You never present "proper" arguments, Bruce:
Oh, yes I do! (Oh, no you don't!)
> you demand control
> of the basic premises and criteria of the discussion,
I _have_ control. I talk about what I want to talk about, and shut up
when I'm not interested.
> including the
> right to use personal (eccentric) definitions of simple terms like
> 'art' and 'skill' - this, along with your ignorance of art history,
> makes real dialogue impossible.
Here, look at the definitions that have guided me and tell me, are they
really so eccentric?
art: So far, I have suggested that things that are art are things that
have an author who has created them with the intention that the audience
will enjoy them for their content and for their form (i.e., will gain
aesthetic satisfaction from them). I have also suggested that whether a
thing is art or not is a matter of degree, the degree depending on how
much the thing is a product of and demonstrates intelligent authorship as
opposed to accidental, natural or automatic processes and how much the
work serves aesthetic rather than other purposes. The prototypical work
of art is (and could only be) created by an expert (or team of experts);
it is fascinating and beautiful, as well as thought-provoking. It
describes a world which the audience is inclined to believe must be real,
though it is a figment of someone's imagination. It seems all new, but is
a subtle mixture of new and old. Members of the audience find that it
seems magically to describe their lives, their experience and their
emotions. Traditions of art that are particularly well suited to the
creation of such prototypical works ('masterpieces') are called Fine Arts.
skill: Skill is what we employ to do things that we want to do, but could
not easily do by accident. Skills always involve cognitive processes,
typically including learning. The prototypical skill is one which
requires a great deal of learning to acquire, and considerable effort
(both mental and physical) to exercise; as a result, experts in such a
skill are vastly more adept than the untrained and untalented. There are
many skills, but not all are especially relevant to art. The skills that
are relevant are all of those skills that might be brought to bear in
creating a satisfying aesthetic experience for an audience. These will
include observation and communication skills as well as emotional
intelligence and many sorts of knowledge. In the visual arts, the
important skills include the ability to control form, texture, colour and
light.
> [...] your ignorance of art history, makes real dialogue impossible.
Since you have never pulled me up on an error of historical fact, I shall
assume that we are _equally_ ignorant of art history, until I see evidence
to the contrary.
> [...] There is no way
> to *prove* (using science or logic) that Henri Matisse (for example)
> was a great artist. It is simply a historical consensus: it is the
> informed opinion of the vast majority of knowledgeable art lovers.
I think you will want to take that back when you have reflected on the
following questions:
1. If the the consensus at time T is that artist A is great, and the
consensus at time T1 is that artist A is mediocre, does the change in
consensus opinion imply a real change in the artist's merit, or is one of
the consensus opinions wrong?
2. Is is possible for a consensus opinion to be wrong?
3. If the consensus opinion is never wrong, how can it possibly change?
4. If, on the other hand, the consensus opinion can be wrong, what
determines whether a consensus opinion is right or wrong?
5. If there is something apart from the consensus opinion that determines
the rightness or wrongness of that opinion, surely _this_ must be the
determinant of the merit of a body of work, and not the opinion?
6. If the consensus opinion at any given time can be wrong, is it
possible that the consensus opinion in 1996 is wrong about some artists?
==========================================================================
7. If by "historical consensus" we mean the consensus among knowledgeable
art lovers of _all_ times, how can we know what that is since, presumably,
most knowledgeable art lovers are yet to be born?
8. If we do not know the consensus, is there any way for us to assess the
aesthetic merit of a work of art?
9. If we can judge the aesthetic merit of art without recourse to the
consensus, why should we not do so?
==========================================================================
10. What sort of knowledge qualifies an art lover to take part in this
notional vote?
11. Why should ignorant art lovers be excluded?
12. What sort of information is required to make an opinion into an
"informed opinion"?
13. Why are uninformed opinions excluded?
14. If artistic merit is a matter of consensus, does this mean that the
only information relevant to the issue is information as to what the
consensus is, and that if someone does not know what the consensus is,
their opinion is not an informed one?
15. If there is other information or knowledge that is pertinent to
deciding the merit of an artist's work, is it not likely that this
information, rather than the prevailing consensus, is the real basis for
the artist's merit?
==========================================================================
16. If someone loves only a single work of art and no others, is that
person an art lover?
17. If someone loves only a few works of art and no others, is that
person an art lover?
18. If someone loves all works of art with equal fervour, is that person
an art lover, or merely promiscuous?
19. If someone loves art, but does not show it, is that person an art lover?
20. If someone only loves bad art, is that person an art lover?
21. If someone only loves good art, is that person an art lover
(considering that such discriminating love depends on the consensus)?
22. Is there likely ever to be consensus on who knowledgeable art lovers are?
23. Is there likely to be consensus on what constitutes an informed opinion?
24. If there is not, is there any way of knowing what in fact _is_ the
"informed opinion of the vast majority of knowledgeable art lovers"?
25. If we can never know what the consensus is, how can we ever know the
merit of a particular artist or work of art?
==========================================================================
26. If nobody knows what the consensus is (24), and therefore nobody has
an informed opinion (14), does this mean that there is no consensus?
27. If there is no consensus about a given artist's work, does this mean
that the artist is neither good nor bad, but mediocre?
28. Do 26 and 27 above, taken together, suggest that _all_ artists are
mediocre?
==========================================================================
29. In the particular case of Henri Matisse, during the early part of his
career, it was the consensus view (among "knowledgeable art lovers") that
he was a charlatan and a bad artist. If your theory is correct, Henri
Matisse was _in_ _fact_ a charlatan and a bad painter. Today (on the
basis of consensus) Henri Matisse is a genius with few peers. How did
this transformation come about?
30. If Matisse was bad and is now great, the cause of his status as an
artist is the cause of the change in the consensus. What is this cause?
Why, social jockeying and economic jiggery-pokery, some cynical
sociologists will argue rather persuasively. Would you agree with them?
31. Would you then be inclined to the view that art is nothing more than
a manifestation one of humankind's less appealing aspects: the constant,
all-embracing battle for status and power?
32. Would such a view not make you a philistine and an art-hater?
33. Would not contempt for art indeed be the *proper* attitude for
sensitive and intelligent souls who wish to focus on humanity's finer
traits?
==========================================================================
34. If you were in a strange town and you wanted to find out who was the
best mechanic in that town, would not a good solution be to ask the
opinion of several car-users in that town?
35. Would the fact that you relied on a consensus of opinion imply that
the relative merit of the mechanics was _merely_ a matter of opinion, and
that there was no underlying objective basis for comparing them?
36. Is this situation not analogous to the situation of a person who, not
knowing how to tell good art from bad, seeks the informed opinion of some
knowledgeable art lovers?
==========================================================================
37. Need I go on?
James Rowell
Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah) writes:
>Here, look at the definitions that have guided me and tell me, are they
>really so eccentric?
>
>art: So far, I have suggested that things that are art are things that
>have an author who has created them with the intention that the audience
>will enjoy them for their content and for their form (i.e., will gain
>aesthetic satisfaction from them).
This seems a reasonable understanding.
>I have also suggested that whether a thing is art or not is a matter
>of degree, the degree depending on how much the thing is a product of
>and demonstrates intelligent authorship as opposed to accidental,
>natural or automatic processes and how much the work serves aesthetic
>rather than other purposes.
This on the other hand is purely your own subjective viewpoint and
is not born out by recent history (20th cent). Whether you like it or not,
significant works of art use accidental, natural and automatic processes
(examples not included) and many other significant works are not intending
to serve primarily aesthetic purposes.
...so, Ross has a good point. You aren't working with definitions
of art that are terribly useful for the discussion at large.
>The prototypical work
>of art is (and could only be) created by an expert (or team of experts);
>it is fascinating and beautiful, as well as thought-provoking. It
>describes a world which the audience is inclined to believe must be real,
>though it is a figment of someone's imagination. It seems all new, but is
>a subtle mixture of new and old. Members of the audience find that it
>seems magically to describe their lives, their experience and their
>emotions. Traditions of art that are particularly well suited to the
>creation of such prototypical works ('masterpieces') are called Fine Arts.
This expansion upon your idea of a prototypical work of art has
merrit but is far too narrow a definition. You are describing one
aspect of what art (or fine art) is and can be. Your view is
kind of quaint, but not reflected in TONS of examples of modern fine art.
(Aside, I don't think your use of the term "masterpieces" is
appropriate there. More later if you care to discuss it.)
>skill: Skill is what we employ to do things that we want to do, but could
>not easily do by accident. Skills always involve cognitive processes,
>typically including learning. The prototypical skill is one which
>requires a great deal of learning to acquire, and considerable effort
>(both mental and physical) to exercise; as a result, experts in such a
>skill are vastly more adept than the untrained and untalented. There are
>many skills, but not all are especially relevant to art. The skills that
>are relevant are all of those skills that might be brought to bear in
>creating a satisfying aesthetic experience for an audience. These will
>include observation and communication skills as well as emotional
>intelligence and many sorts of knowledge. In the visual arts, the
>important skills include the ability to control form, texture, colour and
>light.
You have some decent observations there and I think that most of it
except the remark "but could not easily do by accident" is pretty good.
Here's a great counter example. Take the case of Francis Bacon.
His work is essentially a series of accidents which he selectes from
(in the process of painting) to create an immediate and highly
evocative form which is probably (at least according to him) impossible
to do WITHOUT the accidental nature of the process.
BTW, just for the record, I don't think that whether you like, or
don't like, Bacon's work should have anything to do with this discussion.
>> [...] your ignorance of art history, makes real dialogue impossible.
>
>Since you have never pulled me up on an error of historical fact, I shall
>assume that we are _equally_ ignorant of art history, until I see evidence
>to the contrary.
Nyah, nyah, nyah. OK, now come on kids! If you can't play nice,
don't play at ALL! :-)
Ross has a good point, I'd be happy to provide many historical counter
examples to many of your claims. Just for the record it is pretty silly
to argue with someone by saying that you can be justifiably ignorant
if the other person is. What's the point of this discussion anyway?
>> [...] There is no way
>> to *prove* (using science or logic) that Henri Matisse (for example)
>> was a great artist. It is simply a historical consensus: it is the
>> informed opinion of the vast majority of knowledgeable art lovers.
>
>I think you will want to take that back when you have reflected on the
>following questions:
[Q's 1...37 deleted.]
Ross's point is simple. Let's put it another way. A bunch of people
say Henri Matisse was a great artist. Many of these people were
themselves artists and were influenced by him, his work and his thoughts.
This is pretty clearly a criterea for greatness. It's a strong CLUE
that perhaps he really IS great.
So, you should be able to accept that he is PROBABLY great. You can
keep this in mind when you approach his work. You may not like it, and
may wonder WHY he is considered great, but also try to keep in mind that
it may be YOU who are lacking for not being able to see the greatness.
You may be able to see the greatness, but may still not like it.
That's cool. But to argue that he isn't great just because YOU don`t
like him is presumptuous.
James.
Greg Scheckler
>In article <4ffl1k$6...@park.uvsc.edu>, Ross Green
<gre...@uvsc.edu> wrote:
>
>> You never present "proper" arguments, Bruce:
>
>Oh, yes I do! (Oh, no you don't!)
>
>> you demand control
>> of the basic premises and criteria of the discussion,
>
>I _have_ control. I talk about what I want to talk about, and
>shut up when I'm not interested.
that's just a matter of moving one's mouth or
not, paralleling boredom or interest, not control.
> art: [clip]... It seems all new, but is a subtle mixture of
>new and old...
thanks for explaining in greater detail, that helps your
case. but not much, for you have just managed to show
a series of biases...enjoyment specific to the audience,
intention of the artist, touch of the expert, etc...
which seems problematic, given that few artists have
particularly clear intentions (some do), few do anything
specifically for the audience (but some do), most can
adequately claim to be experts within most culture's
definitions (as if expertise really mattered).
but art's far more complex:
art acts upon the mind as a crow barking at a
fat bald eagle, or as a snowflake caressing the sky.
>skill: Skill is what we employ to do things that we want to
>do, but could not easily do by accident. ...
unless you make art that follows series of accidents, at
which point the skill could fairly be said to be the
learned (or accidently acquired?) ability to
recognize how to use an accident
advantageously, to discern...
which goes back to the ancient roots of the word
skill, which referred to mental (not physical) capacities
such as in the Old Norse,"skil," meaning 'distinction,
discernment, knowledge' or even older, to prehistoric
German "*skel" which meant 'divide, separate' and
which is consistent with ancient roots for the
verb "paint", which meant 'to cut, divide' and is
related to carving. So there is an interesting
qaudrupole here... physical discernment (paint) as one
dipole and cognitive discernment (skill) as
the other dipole.
>In the visual arts, the important skills include the ability
>to control form, texture, colour and light.
That perhaps is the one statement you make that I would
say I hear a great many teachers of painting say. So you
have some good company there. It's also a cop out, and
ferrets around far deeper issues related to the
development of any of those forms or processes as
relevant to the idea of making an image. It's also a
big overdramatization for a visual art like painting,
which, having few and very simple tools, is indeed among
the simplest of art traditions in terms of the
mechanics of its tools and which really doesn't require
much if any particular knowledge or familiarity.
The greater and far more difficult act of discernment
(*skel) is for the mind... that of course
is the interesting life-long endeavor, and as a
statement, applies to most every discipline.
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Bruce Attah
(Larry Boswell) wrote:
[nothing at all]
Go back to lurking if that's all you have to offer.
Larry Boswell
Bruce, Bruce, Bruce,
don't get in a dither, just trying to encourage you boys to
take your little exchanges of namecalling off into some little
private corner of cyberspace! now don't you feel bad?
what a wit! more, more, more
you contribute soooo much with these little tit for tat
exchanges! I'm breathless waiting for the next installment!
Will Greg return? what about his friend, whathisname?
Stay tuned.
concentrate on what you're trying to say. Don't be
shy, I'm sure underneath all those charming, boyish
exchanges with Greg you might actually be concealing something
worth saying about art, even something that makes sense!
Come on! Buck up the old courage, give it a shot!
sorry to get you riled up, Bruce, didn't realize you
and Greg were seriously trying to communicate something!
I thought it was a bit of joke, see?
Larry
Larry Boswell
exchanges of insults. I can't resist it myself from
time to time, but I'm always grinning in the middle
of these exchanges. Somehow I don't think that's the
case with a lot of users.
is cyberspace the best venting space on the planet?
Want to let off steam, got some frustrations at work?
Spin up a newsgroup, any group, it doesn't matter.
Vent away!
doesn't seem to matter what the group subject matter is,
out come the petty squabbles, usually more about the
participants egos than anything else. Go figure.
and yet it's a medium that should have so much promise,
so much potential for the exchange of ideas, information.
Is it the sense of safety, the distance between us that
brings out the pettiness?
anyway, back to the game? I'd put my money on Greg, though,
Bruce is too fond of cliches, too predictable in the scope
of insult he employs. any takers?
Larry
Greg Scheckler
al...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Larry Boswell) wrote:
whoah it's been a while since hearing from you...
what's new? what's your take on the idea of "skill"?
[clip, flamefest notes]
>Is it the sense of safety, the distance between us that
>brings out the pettiness?
actually i'm pretty forthright and would say much the same
stuff in face to face conversation. I get petty, or so it
seems, because sometimes I'm just like that.
>anyway, back to the game? I'd put my money on Greg, though,
>Bruce is too fond of cliches, too predictable in the scope
>of insult he employs. any takers?
thanks. but if you want to win a lot of money
you'll have to keep me informed of the betting pool
so that I can take all the right feigned falls, up the
odds a bit for you, and then win in the end
as the underdog. I usually ask for major payoffs if
you want that sort of service :)
not that anyone's really out here "to win" though...
But I'm surprised we haven't killed this thread
entirely already! A new book that could shed light
on the topic, asking the question "Why, strictly
speaking is a Cindy Sherman photograph more art-like
than a Leonardo da Vinci portrait?", is Mary Anne
Staniszewski's _Believing is Seeing: Creating the
Culture of Art_ (Penguin, 1995, 0-14-016824-9)
It's good... ending with a keen statement that both
relates the roles of things like tradition, and our
abilities as well:
"If we accept the fact that everything is shaped by
culture, we then acknowledge that we create our
reality." (p298)
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Susan Eshelman
>al...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Larry Boswell) wrote:
>
{snip}
>
>And come to think of it, have you ever contributed anything to this
>group, besides your recent whining? (Oh, well, maybe it's those long
>Canadian winters...)
I propose we send Red Green over to Larry's place, to build him a new
studio heater from left-over car parts. A little warmth, and that cold
Canadian heart will just melt. Either that or his studio will explode.
Susan
Larry Boswell
>
> whoah it's been a while since hearing from you...
> what's new? what's your take on the idea of "skill"?
doing penance, here, for whining...
ok, let's say I've a talent for whining, yet showed
a lack of skill in how I approached that whining.... just
kidding,
what's talent? a pre-wired potential to develop a
high level of skill in a given area? or are the two
interchangeable? I have no problem with the concept
of talent, skill seems to imply a practiced development
of specific capability, over time. Talent more
a predisposition, something possible, an 'edge' which
may or may not have any useful value, or may even
be a hinderance, narrowing the ability to react or
perform.
Talent is not necessarily a positive, nor is it
a guarantee of success, maybe even the opposite.
Skill, an acquired refinement of capability to
perform specific functions? Skill requires
effort, though again, skill is less a requirement,
maybe not even a requirement now for any kind of artistic
exploration. Unless you follow rules. What some
call skill, I call habit. Some of the best work
shows no great skill level, but talent is visible.
It's an open field, as it must be, art that is...
for to require skill, or talent is to immediately
build walls, definitions, and that's a pain
there, a target as broad as a barn, fire away!
> on the topic, asking the question "Why, strictly
> speaking is a Cindy Sherman photograph more art-like
> than a Leonardo da Vinci portrait?", is Mary Anne
> Staniszewski's _Believing is Seeing: Creating the
> Culture of Art_ (Penguin, 1995, 0-14-016824-9)
> It's good... ending with a keen statement that both
> relates the roles of things like tradition, and our
> abilities as well:
>
> "If we accept the fact that everything is shaped by
> culture, we then acknowledge that we create our
> reality." (p298)
>
> Greg Scheckler
> SL...@cc.usu.edu
big if though, because what shapes culture?
Larry (whinefree, I'm trying, I'm trying!)
cold Canadian heart? bah!
Larry Boswell
ok, enough whining, but when I saw the 'skill' subject line
I thought there might actually be a discussion going on
between the ads (which have multiplied since I was last
hanging around here, how do you keep anything going?)
when I opened the thread it looked like more of the usual
flickering (not flaming, not strong enough to drive off the
chill even. at least that would have been good for something,
a smile or two). I've wiped out my comments, apologies to
all, maybe it is the time of year for Canadian whine?
one reason the group is being lost to the adtakers is the
quick resort to sarcasm, insult, and I admit to stoking
the flames a bit, which doesn't contribute anything in the
end. If there's a serious attempt to put the group back
into a discussion format, great
but a cold Canadian heart, awwwww??
Larry <G>
Susan Eshelman
>Susan Eshelman (aa...@islandnet.com) writes:
>> Ross Green <gre...@uvsc.edu> wrote:
>>>al...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Larry Boswell) wrote:
>>>
>> {snip}
>> I propose we send Red Green over to Larry's place, to build him a new
>> studio heater from left-over car parts. A little warmth, and that cold
>> Canadian heart will just melt. Either that or his studio will explode.
>>
>> Susan
>>
>>
>come on, now be kind, not Red Green, gag
>
>ok, enough whining, but when I saw the 'skill' subject line
>I thought there might actually be a discussion going on
>between the ads (which have multiplied since I was last
>hanging around here, how do you keep anything going?)
>
{snip}
>I've wiped out my comments, apologies to
>all, maybe it is the time of year for Canadian whine?
No, no, no, Larry, that's in August, when the grapes are ripe. :)
>
>one reason the group is being lost to the adtakers is the
>quick resort to sarcasm, insult, and I admit to stoking
>the flames a bit, which doesn't contribute anything in the
>end. If there's a serious attempt to put the group back
>into a discussion format, great
On this point, I suggest a review of the Ross Green postings to r.a.f. on
the subject of clearing the decks of inappropriate ads, and encouraging
more intelligent content. Unfortunately, many of the flames were aimed
his way, in response to his repeated encouragements that we do the very
thing you now suggest.
>but a cold Canadian heart, awwwww??
OK. We've sent Red Green off to rebuild NDP headquarters, instead.
Susan
James Rowell
>al...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Larry Boswell) wrote:
>>Susan Eshelman (aa...@islandnet.com) writes:
>>> Ross Green <gre...@uvsc.edu> wrote:
>>>>al...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Larry Boswell) wrote:
>>> ...Canadian heart will just melt. ...
>
>> ..., apologies to all, maybe it is the time of year
>> for Canadian whine?
>
>No, no, no, Larry, that's in August, when the grapes are ripe. :)
>
>>but a cold Canadian heart, awwwww??
>
>OK. We've sent Red Green off to rebuild NDP headquarters, instead.
Background info: Mani Deli is Canadian and so am I.
What does that tell you about Canadians? Well, to quote a very
NON-famous yet highly philosophical Canadian by the name of Colin Park,
"Canadians are masters of self delusion." Just for the record: he
moved to Cleveland by choice...
BTW, I just decided that it's ok if people have no idea about what you
are talking about. In fact (according to my room-mate) it's preferable.
James.
Susan Eshelman
>Susan Eshelman <aa...@islandnet.com> writes:
>>
>>OK. We've sent Red Green off to rebuild NDP headquarters, instead.
>
>Background info: Mani Deli is Canadian and so am I.
>
>What does that tell you about Canadians? Well, to quote a very
>NON-famous yet highly philosophical Canadian by the name of Colin Park,
>"Canadians are masters of self delusion." Just for the record: he
>moved to Cleveland by choice...
>
>BTW, I just decided that it's ok if people have no idea about what you
>are talking about. In fact (according to my room-mate) it's preferable.
Well, then the NDP is safe. All's well in Canada.
Susan
Bruce Attah
(Larry Boswell) wrote:
> ok, enough whining, but when I saw the 'skill' subject line
> I thought there might actually be a discussion going on
> between the ads (which have multiplied since I was last
> hanging around here, how do you keep anything going?)
>
> when I opened the thread it looked like more of the usual
> flickering (not flaming, not strong enough to drive off the
> chill even. at least that would have been good for something,
> a smile or two). I've wiped out my comments, apologies to
> all, maybe it is the time of year for Canadian whine?
>
> one reason the group is being lost to the adtakers is the
> quick resort to sarcasm, insult, and I admit to stoking
> the flames a bit, which doesn't contribute anything in the
> end. If there's a serious attempt to put the group back
> into a discussion format, great
Actually, this discussion went on for quite a while before the bunsen
burners were lit. Pity you were unable to participate. One way to get
this group back into discussion mode is to post something that's on
topic. Another is to launch a discussion thread of your own. I'm sure
you have an thought or two that others might wish to chew over.
Meanwhile London has been quite interesting, considered in the light of
this discussion. The Tate, as you probably know has been showing Cezanne,
while the Royal Academy has been remembering the hundredth anniversary of
the death of one of its most eminent past presidents, Lord Leighton.
Leighton had a remarkable career. When he was just 22, a painting of his
was seen and bought by Queen Victoria, and from then on for him it was up,
up, up, culminating in a peerage, which he was awarded only days before he
died in 1896. He was the only British artist ever to become a Lord
(though a fair few have recieved Knighthoods, as Leighton did some years
before the peerage). He stands as an establishment parallel to Cezanne,
who was of the same generation, came from the same sort of social
background and lived about as long. Another similarity is that they both
gave themselves totally to their art. In all other respects, however,
they were different. Leighton, who received training in Florence and
Germany from the age of twelve, painted and drew with remarkable skill,
while Cezanne, self-taught, struggled to achieve a modicum of competence.
Now, these two artists are not quite at opposite ends of the spectrum.
Leighton was not the greatest draughtsman who ever lived, nor was Cezanne
quite the clumsiest (though some of his early paintings are complete
horrors, as are his late Grande Baigneuses, which until about the nineteen
fifties were some of the worst paintings inflicted on the public ever).
Leighton was not as conservative as he might at first seem to casual,
modern observer, while Cezanne was not radical compared to some other
post-impressionists, especially symbolists, who painted at the same time.
Nevertheless, the vital difference between these two was in the skill they
were able to bring to bear on their work. The question is, did Leighton's
extra skill make his paintings better than Cezanne's?
I say yes. Leighton at his best was infinitely better than the best
Cezanne. At his worst, though, he was dull or plain silly. Knowledge of
how to draw accurately and paint with exquisite control is not enough to
guarantee a good painting, that Leighton knew well, and that is why he
took the trouble to imagine paintings that would be worth seeing. When he
got it right, the result was wonderful, but at other times, it could be
overwrought or seem self-parodic. That's the thing about art. You take
risks.
Cezanne not only lacked draughtmanship and good colour sense (he had,
basically, two formulae: green and orange or blue all over), he also
lacked imagination. His early attempts at romanticism are laughable for
this reason, as is his later classicism. His moroseness pervades all his
images: the peasants he chooses to depict all seem to be in a state worse
than death. The only paintings of Cezanne's that are even bearable to
look at are the landscapes and still lives. The reason is clear: lack of
imagination tends to be obvious in a still life, and in landscape the
fault of poor draughtmanship is also somewhat obscured.
An amusing aspect of Cezanne's painting is that the attributes that are
taken as signs of radicalism by critics are in fact signs of
incompetence. The tilting perspective of the still lives is a common
error among beginners, as is the crude aerial perspective that causes the
landscapes not to recede into the distance as would be the case in your
typical salon painter's effort. As for the extent of his influence,
Matisse and Picasso trumpeted him enormously, but personally, I don't see
much evidence of Cezanne in Matisse at all, and in Picasso, he is present
only in some of the "analytical cubist" paintings. Anyone painting like
Cezanne after the first world war would have been regarded as terribly
old-fashioned by the avant-garde cognoscenti, and the Symbolists had much
more bearing on what happened during that period (for instance, Kandinsky
& Klee, dada and Surrealism -- and, indeed, Picasso and Matisse).
So, my claim, in short, is that the difference between Leighton (good, but
underrated because he stands as a token of the "old guard") and Cezanne
(bad, but overrated because he stands for the "avant garde") is their
difference in skill: the one adept in draughtmanship, colour and
imagination, the other poor in all three of these.
Bruce Attah
>... or that Bruce's defense of philistinism doesn't have its moments.
See my comments on philistinism elsewhere.
Bruce Attah
(Larry Boswell) wrote:
> what's talent? a pre-wired potential to develop a
> high level of skill in a given area?
Sounds like a reasonable definition of talent.
> Talent is not necessarily a positive, nor is it
> a guarantee of success, maybe even the opposite.
Talent is no more a guarantee of success than good shoes are a guarantee
of a pleasant walk. Like good shoes, though, talent can help.
> Skill, an acquired refinement of capability to
> perform specific functions? Skill requires
> effort,
skill requires effort to _acquire_, but once acquired, the skill may not
require any great effort to apply. Think of reading, or driving.
> though again, skill is less a requirement,
> maybe not even a requirement now for any kind of artistic
> exploration.
You can't do that. You can't join a discussion on the question of whether
skill is necessary to art and then simply state without support that skill
is not.
> Unless you follow rules.
What rules? The way I see it, art *is* skill, and an artist is
constrained only by the intention to display skill. If that's a rule,
that's fine. Nobody *has* to be an artist.
> Some of the best work shows no great skill level, but talent is visible.
You start with talent; you develop skill. Any display of undeveloped
talent as art is tragic.
> It's an open field, as it must be, art that is...
> for to require skill, or talent is to immediately
> build walls, definitions, and that's a pain
To the extent that the requirement for skill in art is a wall, it is a
nice wall, rather like the walls around your house that help keep you warm
during the Canadian winters. Not all walls are a pain. The skills that
visual artists employ, such as drawing and colour, are not a burden, but a
liberation--just as the power of language is to a poet, or control of the
voice is to a singer.
Once an artist has the requisite skill, the artist can accomplish great
things with ease where the unskilled struggle to produce rubbish.
bainbridge
I think you all (Bruce, James, Susan and Ross) have articulated some
valid points. It's just that art is such a subjective, nebulous and
evolving concept. One can't hang a concrete definition on it.
A discussion has recently been heating up on a list-serve I subscribe to
regarding the importance of traditional media ( clay, charcoal
paint,etc.) vs.digital media (computer art). As I considered this, I
had a realization that the personal experience of producing each is
totally different. The gratification I receive while stroking paint
onto a canvas is not the same as that I receive designing something on
the computer. It is just as fullfilling but in a different way. The two
ways of creating art are as divergent as gardening and balancing a
checkbook - I suppose it has something to do with parts of the brain
being used.
A consideration of the meaning of art most also consider the value of
the personal experience to the artist.
Susan
p.s. So did anyone jump on the opportunity to get their digs in re: Bob
Ross? He provides technical instruction at the exspense of art
aesthetics!
William DeRaymond
mean we tend to be far too self conscious in the use of our acquired
'abilities'. A great zen master, Suzuki Roshi said (to paraphase?) ' Always
be a beginner. With beginner's mind there are many possibilities. Always be
a beginner. This is the secret of zen practice and also the secret of the
arts.' My experience tells me this is true.
Gauguin said, 'A great sentiment can be rendered spontaneously.' I think
this is meant in the same vein.
I say, if you are truly committed to the joy of self expression, with
right guidance, technique (skill?) purifies itself. Your work will always
be art. If you only commit yourself to achieving some kind of conceptual
idea of what skill is or should be, you will have to throw it all away at
some point if you ever expect to do anything original. So answer me this,
how does one become original? Does originality have any value to you? What
is originality? Is it something you conceive of and then execute? Does
originality concern you? Would you be able to tell if something were
original or not?
-William
sl...@cc.usu.edu
> In article <Dn542...@freenet.carleton.ca>, al...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
> (Larry Boswell) wrote:
>
>> perform specific functions? Skill requires
>> effort,
... what's the difference between "skill" and "technique"?
"skill"---> cognitive, discernment, conceptual, mind-based
(and b/c mind-based always related to the
characteristics of thought, natural or acquired,
largely culture-dependant.)
"technique"---> physical, solid, active-motional, tool-based
(and b/c tool-based always intention specific and
always related to the ideas of the culture or
individual who has invented the tools)
"to paint"---> to cut, divide; involving both skill and technique
(today associated with the use of pigments
suspended in binders)
>> Unless you follow rules.
maybe "rules" could be seen as the many contexts for a particular
technique, anyway... I would replace the word "rules" with the word
"strategies" because strategy implies intention in the same way
that technique implies tools. A painter could embody great skill,
and very fluid sophisticated technical ability, but very poor
strategy as regards putting the techniques and skill together in
one painting. Cezanne was a remarkable strategist, but not a
great technician, when compared to the tools of neoclassical draftmanship.
(the comparison however, is rather ridiculous, and shows bad strategy
as regards the skill of critics who would make the comparison).
if I were asked to put those four ideas in some sort of order, I would
say that I wouldn't put them in order, because the ideas (skill,
technique, paint, strategy) are too intertwined. We should probably
add a fifth element, to get at the idea of the motivation to
intend to make an artwork -- the reasons or intuitions that drive
a particular strategy, and that relate to the discernments (skill)
of the artist. We might also do well to note that any artist at
any given time could balance this set of four or five terms in any
number of ways (an artist could focus on technique for a great length
of time, etc.) because at root these all are words,
not art, not the artists themselves.
[clip]
>> It's an open field, as it must be, art that is...
>> for to require skill, or talent is to immediately
>> build walls, definitions, and that's a pain
to say that art is an open field is to create a definition...
> To the extent that the requirement for skill in art is a wall, it is a
> nice wall, rather like the walls around your house that help keep you warm
> during the Canadian winters. Not all walls are a pain. The skills that
> visual artists employ, such as drawing and colour, are not a burden, but a
> liberation--just as the power of language is to a poet, or control of the
> voice is to a singer.
Bruce's point here is, I think, that there can be such a thing as
a definition that frees more than it restricts.
In a lot of art schools it is fairly typical to hear that
things like "color" are skills. They are not. Color is a
technique that may be used strategically or not. I hear a
lot of things like "In this class we are going to learn and
practice the basic skills of drawing" by which is usually meant
things like figure/ground relationship, tone/value, texture,
shape vs. form, light and shadow, line-quality, etc. Those are
techniques and in and of themselves show no skill. How they are
put together also does not reveal skill... it reveals the
strategy (good or bad) and possibly some of the intentions (good
or bad) of the artist. Skill, being essentially cognitive
remains invisible, except for a few slight clues left behind
over the entire career of an artist, which when viewed broadly and
open-mindedly may reveal clues to what decisions the artist
made (as different from *why* the artist made something, which
would relate to intention, or strategy (and an artist certainly
could invent a series of strategies of feignts and parries that
could lead critics astray)).
skill, technique, intention, strategy, motivation...
orbiting around each other
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
sl...@cc.usu.edu
> I think, basically, skill is highly overrated by the culture in general.
huh????? if anything it seems to me that we value the distinct lack
of pointed, intentional technique. Just look at our weapons...
huge massive beast-bombs that we hardly even need to aim, capable
of wantonly destroying massive areas, with no regard whatsoever.
we are so afraid of our own ability to do evil that instead of
sending out one well-trained assassin to hit one target, we instead
just go and kill everybody. It's like making all the kids put their
heads down when just one of the kids has done something wrong...
just like what happened here in Utah, where now all public school
non-academic clubs have been banned because of disagreement with
just one. Nobody's got the balls to ban the one club that people
disagreed with (if you're not up on the news, that one club
was a sort of gay-lesbian club, which shouldn't be banned anyway).
that's our culture for you: we don't ban one club, we ban them all; we
don't assassinate one potent leader, we kill everybody instead.
That's stupid.
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Larry Boswell
> Talent is no more a guarantee of success than good shoes are a guarantee
> of a pleasant walk. Like good shoes, though, talent can help.
talent must be recognized externally, there's the rub. Talent takes
form only through a directed refinement, a narrowing of its underlying
factors into related areas of skill development. Talent is a puppet
on strings.
> You can't do that. You can't join a discussion on the question of whether
> skill is necessary to art and then simply state without support that skill
> is not.
oh. let me restate it, still unsupported. There are no specific skills
that are necessary to art. Even within specific media. skills are
developed and shed quickly, skill is in danger of becoming overshadowed
(cast in the shadow of) habit.
it's there waiting for those
>
> What rules? The way I see it, art *is* skill, and an artist is
> constrained only by the intention to display skill. If that's a rule,
> that's fine. Nobody *has* to be an artist.
>
without some reference point, how do you judge this skill? rules by
any other name... Aren't you trying to cast stone out of clay
otherwise? If there are no rules, then no judgement of skill is
possible, your rules are there, but unspoken
>> Some of the best work shows no great skill level, but talent is visible.
>
> You start with talent; you develop skill. Any display of undeveloped
> talent as art is tragic.
>
>> It's an open field, as it must be, art that is...
>> for to require skill, or talent is to immediately
>> build walls, definitions, and that's a pain
>
> To the extent that the requirement for skill in art is a wall, it is a
> nice wall, rather like the walls around your house that help keep you warm
> during the Canadian winters. Not all walls are a pain. The skills that
> visual artists employ, such as drawing and colour, are not a burden, but a
> liberation--just as the power of language is to a poet, or control of the
> voice is to a singer.
>
>
> Once an artist has the requisite skill, the artist can accomplish great
> things with ease where the unskilled struggle to produce rubbish.
your rubbish may be something I want to roll in. Why do you need
to have something imposed, some sort of standards? you may
be a wiser man than me, because I'd be curious about what was
being hauled to the dump. Over the years, more than a few
gems have been found where other's have thrown them aside
I don't know, I'd rather hedge my bets as to what forms genius
can take
now genius, itself, where do you fit that in your scheme?
Larry