Anti-Spiritual Mentality
William Blake Jr.
lives spiritual energy and feed on it without having to value it and
recognize it and reward it rightfully for the good that it does for
them.
In the same way as anti-beauty mentality come from those who want to
have in their lives beautiful people without valuing them or rewarding
them accordingly.
In the same way as anti-emotional (or anti-love) mentality comes from
those who want to feed on people emotionally without having to care
about what they do to those people.
In the same way as anti-woman (and now in parts of the West also
anti-man) mentality comes from those who want to have in their lives
the people involved without rewarding them for what they do for them.
Any mentality that devalues an aspect of human existence or a section
of humanity is a con. It is an attempt to have a free lunch by feeding
on that which makes the existence (or the part of the population)
without having to reward it.
As such, it is a deception and one that must be seen and treated as
such.
Ilya Shambat
http://ibshambat.blogspot.com
Ashley Clarke
-------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Clarke
-------------------------------------------------------
"William Blake Jr." <ibsh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155240303.4...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
ilya_sha...@yahoo.com
Ashley Clarke wrote:
> I just simply satisfy everyone all the time.
Does that work? Because I've seen many people who do that being
constantly mistaken for being weak when what they are is kind.
Alis...@nothere.com
connotation taht I am against spiritualism.
I am non-spiritual because I do not believe in God(s) or other
imaginary "friends" to serve as a crutch. I do not care if anyone else
believes - that is their right - but I do not share in their
delusions.
Alistair
On 10 Aug 2006 13:05:03 -0700, "William Blake Jr."
<ibsh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Mani Deli
"I taught drawing and painting for twenty years or so, off and on,
including three at a local college, and have often encountered the
same situation as you describe, students excusing their shortcomings
as if they were their "style," under the umbrella of artistic license.
My response was usually along these lines: "Artistic license is for
artists. You are not an artist, but a student. You have a learner's
permit, not a license. After I, as your instructor, can see that
you're able to draw what is in front of your eyes as it actually
appears, then and only then will I believe that you're capable of
doing so, rather than deluding yourself and overestimating your
ability. I'm not willing to take your word for it, so show me. The
assignment is to accurately depict what you see. It is not the
ultimate goal for an artist, but a student assignment, and it will
make you a better artist once you have developed your powers of
observation and analysis to a high enough degree that drawing
accurately is no great challenge to you. Until you've mastered it, you
are not really an artist, and your work will be weak. There is of
course much more to being an artist than that, but the basics must be
mastered while you are still a student, or you will be very limited in
your artistic vocabulary. Creative impulses and expression depend on
these rendering abilities for their effective expression and
communication. The popular notion that concern for technique stifles
creativity is a fallacy. If one's creative spark is so easily
extinguished, it cannot have been much of a spark to begin with.
Where we have avant-garde artists proclaiming realistic rendering
mastery that is not in evidence in their work, supposedly
intentionally eschewed in the name of artistic freedom, I always ask
to see examples of work they have created in which this mastery is
demonstrated, otherwise it must remain in doubt. If they have nothing
of the sort to show, I might hand them paper and pencil and ask for a
demonstration of this claimed ability, to distinguish them from the
many frauds and charlatans who masquerade as avant-garde artists
despite a lack of talent. The avant-garde is the last refuge for the
untalented."
Virgil Elliott
CB
best advertisement for why young artists shouldn't follow his
recommendations - it's like watching Shakespeare - rewritten for tender
audiences - put on by the local soccer mom association to raise money.
Clearly annunciated, unbearably trite. Seems to be a pathological condition
over at Art Renewal.
Just to wash the bad taste out, I think I'll go watch "Oviri" again (BTW -
thanks Erik, great movie, Sutherland is superb as a late Gauguin. If anyone
else ordered the movie & hasn't figured out how to watch it, select the
"English Subtitles", it's in a format compatible with NA players. Or get
really stoned and watch the "Danish Subtitles" version, which is in PAL
format). Or maybe even wade through "Pollock".
CB
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:cfimf2do4b678tnc0...@4ax.com...
Mani Deli
>"CB" <caldwell...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I guess I would have to say his work (http://www.virgilelliott.com ) is
>> the best advertisement for why young artists shouldn't follow his
>> recommendations
Like learning to draw what's in front of you.
>>- it's like watching Shakespeare - rewritten for tender
>> audiences - put on by the local soccer mom association to raise money.
>> Clearly annunciated, unbearably trite. Seems to be a pathological
>> condition over at Art Renewal.
Seems you can't criticize his points.
You are really referring to his subject matter which I don't care for
either. His drawing is competent.
A typical drawing class today usually consists of a nude lady, a group
of students producing little more than dirty paper while pretending to
draw and a teacher who can't draw assuring them that they can draw.
>Hi, Chris - agree with you on Elliot. His work isn't even good schlock.
>Guys like him always have as students an unlimited supply of middle-aged
>women, who have no art history education and think their teacher is a god.
>After awhile the guy believes his own hype. 'Atelier,' indeed!
Hype? Look at Fox's 1960's furniture store abstraction. He can't draw
anything just like the students Virgil Elliot criticizes.
>>
>> "Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> news:cfimf2do4b678tnc0...@4ax.com...
>> > Virgil Elliott wrote:
>> > Where we have avant-garde artists proclaiming realistic rendering
>> > mastery that is not in evidence in their work, supposedly
>> > intentionally eschewed in the name of artistic freedom, I always ask
>> > to see examples of work they have created in which this mastery is
>> > demonstrated, otherwise it must remain in doubt. If they have nothing
>> > of the sort to show, I might hand them paper and pencil and ask for a
>> > demonstration of this claimed ability, to distinguish them from the
>> > many frauds and charlatans who masquerade as avant-garde artists
>> > despite a lack of talent. The avant-garde is the last refuge for the
>> > untalented."
>> >
>> > Virgil Elliott
Why don't you criticize this paragraph?
PS I'll be posting my annual criticism of art schools again soon. So
be prepared to post your usual drivel.
no skill, no art
CB
"Dan Fox" <danfoxa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20060905215442.752$1...@newsreader.com...
>
> Hi, Chris - agree with you on Elliot. His work isn't even good schlock.
> Guys like him always have as students an unlimited supply of middle-aged
> women, who have no art history education and think their teacher is a god.
> After awhile the guy believes his own hype. 'Atelier,' indeed!
>
OTOH, it is a really curious sub-genre; a lot of these folks worship at the
feet of artists like Alma-Tadema, and Cabanel, but with lots of other
precedents in things like the over the top religious art popular in the
1800's, and morality art from the same era (usually a cute young girl with a
canary perched on her finger, or a broken pitcher at her feet, etc...);
1930's soft focus films; Hollywood sandal epics....
I tend to think of the best of visual art -from Rembrandt to Pollock - is
that art which in some manner expresses an idea that really is not
expreessible in other forms, like poetry, prose, music, etc. It needs a
purely visual conception - which implies an ability to think in images - as
well as the ability to express those images. And of course it needs
something worthwhile to express...But with a good deal of the ARC work in
particular, it's as if that ability to at least conceive in images is quite
lacking; it puts me in mind of (again, thanks to Erik) the issues raised in
Theweleit's book "Male Fantasies" (about the Freikorps) for whom
sexuality/sensuality is simply non-existent (or sublimated out of
existence). Nature abhors a vacuum, so the empty space gets replaced with
bits and pieces of other forms of expression..
Maybe it's one of the reasons that drawing is so important - not to create a
likeness, but to strengthen the ability to think visually. The same could be
said as well for practising colour and tone. "Understanding" in most fields
seems to be largely the ability to abstract things/experiences to essential
components that can then be re-arranged and expressed to form new
conceptions or to share experiences, and the more essential that is the less
translatable it is to other modes of thought.
It's funny how much modern life militates against this though, particularly
against the subtle forms that at one time supported independent visual
thinking - from the fact that a good part of every day communication is now
carried on via email, which kills any real visual impact of a handwritten
note - the modern sterilized/cloned bungalows and condos - the fact the
camera & it's viewpoint have become ubiquitous in a TV age - transportation
that takes us from one spot to another with little chance to experience the
transition...
Sounding a bit of the old fart here....
>
> Yeah, Sutherland didn't do that one for the money. some cute nude girls in
> it, too. For a REAL palate-cleanser, get the DVD 'Sordid Lives,' a black
> comedy about white trash. It'll put you in a good mood for a week.
>
Re. Oviri; I was wondering about that - maybe the (nominally under-age)
nudes are why it's not available on Amazon....Most of the cast was great,
particularly the actress that played Mette....
Never heard of "Sordid Lives"; looks great. Added bonus is that I am
actually very fond of (older) C&W, though since the advent of insipid
suburban country in the late 80's I've pretty well stopped listening. But I
do have that soft spot for Tammy & George....& speaking of trailer trash, I
guess you know "Raising Arizona", one of the few Nicholas Cage films I ever
enjoyed....
Cheers;
Chris
Erik A. Mattila
You know, Chris...the old Icelandic proverb: a man loves the smell of
his own farts.
>
>
>>Yeah, Sutherland didn't do that one for the money. some cute nude girls in
>>it, too. For a REAL palate-cleanser, get the DVD 'Sordid Lives,' a black
>>comedy about white trash. It'll put you in a good mood for a week.
>>
>
>
> Re. Oviri; I was wondering about that - maybe the (nominally under-age)
> nudes are why it's not available on Amazon....Most of the cast was great,
> particularly the actress that played Mette....
>
> Never heard of "Sordid Lives"; looks great. Added bonus is that I am
> actually very fond of (older) C&W, though since the advent of insipid
> suburban country in the late 80's I've pretty well stopped listening. But I
> do have that soft spot for Tammy & George....& speaking of trailer trash, I
> guess you know "Raising Arizona", one of the few Nicholas Cage films I ever
> enjoyed....
> Cheers;
> Chris
Don't forget Sutherland's other great sleeper, Fellini's Casanova. I
think this film's milestone was painting the cultural environment of the
time the prototype to the modern art museum was developed - the
"Wumdercammern". It the film, these collectors are all on a rush to
collect "mechanica" - mechanical models - and Fellini really goes to
town with that idea. Very fascinating. great flick
>
>
>
Mani Deli
that nothing below addresses that. The writers go off on the usual art
school tangents when faced with this question.
I wonder what those students who sit in front of the naked lady get
out of the sort of drivel below when they hear it in art class?
On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 14:14:50 GMT, "CB" <caldwell...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>OTOH, it is a really curious sub-genre; a lot of these folks worship at the
>feet of artists like Alma-Tadema, and Cabanel, but with lots of other
>precedents in things like the over the top religious art popular in the
>1800's, and morality art from the same era (usually a cute young girl with a
>canary perched on her finger, or a broken pitcher at her feet, etc...);
>1930's soft focus films; Hollywood sandal epics....
>
>I tend to think of the best of visual art -from Rembrandt to Pollock - is
>that art which in some manner expresses an idea that really is not
>expr
>
>"Dan Fox" <danfoxa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:20060905215442.752$1...@newsreader.com...
>>
>> Hi, Chris - agree with you on Elliot. His work isn't even good schlock.
>> Guys like him always have as students an unlimited supply of middle-aged
>> women, who have no art history education and think their teacher is a god.
>> After awhile the guy believes his own hype. 'Atelier,' indeed!
This while Fox has to spend his life trying to pawn of his 1960
abstract schlock to assorted failure galleries.
eessible in other forms, like poetry, prose, music, etc. It needs a
>purely visual conception - which implies an ability to think in images - as
>well as the ability to express those images. And of course it needs
>something worthwhile to express...But with a good deal of the ARC work in
>particular, it's as if that ability to at least conceive in images is quite
>lacking; it puts me in mind of (again, thanks to Erik) the issues raised in
>Theweleit's book "Male Fantasies" (about the Freikorps) for whom
>sexuality/sensuality is simply non-existent (or sublimated out of
>existence). Nature abhors a vacuum, so the empty space gets replaced with
>bits and pieces of other forms of expression..
>
>Maybe it's one of the reasons that drawing is so important - not to create a
>likeness, but to strengthen the ability to think visually.
Should you learn to accuratly draw what's in front of you or not.
Bet this guy has to teach the next generation of failures in ordrer to
get by.
no skill no art
zeno
Mani Deli wrote:
You are really referring to his subject matter which I don't care for
> either. His drawing is competent.
So what is the point of spending a life learning to make competent drawings of
worthless and boring images? Who's interested? What is drawing competently
worth exactly in this context?
Maybe it is possible to "teach" drawing, but not possible to teach making art
out of it.
Zeno
Mani Deli
>
>
>Mani Deli wrote:
>
>You are really referring to his subject matter which I don't care for
>
>> either. His drawing is competent.
>
>So what is the point of spending a life learning to make competent drawings of
>worthless and boring images?
None if the image is worthless.
> Who's interested? What is drawing competently
>worth exactly in this context?
And what's the point of drawing incompetent images?
>Maybe it is possible to "teach" drawing, but not possible to teach making art
>out of it.
>
>Zeno
Everyone who learns arithmetic doesn't become a mathematician. But its
the foundation. Do you count your change?
zeno
Mani Deli wrote: And what's the point of drawing incompetent images?
It is mostly you who think they are incompetent. The rest of the world celebrates
it. No amount of internet revisionism by bitter reactionary failures will erase
Picasso from Art History.
You are clearly wasting your energy and your time, and apparently have nothing
better to do with it.
Zeno
Mani Deli
>When I had a website, Mani used to dismiss my work as being on the same
>level as the 'failures' Rothko, de Kooning, and Pollock (I wish!).
Not at all. I have great admiration for any big money making
charlatans. I like big money.
I laugh at failure charlatans like Fox because his 1960 chimpanzee
imitations earned a pittance. Fox who has no abilities in art has to
rely on connections and hype. He has failed at this. For everyone who
paints drivel similar to that of the three stooges there are millions
like Fox who paint ten times better wall covering but can't figure out
why the world doesn't treat them the same.
> He would
>say, 'check Fox's website' to direct people to my miserable efforts.
You once even declared that I increased the visitors to your site.
> The
>result was that I got a couple of collectors out of it. I made the mistake
>of posting to that effect and he immediately stopped.
Wishful thinking, I never stopped.
You closed your site because it was a laugh. It had the same stuff as
the thousands abstractionists who flood art sites. If it was up now
I'd still advise seeing it to let others decide for themselves.
> At least he
>didn't ask for a commission.
Any commission on your stuff wouldn't be worth anyone's bother.
>
>Dan
Mani Deli
at those flippers in Matisse and the sausages in Picasso and the
schmier when students try it.
Someone asks, "Why does a drawing look like crap?" You learn to say,
"its deliberate" and all the lengthily permutations of that statement.
It's taught in Modern Academic Art schools. I call it
excuse theory. Most art students take 5 years of this.
Its ordinary BS in order to cover up the fact that you can't draw.
Fine for school, disaster when you leave.
If it needs a long sermon to proclaim it's art, it's probably
bullshit.
zeno
Dan Fox wrote:
> This is the best and most concise summary of Mani's silly posts that I've
> seen. Nice.
>
> When I had a website, Mani used to dismiss my work as being on the same
> level as the 'failures' Rothko, de Kooning, and Pollock (I wish!). He would
> say, 'check Fox's website' to direct people to my miserable efforts. The
> result was that I got a couple of collectors out of it. I made the mistake
> of posting to that effect and he immediately stopped. At least he
> didn't ask for a commission.
>
> Dan
Right, I think all the protestations will just again revitalize the interest
in all that work he hates which is still such a welcome contrast to all that
tiresome antique "skill" stuff that he worships. There are museums full of
that stiff "skill" stuff, and there is hardly anyone in those sections except
a few old ladies and Mani.
Zeno
Mani Deli
>
>How do you tell Mani from the old ladies? Actually, how do we know Mani
>isn't an old lady? He sounds like one.
Dan fox sounds like a failure who can't show his work on the web
anymore because its a laugh. Dan Fox is old fat and jaded pining for
his frat days.
>
>There's no need to 'revitalize' interest in modern art.
There is interest in all modern art not just the crap in the modern
sections of museums as failures like Fox would like to have others
believe.
> The number of
>exhibitions worldwide, large and small, are hugely attended, year after
>year. Auction prices continue to soar. New books are coming out every year.
Especially on artists not mentioned by Modern Academic art critics.
>OK, enough making fun of Mani. Back to the easel to some more 'furniture
>store abstraction!'
Don't trip on the way.
>Dan
Fox, rehire your chimpanzee assistant it will help a lot and perhaps
you'll even be able to show your painting on the net again and get
tons more patrons on my recommendation.
Mani Deli
academic artists.
Here they will get about two weeks worth of information for every six
months of time spent there. And of course you will be expected to pay
a tuition fee in order to be taught the following mantra of quaint
aphorisms as a substitute for what the teachers don't know; in much
more long-winded form of course, They have all that time to kill.
- modernism is something new.
-the term realism when used as a negative description is to be
understood as merely a photographic rendition of reality.
- representation in painting needs to be abandoned.
- people who cannot draw have greater freedom in expressing themselves
than people who can.
- art since Impressionism makes better use of color than it did
before.
·-permanent rebellion against the past is a moral artistic requirement
-neurotic or antisocial people are necessarily better artists.
- modern Academic Art operates outside of the commercial economic
sphere
-Art history is divided into antiquated realism and modern
abstraction.
-There is fine art, which conforms to precepts demanded of our Modern
Museums and the majority of teaching institutions and then there is
all that 'other stuff'. That is, painting not holy-critic approved
like illustration, animation and anything to do with commercial art,
etc.
At the conclusion of their studies students will receive a certificate
attesting to their intellectual and artistic superiority. This should
serve as much an asset to getting work and public acceptance, as it
has for all those other certified failures out there.
zeno
Dan Fox wrote:
>
> There's no need to 'revitalize' interest in modern art. The number of
> exhibitions worldwide, large and small, are hugely attended, year after
> year. Auction prices continue to soar. New books are coming out every year.
And there is still interest in the old styles of painting and illustration as
well. There is a place for everything and I see museum and gallery space
alotted to all of it in one way or another and some people like stuff from
almost all periods of art. The art world is inclusive and contains all periods
and any work they can get their hands on. Art shows of all kinds are big
business. The idea that one art period is out to gun down another at the OK
corral is rather silly. DRAW!
I mean there are people who collect and love their antique 17th Century French
Clocks for godssakes. There are still guys who will repair or restore your
17th Century French Clock!
NO SKILL, NO FIXEE YOUR ANTIQUE 17TH CENTURY FRENCH CLOCK.
If you happen to have the money, you can even find a guy today who will build
you an Antique 17th Century French Clock from SCRATCH. In fact, Mani Deli is
your man, He knows all the guys who can do this, and he can hook you up.
NO SKILL, NO FIXEE CLOCK.
Zeno
Mani Deli
>There is a place for everything and I see museum and gallery space
>alotted to all of it
Really?
> in one way or another and some people like stuff from
>almost all periods of art.
They like the 19th and 20th century stuff rarely shown in most
museums.
>The art world is inclusive and contains all periods
>and any work they can get their hands on.
The art world is indeed large it includes work not presently allowed
in museums.
I do not advocate that museums cease exhibiting Modern Academic Art.
However, I do suggest that in fairness to today's polarized extremes
in taste, museums should have two different curators. One for each
side of the art debate. They could then compete by means of the
artwork they each choose to hang and engage in lively debates. People
will then have an opportunity to see the work of both sides of the art
debate and decide what they prefer for themselves. If this were to
happen the censored approach of the last 80 years would end.
Museums could then hang examples of the finest works that are
popular with a large facet of the public which modern art critics
dismiss as illustration, kitsch and commercial.
Only then will our finest painters, illustrators, nature and
scientific artists, cartoonists, animators, comic book artists etc.
have an opportunity to have their original work shown to that
audience.
I would also like art reviews to feature the opinions of two critics
who are known to take opposite sides. This would certainly create more
interest than the usual dose of ecstatic Artspeak praise reserved for
any work exhibiting modern academic conformity.
>Zeno
zeno
Mani Deli wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:49:43 -0700, zeno <ze...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> >There is a place for everything and I see museum and gallery space
> >alotted to all of it
>
> Really?
It seems like museums have a wide range of painting from all historical
periods. Most competent painting from all periods are represented in
large museums. Maybe you are talking about current painters who mimic
these old styles but do not add anything that is noteworthy? Competence
for its own sake is not always of enough interest if it doesn't add
something of a unique point of view.
>
>
> > in one way or another and some people like stuff from
> >almost all periods of art.
>
> They like the 19th and 20th century stuff rarely shown in most
> museums.
Then were do they see this material that they like so much?
Big cities have galleries which which represent almost everything.
>
>
> >The art world is inclusive and contains all periods
> >and any work they can get their hands on.
>
> The art world is indeed large it includes work not presently allowed
> in museums.
>
> I do not advocate that museums cease exhibiting Modern Academic Art.
> However, I do suggest that in fairness to today's polarized extremes
> in taste,
I don't think that taste is so polarized as you say. Most informed art
fans have a wide range of appreciation that encompasses all in its
historical contexts.
> museums should have two different curators. One for each
> side of the art debate.
I think maybe this is mostly your debate and you are doing your thing
here on the internet along with ARC etc. I am sure that major museums
employ curators who know about older styles as well as the moderns.
> They could then compete by means of the
> artwork they each choose to hang and engage in lively debates.
Museums usually are open to anything which they feel will command an
audience. They like to sell tickets for anything they think there might
be interest in.
> People
> will then have an opportunity to see the work of both sides of the art
> debate and decide what they prefer for themselves.
Maybe it is not a matter of deciding one or another. People are open and
have their personal preferences. I think most people are interested in
seeing it all whether they like it personally or not.
> If this were to
> happen the censored approach of the last 80 years would end.
In the last couple of decades it seems I have seen museums and galleries
open to a much wider range of work including everything from
illustration, comics, photography, and all kinds of stuff. When I visit
large cities, such as Los Angeles, I see this.
>
>
> Museums could then hang examples of the finest works that are
> popular with a large facet of the public which modern art critics
> dismiss as illustration, kitsch and commercial.
I think this is already happening. Any and all competent work in all
styles is potential.
(Galleries such as Modernism in San Francisco are known for representing
both abstract art and representational work.)
http://www.modernisminc.com/catalogsandposters/posters/
>
> Only then will our finest painters, illustrators, nature and
> scientific artists, cartoonists, animators, comic book artists etc.
> have an opportunity to have their original work shown to that
> audience.
Between San Francisco and Los Angeles I have already seen this happening.
I rarely get to the East Coast so I do not know first hand what is
happening there, but I would assume it is similar. If work is noteworthy
or interesting on any level it will get shown because galleries and
museums are scrambling to find anything they think will be of interest to
the ticket buying public.
>
>
> I would also like art reviews to feature the opinions of two critics
> who are known to take opposite sides. This would certainly create more
> interest than the usual dose of ecstatic Artspeak praise reserved for
> any work exhibiting modern academic conformity.
If writers are informed and competent there is a place for their reviews.
If they are ill-informed crackpots, then maybe the publications are
reluctant to represent them.
Your ideas are basically good and I would agree to the extent that these
things have truly been neglected. I am not sure I agree that they are as
neglected as you say and I am not sure I preceive the divide and great
debate in the same polarized way as you do. There are many galleries, I
think, who would be open to showing your own work, especially if you are
currently productive and making more. I haven't seen much new work on
your site. How old are those pieces represented? It would be interesting
to see what you are doing as of late.
Zeno
Mani Deli
>
>
>Mani Deli wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:49:43 -0700, zeno <ze...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>> >There is a place for everything and I see museum and gallery space
>> >alotted to all of it
>>
>> Really?
>
>It seems like museums have a wide range of painting from all historical
>periods.
All except the 19th and 20th century.
> Most competent painting from all periods are represented in
>large museums. Maybe you are talking about current painters who mimic
>these old styles but do not add anything that is noteworthy?
I'm not.
> Competence
>for its own sake is not always of enough interest if it doesn't add
>something of a unique point of view.
I agree but the statement serves as an excuse to exhibit incompetence.
>Big cities have galleries which which represent almost everything.
I can't agree.
>> >The art world is inclusive and contains all periods
>> >and any work they can get their hands on.
>>
>> The art world is indeed large it includes work not presently allowed
>> in museums.
>>
>> I do not advocate that museums cease exhibiting Modern Academic Art.
>> However, I do suggest that in fairness to today's polarized extremes
>> in taste,
>
>I don't think that taste is so polarized as you say.
I'm sure you don't
>
>> museums should have two different curators. One for each
>> side of the art debate.
>
>I think maybe this is mostly your debate and you are doing your thing
>here on the internet along with ARC etc.
I'm sure you are mainly exposed to the one sided choice of most
museums. I'm not interested in what ARC likes in terms of their living
artists. I don't agree with how their schools are run or their choice
for prizes. I don't think that reviving 19th century subject matter is
necessary or of great interest. However I totally agree with what they
say is wrong with the present and the fact that people should be able
to see the other side of the 19th Century especially in terms of the
one sided art history of that period. They are doing a great job at
this.
> I am sure that major museums
>employ curators who know about older styles as well as the moderns.
Knowing is not showing.
>> They could then compete by means of the
>> artwork they each choose to hang and engage in lively debates.
>
>Museums usually are open to anything which they feel will command an
>audience. They like to sell tickets for anything they think there might
>be interest in.
Most museums represent artwork whose prices have been driven up by the
present system. What they keep out of museums is more important to the
art business than what the allow in. In modern art they are nothing
more than a branch of the art business.
>> People
>> will then have an opportunity to see the work of both sides of the art
>> debate and decide what they prefer for themselves.
>
>Maybe it is not a matter of deciding one or another.
Fine, then give people a chance to decide.
> People are open and
>have their personal preferences. I think most people are interested in
>seeing it all whether they like it personally or not.
If that were true than museums would do what I say.
>> If this were to
>> happen the censored approach of the last 80 years would end.
>
>In the last couple of decades it seems I have seen museums and galleries
>open to a much wider range of work including everything from
>illustration, comics, photography, and all kinds of stuff. When I visit
>large cities, such as Los Angeles, I see this.
This is in part true. There are occasional shows of this stuff but it
isn't in museums permanent collections and the major spending is on
work from the other side.
>>
>>
>> Museums could then hang examples of the finest works that are
>> popular with a large facet of the public which modern art critics
>> dismiss as illustration, kitsch and commercial.
>
>I think this is already happening. Any and all competent work in all
>styles is potential.
I don't see any evidence for this on the scale that it should be.
>(Galleries such as Modernism in San Francisco are known for representing
>both abstract art and representational work.)
>http://www.modernisminc.com/catalogsandposters/posters/
There are galleries for all kinds of fine work but it isn't seriously
reviewed or allowed into major museums. The revolt is well under way
whether museums and critics accept or not. Look at what sells in
poster stores and Galleries in shopping malls. Look at bookstore art
sections and see who the major moderns now have to share their space
with.
>>
>> Only then will our finest painters, illustrators, nature and
>> scientific artists, cartoonists, animators, comic book artists etc.
>> have an opportunity to have their original work shown to that
>> audience.
>
>Between San Francisco and Los Angeles I have already seen this happening.
>I rarely get to the East Coast so I do not know first hand what is
>happening there, but I would assume it is similar. If work is noteworthy
>or interesting on any level it will get shown because galleries and
>museums are scrambling to find anything they think will be of interest to
>the ticket buying public.
>
I have no doubt things are beginning to change.
>>
>> I would also like art reviews to feature the opinions of two critics
>> who are known to take opposite sides. This would certainly create more
>> interest than the usual dose of ecstatic Artspeak praise reserved for
>> any work exhibiting modern academic conformity.
>Your ideas are basically good and I would agree to the extent that these
>things have truly been neglected. I am not sure I agree that they are as
>neglected as you say and I am not sure I preceive the divide and great
>debate in the same polarized way as you do.
The modern sections of major museums are totally one sided in their
20th century representation. The great art of the 19th is very slowly
being shown.
> There are many galleries, I
>think, who would be open to showing your own work, especially if you are
>currently productive and making more. I haven't seen much new work on
>your site. How old are those pieces represented? It would be interesting
>to see what you are doing as of late.
They range from the 70's to the present. I haven't made my living from
selling my art work for many years and have no need to sell what I do
at present. I did show some of my present work separately on the net
but I just changed servers and haven't entered it again. I will when I
get around to it.
>Zeno
>
Mani Deli
>zeno <ze...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> Mani Deli wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:49:43 -0700, zeno <ze...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > >There is a place for everything and I see museum and gallery space
>> > >alotted to all of it
>> >
>> > Really?
>
>Zeno, I think that Mani's problem is just one of ignorance. Of course all
>significant styles and schools of art (and some not so significant),
>including 18th and 19th century art of all kinds, are well-represented in
>the major museums.
They aren't
> I see Bouguereaus and similar works in prominent
>positions in the Met in NYC.
The do show a bit of their finest work. They are an exception. However
it is true that things are also changing elsewhere. As to the 20th
century, its most one sided.
>Specialty museums do of course provide a narrower exhibition focus -- the
>Whitney and Guggenheim for modern art; the Frick and Gardner for more
>classical, traditional work.
>
>I have a hard time believing that Mani does not know anything at all about
>what museums exhibit. Maybe all his years of rage have blinded him to
>reality or he just never has gone anywhere (or even looked at books showing
>the holdings of various museums).
Perhaps if the Bimbo weren't such a patronizing fool he would realize
that I'm well aware of what's happening. Any criticism of his Modern
Academic Art fundamentalism brings out his irrational outrage. Most
all of his messages are about character denigration and his paranoia
about prejudice.
>I know he repeatedly says he does 'book counts' in bookstores to convince
>himself that modern art is fading and the classics are ascending
Never said any such thing. I count the books to see the change in
taste which they represent. Modern Academic art more than ever before
has to share its space with others. I also look at Poster stores which
I believe represent what people are really willing to hang in their
homes and it ain't Picasso, Pollock and co.
-- this
>when a check of Amazon.com will get him all the book stats he could want
>(or not want, since it doesn't support his wishful thinking).
Amazon sells books on any artist one can name.
Rex
> I've received no responses here, and no emails. Conclusion: No students
> read Mani's 'advice.'
False conclusion. No one responded to *your* poll. Perhaps no one read
it. Perhaps, like me, they thought the thread was dead. Perhaps, since
you've made your bias clear, no one wanted to invite a return response
from you. Perhaps, since you limited your demand to students and
prospective students, you limited the audience to newbies who fear
getting flamed.
Rex
***
http://www.rexotica.com
Mani Deli
wrote:
>marcus...@yahoo.com(Marcus Denning) wrote:
>> Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> > Well its back to school for all the art students studying to be modern
>> > academic artists.
>>
>> I'm taking a poll.
>>
>> Will any current or prospective art students who have read Mani's post
>> please post here to let me know you saw it? (include your opinion of his
>> information if you like) I'm curious as to how many students Mani will
>> enlighten.
>
>I've received no responses here, and no emails. Conclusion: No students
>read Mani's 'advice.'
Conclusion! You're full of crap.
>Not a big surprise. It's like the rest of his trolls
>- hurled into a vacuum.
Its not a troll, its on the mark and it irritates failure teachers
like you no end.
> If he had any balls he would take his case to the
>art world at large instead of hiding in a little newsgroup.
>
>Marc
If you had any talent you would show your work and address the subject
at hand.
zeno
He is clearly a few hairs short of a brush. "Loon" is rather generous. There
is no way he could ever be taken seriously outside of the miniscule world of
usenet where he is maybe likely to find a couple of sympathizers who also
need to shun reality and are attracted to this bitter thinking which
broadbrushes issues needing detail and vice versa. How easy is it to simply
dismiss all of the modern era as inept because you cannot "see". He has an
"answer" for everything and is incapable of any new thinking, indeed an old
old dog who long ago learned his last trick.
Is that Arneson? Looks like him.....
Zeno
Marcus Denning wrote:
> Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> > Its not a troll, its on the mark and it irritates failure teachers
> > like you no end.
>
> I love how you give the impression you know things about the posters who
> criticize your tripe. I've never taught an art class in my life.
>
> >
> > If you had any talent you would show your work and address the subject
> > at hand.
>
> Here's a sample. Like you could carry my shoes. I've seen your stuff and
> it's lame Dali imitation. The subject at hand: Mani Deli is a talentless
> net loon without the balls to take his crusade to an audience outside of
> usenet.
>
> [Image]
Mani Deli
>You address Mani as if he were actually rational.
>He is clearly a few hairs short of a brush. "Loon" is rather generous.
You are just an ordinary common jerk. All you can do is repeat the
modern art fundamentalist mantra. I bet you have to do it for a
living.
>There
>is no way he could ever be taken seriously outside of the miniscule world of
>usenet where he is maybe likely to find a couple of sympathizers who also
>need to shun reality and are attracted to this bitter thinking which
>broadbrushes issues needing detail and vice versa. How easy is it to simply
>dismiss all of the modern era
I don't dismiss the era.
>as inept because you cannot "see". He has an
>"answer" for everything and is incapable of any new thinking, indeed an old
>old dog who long ago learned his last trick.
You have an answer for nothing. All you can manage to do is write the
usual character denigration, "loon, bitter, inept, etc. "
And you have nothing to show. The last time you showed anything it
was a load of crap. So I can't blame you for not showing it.
zeno
Mani Deli wrote:
All you can do is repeat the
> modern art fundamentalist mantra.
No such thing, this is a bullshit term you made up to vent your frustrations.
> I bet you have to do it for a
> living.
>
> I don't dismiss the era.
>
> And you have nothing to show. The last time you showed anything it
> was a load of crap. So I can't blame you for not showing it.
No, you have never seen anything of mine, and even Cezanne, Picasso, or Matisse
would have no reason to show you anything because your load of crap is
absolutely predictible and completely stupid.
Mani Deli
>
>
>Mani Deli wrote:
>
>All you can do is repeat the
>
>> modern art fundamentalist mantra.
>
>No such thing, this is a bullshit term you made up to vent your frustrations.
Then what's this?
- modernism is something new.
-the term realism when used as a negative description is to be
understood as merely a photographic rendition of reality.
- representation in painting needs to be abandoned.
- people who cannot draw have greater freedom in expressing themselves
than people who can.
- art since Impressionism makes better use of color than it did
before.
·-permanent rebellion against the past is a moral artistic requirement
-neurotic or antisocial people are necessarily better artists.
- modern Academic Art operates outside of the commercial economic
sphere
-Art history is divided into antiquated realism and modern
abstraction.
-There is fine art, which conforms to precepts demanded of our Modern
Museums and the majority of teaching institutions and then there is
all that 'other stuff'. That is, painting not holy-critic approved
like illustration, animation and anything to do with commercial art,
etc.
>> And you have nothing to show!