"The uninformed public per se cannot be the final arbiter for art, any more than it can for science."
aest...@hotmail.com
Thur
<aest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137811075.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.newsday.com/features/booksmags/ny-topleft4592757jan22,0,6928620.story?coll=ny-bookreview-headlines
>
I suppose we must regard the statement in the Context
which it was written. :-)
The statement is calling for those who are "Informed" to
be the "final arbiter of art".
Reading through, I get the impression that she did not the
public to be allowed to decide which art gets hung in galleries.
Since galleries and museums have to exist in the marketplace,
then the situation is similar throughout many aspects of art.
Your local Classical concert players and Conductors would
rather play new works but the public demand stuff they know
and like. (New stuff I hear seems meant to jar on the ear)
Theatrical production also has to get "bums on seats", so new
plawrights get few chances for their "cutting edge stuff"
The main problem is that contemporary art now does not
represent anything near enough the visions and ideals and
tastes of the public, but more the personal, individual twists
and turns of the artist's tortured inner self.
Those who would like to "belong" and become admirers and
followers of the artist are not really art lovers but those who
like the idea of being near someone who is "famous" or "notorious"
and fall for the current fad for "fame" and "celebrity".
I doubt very much that you would see any of them spending
more than 10 seconds pondering over anything, especially their
chosen artist.
Those that are "informed" are as likely to be as tasteless and
ignorant as the "uninformed".
--
Thur
artangel
represent anything near enough the visions and ideals and
tastes of the public, but more the personal, individual twists
and turns of the artist's tortured inner self."
Really?
Then how does one explain all the museum expansions, proliferation of
Biennials and contemporary art fairs?
As far as "the artist's tortured inner self" that is an old Hollywood
myth. It has as much to do with the art world as "the banker's tortured
inner self" has to do with the financial world.
"Those who would like to "belong" and become admirers and
followers of the artist are not really art lovers but those who
like the idea of being near someone who is "famous" or "notorious"
and fall for the current fad for "fame" and "celebrity". "
There are "asscrawlers" in any field and they dont mean anything.
"Those that are "informed" are as likely to be as tasteless and
ignorant as the "uninformed". "
If that is truly the case then it is time to find another field of
interest. It is hard to think of a phrase more incorrect.
Mani Deli
The Art Renewal guys are not far from grabbing torches and
>storming the galleries and museums, either.
in your paranoid imagination!
artangel
stormwing
somebody somewhere likes it. I remember an artist signing a blank
canvas and selling it for lots of money. Was that art? To the person
who bought the canvas, it was concedered art.
As for me, my favorite view of art is backpacking high into the
mountains, sitting on a rock and watching the sun rise over the valley
below.
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
True enough. Their primary strategy seems to be flooding this newsgroup
with out of context quotations
and links to what occasionally turn out to be very silly articles.
As I've argued before the goal is not art criticism but reducing
cultural funding. (Oh yes and promoting their set of unaccredited art
schools and the works of a rather poorly thought of late Neoclassical
painter)
Mani Deli
In speaking of ARC http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/index.html --
> Their primary strategy seems to be flooding this newsgroup
>with out of context quotations
>and links to what occasionally turn out to be very silly articles.
The articles are mostly a serious alternative to the Artspeak mantra
flooding today's media. Their school recommendations are an
alternative to accredited art schools that turn out armies of
accredited failures very few of which can earn a living with what they
little they learned unless they get hired as accredited teachers.
ARC also serves the unique major purpose in filling the void left by
art historians and as a place where one can see these works reproduced
better then any other place.
While Modern Art went in the right direction in rejecting what became
the stale subject matter of the late 19th century. It failed because
it eventually rejected craftsmanship which resulted in ideas it
couldn't carry out. After the demise of Dada it even for the most part
ran out of ideas. Eventually it split into schools of no-skill-realism
and lazy abstraction.
I find that many students and professionals posted on ARC, in spite
of a good foundation, are uninspired and usually technically inferior
to the artists they most admire.
The best artists of the 20th century, like Rockwell and all those
other great illustrators, the artwork from Dali to Disney, Cadmus to
Wyeth, and the ignored best of Art Deco and Nouveau, the best photo
realists like Estes and so many others, did original innovation in
subject matter and format. I find little of that in the contemporary
products of ARC.
I do not see that sentimentally reviving the rejected subject matter
of the past even with good technique, as being innovative or of great
interest.
Thur
"artangel" <cityofim...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1137864347....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
My last point is that there are too many people who "know"
things, who can quote this or that line from someone else,
who are seemingly completely informed on the art world, of
today and yesterday.
There are too few that understand what they know.
Amongst those who seem to understand what they know,
there are usually at least two views of everything.
I am calling for a greater scepticism of the "expert", of the
poseur, of the Establishment pronouncer, and of course
anyone who comes to this newsgroup trying to give the
impression that they are to be taken completely at their
word where judgement is execised.
I hope the last one is a rare bird :-)
Cheers,
--
Thur
artangel
poseur, of the Establishment pronouncer,"
I agree.
The interesting thing I have found is that the real "expert" always
leave room for change and growth in their judgement.
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
ARC has the potential to be an excellent site examining the historical
and social context of 19th century academic art. There are a number of
excellent academic writers reexamining the period--Abigail
Solomon-Godeau, T. J. Clark etc--but unfortunately because ARC is
primarily devoted to the aesthetic idealism and laissez faire
capitalism of Ayn Rand it is more interested in dismissing serious
academic scholarship of the period (which after all receives cultural
funding) than integrating serious scholarship into its website. There
are other web archives, The Web Museum of Art perhaps being the best
for a general overview from the Renaissance and 19th century:
A visit to Artnet would quickly dispel the notion that there is a
single "mantra" which dominates contemporary criticism:
As I've mentioned earlier, in keeping with their opposition to
cultural funding, the articles posted here have "pull quotes" that
appear to reflect negatively on the art world and yet in context the
quotes are part of a more balanced evaluation. The agenda seems
oriented not towards evenhanded evaluation of art works, but instead
sensationalized denunciation. John Leo's article (which is also
posted on ARC) is particularly silly however in that lumps "an
ideological loss of faith in tradition and the classics" not with
rigorous reexamination of the periods in question and a search for
material that may shed light on issues the purported classics ignore,
but the " loss of standards and a consumer-oriented dumbing down"
The faculty of accredited art schools are much more likely to have
prominent professional careers in their given field so I would
encourage potential students to look there first. Keeping with the
Objectivist/Libertarian ideals, the art schools ARC promotes appear to
be privately run businesses practicing a sort of blinkered romanticized
idealism. I would agree that ARC's "living masters" are
technically inferior to the artists they most admire, and are often
uninspired and sentimental. They however are the artists and
occasionally the students of the unaccredited art schools which ARC
endorses.
Mani Deli
>ARC has the potential to be an excellent site examining the historical
>and social context of 19th century academic art.
It provides the best reproductions of the major artists if the late
19th century. No web site can compare.
There are a number of
>excellent academic writers reexamining the period--Abigail
>Solomon-Godeau, T. J. Clark etc--but unfortunately because ARC is
>primarily devoted to the aesthetic idealism and laissez faire
>capitalism of Ayn Rand it is more interested in dismissing serious
>academic scholarship of the period
Ann Rand, where? Where did you even hear that? Read the comments on
the home page of Arc and you will see what it's about.
> (which after all receives cultural
>funding) than integrating serious scholarship into its website.
I don't hold your opinion about what serious scholarship is.
> There
>are other web archives, The Web Museum of Art perhaps being the best
>for a general overview from the Renaissance and 19th century:
>
>http://www.wga.hu
Excellent, but doesn't have the major academic painters which ARC
specializes in. Nothing on the net compares with their collection of
those artists.
>
>A visit to Artnet would quickly dispel the notion that there is a
>single "mantra" which dominates contemporary criticism:
>
>http://www.artnet.com
Most of the contemporary work shown here is as I've said
no-skill-realism and lazy abstraction and most isn't ever the subject
of any contemporary criticism. Pick names at random and you will see
what I mean.
>
>As I've mentioned earlier, in keeping with their opposition to
>cultural funding, the articles posted here have "pull quotes" that
>appear to reflect negatively on the art world and yet in context the
>quotes are part of a more balanced evaluation. The agenda seems
>oriented not towards evenhanded evaluation of art works, but instead
>sensationalized denunciation.
After eighty years of one sided "evaluation" strong denunciation is
called for and you won't get it in the media.
>The faculty of accredited art schools are much more likely to have
>prominent professional careers in their given field so I would
>encourage potential students to look there first.
And I say that evidence recommends the opposite. Most so called
prominent professional are failures.
>Keeping with the
>Objectivist/Libertarian ideals, the art schools ARC promotes appear to
>be privately run businesses practicing
anything wrong with that?
>a sort of blinkered romanticized
>idealism.
" blinkered romanticized idealism," that's just what you'll get in
most accredited art schools and why there is a large interest at
present for an alternitive to teaching a creed instead of a craft.
> I would agree that ARC's "living masters" are
>technically inferior to the artists they most admire, and are often
>uninspired and sentimental. They however are the artists and
>occasionally the students of the unaccredited art schools which ARC
>endorses.
Check them out. Most advocate fine craftsmanship and are able to teach
it. That is precisely what's lacking in most "accredited" schools
which graduate armies of incompetent failures.
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
Mani Deli wrote:
> On 24 Jan 2006 13:20:17 -0800, s_l_a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >ARC has the potential to be an excellent site examining the historical
> >and social context of 19th century academic art.
> It provides the best reproductions of the major artists if the late
> 19th century. No web site can compare.
I have no objection to the reproductions but as I've shown they are
readily available from other sources. The art history however is
laughable.
> There are a number of
> >excellent academic writers reexamining the period--Abigail
> >Solomon-Godeau, T. J. Clark etc--but unfortunately because ARC is
> >primarily devoted to the aesthetic idealism and laissez faire
> >capitalism of Ayn Rand it is more interested in dismissing serious
> >academic scholarship of the period
>
> Ann Rand, where? Where did you even hear that? Read the comments on
> the home page of Arc and you will see what it's about.
I have and by and large they are paraphrases of Rand's conservative
aesthetics.
Brian Yoder writes:
Just to clear the air about ARC a bit, since I was one of the founders
of the organization, I think I can fill in some details about the
group. First of all, it is not an Objectivist organization. I would
guess that at least half of the members wouldn't even know what you
were talking about if you mentioned Objectivism. It is an artistic
organization, but one that takes positions that Objectivists would
generally find attractive. That should not be surprising since several
of the leaders of the group are Objectivists.
http://forum.objectivismonline.net/lofiversion/index.php/t1692.html
Since the ARC FAQ comes from Yoder's Goodart website, and Fred Ross
uses a paraphrase of Rand's definition of art in one of his essays I
would suggest that the ties between Rand's aesthetic idealism and
laissez faire capitalism and ARC's mission are even stronger than this
passage suggests.
>
> > (which after all receives cultural
> >funding) than integrating serious scholarship into its website.
>
> I don't hold your opinion about what serious scholarship is.
Do you have a reason? Have you read the works or the authors I have
mentioned?
>
> > There
> >are other web archives, The Web Museum of Art perhaps being the best
> >for a general overview from the Renaissance and 19th century:
> >
> >http://www.wga.hu
>
> Excellent, but doesn't have the major academic painters which ARC
> specializes in. Nothing on the net compares with their collection of
> those artists.
Perhaps. As I've mentioned before ARC has the potential to be an
excellent site on 19th century academic art, but it wastes too much
space on a silly denunciation of modernism, and doesn't spend enough
space to serious critical evaluation of the work.
> >
> >A visit to Artnet would quickly dispel the notion that there is a
> >single "mantra" which dominates contemporary criticism:
> >
> >http://www.artnet.com
>
> Most of the contemporary work shown here is as I've said
> no-skill-realism and lazy abstraction and most isn't ever the subject
> of any contemporary criticism. Pick names at random and you will see
> what I mean.
Not sure what you mean here. My argument was that there was no single
"mantra" which dominates
art criticism. I think we can see a fairly wide range of opinions on
the site.
> >
> >As I've mentioned earlier, in keeping with their opposition to
> >cultural funding, the articles posted here have "pull quotes" that
> >appear to reflect negatively on the art world and yet in context the
> >quotes are part of a more balanced evaluation. The agenda seems
> >oriented not towards evenhanded evaluation of art works, but instead
> >sensationalized denunciation.
>
> After eighty years of one sided "evaluation" strong denunciation is
> called for and you won't get it in the media.
I think even handed evaluation is almost always called for. Several of
the quoted articles, for example the condemnation of "blockbuster
shows" in fact refer to retrospectives of the ninteenth century or
renaissance art which ARC advocates.
>
> >The faculty of accredited art schools are much more likely to have
> >prominent professional careers in their given field so I would
> >encourage potential students to look there first.
>
> And I say that evidence recommends the opposite. Most so called
> prominent professional are failures.
Well I would argue that prominent professionals are successes.
> >Keeping with the
> >Objectivist/Libertarian ideals, the art schools ARC promotes appear to
> >be privately run businesses practicing
>
> anything wrong with that?
Well yes, the arguments made about the art world seem to be motivated
by personal profit rather than by reason.
> >a sort of blinkered romanticized
> >idealism.
>
> " blinkered romanticized idealism," that's just what you'll get in
> most accredited art schools and why there is a large interest at
> present for an alternitive to teaching a creed instead of a craft.
Well you yourself said "I do not see that sentimentally reviving the
rejected subject matter
of the past even with good technique, as being innovative or of great
interest. "
> > I would agree that ARC's "living masters" are
> >technically inferior to the artists they most admire, and are often
> >uninspired and sentimental. They however are the artists and
> >occasionally the students of the unaccredited art schools which ARC
> >endorses.
>
> Check them out. Most advocate fine craftsmanship and are able to teach
> it. That is precisely what's lacking in most "accredited" schools
> which graduate armies of incompetent failures.
Well again to quote your previous letter "I find that many students and
professionals posted on ARC, in spite of a good foundation, are
uninspired and usually technically inferior
to the artists they most admire."
I really think you should visit more museums and read some more recent
examples of Art history. Most of the contemporary work shown in museums
is technically more complex and displays superior craft skills than the
work shown in ARC. [As well as being more visually and intellectually
engaging] Most current art criticism is a far cry from the blanket
condemnation of skill you seem to suggest echoes from the halls of
academe.
artangel
What would the world be without our coffee bean brained Mani?
His stupidity makes even the most uninformed slacker sound interesting.
There Mani, I stood up for you once again!
Mani Deli
<cityofim...@verizon.net> wrote:
I notice once again that you can't address any points in my message.
That's why I think you are fat, ugly and stupid and you can't show
your artwork because it will embarrass you.
Mani Deli
get inflamed when his gods are challenged.
On 26 Jan 2006 15:28:29 GMT, (Marcus Denning)mar...@earthlink.net
wrote:
>In using knowledge, reason, and logic with mani you are wasting your time.
>He posts his trolls for years,
What's a troll about it? A jerk like you has also been here for years
without a word of intelligence and rarely a word at all.
> depending on new people to grant him
>attention, whilst he cackles at their 'ignorance'.
I often repeat messages for new people in the hope that they will take
a close look at particular artwork and see the mediocrity in what
today are judged masterworks of modern art. I hope this continues to
irritate you enough to come out of your hole and write an occasional
flame. If you really had something to say you would answered the
question.
>I looked up the 'picasso challenge' -- the first time he trolled with it
>was March, 1996. My guess: a lonely old guy with a lot of resentment and
>nothing much to fill his time.
Take a look at these two Picasso masterpieces
..The painting "Sleeping Peasants" (1919) is perhaps the Picasso
painting most often held up as a perfect example of his all round
technical superiority. Yet even here in a work which can not be
accused of flatness, ugliness, gross distortion or even poor
drawing, I still maintain that although a careful look reveals
Picasso at his best, it shows nothing beyond a superior art
student standard or at best a very average illustrator.
I believe that this work is called a masterpiece because it is
superior to thousands of ugly schmiery canvases which are little more
than hack drivel. Anything is a slight relief after a dose of that
stuff.
His "Paulo on a Donkey," a painting of his son, is another matter.
Poorly copied from a photograph, this painting not only exposes the
artist's leanings toward utter incompetence but also his
ordinary, bourgeois, middle-class taste, which appears when he
lets his guard down and decides to produce something other than
his usual repetitive intellectual kitsch. This painting is the real
Picasso really expressing himself. Had it been done by a retiree who
just entered art school, it would not merit a comment. It exhibits all
manner of drawing errors and laziness. Even some outspoken
critics get meekly negative about this sort of Picassoid drivel
modestly saying, "Not his best."
Challenging questions:
Is Picasso’s " Sleeping Peasants" really an example of such superior
draftsmanship as critics claim that it should rank as a masterpiece?
Is it unconventional?
In what way is it exceptional?
Is there some hidden essence in "Paulo on a Donkey" that makes this
museum worthy?
Is there any noteworthy composition, drawing, color, expression,
intellect, inventiveness, anything, in P&D?
And I have to ask the usual question even though I doubt an answer
will be forthcoming. If you saw this work at a county fair signed R.
Mutt do you think it would sell?
artangel
I know it is hard for you to understand, but I will try again.
If you play a film over and over even with a new audience the ending
will be the same.
The same is true of your posts.
Now just get a nice warm glass of milk and get some rest.
Picasso will be there tomorrow for your silly rants.
Mani Deli
>
>Mani Deli wrote:
>> On 24 Jan 2006 13:20:17 -0800, s_l_a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >ARC has the potential to be an excellent site examining the historical
>> >and social context of 19th century academic art.
>
>> It provides the best reproductions of the major artists if the late
>> 19th century. No web site can compare.
>
>I have no objection to the reproductions but as I've shown they are
>readily available from other sources.
They aren't. Other sources can't compare to the extensive amount of
works shown by the most important 19th Century artists. The extensive
collection is better than any book and the reproductions are of a
scale allowing the viewer to see the fine detail.
I doubt that you even looked.
> The art history however is laughable.
-to any Modern Academic Art buff who was brought up on the absurd one
sided history of the 19th century.
>> There are a number of
>> >excellent academic writers reexamining the period--Abigail
>> >Solomon-Godeau, T. J. Clark etc--but unfortunately because ARC is
>> >primarily devoted to the aesthetic idealism and laissez faire
>> >capitalism of Ayn Rand it is more interested in dismissing serious
>> >academic scholarship of the period
>>
>> Ann Rand, where? Where did you even hear that? Read the comments on
>> the home page of Arc and you will see what it's about.
>
>I have and by and large they are paraphrases of Rand's conservative
>aesthetics.
>
>Brian Yoder writes:
>
>Just to clear the air about ARC a bit, since I was one of the founders
>of the organization, I think I can fill in some details about the
>group. First of all, it is not an Objectivist organization. I would
>guess that at least half of the members wouldn't even know what you
>were talking about if you mentioned Objectivism. It is an artistic
>organization, but one that takes positions that Objectivists would
>generally find attractive. That should not be surprising since several
>of the leaders of the group are Objectivists.
>
>http://forum.objectivismonline.net/lofiversion/index.php/t1692.html
That's not ARC and that's his opinion.
>Since the ARC FAQ comes from Yoder's Goodart website, and Fred Ross
>uses a paraphrase of Rand's definition of art in one of his essays I
>would suggest that the ties between Rand's aesthetic idealism and
>laissez faire capitalism and ARC's mission are even stronger than this
>passage suggests.
You can suggest what you like but Arc doesn't mention Rand. However
even if it did it wouldn't take away the service it provides as an
alternative to Modern Academic Art. If you want to write about Rand
join a philosophy conference.
>> > (which after all receives cultural
>> >funding) than integrating serious scholarship into its website.
>>
>> I don't hold your opinion about what serious scholarship is.
>
>Do you have a reason? Have you read the works or the authors I have
>mentioned?
No, have you read all that's on ARC?
>>
>> > There
>> >are other web archives, The Web Museum of Art perhaps being the best
>> >for a general overview from the Renaissance and 19th century:
>> >
>> >http://www.wga.hu
>>
>> Excellent, but doesn't have the major academic painters which ARC
>> specializes in. Nothing on the net compares with their collection of
>> those artists.
>
>Perhaps. As I've mentioned before ARC has the potential to be an
>excellent site on 19th century academic art, but it wastes too much
>space on a silly denunciation of modernism, and doesn't spend enough
>space to serious critical evaluation of the work.
I find that most of the Art History on ARC fills in what has been
left out in most of the art history books I've seen.
>
>> >Keeping with the
>> >Objectivist/Libertarian ideals, the art schools ARC promotes appear to
>> >be privately run businesses practicing
>>
>> anything wrong with that?
>
>Well yes, the arguments made about the art world seem to be motivated
>by personal profit rather than by reason.
The art world is greatly motivated by profit. I don't think that art
dealers are motivated by reason. Do you?
>> >a sort of blinkered romanticized
>> >idealism.
>>
>> " blinkered romanticized idealism," that's just what you'll get in
>> most accredited art schools and why there is a large interest at
>> present for an alternitive to teaching a creed instead of a craft.
>
>Well you yourself said "I do not see that sentimentally reviving the
>rejected subject matter of the past even with good technique, as being innovative or of great
>interest. "
Correct, but I see far less in the incompetent artwork passed of a
masterpieces containing little more than abominable technique whose
subject matter is a lame revival of the passe' subject matter of Dada.
>> > I would agree that ARC's "living masters" are
>> >technically inferior to the artists they most admire, and are often
>> >uninspired and sentimental. They however are the artists and
>> >occasionally the students of the unaccredited art schools which ARC
>> >endorses.
>>
>> Check them out. Most advocate fine craftsmanship and are able to teach
>> it. That is precisely what's lacking in most "accredited" schools
>> which graduate armies of incompetent failures.
>
>Well again to quote your previous letter "I find that many students and
>professionals posted on ARC, in spite of a good foundation, are
>uninspired and usually technically inferior
>to the artists they most admire."
A good foundation is far more than the absence of any foundation.
>I really think you should visit more museums and read some more recent
>examples of Art history.
I suspect you are an academic who can't be contradicted and lives in
a community of yes-men. This leads you to imagine that anyone who
disagrees with your view isn't informed about Modern Art.
As to more recent art history, I suggest you see more of the half that
isn't allowed into the modern sections of museums. You might just get
an idea of what of what superior craft is.
> Most of the contemporary work shown in museums
>is technically more complex and displays superior craft skills than the
>work shown in ARC.
I doubt that you have any idea of what superior craft is. If you did
you would show your work.
>[As well as being more visually and intellectually
>engaging] Most current art criticism is a far cry from the blanket
>condemnation of skill you seem to suggest echoes from the halls of
>academe.
It has to ignore skill and craft because the art it supports contains
almost none.
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
The Art Renewal Center ARC is the Eye of the Storm, at the core, hub
and center of ... This website boasts a collection of recordings that
Ayn Rand enjoyed. ...
www.objectivismonline.net/component/
option,com_weblinks/catid,76/Itemid,4/ - 45k - Cached - Similar pages
It's odd how almost all of your assertions can be readily disproven
with a simple Google search.
If this is indicative of the quality of intruction offered at ARC
approved ateliers, then once again I would strongly advise potential
students to look elsewhere.