concept versus non-conceptual
william deraymond
Flying_Naked_People
artr...@sbcglobal.net says...
> Subject: concept versus non-conceptual
> From: "william deraymond" <artr...@sbcglobal.net>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
This makes me want to find my copy of "Lies My Teacher Told Me".
Mani Deli
<artr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
What is a painting if not a =
>balanced expression of all the forces that go into its creation, =
>Technique, motif, human personality, color, brush....
...done with skill and craft.
> When I =
>first saw Cezanne's portrait of Victor Choquet in real life at a show in =
>Philadelphia, it seemed to me, that he had advanced light years beyond =
>the conceptual framework that produced the Mona Lisa.
and when I saw his utterly conventional subject matter including his
abomination "His Father" and his shmiery still lifes in the National
Gallery and later his work in the US and Europe, I got a good idea of
why critics manufactured this charlatan and why artists who know
nearly nothing heap praise on this bumbling incompetent.
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
william deraymond
"Flying_Naked_People" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm> wrote in
message news:viib0f2...@corp.supernews.com...
I never read that, but while you could assume that I am sincere but
misguided, to suggest that I am lying or have been lied to is really
inappropriate, I have studied with the best and the brightest as far as I am
concerned. You are just cutting off any reasonable argument for the sake of
your ego, My time is very precious to me....
>
Flying_Naked_People
artr...@sbcglobal.net says...
> > This makes me want to find my copy of "Lies My Teacher Told Me"
>
>
> I never read that, but while you could assume that I am sincere but
> misguided, to suggest that I am lying or have been lied to is really
> inappropriate, I have studied with the best and the brightest as far as I am
> concerned. You are just cutting off any reasonable argument for the sake of
> your ego, My time is very precious to me....
>
My ego has nothing to do with it. Nor does your claim of studying with "the
best and the brightest". A lie is a lie at 3:00, 5:00, 7:00, etc.
If you want to be enlightened, look at the threads that exposed Cezanne's
flaws as an artist. "Cezanne Crit#1-3" Then look at his admissions as a
failure. (Google them.) Did your teachers educate you about any of that?
keith o'connor
the outside world. There are members in it who take what is reasonable and
make it unreasonable and then go on to make the unreasonable reasonable.
Your time here is not wasted in that your convictions will become stronger
provided you can survive their idiocy - that will be your only problem. They
still suprise me with their moronic statements but it is getting harder for
them to do so - after all I have a bible thumping sibling who would burn
everyone at the stake if given the freedom to do so.
Your concept of art fundamentals appears to be based upon a balance between
soul, intellect and body feeling. In my estimation the concept is valid - it
is an ancient model of the complete human psyche and body -but it is the
meanings that you assign to each of the category words which will impact
different peoples interpretation.
You will note that many posters in this group assign absolute meanings to
contextual words and then go on to develop their argument - a sign of
disfunctionality.
--
take care: Keith
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
"william deraymond" <artr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:N4cWa.30008$BM.97...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
Flying_Naked_People
ke...@tinmangallery.com says...
> Your conclusion is valid. I would add that this group is a micro version of
> the outside world. There are members in it who take what is reasonable and
> make it unreasonable and then go on to make the unreasonable reasonable.
Then there are people like you, who project your own homosexual fantasies onto
everyone else's taste in art.... And assume women are men just to validate
that homo-dream you have.
> Your time here is not wasted in that your convictions will become stronger
> provided you can survive their idiocy - that will be your only problem. They
> still suprise me with their moronic statements but it is getting harder for
> them to do so - after all I have a bible thumping sibling who would burn
> everyone at the stake if given the freedom to do so.
In other words, your parents raised *another* idiot.
> You will note that many posters in this group assign absolute meanings to
> contextual words and then go on to develop their argument - a sign of
> disfunctionality.
No - we just take that "crap education" your mentally diseased kind bombarded
us with - turn it around - and force feed it down your ridiculous throat.
Where is Marilyn?!?
Fuck Off Keith You Pompous Ass... what?
Jeremy
Jeremy
Mani Deli
wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 09:00:02 GMT, "william deraymond"
><artr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> When I =
>>first saw Cezanne's portrait of Victor Choquet in real life at a show in =
>>Philadelphia, it seemed to me, that he had advanced light years beyond =
>>the conceptual framework that produced the Mona Lisa.
>
Take a look at
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/cezanne/portraits/chocquet/cezanne.chocquet.jpg
and ask yourself, if this portrait were signed by someone else would
it deserve any attention at all? Good brushwork isn't schmiering on
gobs of paint which look like gobs of paint.
I've seen far better work in outdoor art shows. The color, drawing,
and conception is mediocre. Composition, there is none. There isn't
anything advanced or particularly competent here.
If painting were judged by quality instead of a signature the history
of art would change radically.
Nikolaus Maack
> Take a look at
> http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/cezanne/portraits/chocquet/cezanne.chocquet.jpg
>
> and ask yourself, if this portrait were signed by someone else would
> it deserve any attention at all? Good brushwork isn't schmiering on
> gobs of paint which look like gobs of paint.
I really like this portrait. It's dark and creepy, lumpy and alive.
What have you got against "schmiering on gobs of paint" if it creates an
interesting look and texture? Impressionism is not meant to provide a
photo-realistic copy of a person's appearance, but to sketch out the
person in an interesting fashion.
It's definitely fun to look at. The hair is fantastic, as are the eyes.
I really don't see what you have against it -- except it seems to be a
style you don't appreciate.
> I've seen far better work in outdoor art shows. The color, drawing,
> and conception is mediocre. Composition, there is none. There isn't
> anything advanced or particularly competent here.
The colours are bright and garish -- which I enjoy. The face is raw and
fragmented -- which I also enjoy. As for the conception, I like the way
he's staring off to the side, as though avoiding eye-contact.
Neil Maxwell
wrote:
>Take a look at
>http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/cezanne/portraits/chocquet/cezanne.chocquet.jpg
Kind'a off the subject, but can't these freakin' webmasters keep the
jpeg compression under control? What's the point of posting a large
image of a work where the artifacts overwhelm the brushstrokes?
It's hard enough getting a feel for art on the web in the first place,
but to make it intentionally ugly(er) and obscure the texture seems
foolish.
Ah, well, back to the pointless bickering...
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
keith o'connor
skill. In terms of technique it does not use the invisible brush stroke
associated with the tactical imitation of skin.
Mani: art unlike religion (which restricted literal content to a religious
message) is not confined to a singular style subject, content or technique.
An artistically rounded mind appreciates a wide range of artistic expression
looking at the balance between both the aesthetic and literal components .
But, you know this mani - so the question becomes: Do you find your
expression of anger satisfying? In other words: Are you an anger addict? Do
you have to find something (you think is wrong with a painting etc ) in
order to vent your anger?
--
take care: Keith
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:1s8livg1c0p25frse...@4ax.com...
william deraymond
"keith o'connor" <ke...@tinmangallery.com> wrote in message
news:RYjWa.12319$4UE....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Mani Deli
>The painting shows plastic form - overall form unity -
Artspeak!
> colour management
Did you learn that one in art school?
>skill. In terms of technique it does not use the invisible brush stroke
>associated with the tactical imitation of skin.
Keith has a great fear of "the invisible brush stroke." He imagines
that the use of schmiery flat impasto gobs are the only in way to
paint.
>
>Mani: art unlike religion (which restricted literal content to a religious
>message) is not confined to a singular style subject, content or technique.
?
>An artistically rounded mind appreciates a wide range of artistic expression
>looking at the balance between both the aesthetic and literal components .
You can check out the result of Keith's "artistically rounded mind" on
his web page. He is a fan of incompetence because he has no
competence. This a major characteristic of artzy fartzy failures.
>
>But, you know this mani - so the question becomes: Do you find your
>expression of anger satisfying?
It must have taken Keith's slow mind hours to come up with this loaded
question.
>In other words: Are you an anger addict?
> Do
>you have to find something (you think is wrong with a painting etc ) in
>order to vent your anger?
>
All who don't agree with this twit are angry in his mind. He forgets
that he finds things wrong with paintings he doesn't happen to like,
but he's too stupid to see the connection.
>--
>take care: Keith
>
>www.tinmangallery.com
>> and ask yourself, if this portrait were signed by someone else would
Seagull Manager
"Nikolaus Maack" <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3F2AB61C...@sympatico.ca...
> >
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/cezanne/portraits/chocquet/cezanne.choc
quet.jpg
>
> I really like this portrait. It's dark and creepy, lumpy and alive.
What are you comparing it to? The number of paintings that are as good or
better is beyond counting. So is the number of paintings that are darker and
creepier.
> Impressionism is not meant to provide a
> photo-realistic copy of a person's appearance, but to sketch out the
> person in an interesting fashion.
Impressionism is meant to be quick. That's what it was all about. Monet was
able to do several paintings a day, and that's how he got rich. The dealers
loved him for it - much more lucrative than waiting weeks for a classicist
to finish one painting. All the new bourgeoisie could own a painting. Renoir
in the end grew tired of the Impressionist facture, and adopted a smooth,
academic finish
> It's definitely fun to look at. The hair is fantastic, as are the eyes.
> I really don't see w
hat you have against it -- except it seems to be a
> style you don't appreciate.
>
> > I've seen far better work in outdoor art shows. The color, drawing,
> > and conception is mediocre. Composition, there is none. There isn't
> > anything advanced or particularly competent here.
>
> The colours are bright and garish -- which I enjoy.
Have you seen the original in the flesh? In my experience, Cezanne's
paintings
invariably look much duller in real life than they do in reproduction.
> The face is raw and
> fragmented -- which I also enjoy.
It's just a sketch - or it would be if it were done by a real painter, but
by Cezanne's standards, it is a highly finished masterpiece.
> As for the conception, I like the way
> he's staring off to the side, as though avoiding eye-contact.
Wow. How original. The dude is looking off to the right. Relatively unusual
in portraits, but not unknown. Perhaps Cezanne's preference for portraits in
which the subject is not looking directly out (he does this more than once)
at the viewer is a symptom of his extreme introversion.
william deraymond
"Seagull Manager" <seagull...@nospamthanksbecauseisayso.demon.co.uk>
wrote in message news:bgo670$l9d$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "Nikolaus Maack" <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3F2AB61C...@sympatico.ca...
>
> > >
>
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/cezanne/portraits/chocquet/cezanne.choc
> quet.jpg
> >
> > I really like this portrait. It's dark and creepy, lumpy and alive.
>
> What are you comparing it to? The number of paintings that are as good or
> better is beyond counting. So is the number of paintings that are darker
and
> creepier.
>
> > Impressionism is not meant to provide a
> > photo-realistic copy of a person's appearance, but to sketch out the
> > person in an interesting fashion.
>
> Impressionism is meant to be quick. That's what it was all about. Monet
was
> able to do several paintings a day, and that's how he got rich. The
dealers
> loved him for it - much more lucrative than waiting weeks for a classicist
> to finish one painting. All the new bourgeoisie could own a painting.
Renoir
> in the end grew tired of the Impressionist facture, and adopted a smooth,
> academic finish
First off, I am reminded of why I quit entering into this kind of low level
discourse, this will be my last post by way of debate in this environment.
that said,
Impressionism is about spontaneity in terms of the artform...I would compare
neo-classicism to a long winded intellectual, boring, lecture and while
impressionism so-called, singing...It is all about focus, I have no
questions or doubt about the fact that impressionism, so called, is actually
a more conscious and mature and most certainly for the timme frame, radical
expression of the art form. It is a different order of detail than the
conventional, so called, realistic aesthetic. By the way while a lot of
Renoir's work is of course very amazing , alot of it isn't....I've always
considered him the least of the group.....
> > It's definitely fun to look at. The hair is fantastic, as are the eyes.
> > I really don't see w
> hat you have against it -- except it seems to be a
> > style you don't appreciate.
> >
> > > I've seen far better work in outdoor art shows. The color, drawing,
> > > and conception is mediocre. Composition, there is none. There isn't
> > > anything advanced or particularly competent here.
You make yourself irrelevant to me, yet I wish you well, and hope you can
become at some point receptive enough to have some kind of psychological
breakthrough. Cezanne is obviously right on the nearly uselessness of
talks on art...
> > The colours are bright and garish -- which I enjoy.
>
> Have you seen the original in the flesh? In my experience, Cezanne's
> paintings
> invariably look much duller in real life than they do in reproduction.
>
> > The face is raw and
> > fragmented -- which I also enjoy.
>
> It's just a sketch - or it would be if it were done by a real painter, but
> by Cezanne's standards, it is a highly finished masterpiece.
By many other's opinions as well. You need to change your focus from the
neo-classical conceptual aesthetic, which by the way is very easy to
understand, to an aesthetic which involves a different set of values, which
for you would be very difficult if not impossible. You would have to open
your mind and forget all you've learned from an intellectual viewpoint, and
then be very receptive to the understanding of the difference between a
picture and a painting, then you might be able to develp your tastes and
appreciations. But indeed it is a total shift in values and the
appreciation of the same. Like I said, good luck!
> > As for the conception, I like the way
> > he's staring off to the side, as though avoiding eye-contact.
>
> Wow. How original. The dude is looking off to the right. Relatively
unusual
> in portraits, but not unknown. Perhaps Cezanne's preference for portraits
in
> which the subject is not looking directly out (he does this more than
once)
> at the viewer is a symptom of his extreme introversion.
Cezanne is always concerned with the values of painting... brush and color
in relationship to the motif...
Cezanne said, "If you wish to be a painter, you must avoid the literary
spirit..." -I have found this to be totally true!
Enough already! Peace!
Mani Deli
<nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>I really like this portrait. It's dark and creepy, lumpy and alive.
It's dark and creepy and incompetent.
>What have you got against "schmiering on gobs of paint" if it creates an
>interesting look and texture?
If it creates an interesting look and texture? What's interesting is
how this amateurish piece of crap is considered a masterpiece.
>Impressionism is not meant to provide a
>photo-realistic copy of a person's appearance, but to sketch out the
>person in an interesting fashion.
Interesting? Its as common as anything found in an art school garbage
can.
>It's definitely fun to look at.
You artwork indicates why.
>> I've seen far better work in outdoor art shows. The color, drawing,
>> and conception is mediocre. Composition, there is none. There isn't
>> anything advanced or particularly competent here.
>
>The colours are bright and garish -- which I enjoy.
The color is miserable.
> The face is raw
raw formless schmier.
> and
>fragmented -- which I also enjoy. As for the conception, I like the way
>he's staring off to the side, as though avoiding eye-contact.
...no skill no art!
Seagull Manager
>
> Cezanne said, "If you wish to be a painter, you must avoid the literary
> spirit..." -I have found this to be totally true!
If you wish to be a 19th century Realist, sure. But there are other ways to
be a painter.
By the way, you write extremely badly, and I suspect your messy prose is a
symptom of foggy thinking on your part. As for your habit of thinking that
only you have a sophisticated understanding of the art of painting, and
anyone who disagrees with you must be naive or limited in their
appreciation - pish! You are deluded.
Mani Deli
<artr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>First off, I am reminded of why I quit entering into this kind of low level
>discourse, this will be my last post by way of debate in this environment.
>that said,
good!