John Ng
Roob
been looking at his work for THIRTY years. you still dissing picasso.
you and mani still imply that you're better painters than PICASSO.
now lets consider the hard facts. i'll randomly take a mediocre
painting done by picasso when he was 14 years old.
http://www.nga.gov/images/noncol/fisherfs.htm
and we'll also take a drawing done when picasso was 12 or so.
http://www.nga.gov/images/noncol/torsofs.htm
even when he wasn't fully developed as an artist do you think the best
of your kitsch-y illustrations holds up technically against the work
of picasso at age 12? we should have a vote on this.
Now, let's just take a piece by Picasso at the height of his blue
period.
Roadside Artist
"Roob" <library_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b1783836.03020...@posting.google.com...
John Ng
The torso sketch isn't good but the Fisherman is quite (head is 3D and
tonal quality is there). However, there doesn't seem to be any good
resolution pix on the web but from what I see, the form seems to be
quite pathetic (can you see it... bad bone structure).
If you think the painting at
http://www.nga.gov/images/noncol/chemisefs.htm
is any good, I understand why you are into this Modern Art stuff. You
really couldn't tell the difference between a human and a mannequin.
The painting is ever more mediocre than the torso... at whatever age.
Now, I know you are trying to compare him with me. There isn't much
to compare because you would always hold his age to mine. I have held
that Picasso has somewhat of an eye for colour but his early drawings
and paintings are nevertheless mediocre in comparison to other artists
of early years such as John Millias, David, James Tissot and a whole
host of others.
>i've seen middle school children paint better pictures than you. your
shit sucks man.
Hmm, sounds like you are fuming and distraught. Better lie down.
John Ng
Advocate of a renewal in art and the return of realism
http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
Roob
why don't you give me a link with a work by millias or tissot that's
comparable to picasso's at that age. you're saying it's mediocre even
at that age... okay man, prove it. these early works by picasso were
some of the crappiest ones i could find. if you've been, like you say,
looking at his work for THIRTY FUCKING YEARS, then you'd know he
painted and drew A LOT better than these works suggest. even at that
age. do you mean by "thirty years" that thirty years ago you saw one
painting done by picasso, and every once in a while you see a shitty
painting only on the internet that mani makes sure to point out? you
should shut up because you don't know anything about art. millias and
tissot are shit even compared to a fucker like dali. only sissy-ass
high school girls have eyes for millias and tissot. they're big names
in the middle school, instant-gratification crowd.
yes, i'm fuming and distraught and i should lie down, because every
time i look at stupid fucking paintings like yours, i want to stab my
fucking eyes out cause they're so fucking bad. just yesterday i pulled
out a clump of my fucking hair cause i hit the link to your
illustrations. i hit my fucking head against the wall until i was
completed bruised. you have to rip apart other artists and talk shit
about everyone because YOUR WORK DOESNT SPEAK FOR ITSELF.
i'm gonna kill myself if i ever see another painting as bad as yours.
pigsm...@hotmail.com (John Ng) wrote in message news:<d1bb492a.03020...@posting.google.com>...
Roadside Artist
kind or character from religious fundamentalism: Facts are irrelevant. Truth
is irrelevant. Rationality is irrelevant. Belief is all that matters. If the
evidence contradicts a belief, then the evidence must be a trick of Satan.
It's all the same.
Getting these guys to admit that Picasso was a great artist would be like
getting Jerry Falwell to admit that evolution is a scientific fact that he
is really just a con artist. Ain't gonna happen, Sweetie.
Pagani
"Roob" <library_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b1783836.03021...@posting.google.com...
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Roadside Artist" <pag...@nospam.roadsideartist.com> wrote in message
news:v4fqrmi...@corp.supernews.com...
> You might as well calm down. Art fundamentalism is really no different in
> kind or character from religious fundamentalism: Facts are irrelevant.
Truth
> is irrelevant. Rationality is irrelevant. Belief is all that matters. If
the
> evidence contradicts a belief, then the evidence must be a trick of Satan.
> It's all the same.
>
> Getting these guys to admit that Picasso was a great artist would be like
> getting Jerry Falwell to admit that evolution is a scientific fact that he
> is really just a con artist. Ain't gonna happen, Sweetie.
>
great artist.
Remember that there are at least two (probably a dozen or more), sects of
Art fundamentalists - some worship 'the latest thing', others worship the
'most deeply meaninful', yet others worship the 'god of technique' and some
the church of the democratic judgement of art.
You are right about members of all these sects, of course you are. Just
don't confuse people who oppose one or other sect as being necessarily free
thinkers, they are more likely to have sold their souls to the sect that is
the sworn enemy of the one you see being opposed.
--
The grandeur of real art, on the contrary, . . . is to rediscover, grasp
again and lay before us that reality from which we become more and more
separated as the formal knowledge which we substitute for it grows in
thickness and imperviousness--that reality which there is grave danger we
might die without ever having known and yet which is simply our life, life
as it really is, life disclosed and made clear . . . .
- Vladimir Nabokov "Marcel Proust (1871-1922)"
Roadside Artist
In Christianity you have several sects who think that all the other
Christian sects "aren't real Christians" and then of course there are
several sects of Muslim fundamentalists with the same idea.
Art is no different, and perhaps it all stems from a single fundamental flaw
of human nature. People don't want to see the bigger picture or consider
that there may be more than one way to look at a given set of "facts." They
don't want to think. Forget information, let's have slogans and name-calling
and holy wars!
I would like to see a 'religion' based on reason and logic, but who would
attend and why? People prefer illusion and delusion, and the "I and my group
are the exclusive keepers of all that is right and good" mentality.
Pagani
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:b28r7j$qth$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
Thur
>> snip<
Peter H.M. Brooks
> attend and why? People prefer illusion and delusion, and the "I and my
group
> are the exclusive keepers of all that is right and good" mentality.
>
Quite a nice alternative is Epicurianism.
--
A picture cannot, however, depict its pictorial form: it displays it -
Wittgenstein Tractatus 2.172
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Thur" <a@spamless.z> wrote in message
news:aST1a.2237$HO.1...@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
> Humanism?
>
That too!
--
"Ecce Edwardus Ursus scalis numc tump-tump-tump occipite gradus pulsante
post Christophorum Robinum descendens. Est quod sciatunus et solus modus
gradibus descendendi,nonnunquam autem sentit, etiam alterum modum estare,
dummodo pulsationibus desinere et de eo modo meditari possit. Deinde censet
alios modos non esse. En, nunc ipse in imo est, vobis ostentari paratus." -
Winnie ille Pu.
John Ng
Sorry, with your invectives, I am so afraid and gone into hiding. You
have beaten me into succumbing that Picasso is the best.
John Ng
> Getting these guys to admit that Picasso was a great artist would be like
> getting Jerry Falwell to admit that evolution is a scientific fact that he
> is really just a con artist. Ain't gonna happen, Sweetie.
This discussion is inane. Getting you guys to even cast a shadow of a
doubt on Picasso (not even to think he is downright bad, which I have
not suggested) is like "getting Jerry...".
John Ng
Werner H. Kramarsky
b1783836.03020...@posting.google.com, "Roob"
<library_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Absolutely Picasso rules....of course when you go to MoMA QNS for the
Picasso/Matisse show, you see real competition.
Roy L. Ballou
pag...@nospam.roadsideartist.com says...
>
>You might as well calm down. Art fundamentalism is really no different in
>kind or character from religious fundamentalism: Facts are irrelevant. Truth
>is irrelevant. Rationality is irrelevant. Belief is all that matters. If the
>evidence contradicts a belief, then the evidence must be a trick of Satan.
>It's all the same.
>
>Getting these guys to admit that Picasso was a great artist would be like
>getting Jerry Falwell to admit that evolution is a scientific fact that he
>is really just a con artist. Ain't gonna happen, Sweetie.
>
>Pagani
Applause - BOTH hands clapping! But unfortunately,
as you so succinctly point out, ain't gonna change
a thing!
Or as the song says, "don't mean a thing if it
ain't got that swing..." and Picasso swings low.
You know, as in "swing low, sweet chariot..."
Andrew D
<pag...@nospam.roadsideartist.com> wrote:
>You might as well calm down. Art fundamentalism is really no different in
>kind or character from religious fundamentalism: Facts are irrelevant. Truth
>is irrelevant. Rationality is irrelevant. Belief is all that matters. If the
>evidence contradicts a belief, then the evidence must be a trick of Satan.
>It's all the same.
If a carpenter came round to fix your roof and two days later the whole
roof fell in, would you be consoled by the fact that the carpenter was
good at woodwork when he was a teenager?
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Ethan Ham
> you ask where picasso was hiding his work, and you also said you've
> been looking at his work for THIRTY years. you still dissing picasso.
> you and mani still imply that you're better painters than PICASSO.
>
> now lets consider the hard facts. i'll randomly take a mediocre
> painting done by picasso when he was 14 years old.
>
> http://www.nga.gov/images/noncol/fisherfs.htm
>
> and we'll also take a drawing done when picasso was 12 or so.
>
> http://www.nga.gov/images/noncol/torsofs.htm
These are certainly interesting in terms of history & understanding
Picasso's career. However, I think it's a mistake to try to argue Picasso's
worth/skill in terms of how well he was able to conform to Realism.
Afterall, many of us would argue he was a great & influential artist even if
he wasn't a good Realist.
There's a question, in one form or another, that I've asked John & Mani
three times. I haven't seen there thoughts on it (though it's certainly
possible I missed it in this maze of threads & postings):
**************
"If I was able to paint an exact replica of a Picasso painting, wouldn't
show skill/competence? If Picasso's paintings are photo-realistic paintings
of the images he was picturing in his head, wouldn't that show
skill/competence?"
**************
Perhaps this is a troubling question for someone who holds realism is
fundamentally better than abstraction. While I don't think anyone on this
list would argue that a painting's artistic merit can be judged solely on
how Realistically it is painting (e.g., issues of composition, etc. are also
important)... but the belief that Realism is an acid test of a painting's
worth gives an easy tool to dismiss some artists and their work.
If you say 'yes', it does take skill to execute any painting exactly as the
artist intended it, then you can no longer simply say an artist is
incompetent because she or he doesn't paint realistically.
If you say 'no', painting precisely and accurately doesn't indicate skill,
then you're saying being able to paint realistically isn't really an
indication of skill.
Anyway, I'm getting tired of this topic (as I'm sure others are :).
Lauri Levanto
>
> If a carpenter came round to fix your roof and two days later the whole
> roof fell in, would you be consoled by the fact that the carpenter was
> good at woodwork when he was a teenager?
>
> Andy D.
>
If a carpenter made a nice piece of furniture one day,
and decided to build a racing car next day
would you say he was not at all a carpenter?
-lauri
Roy L. Ballou
right@the_end.of.my_tether says...
>If a carpenter came round to fix your roof and two days later the whole
>roof fell in, would you be consoled by the fact that the carpenter was
>good at woodwork when he was a teenager?
What in the world does that analogy(?) have to
do with the price of chicken in Kiev?
Mani Deli
<sculpt...@ethanham.com> wrote:
> I think it's a mistake to try to argue Picasso's
>worth/skill in terms of how well he was able to conform to Realism.
This sentence reveals all. I don't criticize Picasso where he doesn't
necessarily conform to realism (whatever exactly that is). I criticize
Picasso where he draws realism on a level of a ten year old.
>"If I was able to paint an exact replica of a Picasso painting, wouldn't
>show ?
If you copied a picture by an eight year old exactly I suspect it
would be a waste of time and energy. If you think this would be an
example skill/competence, I leave you to your opinion.
> If Picasso's paintings are photo-realistic paintings
>of the images he was picturing in his head, wouldn't that show
>skill/competence?"
For someone as deluded as you, definitely
>. but the belief that Realism is an acid test of a painting's
>worth gives an easy tool to dismiss some artists and their work.
Realism isn't an acid test. When Picasso draws a hand as poorly as an
eight year old the acid question is, Is that supposed to be great
art?"
...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/
Mani Deli
wrote:
>you ask where picasso was hiding his work, and you also said you've
>been looking at his work for THIRTY years. you still dissing picasso.
>you and mani still imply that you're better painters than PICASSO.
Whether or not I'm the world's worst painter does nothing to improve
the stupidity of Picasso.
>>now lets consider the hard facts. i'll randomly take a mediocre
>painting done by picasso when he was 14 years old.
>
>http://www.nga.gov/images/noncol/fisherfs.htm
Its mediocre and Picasso never got much better.
>
>and we'll also take a drawing done when picasso was 12 or so.
>
>http://www.nga.gov/images/noncol/torsofs.htm
Pretty bad even for a 12 year old who had lessons from a father who
taught painting.
>even when he wasn't fully developed as an artist do you think the best
>of your kitsch-y illustrations holds up technically against the work
>of picasso at age 12? we should have a vote on this.
>
>Now, let's just take a piece by Picasso at the height of his blue
>period.
Do!
Naked Angel
<vb0j4vc7b5vvkc2f5...@4ax.com>...
> On 9 Feb 2003 17:32:22 -0800, library_...@hotmail.com (Roob)
> wrote:
>
> >you ask where picasso was hiding his work, and you also said you've
> >been looking at his work for THIRTY years. you still dissing picasso.
> >you and mani still imply that you're better painters than PICASSO.
>
> Whether or not I'm the world's worst painter does nothing to improve
> the stupidity of Picasso.
>
> >>now lets consider the hard facts. i'll randomly take a mediocre
> >painting done by picasso when he was 14 years old.
> >
> >http://www.nga.gov/images/noncol/fisherfs.htm
>
> Its mediocre and Picasso never got much better.
>
Not. That's GOOD for a 14 year old!
> >and we'll also take a drawing done when picasso was 12 or so.
> >
> >http://www.nga.gov/images/noncol/torsofs.htm
>
> Pretty bad even for a 12 year old who had lessons from a father who
> taught painting.
Bullshit. That's EVEN BETTER for a 12 year old. (And you know it.)
> >even when he wasn't fully developed as an artist do you think the best
> >of your kitsch-y illustrations holds up technically against the work
> >of picasso at age 12? we should have a vote on this.
> >
> >Now, let's just take a piece by Picasso at the height of his blue
> >period.
>
> Do!
> ...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/
>
============
Naked Angel Art
http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl
Chris <n...@this.address> wrote in article
<Cjf2a.5546$o61.6...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>...
> Okey-dokey; lot's of people here already have it, but as you deem it
> necessary (and mind you, *I'm* not the one criticizing others' work), my
> e-mail is bro...@ns.sympatico.ca ; my web site (though somewhat outdated)
> is http://www.gammarat.com , there's more recent work at
> http://photos.yahoo.com/halifax301 , particularly in the "Life Drawing"
> folder.. Your turn.
>
> > As long as Pete plays the man and not the ball, I'll point up his
> > insignificance, even if you and your ilk object.
> >
>
> But you see, as long as you hide out, you simply come across as yet another
> sniveling "my-child-could-do-that" sort of critic; your methodolgy reflects
> much more on you and your abilities (or lack of them) than on Peter's.
>
> As long as poltroons can find an excuse, they'll remain timid. And timid
> people are ultimately inconsequential, though (like our Eddie, who appears
> to have given new meaning to "going postal") they can be occasionally
> entertaining..
>
> So we wait with baited breath....
>
> Cheers;
>
> Chris
>
>
>
Andrew D
"Ethan Ham" <sculpt...@ethanham.com> wrote:
[snip]
>If you say 'yes', it does take skill to execute any painting exactly as the
>artist intended it, then you can no longer simply say an artist is
>incompetent because she or he doesn't paint realistically.
And if you accept that what Picasso painted is brilliant because you
believe it accurately represents the images in his head then you have no
means of dismissing ANYTHING produced by ANTYONE as not being equally
brilliant providing they claim their paintings accurately represent the
goings-on in their skulls. In that case, Picasso is no longer a genius but
just the same any other average person who claims to be a painter.
Andrew D
wrote:
>>
>> If a carpenter came round to fix your roof and two days later the whole
>> roof fell in, would you be consoled by the fact that the carpenter was
>> good at woodwork when he was a teenager?
>If a carpenter made a nice piece of furniture one day,
>and decided to build a racing car next day
>would you say he was not at all a carpenter?
Picasso built racing cars too?????
Andrew D
Ballou) wrote:
Well, I assume from the premise being put forward - that Picasso's early
works prove his skill credentials and therefore his later work must be
great art - that some people would accept that the fallen roof was
evidence of the carpenter's "progress" as a tradesman rather than a
demonstration of his carelessness. Some people might even pay more to use
this carpenter and when questioned by their friends after their own roofs
collapse would gleefully point to the awards he won when first studying
his craft.
I guess my point is - is someone always good at something just because
they were demonstrably reasonable at it at some earlier point in time?
Chris
"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
news:right-12020...@i204-064.nv.iinet.net.au...
> I guess my point is - is someone always good at something just because
> they were demonstrably reasonable at it at some earlier point in time?
>
This brings up another point I've become curious about recently, which is
the effect of the immediate influence of his father. Everything I've read
seems to indicate he pushed Pablo hard to become a child prodigy in art (to
the efect, for example, that his regular schooling was quite neglected to
the point he remained barely literate); and there are a number of references
to his father pulling this or that string to get his son a showing, or into
one academy or another.
What is particularly interesting is how much his drawing style changed (or
deteriorated, if you will) after he left home At that time portraiture was
the bread and butter of artists; yet it is pretty clear from his sketches
that capturing a likeness on his own was not something he was particularly
good at. This is particularly noticable in pictures of people of whom we
still have a photographic record, such as Fernande Olivier - for example, in
the picture Marilyn posted earlier, the portrait looks surprisingly similar
to Picasso in it's angualrity, and the striking nose, and very little like
Fernande with her roundish face - something even da Vinci warned against, as
a common error.
Comments, thoughts, anyone?
Chris
Roob
Man, what the fuck? you don't have to get us to "cast a shadow of a
doubt on picasso." because we know exactly where he stands in the
history of art. You are the one saying stupid moronic shit that an
eight-grader would say like, "i like tissot better. hehe." and you did
imply that picasso was "Downright bad" when you compared him with
TISSOT. THATS EVEN WORSE THAN SAYING PICASSO IS DOWNRIGHT BAD. and
mani keeps saying shit about how that drawing done when picasso was 12
is bad... it's only bad when you compare it to picasso's other
drawings when he was 12.
and ethan ham keeps saying shit about "how can we look at only these
realist works?" Why? because right now, this is an argument
specifically about realism. if you were paying any attention to what
we're talking about, you'd now that we're not talking about art in
general. we're playing john and mani's game. they make their
definition up and try to knock picasso down, but they still can't.
picasso works on all definitions of art. pick whatever one you want.
picasso painted for 80 strong years. he studied all of art history
from ancients to up to his time hardcore. he was part of a massively
talented intellectual circle. he took huge risks in his art, invented
cubism, developed more than five strong periods. you think you can
challenge that with your weak logic?
G*rd*n
right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D):
| Well, I assume from the premise being put forward - that Picasso's early
| works prove his skill credentials and therefore his later work must be
| great art....
I think the skill evidenced in Picasso's early works is
presented to disprove the proposition that Picasso lacked
skill, which seems to be one of the broken records some people
are fond of playing in this newsgroup, an item of fundamentalist
dogma. It is not enough to say that one doesn't like Picasso's
work; it must also be evil, and Picasso, like Satan, cannot
be thought of as having any good qualities, including even
mere technical skill. Since Picasso did, in fact, evidence
a lot of technical skill, many are drawn into the mistake
of trying to set the record straight, which of course isn't
the point. The point is to root out and destroy Evil in
favor of the One True Truth.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/19/03 <-adv't
John Ng
> I think the skill evidenced in Picasso's early works is
> presented to disprove the proposition that Picasso lacked
> skill, which seems to be one of the broken records some people
> are fond of playing in this newsgroup, an item of fundamentalist
> dogma. It is not enough to say that one doesn't like Picasso's
> work; it must also be evil, and Picasso, like Satan, cannot
> be thought of as having any good qualities, including even
> mere technical skill. Since Picasso did, in fact, evidence
> a lot of technical skill, many are drawn into the mistake
> of trying to set the record straight, which of course isn't
> the point. The point is to root out and destroy Evil in
> favor of the One True Truth.
I think you are reading a bit too much into my (our) arguments. I
have never said that Picasso is all bad where competency is concerned.
But he is ORDINARY and as ordinary as a beginner art student. With
all the publicity surrounding him, you would expect that he is God.
Yet he falls short, really short.
Picasso is not Satan, just the critics and media surround him, who
shower him with propaganda.
John Ng
Advocates an art renewal and the return to sensible art
http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
John Ng
> because every
> time i look at stupid fucking paintings like yours, i want to stab my
> fucking eyes out cause they're so fucking bad.
I know you are a masochist but try not to click at my link so you
wouldn't have to stab your eyes. By the way, how many eyes do you
have? because I still have quite a few paintings to post?
> why don't you give me a link with a work by millias or tissot that's
> comparable to picasso's at that age. you're saying it's mediocre even
> at that age...
John Everett Millais painted "Lorenzo and Isabella" at the age of 20.
http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/database/art.asp?aid=77&page=1&order=q
I can't get hold of earlier ones but this painting has a six years age
difference. Unless you imagine that Millias painted this way
overnight, it must follow that Millias must have earlier paintings of
substantial quality. It is most probably that they must have been
disposed since nobody in the right mind would think that poor quality
work is worth keeping.
Also "Christ in the House of His Parents" is painted at age 21. These
are masterpieces that are so well know even today... (unlike
Picasso's... another eye gone I imagine).
John Ng
Advocates an art renewal and the return to sensible art
http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly (Roob, don't click here
or you would waste another eye)
Roob
no, i don't think his skill ever deteriorated. first, if you look at
one of his last self-portraits, it isn't realistic but it definitely
connects with the viewer. i guess you mean that the "common error" is
making a portrait of someone else more like yourself, like leonardo's
mona lisa. some people say that this is inevitable, that every
portrait you make will also be a self-portrait.
what you think is a deterioration of skill is actually the impact the
impressionists had on picasso. like:
http://boston.com/mfa/picasso/girl.htm
http://www.boston.com/mfa/picasso/blvd.htm
when he left his father, and was in paris, you should take a look at
some of his works like quick sketches done for his friends. they'll
indicate that no skill was lost, but his work gets very hesitant and
some of his stuff is good, but done with a quick hand and look rough.
i think it's because he moved to paris and all of a sudden he was
flooded with so many styles and influences. you can see major
impressionist influence and toulouse-lautrec influence.
Lauri Levanto
Andrew D wrote:
Yeah, was he not one of the founders of the winning team.
-lauri
Chris
That was an interesting post (though I disagreed with lots of it); hope you
don't mind if it's a little while before I get back to answering it.
Chris
"Roob" <library_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b1783836.03021...@posting.google.com...
Chris
Chris
"Dan Fox" <danf...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20030213085046.439$q...@newsreader.com...
> "Chris" <n...@this.address> wrote:
>
> Chris - I highly recommend John Richardson's biography of Picasso,
> especially Volume 1. It is remaindered in trade paperback. This will
answer
> all of your questions and provide a readable, expert discussion of
Picasso,
> his art, and the development of modern art.
>
> (Vol 1 and 2 have been out for awhile. They cover through Cubism (1917).
> There are two more planned volumes; however, when I asked Richardson when
> we could expect Volume 3, he laughed and said, 'when my publisher comes up
> with some more CASH.' That was four years ago, and he isn't getting any
> younger. I've got my fingers crossed.)
>
> --
> Dan
> http://www.danfoxart.com
>
> REMOVE 'NOSPAM' FROM MY EMAIL ADDRESS TO REPLY!
Roob
> they were demonstrably reasonable at it at some earlier point in time?
>
> Andy D.
>
care about the evidence that exists. the proof of the work. if a great
painter dies, does his work not live on?
Roob
These paintings SUCK!!!
John Ng
> > John Everett Millais painted "Lorenzo and Isabella" at the age of 20.
> > http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/database/art.asp?aid=77&page=1&order=q
>
> These paintings SUCK!!!
With a statement like this, I am sure Roob has lost all his eyes. I
bet the reason why Roob prefers Picasso is because he could ONLY
listen to all those crape hurled at him on the TV.
John Ng
Chris
And yours are so much better?
Chris
Andrew D
library_...@hotmail.com (Roob) wrote:
In fact, the argument being put was that Picasso's early works proved his
abilities and apparently therefore vindicated his later works as great
art.
Roob
no, that was not what the argument was about.
Bernard Victor
Picasso was always experimenting and going off at odd tangents,
Matisse developed his work in a much more logical manner. To me
Matisse was far the better artist, and much easier to understand.
However the painting that Picasso did when he heard of Matisse's death
is one of the most moving in the show.
Another thing that I discovered at the show was how great Matisse's
cutouts were. Having previously only seen them as reproductions I had
no idea how effective they actually were.
This is definitely a show not to miss, even if you hate 'modern' art.
>
>Absolutely Picasso rules....of course when you go to MoMA QNS for the
>Picasso/Matisse show, you see real competition.
Mani Deli
of dissent anywhere. I’ll mention two sentences in the article.
By VERLYN KLINKENBORG NY Times February 15, 2003
"Matisse Picasso" is an exhibition that will inevitably be read as a
dialogue between two of the greatest artists who ever lived.”
The usual uncontested hype!
“It takes an enormous amount of artistic confidence to borrow as
craftily as Picasso and Matisse borrowed from each other. But the real
measure of their power is the making of paintings that are stronger
and more powerful than the men themselves”
I will only state my opinion on this matter without going into detail.
Both these artists are the prime examples of Artspeak hype. Neither
was knowledgeable of the craft. Matisse couldn’t draw at all, while
Picasso is no more than a third rate cartoonist who painted large.
I consider their major paintings "Guernica" and “The Dance “ little
more then abominations. Until some critics who are published, decide
to expose these artists as charlatans, so called fine art will
continue in a direction of ever-greater hype and stupidity
Alison A Raimes
"Bernard Victor" <bvi...@HotPOP.com> wrote in message
news:2lks4v059hu8v8iul...@4ax.com...
> This show was in London last year, and to me it showed that whilst
> Picasso was always experimenting and going off at odd tangents,
> Matisse developed his work in a much more logical manner. To me
> Matisse was far the better artist, and much easier to understand.
> However the painting that Picasso did when he heard of Matisse's death
> is one of the most moving in the show.
Much easier to understand? How revealing! Why would anyone want to
*understand* when the choice is to constantly wonder?
The show at the Tate Modern showed that Picasso's mind was far more
inquisitive, far more determined to push the boundaries at any risk, and far
more interested in challenging than presenting it on a platter.
No contest.
Alison A Raimes
http://raimes.com
Mani Deli
most stupid overly hyped products of the 20th century. I first saw the
original #1 at the MOMA in a huge Matisse show. It was enough to make
me somewhat skeptical of modern art while Picasso was still a hero to
me.
Check it out at:
http://www.pbs.org/ringsofpassion/artwork/matisselg.jpg
Even when Picasso tried his best to draw badly, he couldn't manage as
well as Matisse. Matisse was the first to give his drawings the
appearance of having been done by a palsied hand.
Matisse rarely got the shake out of anything he did. In coloring his
drawings, he somehow always managed to miss the edge. As for his
famous color, Matisse picked the brightest he had handy at the moment.
This gives his work a disconcerting amateurish look. It is this look,
which makes Matisse so interesting to many beginners. They feel that
they can certainly do something like it.
Matisse's Academic training never interfered with his work. Nor did he
ever have to fake incompetence as many other artists did. He executed
his paintings effortlessly with an unparalleled ease. Most look as if
they were done during a kind of half sleep. There is nothing insincere
about this; it was an honest sleep. If Picasso had painted with
Matisse's degree of simplicity he could have produced millions of
works.
In the years around 1910, Matisse produced work which managed to fail
in every respect, drawing, painting, the brushwork, composition,
ideas. They all contain that Matisse specialty; inordinately schmiery
uneven edges which wobble every which way and get thick and thin in
all the wrong places. Matisse could hardly draw a crooked line, let
alone an even one. It was enough to impress critics who thought this
was all something new.
He labored over his blends incessantly without knowing how to execute
them. He often drew dark lines around objects in order to emphasize
his choice of wrong proportion. Matisse proudly lacked any semblance
of academic training and his few realistic drawings are even an
embarrassment to some MAA critics. They are rarely reproduced.
Matisse was no fool and maintained his power to make critics spout
unending praises for eighty years. His extraordinary lack of skill
with the help of his low productivity gave his work a uniqueness which
helped in selling it for fortunes. The enormity of his incompetence is
only surpassed by the praise his work received.
G*rd*n
| > This show was in London last year, and to me it showed that whilst
| > Picasso was always experimenting and going off at odd tangents,
| > Matisse developed his work in a much more logical manner. To me
| > Matisse was far the better artist, and much easier to understand.
| > However the painting that Picasso did when he heard of Matisse's death
| > is one of the most moving in the show.
"Alison A Raimes" <alison...@yahoo.co.uk>:
| Much easier to understand? How revealing! Why would anyone want to
| *understand* when the choice is to constantly wonder?
To accomplish. Matisse strikes me as the earnest workman,
seriously attempting to do his best; Picasso, as a very
competent cynic, who works hard but always has some energy
to spare to make fun of other artists and his audience. As
a consequence, maybe, Matisse achieves some works which have
a kind of immediacy and flow which simply doesn't occur in
Picasso's work, which always seems to be breathing pretty
hard.
In the show, while some of the works either directly imitate
one another or at least allude to the style of the other,
some seemed to have been juxtaposed merely because they
happened to contain similar subject matter. However, the
latter were a minority.
| The show at the Tate Modern showed that Picasso's mind was far more
| inquisitive, far more determined to push the boundaries at any risk, and far
| more interested in challenging than presenting it on a platter.
The Picasso / Matisse show is organized around their
relationship, especially those works of each which seem to
reflect the work of the other, so in neither case is the
whole lifework well represented. Matisse, who obviously
knew how to make beautiful and novel works, took Picasso
very seriously, which is quite a compliment, and seems to
have been influenced by him, which I find of ambiguous
value. In general, I think Picasso has had a bad,
depressing influence on other artists, but maybe Matisse was
strong enough to stand up to him and even get something out
of the relationship. However, I prefer Matisse's later works
which, it seems to me, emerge from the contest and depart
from it. I am thinking especially of a rather large charcoal
drawing on canvas Matisse made, the sign says, in the period
1940-1943, which depicts a woman's body in the foreground and
a satyr, lover or the like just behind her. The drawing
_looks_ like it was made in a ten-minute miracle: every line
flows easily and naturally, and yet takes on fullness and
weight in its context. The very spare, seemingly facile
rendition places the living bodies before us. Yet when one
examines the canvas closely, one can see what appear to be
the faint traces of innumerable erasures; maybe Matisse worked
on it at least intermittently over all that time. During the
period that drawing was made, France was being defeated and
occupied by the Germans, and Matisse was in the south of France
while Picasso was in Paris, so it is probable that Matisse
had other things on his mind than the contest between them.
In any case, I don't think anything Picasso did much
resembles it.
On a less elevated plane, the show was physically very
crowded in spite of the tickets going for $20 each. It was
difficult to get a good view of the larger paintings. The
museum, for $5, offered a sort of cell phone which would
tell the user about the paintings when the proper number was
punched in. I thought this was unfortunate, since it seemed
to engender the same mindless behavior one notes of cell-
phone use on the streets and highways. Moreover, the discourse
on both Picasso and Matisse is now so heavily larded over with
reverent, self-serving academicism (and has been for many years)
that it is hard to see how a further slathering of it could
be helpful; but _de_gustibus_. I chose to look, rather than
listen. There is a lot to see, and it tells an interesting
story.
Mani Deli
Color, drawing, composition, craftsmanship, it can't get worse.
Check it out
http://www.sai.msu.su/wm/paint/auth/matisse/matisse.fillettes-jaune-rouge.jpg
I doubt that if this painting was lying in a discarded pile of junk
without the coveted signature that anyone would even consider it worth
preserving. Many of his more famous horrors are no better.
You would think that Matisse wouldn't get worse than his stuff up
to1924, but there are still his "murals" done at the Vance. Of all the
thousands of no skill realists out there, I have yet to find anyone
worse than Matisse supported by a bigger line of unending hype.
SeaCat
> Another Matisse horror: Two girls in a yellow and red interior" 1947
>
> Color, drawing, composition, craftsmanship, it can't get worse.
>
> Check it out
>
http://www.sai.msu.su/wm/paint/auth/matisse/matisse.fillettes-jaune-rouge.jp
g
>
Try not to let it get you so down and out. I haven't visited your site in
years and don't intend to again. Not because I remember the works there as
being a reflection of an angry, uptight and bitter person--that part would
be okay by me--but because you do not show any growth whatsoever.
Considering the infinite possiblities art offers, you seem so stuck. And
this anger you spout (critque, you'd like to believe) is worthless because,
if anything, it's boring and repetitive. Not exactly conductive to my own
growth, that's for sure.
Art cannot hurt most of us, Mani. (Well, possibly with the exception of
some politicians and religious fanatics)
I'm sorry it seems to not only hurt you so much, it appears to have severely
misdirected you onto a deadend road. Whatever it is you get out of your
constant negative rantings is a mystery.
You should take this tenacious character trait and do something positive
with it for a change. Perhaps you're just in an exceptionally long dull
funk and degrading art/artists is your revenge. What a legacy.
Mani Deli
>x-no-archive: yes
>You could have tried a different track. How about dealing
>with the issues raised rather than making a personal attack?
Paintings are the only real issue and I mentioned paintings by name
and you can go look at them. If you think they are great just say so.
To say someone's painting is a horror isn't a personal attack
>He does make personal attacks and now you do, so where has
>that got us all?
>Thur
>
>"SeaCat" <reply...@a.com> wrote in message
>news:b2omhi$ih7$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
>> Mani Deli wrote:
>> > Another Matisse horror: Two girls in a yellow and red interior" 1947
>> >
>> > Color, drawing, composition, craftsmanship, it can't get worse.
>> >
>> > Check it out
>> >
>>
>http://www.sai.msu.su/wm/paint/auth/matisse/matisse.fillettes-jaune-rouge.jpg
>>
...no skill no art!
G*rd*n
| x-no-archive: yes
| You could have tried a different track. How about dealing
| with the issues raised rather than making a personal attack?
What issues? He didn't raise any issues; he just said he
didn't like something by Matisse (although he cast it in a
faux-universal form, that is, he said it _was_ very bad.
So what? A lot of people like Matisse; too bad if Mani
doesn't, but I can't think of anything more inconsequential.
The one hopeful thing I see in this thread is that the
fundies may go off Picasso for a while, and slag on Matisse
instead. That might be something of a relief.
Thur
Matisse?
How are such paintings not bad?
How is it "a lot of people like Matisse"?
Do they need new spectacles? A new brain? Some education?
Is his work so simple and undemanding that the moronic masses
can find their own level wth him?
What relevance is a work of art created in another age, that seemingly
contains so little skill?
Is there anything at all that can be valued throughout the ages that
can be held as a true value in the visual arts? How about skill?
How can a work of art, so carelessly created, claim any sensitivity to
it's subject? Something created in plein air might claim that it was
to capture the moment, the moving clouds/light/tide wait for no artist,
but Matisse cannot claim this.
In another post I gave a link to one Matisse and set it up for
someone of your persuasion to reply with a view to educate me.
There have up to date been no comments.
http://www.ago.net/www/information/exhibitions/g2m/matisse2.cfm
I have no comment or criticism for Picasso, either way.
Mr. Deli's comments should be considered. His personal attacks
ignored. What would this newsgroup be worth if it descended to
a set of flames?
Thur.
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:b2p8to$4j4$1...@panix2.panix.com...
G*rd*n
| Having set out your innocence, now can you deal with
| Matisse?
| How are such paintings not bad?
| How is it "a lot of people like Matisse"?
| Do they need new spectacles? A new brain? Some education?
| Is his work so simple and undemanding that the moronic masses
| can find their own level wth him?
| What relevance is a work of art created in another age, that seemingly
| contains so little skill?
| Is there anything at all that can be valued throughout the ages that
| can be held as a true value in the visual arts? How about skill?
| How can a work of art, so carelessly created, claim any sensitivity to
| it's subject? Something created in plein air might claim that it was
| to capture the moment, the moving clouds/light/tide wait for no artist,
| but Matisse cannot claim this.
| In another post I gave a link to one Matisse and set it up for
| someone of your persuasion to reply with a view to educate me.
| There have up to date been no comments.
| http://www.ago.net/www/information/exhibitions/g2m/matisse2.cfm
| I have no comment or criticism for Picasso, either way.
| Mr. Deli's comments should be considered. His personal attacks
| ignored. What would this newsgroup be worth if it descended to
| a set of flames?
I find Mr. Deli's comments on Matisse vacuous, so there is no
point in my trying to consider them. That is not a flame;
it's the simple observation that they do not contain cognitive
material, only the expression of a generic emotion. It is
not something one can argue with, because Mr. Deli is the
final authority on his emotions.
As for Matisse's style -- or any other artist's -- I can't
imagine how I could convince someone who is put off by it to
like it. If you insist that all art must have a highly finished
quality, I think you're going to miss a lot, but that's not
really my problem, is it? It seems perfectly useless to
debate the merits of works of art when at least one of the
parties is so utterly convinced that they are worthless that
they can't by bothered with more than a very superficial
observation and immediate rejection of the subject. Let's
not waste our time.
Mani Deli
>
>As for Matisse's style -- or any other artist's -- I can't
>imagine how I could convince someone who is put off by it to
>like it.
> If you , I think you're going to miss a lot, but that's not
>really my problem, is it?
Fundamentalists consistently say that those who disagree with them
"insist that all art must have a highly finished quality. " This is
nonsense. Go look at the work of Hirschfeld. Who could abstract the
figure with the drawing skill which both Picasso and Matisse. lack.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/21/obituaries/21HIRS.html
Also check out the Deco style paintings of Tamara Lempicka.
http://www.artcyclopedia.com/artists/lempicka_tamara_de.html
Not to mention comic books!
> It seems perfectly useless to
>debate the merits of works of art when at least one of the
>parties is so utterly convinced that they are worthless that
>they can't by bothered with more than a very superficial
>observation and immediate rejection of the subject.
Referring directly to the faults in a painting which everyone can see
is utterly worthless to this fundamentalist. I wonder what he would
prefer one should refer to? Ecstatic praise only I suppose!
G*rd*n
danf...@NOSPAMyahoo.com(Dan Fox):
| ...
| A short answer to the dilemma of looking at, say, Matisse, for the first
| time: this work is not intended to copy nature. Instead, it uses the forms
| of nature to create a new object, the work of art. For that reason, color
| and form are chosen for the design of the work, not to duplicate what the
| artist sees. This is a major change from the art that preceeded it. Van
| Gogh, Gauguin and others began doing this in the late 19th century. Their
| art was called Expressionism (and sometimes Symbolism) because it reflects
| the artists feelings about a scene, rather than trying to copy the scene.
| ...
I have tried the following practice with mixed success:
Suppose you want to see if there is anything in artist X which
may do something for you, although thus far you have not seen
much in the work. Find someone who likes X a lot. Go with
them to a show of X's work. Try to pick up what X is doing
for your companion via word, gesture, body language, pheromones,
osmosis, and ESP. Look at it the way they seem to be looking
at the stuff, relating to it, getting at it. Now, this doesn't
always work. Besides the good old Great Gulf Between Soul
And Soul, there's also the problem that with any big-deal,
famous artist, a lot of people you run into may be _pretending_
to like the work because they think it reflects well on them.
But it's still worth a shot -- if you live anywhere near a
place where the work in question can be looked at in the flesh.
If you have to go by books and web images, suspend judgement.
Most of the plastic arts were not constructed with print or
web display in mind and don't come over very well.
Another possibility, if you happen to do the art yourself,
is to try to imitate what Artist X was doing, even though
you don't like it or understand it. This will lead you to a
deeper understanding of the work. Of course, that may make
you hate it even more, but at least you'll have a deeply
informed hatred.
But mere words on the Net are unlikely to get you anywhere.
Paul Mesken
>There is a lot more. I have to shovel some snow.
Yeah, I saw it on the tele, there's quite some falling down at your
place. Ofcourse we go completely without snow here in the Netherlands
even though we had some a couple of weeks ago (I can count the number
of white christmases I had on the fingers on one hand).
Edward G. Nilges
I agree for the most part, but I would not be silent on WHY Matisse is
good, or, at a minimum, what he was trying to do.
Agreements that terminate in cease-fires, I think, reinforce the
Maniac Delights of this world for their ersatz of certainty is made
all the louder by the conviction of better men and women that it is
somehow discourteous of them to make aesthetic or ethical judgements.
William Butler Yeats noticed this: the good lack all conviction while
the worst are filled with passionate intensity.
Therefore to continue the discussion, the rage for finish is a rage
for a particular sort of recognizable finish, in which the human being
simulates a machine. Of course, the group Kraftwerk, Laurie Anderson
and Jenny Holzer all show us how to simulate machines in an ironic
spirit, and Show Room Dummies, Sharkey's Day and Laments all represent
triumphs over the machine, by being so clearly authored by human
beings.
Whereas Bouguereau conceals his humanity in the absence of brushwork
and also in the replication of emotions of the mass. That is:
Bouguereau's emotion could be had by anyone and it was only his Salon
position that made it saleable.
Rather like Don Imus, a highly placed figure provides the most banal
thoughts and the bourgeois value, not the I-Man or Bouguereau himself
(many Bouguereau admirers are ignorant of his biography), but their
narcissitic admiration of their most accessible thoughts.
Like Rush Limbaugh fans, they are either ignorant of or actively
dislike the host or artist but cry "ditto" to a fun-house mirror.
Feeding oneself on this garbage destroys the taste for an art
appreciation in which you discover that on MATISSES' own terms, his
works were highly finished. Not one Philistine would be able, for
example, to master the Fauvist relation of colors, for boors and slobs
fail to notice that once you change the rules you are then responsible
for the RELATION of the new colors to each other so that a coherent
image is maintained.
Edward G. Nilges
> Having set out your innocence, now can you deal with
> Matisse?
> How are such paintings not bad?
What part of vibrant color don't you understand?
What part of delight makes you sad?
> How is it "a lot of people like Matisse"?
Because they go inside the museum on a rainy day with their leaders
talking war and their bosses acting like jerks. They see the Matisse
that is in the SF MOMA, of an avenue of palm trees painted in darkly
intense green.
This is a green that has no Windows coding for artists know what only
mathematicians also know, which is that there is no a priori limit to
the capability of the human mind to see completely new colors.
Between 1 and 2 there is an infinity, and the form which contains the
color makes this even more complex.
In the dead world left behind, each color has a 24-bit number, each
color is for sale as such, and each man has his price. In the green
world which we enter there is a new heaven and a new earth because we
have learned to see.
After the Feb 15 anti-war demonstration in NYC I stopped at the
Metropolitan Museum of Art. There I had only a small amount of time
so I paid a call on Blind Orion in Search of the Rising Sun, painted
by an artist with no natural facility in drawing.
Orion raped the daughter of the king of Chios and was struck blind as
a result, and told that to see he had to find where the sun rises, and
Poussin's painting shows the giant Orion on his journey. Clouds clear
and to the right, behind Poussin's typical landscape of deepest green,
there is only the promise, or hope, for the monster in search of
vision and forgiveness.
This promise or hope is painted as light that teases the viewer, and
by implication the monster, by being just out of view. The monster
must expiate his crime and therefore Poussin carefully ascends his
pallette to show us that which we cannot look upon directly in this
life, and which was a 17th century metaphor: la soleil in full glory,
which blinds anew while healing.
Poussin is a traditional painter, for sure. But many of the moderns
admired him and while traditionalists pretended to like him, they
thought him "severe" because they failed to see that his "severity" is
in actuality a clumsiness which this peasant of les Andelys overcame
like Cezanne.
Matisse had natural facility but went beyond mere replication for the
same reason Einstein understood Newton, and went beyond. After all,
the world is full of horrors and precious little beauty, and it is on
the whole more efficient to let Ann Geddes, the baby photographer,
perform the necessary function of showing beauty.
Adorno said, any philosophy worth its name is a philosophy of an
undescribable resurrection. Many people give up in museums hoping to
access a story, whether of walking down a palm-lined avenue and
finding peace in green, or a monster's forgiveness, because redemption
happens to lie outside commodity exchange, and Orion could not cop a
plea.
> Do they need new spectacles? A new brain? Some education?
No: the Philistine does.
> Is his work so simple and undemanding that the moronic masses
> can find their own level wth him?
Ah, but the rage is in not being able to understand, and in suspecting
that this guy may be having a laugh at Mani's expense.
> What relevance is a work of art created in another age, that seemingly
> contains so little skill?
If an artist has skill, then this is of the level of interest of the
circus freak, or indeed, at best, the saltimbanques Picasso painted
during his blue and rose period.
The fat man and the bearded lady excite yokels for a day: in the same
way, the child who can draw like the adult, or the musical progidy,
are nine-day wonders, of artistic interest ONLY if they grow into
Mozart, Picasso or Poussin.
The trapeze artist is a Roma, a Siegourner, a Gypsy, who has
cultivated his art because his faith prohibits graven images and hence
acting stories and who, absent his ability to please the crowd, has
worked very hard to become the man on the flying trapeze: for it was
the Gypsies and the Eastern European iconoclastic faiths that
cultivated the circus or holy circle in which lying stories did not
appear, only the truth of air.
But if this man started from nothing, unable to catch the flying
woman, does he not deserve a cultivated admiration?
He does: but as Adorno has written, the soul ultimately sickens when
it looks behind the puppet show to see the degraded misery in which
the actual puppets are stored and live. A real artist, like
Pinocchio, escapes the puppet show and either the admiration or the
scorn of rubes and of yokels.
> Is there anything at all that can be valued throughout the ages that
> can be held as a true value in the visual arts? How about skill?
> How can a work of art, so carelessly created, claim any sensitivity to
> it's subject? Something created in plein air might claim that it was
> to capture the moment, the moving clouds/light/tide wait for no artist,
> but Matisse cannot claim this.
> In another post I gave a link to one Matisse and set it up for
> someone of your persuasion to reply with a view to educate me.
> There have up to date been no comments.
Your good intentions are laudable, and unlike Mani you want to know
why people admire modern art. I have tried to show you as best I can.
Under the paving stones lie the beach.
Andrew D
>right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D) wrote in message
news:<right-14020...@i165-106.nv.iinet.net.au>...
>> In article <b1783836.03021...@posting.google.com>,
>> library_...@hotmail.com (Roob) wrote:
>>
>> >> I guess my point is - is someone always good at something just because
>> >> they were demonstrably reasonable at it at some earlier point in time?
>> >>
>> >> Andy D.
>> >>
>> >We don't care if someone is "always good at something" or not. We only
>> >care about the evidence that exists. the proof of the work. if a great
>> >painter dies, does his work not live on?
>>
>> In fact, the argument being put was that Picasso's early works proved his
>> abilities and apparently therefore vindicated his later works as great
>> art.
>no, that was not what the argument was about.
On my reading it was.
John, mani and others regularly make the point that Picasso's later works
prove his lack of drawing ability - and that this proves his failure as a
supposed artist (in a nutshell). Others have lately been posting
references to Pablo's early works - presumably to prove that he could draw
and by inference, that his later works were good art.
Andy D.
Andrew D
<reply...@a.com> wrote:
>Mani Deli wrote:
>> Another Matisse horror: Two girls in a yellow and red interior" 1947
>>
>> Color, drawing, composition, craftsmanship, it can't get worse.
>>
>> Check it out
>>
>http://www.sai.msu.su/wm/paint/auth/matisse/matisse.fillettes-jaune-rouge.jp
>g
>> pretensions of the modern art establishment?
>>
>(snip)
>
>Try not to let it get you so down and out. I haven't visited your site in
>years and don't intend to again. Not because I remember the works there as
>being a reflection of an angry, uptight and bitter person--that part would
>be okay by me--but because you do not show any growth whatsoever.
>Considering the infinite possiblities art offers, you seem so stuck. And
>this anger you spout (critque, you'd like to believe) is worthless because,
>if anything, it's boring and repetitive. Not exactly conductive to my own
>growth, that's for sure.
I'm always intrigued that some people see artistic regression as a sign of
growth and/or progress.
Andrew D
<a@spamless.z> wrote:
>Having set out your innocence, now can you deal with
>Matisse?
>How are such paintings not bad?
>How is it "a lot of people like Matisse"?
>Do they need new spectacles? A new brain? Some education?
>Is his work so simple and undemanding that the moronic masses
>can find their own level wth him?
Hey! Leave the masses alone - they aren't likely to be Matisse lovers -
though most average families with young kids have equal and better works
stuck to their fridge doors with magnets.
Andrew D
[snip]
>It seems perfectly useless to
>debate the merits of works of art when at least one of the
>parties is so utterly convinced that they are worthless that
>they can't by bothered with more than a very superficial
>observation and immediate rejection of the subject.
Of course the same could be said of attempting debate with those who
refuse to concede even the possibility that these "great" artists were
just over-hyped failures.
Perhaps the artists under discussion are the "VHS video tapes" of the art
world - poorer quality with better marketing.
G*rd*n
| > | Having set out your innocence, now can you deal with
| > | Matisse?
| > | How are such paintings not bad?
| > | How is it "a lot of people like Matisse"?
| > | Do they need new spectacles? A new brain? Some education?
| > | Is his work so simple and undemanding that the moronic masses
| > | can find their own level wth him?
| > | What relevance is a work of art created in another age, that seemingly
| > | contains so little skill?
| > | Is there anything at all that can be valued throughout the ages that
| > | can be held as a true value in the visual arts? How about skill?
| > | How can a work of art, so carelessly created, claim any sensitivity to
| > | it's subject? Something created in plein air might claim that it was
| > | to capture the moment, the moving clouds/light/tide wait for no artist,
| > | but Matisse cannot claim this.
| > | In another post I gave a link to one Matisse and set it up for
| > | someone of your persuasion to reply with a view to educate me.
| > | There have up to date been no comments.
| > | http://www.ago.net/www/information/exhibitions/g2m/matisse2.cfm
| > | I have no comment or criticism for Picasso, either way.
| > | Mr. Deli's comments should be considered. His personal attacks
| > | ignored. What would this newsgroup be worth if it descended to
| > | a set of flames?
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
| > I find Mr. Deli's comments on Matisse vacuous, so there is no
| > point in my trying to consider them. That is not a flame;
| > it's the simple observation that they do not contain cognitive
| > material, only the expression of a generic emotion. It is
| > not something one can argue with, because Mr. Deli is the
| > final authority on his emotions.
| >
| > As for Matisse's style -- or any other artist's -- I can't
| > imagine how I could convince someone who is put off by it to
| > like it. If you insist that all art must have a highly finished
| > quality, I think you're going to miss a lot, but that's not
| > really my problem, is it? It seems perfectly useless to
| > debate the merits of works of art when at least one of the
| > parties is so utterly convinced that they are worthless that
| > they can't by bothered with more than a very superficial
| > observation and immediate rejection of the subject. Let's
| > not waste our time.
spino...@yahoo.com (Edward G. Nilges):
| I agree for the most part, but I would not be silent on WHY Matisse is
| good, or, at a minimum, what he was trying to do.
|
| Agreements that terminate in cease-fires, I think, reinforce the
| Maniac Delights of this world for their ersatz of certainty is made
| all the louder by the conviction of better men and women that it is
| somehow discourteous of them to make aesthetic or ethical judgements.
| ...
So you're going to beat them over the head with a logic
pipe, while they dance around and make third-grade fart
noises. Good luck....
Mani Deli
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/sillyart.htm
Mani Deli
>So what? A lot of people like Matisse; too bad if Mani
A lot of people also don't. And a lot of people like work which you
don't.
>doesn't, but I can't think of anything more inconsequential.
The paintings I mentioned aren't inconsequential they are considered
masterpieces by most critics who are allowed to voice an opinion. As I
said, you will see another Matissse Picasso show without a peep of
dissent. As usual!
I have referred directly to paintings here. I believe those I have
mentioned are so bad that even a fundamentalist like you can't say
anything much in their favor.
I see no criticism of particular paintings by you or most other
Modern Academic Art fundamentalists here.
I guess for POMO blowbags like this one can't mention drawing, color,
ideas and craft by referring to particular paintings. About all he
can say is, "A lot of people like Matisse."
In fact I don't think many people like Matisse especially after seeing
his incompetence in the original.
Mani Deli
>"Thur" <a@spamless.z>
>| > | In another post I gave a link to one Matisse and set it up for
>| > | someone of your persuasion to reply with a view to educate me.
>| > | There have up to date been no comments.
>| > | http://www.ago.net/www/information/exhibitions/g2m/matisse2.cfm
If you did it I would say that you can't draw have no ideas and you
haven't learned your craft. In high school it would get a laugh.
Now tell us what you think of this supposed masterpiece.
Edward G. Nilges
No, they've won if you believe that all discussants are equal, and
beat each other over the head with "logic pipes." For these clowns
would have us believe that every work of art, save those with an
industrial finish, are equal, because they are so damn alienated that
they have to get information on what's "beautiful" from outside...just
as their boss tells them what to think.
This is "other-directedness" run amok, and it is a generational curse.
Unable to sort out ethics, unable to sort out aesthetics, people
reduce other people to a least common denominator in the interests of
a misunderstood fairness.
I happen to know more about art, from a period in the 1960s in which I
was fully engaged with art, than Mani Deli, and it's all one to me if
anyone else agrees with me. Whereas for the alienated, it's a major
tragedy if another clown does not agree with him.
In the early Well (a BBS) the fact that discussions became what were
named "flame" wars wasn't a technical artifact at all. Instead, it is
explained by the 1970s, a period during which the sort of symbolic
workers who built the well had to be disciplined to serve other
people's needs.
The anxiety that generated the first "flame" wars is a sort of lack of
mental discipline which is unable to use reason and passion properly,
and one that gets its cues from other people's opinions.
The problem, of course, is that traditional argument looks like
"flaming" and again in the interests of a misunderstood fairness,
people indulge themselves in a-plague-on-both-your-houses-ism because
APOBYHism is easier than thought.
Edward G. Nilges
> In article <b2r11p$5fo$1...@panix3.panix.com>, g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >It seems perfectly useless to
> >debate the merits of works of art when at least one of the
> >parties is so utterly convinced that they are worthless that
> >they can't by bothered with more than a very superficial
> >observation and immediate rejection of the subject.
>
> Of course the same could be said of attempting debate with those who
> refuse to concede even the possibility that these "great" artists were
> just over-hyped failures.
If one fails to learn the history of art, modems combine with an
alienated and misunderstood conception of fairness to create abstract
discussions, in which oh maybe Picasso was a great artist and then
again maybe not. And, perhaps whales speak French at the bottom of
the sea.
>
> Perhaps the artists under discussion are the "VHS video tapes" of the art
> world - poorer quality with better marketing.
And perhaps commodities have so saturated our lives that we are unable
to think outside of a universe in which marketing is distinct from
production.
The facts are that Picasso and his fellow high moderns were completely
uninterested in marketing as understood today. They were busy
painting, and Picasso, unwisely from a marketing standpoint, joined
the Communist party.
Whereas Dali was a complete self-promoter who in fact failed to
convince the major high modern critics that his work was anything more
than dreck, more suitable for LP sleeves than serious consideration.
Likewise, contemporary critics fail to take Vargas and Frazetta
seriously despite their "marketing."
Roob
> In article <b1783836.03021...@posting.google.com>,
> library_...@hotmail.com (Roob) wrote:
>
> >right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D) wrote in message
> news:<right-14020...@i165-106.nv.iinet.net.au>...
> >> In article <b1783836.03021...@posting.google.com>,
> >> library_...@hotmail.com (Roob) wrote:
> >>
> >> >> I guess my point is - is someone always good at something just because
> >> >> they were demonstrably reasonable at it at some earlier point in time?
> >> >>
> >> >> Andy D.
> >> >>
> >> >We don't care if someone is "always good at something" or not. We only
> >> >care about the evidence that exists. the proof of the work. if a great
> >> >painter dies, does his work not live on?
> >>
> >> In fact, the argument being put was that Picasso's early works proved his
> >> abilities and apparently therefore vindicated his later works as great
> >> art.
>
> >no, that was not what the argument was about.
>
> On my reading it was.
>
> John, mani and others regularly make the point that Picasso's later works
> prove his lack of drawing ability - and that this proves his failure as a
> supposed artist (in a nutshell). Others have lately been posting
> references to Pablo's early works - presumably to prove that he could draw
> and by inference, that his later works were good art.
>
> Andy D.
>
> "I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
okay... so that would mean that if you're dead, you won't be able to
draw; therefore, you don't have good drawing ability.
Thur
before I have placed this in my mind. The relationships of
colours and form etc. are lost to me when there is a big sign
saying "take it back and make the brushwork mean something!"
I have no desire to see more photo-realist works either.
I recognise that the brushstroke(s) are part of an artist's toolbox
of tricks to influence the look of a painting the subject being a 3d
form converted to a 2d format, and occasionally kept in a 2d form,
but mostly corrected to look 3d.
If there is some idea that a deliberately chaotic and childlike
format to brushwork which can mean something then I have still
much to learn.
Thur
Here are a very few of some works that have some brushwork that
works.(apart from being admirable works too). Not at all a fully
representative example, rather all that I could get in the time.
Qi Bashi
http://www.buy-art-prints.com/qi_bashi_lotus.html
Mary Cassatt self portrait. 1878 Gouache of paper
http://www.abcgallery.com/C/cassatt/cassatt11.html
John Singer Sargent Watercolour works
http://worldofwatercolor.com/sargent/sarg1.htm
http://www.jssgallery.org/Paintings/Sketch_of_Cellinis_Perseus_watercolor.ht
m
Oil
http://cgfa.sunsite.dk/sargent/sargent8.jpg
etc.
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:8ah35vk4qfi01va1e...@4ax.com...
Chris
>
> I have tried the following practice with mixed success:
> Suppose you want to see if there is anything in artist X which
> may do something for you, although thus far you have not seen
> much in the work. Find someone who likes X a lot. Go with
> them to a show of X's work. Try to pick up what X is doing
> for your companion via word, gesture, body language, pheromones,
> osmosis, and ESP. Look at it the way they seem to be looking
> at the stuff, relating to it, getting at it.
LOL - don't forget to roll in the aisle when the spirit moves you, and
holding hands and jumping up and down when you say "Amen!" and
"Hallelujah!". (FWIW, we are already pretty familiar though with the
speaking in tongues part...)
Chris
Mani Deli
>
>time:
Can you imagine that, a work of great art must start with a "dilemma."
> this work is not intended to copy nature. Instead, it uses the forms
>of nature to create a new object, the work of art.
It uses knowledge on the level of a ten year old. There is no form in
Matisse. He didn't know how to draw form or much of anything. Its as
new as any kiddy drawing.
> For that reason, color
>and form are chosen for the design of the work, not to duplicate what the
>artist sees. This is a major change from the art that preceeded it. Van
>Gogh, Gauguin and others began doing this in the late 19th century. Their
>art was called Expressionism (and sometimes Symbolism) because it reflects
>the artists feelings about a scene, rather than trying to copy the scene.
>
Lame excuse!
just take a look at : Two girls in a yellow and red interior" 1947
Color, drawing, composition, craftsmanship, it can't get worse.
Check it out at
http://www.sai.msu.su/wm/paint/auth/matisse/matisse.fillettes-jaune-rouge.jpg
If it looks like it was done by a ten year old its the artist's
problem not the viewer's.
Mani Deli
D) wrote:
>John, mani and others regularly make the point that Picasso's later works
>prove his lack of drawing ability - and that this proves his failure as a
>supposed artist (in a nutshell). Others have lately been posting
>references to Pablo's early works - presumably to prove that he could draw
>and by inference, that his later works were good art.
>
>Andy D.
Early on Picasso could draw as well as a third rate illustrator. He
was lazy about drawing since he was living surrounded by yes-men and
the assurance that he was the greatest. So things got worse and worse.
Yes, Picasso could indeed draw better than most modern academics that
followed and he had the talent to filch the latest styles from others
before they had a chance. This kept him in the fashion forefront. I
suspect that is why critics who never look at anything beyond Modern
Academic art think he could draw well.
Matisse is another story; he never reached the competence of a twelve
year old. He had no craft, no talent, no ideas. This compares well
with all of today's charlatans who unlike Fox, won the Modern Academic
Art lottery. Thus any hot-shot no-skill-realist can be compared to
Matisse and critics can exclaim how great they are. That will last
untill some important critic decides to buck the trend and starts to
recognize the emperor's clothes for what they are.
Andrew D
>okay... so that would mean that if you're dead, you won't be able to
>draw; therefore, you don't have good drawing ability.
If you die, I'd say your ability to draw would suffer considerably. In
fact, dead people can't even draw a breath!
Andrew D
spino...@yahoo.com (Edward G. Nilges) wrote:
[snip]
>No, they've won if you believe that all discussants are equal, and
>beat each other over the head with "logic pipes." For these clowns
>would have us believe that every work of art, save those with an
>industrial finish, are equal, because they are so damn alienated that
>they have to get information on what's "beautiful" from outside...just
>as their boss tells them what to think.
And yet, in these discussions it is usually those who gave themselves over
to modern art lecturers who accept, apparently without question, that some
of the most childish art is in fact the product of the world's greatest
artists.
"It's great art because I went to university and my lecturer told me so"
Roob
>suspect that is why critics who never look at anything beyond Modern
>Academic art think he could draw well.
The funny thing is that not many top critics do say that he could draw
very well reallistically.
I just think he draws better (realistically) than you, john ng, boug,
and comicbook artists you've pointed out. and i also believe that he
drew tremendously well for his age. If you were a true champion of
realistic drawing and you've actually studied this stuff and knew what
you were talking about, then you'd have a whole different set of names
you could throw at me to persuade me that picasso couldn't draw well.
but you haven't studied the history of realistic painting and drawing,
so you don't know the names. you haven't studied picasso (you have to
know something to really hate it). you don't understand that nobody
really cares how realistically picasso could draw, because he's
playing a different game than you are. what it basically comes down to
is your definition of "art" versus the modern definition/ideals for
"art". instead of spamming us with your "picasso couldn't draw,"
"another stupid artist" posts, if you want credibility (which i'm
assuming you do), you should back your claims up philosophically. you
can't say shit about, let's say kenneth noland for example, because
you come from two completely different worlds, two completely
different time periods, two different cultural backgrounds, etc.
so go to a library and sit your ass down and do some research for a
few years, reading everything you can on art and its culture, history,
its philosophy and trends. then when you have a cohesive, strong
argument, when you come up with something other than:
"look at this, it's bad. look, if i cover the face the colors are all
the same! this cannot be good. look at this tonality and color scheme.
it's just bad. hey, this one don't look real. how can this be good?
it's a conspiracy!"
come back and share it with us. your explanation is a hermeneutic
system. if you want, i can list some good articles on art for you to
start on.
Edward G. Nilges
> In article <f5dda427.0302...@posting.google.com>,
> spino...@yahoo.com (Edward G. Nilges) wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >No, they've won if you believe that all discussants are equal, and
> >beat each other over the head with "logic pipes." For these clowns
> >would have us believe that every work of art, save those with an
> >industrial finish, are equal, because they are so damn alienated that
> >they have to get information on what's "beautiful" from outside...just
> >as their boss tells them what to think.
>
> And yet, in these discussions it is usually those who gave themselves over
> to modern art lecturers who accept, apparently without question, that some
"Apparently without question?"
In the actual French Academy of Bouguereau, the student was not able
to question the received wisdom AT ALL.
Whereas, modernist art movements have been continually fractioning-off
into submovements and reactive movements. Almost as soon as
"analytic" Cubism, the most easily recognizable Cubism, characterized
by a toned-down pallette, and brushstrokes delineating form, appeared,
Synthetic Cubism overthrew this movement with instead the use of found
objects, and collage.
Within the Dutch "de Stijl" movement, Theo van Doesburg violated the
Mondrian "rule": no lines other than the vertical, and horizontal.
And, upon his arrival in New York in 1945, Mondrian changed from
"high" Mondrian, with simple rectilinear shapes and prmary colors, to
his Broadway Boogie-Woogie phase, with more complex and smaller shapes
and a greater variety of colors.
In fact, as PART of modernism, various reversions to realism, as well
as innovative forms of "new" realism, have appeared. Chuck Close, for
example, does large, hyper-realistic paintings that are directly
inspired by Abstract Expressionism, for they preserve the monumental
quality of Abstract Expressionism, while modernism *per se* does not
in any way prohibit Close from exercising "skill" in the creation of
realistic portraiture.
It only asks him to comment on the recent tradition, whereas neither
Rockwell nor Vargas nor Frazetta do this in any meaningful way. That
is: you can understand Rockwell simply by knowing art history up until
Northern European painting of the 17th century, whereas to understand
Close, you have to know about both Abstract Expressionism and Pop art.
There are in fact clown art lecturers who approach Modernism in a
pre-modern or even barbaric spirit. But the alienation of clowns at
survey classes in art at East Jesus Community College should not be
confused with Modernism.
> of the most childish art is in fact the product of the world's greatest
> artists.
We mustn't be childish, I see. Instead we must encapsulate the worst
of the adult: his admiration for Napoleon (Meissonier) and his desire
to dominate women (Bouguereau.)
>
> "It's great art because I went to university and my lecturer told me so"
Can the crap. Artistic reactionaries are the real claimants to be
able to tell you what to admire, as is the case on Mani's vile Web
page.
Lauri Levanto
It may be so now, but a century ago there were no markets for modernist
painting.
Between say 1890 and 1910 the modern art did not sell ( except in St
Petersburg)
it was not promoted by critics.
The Salon painters like Holy B had a monopoly over the art marketing tools.
-lauri
G*rd*n
library_...@hotmail.com (Roob):
| The funny thing is that not many top critics do say that he could draw
| very well reallistically.
|
| I just think he draws better (realistically) than you, john ng, boug,
| and comicbook artists you've pointed out. and i also believe that he
| drew tremendously well for his age. ...
If you happen to go to the Picasso / Matisse exhibition,
which is apparently slowly touring the universe, you may see
a small group of "realistic" Picasso drawings which are done
with remarkable care, although I suspect they idealize or
at least improve their subjects. If I had a complaint about
them it would be that they were too careful, too accurate,
too finished; but one could certainly not say the draftsman
lacked skill. They were made in the 1920s, I believe. I
think Picasso-haters should give up the "no skill" mantra
and move on to disparaging his intentions and decisions rather
than his talents. Running your head repeatedly into a wall
of solid evidence is too stupid.
John Ng
> The funny thing is that not many top critics do say that he could draw
> very well reallistically.
>
> I just think he draws better (realistically) than you, john ng, boug,
> and comicbook artists you've pointed out.
Com'on. Your love for Picasso is so great that you would think his
turds are solid gold. You can see what you want to see. You could
even say your house is taller then the World Trade Centre... eh... the
Empire State Building.
John Ng
Andrew D
[snip]
>In fact, as PART of modernism, various reversions to realism, as well
>as innovative forms of "new" realism, have appeared. Chuck Close, for
>example, does large, hyper-realistic paintings that are directly
>inspired by Abstract Expressionism, for they preserve the monumental
>quality of Abstract Expressionism,
What exactly does that mean? That they are big?
> while modernism *per se* does not
>in any way prohibit Close from exercising "skill" in the creation of
>realistic portraiture.
And I can't say I've seen anyone here condemning Close's works - but then,
he isn't Picasso is he?
>> of the most childish art is in fact the product of the world's greatest
>> artists.
>We mustn't be childish, I see.
We can be childish. In fact, it can be fun to slosh a little paint around
without concern for colour, composition or accuracy - but let's not
elevate this to the status of "great art" and fill our museums and
galleries with it as if it actually does represent the pinnacle of colour,
composition and accuracy.
Mani Deli
>If you happen to go to the Picasso / Matisse exhibition,
>which is apparently slowly touring the universe, you may see
>a small group of "realistic" Picasso drawings which are done
>with remarkable care, although I suspect they idealize or
>at least improve their subjects.
Most of Picasso's early realistic drawings were done from photos.
Nothing wrong with that, however as such they are nothing special.
>If I had a complaint about
>them it would be that they were too careful, too accurate,
>too finished; but one could certainly not say the draftsman
>lacked skill.
You might note that I never said Picasso had no skill as a draftsman.
He could draw as well as a third rate illustrator. This is a high
rating compared to most of today's high ranking no-skill patzers. His
drawings when he was careful are ok. However OK is no big deal.
Remember, Picasso is supposed to be on a level with Raphael. I suspect
if he were living at that time he would rank no higher then toilet
attendant.
> They were made in the 1920s, I believe. I
>think Picasso-haters should give up the "no skill" mantra
>and move on to disparaging his intentions and decisions rather
>than his talents.
I've addressed that.
> Running your head repeatedly into a wall
>of solid evidence is too stupid.
You are the one who never referred to any SOLID EVIDENCE as I have.
This leads my to suspect that your head has a very large bruise.
Roob
> turds are solid gold. You can see what you want to see.
I don't like picasso that much. My concentration is on the Italian
Renaissance. what i say is just based on objective observation.
> You could
> even say your house is taller then the World Trade Centre... eh... the
> Empire State Building.
now we know it's not only your paintings that are done in bad taste
John Ng
> >but one could certainly not say the draftsman
> >lacked skill.
>
> He could draw as well as a third rate illustrator.
I lament that many pro-Modern Art people in this NG seem to have a
comprehension problem. This point (and many others) we made often
comes back distorted.
John Ng
Edward G. Nilges
> E.G.Niles wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >In fact, as PART of modernism, various reversions to realism, as well
> >as innovative forms of "new" realism, have appeared. Chuck Close, for
> >example, does large, hyper-realistic paintings that are directly
> >inspired by Abstract Expressionism, for they preserve the monumental
> >quality of Abstract Expressionism,
>
> What exactly does that mean? That they are big?
Among other things, yes. But note that the Philistine gazes
uncomprehendingly upon a labor process that integrates a number of
"skills", and, because he cannot map these skills to the industrial
discipline of the factory, thinks they do not exist.
What is literally schizophregenic and which creates men like Jeffery
Dahmer is the fact that on the one hand, "skill" is spoken of as rare
and valuable, yet any actual manifestation unblessed and unsanctified
by a recognized bureaucratic procedure becomes a form of vernacular
terrorism.
I refer to the rage of alienated city workers to remove, in American
cities, any and all manifestations of popular culture not mentioned in
the news. For example, New York city crews regularly remove and throw
away flowers and signs placed at the Imagine memorial on Central Park
to John Lennon, despite the expressed desires of Yoko Ono.
For example, during a wet winter in the 1990s, I found I had to wade
through several inches of dirty water to reach my running trail at
Chicago's Oak Street beach, and I constructed a simple series of steps
as a Zen bridge through this filthy water. This was removed by a city
crew that FAILED to fix the leakage causing the mess, and this crew
was offended to learn that I'd constructed this bridge without
authorization.
For example, construction crews in Chicago have told me they are under
strict orders to always ensure that any writing in newly laid cement
is immediately covered up. When I took my son out for walks in the
1980s, he used to watch for an old cement inscription that said "Tim
O'Hollearn the Great", another that said "Cochise" and a third that
said "Tom and Anita: Timeless Love."
These are now considered terrorist acts. The attraction of Bouguereau
is not his creativity or originality, for he had none, but the safety
of approved "finish" and sanctified "creativity" in the midst of a
cultural sarcophagus, in which Tim O'Hollearn, Cochise, Tom and Anita
are stacked like useless cordwood.
>
> > while modernism *per se* does not
> >in any way prohibit Close from exercising "skill" in the creation of
> >realistic portraiture.
>
> And I can't say I've seen anyone here condemning Close's works - but then,
> he isn't Picasso is he?
People here don't even know, in all probability, about any form of
realism which incorporates Abstract Expressionism, for they believe
Norman Rockwell to be a "great artist."
>
> >> of the most childish art is in fact the product of the world's greatest
> >> artists.
>
> >We mustn't be childish, I see.
>
> We can be childish. In fact, it can be fun to slosh a little paint around
> without concern for colour, composition or accuracy - but let's not
> elevate this to the status of "great art" and fill our museums and
> galleries with it as if it actually does represent the pinnacle of colour,
> composition and accuracy.
>
People who attempt to do this normally end up, not with abstraction,
but Rorschasch semiotics that normally express frustration and rage.
The serenity of a Matisse is beyond normal people, for it's in the
relation of a new set of colors.
Andrew D
spino...@yahoo.com (Edward G. Nilges) wrote:
>right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D) wrote in message
news:<right-20020...@i165-153.nv.iinet.net.au>...
>> E.G.Niles wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >In fact, as PART of modernism, various reversions to realism, as well
>> >as innovative forms of "new" realism, have appeared. Chuck Close, for
>> >example, does large, hyper-realistic paintings that are directly
>> >inspired by Abstract Expressionism, for they preserve the monumental
>> >quality of Abstract Expressionism,
>>
>> What exactly does that mean? That they are big?
>Among other things, yes.
The abstract expressionists were hardly the first to paint big.
> But note that the Philistine gazes
>uncomprehendingly upon a labor process that integrates a number of
>"skills", and, because he cannot map these skills to the industrial
>discipline of the factory, thinks they do not exist.
My dog has three legs.
>What is literally schizophregenic and which creates men like Jeffery
>Dahmer is the fact that on the one hand, "skill" is spoken of as rare
>and valuable, yet any actual manifestation unblessed and unsanctified
>by a recognized bureaucratic procedure becomes a form of vernacular
>terrorism.
Actually, my dog has four legs, as you might expect, but I felt it
worthwhile to point out that she has three legs.... plus another one if
you count the fourth.
>I refer to the rage of alienated city workers to remove, in American
>cities, any and all manifestations of popular culture not mentioned in
>the news. For example, New York city crews regularly remove and throw
>away flowers and signs placed at the Imagine memorial on Central Park
>to John Lennon, despite the expressed desires of Yoko Ono.
I had a cat once, it had two legs... at the front.
>For example, during a wet winter in the 1990s, I found I had to wade
>through several inches of dirty water to reach my running trail at
>Chicago's Oak Street beach, and I constructed a simple series of steps
>as a Zen bridge through this filthy water. This was removed by a city
>crew that FAILED to fix the leakage causing the mess, and this crew
>was offended to learn that I'd constructed this bridge without
>authorization.
Perhaps because it is the city who would be sued when someone used your
"bridge" without success. But I can see how this relates to the
deification of Picasso. Did I mention my dog?
[snip]
>> > while modernism *per se* does not
>> >in any way prohibit Close from exercising "skill" in the creation of
>> >realistic portraiture.
>> And I can't say I've seen anyone here condemning Close's works - but then,
>> he isn't Picasso is he?
>People here don't even know, in all probability, about any form of
>realism which incorporates Abstract Expressionism, for they believe
>Norman Rockwell to be a "great artist."
Wasn't he? Why not? Is Abstract Expressionism compulsory? I thought you
were rallying against restrictions - now you're seeking to apply them.
Have you met Keith O'Connor - you'd like him.
>> >> of the most childish art is in fact the product of the world's greatest
>> >> artists.
>> >We mustn't be childish, I see.
>> We can be childish. In fact, it can be fun to slosh a little paint around
>> without concern for colour, composition or accuracy - but let's not
>> elevate this to the status of "great art" and fill our museums and
>> galleries with it as if it actually does represent the pinnacle of colour,
>> composition and accuracy.
>People who attempt to do this normally end up, not with abstraction,
>but Rorschasch semiotics that normally express frustration and rage.
>The serenity of a Matisse is beyond normal people, for it's in the
>relation of a new set of colors.
My kids got a new set of colours for Christmas and you're right, they now
produce bright, colourful, naive work that rivals Matisse. Last week my
dog - the one one with three legs and one more - got into their paints and
produced a Pollock. I suspect she's gifted.
Edward G. Nilges
> In article <f5dda427.03022...@posting.google.com>,
> spino...@yahoo.com (Edward G. Nilges) wrote:
>
> >right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D) wrote in message
> news:<right-20020...@i165-153.nv.iinet.net.au>...
> >> E.G.Niles wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> >In fact, as PART of modernism, various reversions to realism, as well
> >> >as innovative forms of "new" realism, have appeared. Chuck Close, for
> >> >example, does large, hyper-realistic paintings that are directly
> >> >inspired by Abstract Expressionism, for they preserve the monumental
> >> >quality of Abstract Expressionism,
> >>
> >> What exactly does that mean? That they are big?
>
> >Among other things, yes.
>
> The abstract expressionists were hardly the first to paint big.
I did not say they were, but size, before Abstract Expressionism, was
associated with external power and was not generated by the artist's
spiritual life. To make big paintings, you either had to have a big
patron, like David's Napoleon, or you had to make altarpieces.
>
> > But note that the Philistine gazes
> >uncomprehendingly upon a labor process that integrates a number of
> >"skills", and, because he cannot map these skills to the industrial
> >discipline of the factory, thinks they do not exist.
>
> My dog has three legs.
What the hell are you babbling about?
>
> >What is literally schizophregenic and which creates men like Jeffery
> >Dahmer is the fact that on the one hand, "skill" is spoken of as rare
> >and valuable, yet any actual manifestation unblessed and unsanctified
> >by a recognized bureaucratic procedure becomes a form of vernacular
> >terrorism.
>
> Actually, my dog has four legs, as you might expect, but I felt it
> worthwhile to point out that she has three legs.... plus another one if
> you count the fourth.
>
> >I refer to the rage of alienated city workers to remove, in American
> >cities, any and all manifestations of popular culture not mentioned in
> >the news. For example, New York city crews regularly remove and throw
> >away flowers and signs placed at the Imagine memorial on Central Park
> >to John Lennon, despite the expressed desires of Yoko Ono.
>
> I had a cat once, it had two legs... at the front.
>
> >For example, during a wet winter in the 1990s, I found I had to wade
> >through several inches of dirty water to reach my running trail at
> >Chicago's Oak Street beach, and I constructed a simple series of steps
> >as a Zen bridge through this filthy water. This was removed by a city
> >crew that FAILED to fix the leakage causing the mess, and this crew
> >was offended to learn that I'd constructed this bridge without
> >authorization.
>
> Perhaps because it is the city who would be sued when someone used your
> "bridge" without success. But I can see how this relates to the
> deification of Picasso. Did I mention my dog?
>
"The city might be sued" becomes a convenient way of answering
objections. The problem is that lawsuits of that nature usually
aren't successful, and anyone using a bridge so clearly improvised is
clearly acting at his or her own risk.
> [snip]
> >> > while modernism *per se* does not
> >> >in any way prohibit Close from exercising "skill" in the creation of
> >> >realistic portraiture.
>
> >> And I can't say I've seen anyone here condemning Close's works - but then,
> >> he isn't Picasso is he?
>
> >People here don't even know, in all probability, about any form of
> >realism which incorporates Abstract Expressionism, for they believe
> >Norman Rockwell to be a "great artist."
>
> Wasn't he? Why not? Is Abstract Expressionism compulsory? I thought you
> were rallying against restrictions - now you're seeking to apply them.
> Have you met Keith O'Connor - you'd like him.
>
You live in a world of EITHER vacuous freedom OR rules received
externally. As such, the inner-directed personality, that decides on
his own to incorporate the history of modernist art, is completely
inconceivable to you.
> >> >> of the most childish art is in fact the product of the world's greatest
> >> >> artists.
>
> >> >We mustn't be childish, I see.
>
> >> We can be childish. In fact, it can be fun to slosh a little paint around
> >> without concern for colour, composition or accuracy - but let's not
> >> elevate this to the status of "great art" and fill our museums and
> >> galleries with it as if it actually does represent the pinnacle of colour,
> >> composition and accuracy.
>
> >People who attempt to do this normally end up, not with abstraction,
> >but Rorschasch semiotics that normally express frustration and rage.
> >The serenity of a Matisse is beyond normal people, for it's in the
> >relation of a new set of colors.
>
> My kids got a new set of colours for Christmas and you're right, they now
> produce bright, colourful, naive work that rivals Matisse. Last week my
> dog - the one one with three legs and one more - got into their paints and
> produced a Pollock. I suspect she's gifted.
>
The one thing childish works don't accomplish is the integration of a
tradition. To be an adult artist means this integration and
superseding from within, and not as the acceptance of a set of rules.
Because of alienation, I fear you fail to understand what it means to
be alienated.
Edward G. Nilges
> From where comes this myth of better modernist marketing?
> It may be so now, but a century ago there were no markets for modernist
> painting.
> Between say 1890 and 1910 the modern art did not sell ( except in St
> Petersburg)
> it was not promoted by critics.
>
> The Salon painters like Holy B had a monopoly over the art marketing tools.
> -lauri
>
For a day in the great museums of Paris will show that the French
establishment never really forgave Monet and Cezanne for creating a
market from the ground up.
The collections in the Louvre stop, to a great degree, at David and at
Ingres. For the later 19th century, they foreground Thomas Couture,
who if memory serves painted a huge and Politically Correct Salon
painting that represents the decadence of Rome.
This monster receives pride of place in the modern Louvre, and it is a
truly awful and dishonest work: for on one level it shows with dismay
a Roman orgy including one lady ripping her bodice in the old style
while on the other level it entices the viewer into thinking, well
hey, this looks like no end of fun.
Whereas the ACTUAL decadence of Rome was no picnic involving walled
and armed private villas with heads on pikes at the gate way *pour
encourager*, corpses by the side of the road, and women begging for
their children's lives from Visigoths, Ostrogoths, and various other
outlaws.
Couture's painting, in other words, is the typical Salon bait and
switch which is also seen in Bouguereau's Flagellation.
On the one hand, one is supposed to externally say, as regards the
Couture, tut tut, such decadence: moi better have one fewer aperitif
tonight and say my prayers. One is supposed to externally say, as
regards the Bouguereau, ay me, poor Christ, he died for my sins, I
better go to Confession.
On the other, that little red guy on your left shoulder perks up in
front of Couture or Bourguereau, and, in front of Couture, says, chic
alors, pipe le bimbos.
The "finish" of both hides the ambivalence and prevents its
reconciliation, with the result that the ethical world of the viewer
is reduced to a denial of ambivalence.
He compares his ambivalent and indeed Expressionist, "unfinished" and
Fauvist "inside" to Couture's and Bouguereau's *boulevardier* and
suave "outside" and is beguiled into thinking that creativity and art
itself are constituted in what looks like a resolution and is an
oversimplification: Rome declined because of toga parties and its
decline had nothing to do with imperial vanity and vaunting
overambition: Christ died for our sins, and this, and Confession, is
the sum total of a meaningful moral life.
The result is that one's son dies at Sedan, and one's grand-son dies
at Verdun, and one's great-grandson packs French Jews off for
transport.
History is monstrously reproduced, in other words, by a finish, a
gloss, over what in actuality is at best simple ambivalence and at
worst a boneyard.
Mani Deli
to illustrate Joyce's Ulysses. Nothing beats the consistent
incompetence of these doodles. They are utterly empty of much of
anything which is why, unlike Picasso, they reveal Matisse as lazy.
Well, one can now argue that at least he expressed himself. However,
most five year olds do this far better
Take a look at two of them:
http://appletonmuseum.org/exhibitiondb-record.cfm?Autokey=58
http://www.uwm.edu/Library/special/exhibits/clastext/clspg175.htm
Lauri Levanto
with Gericault and Turner as examples,
drawing and painting can be separate art forms
Even if we doubt Matisse's skills in drawings
does not imply that he could not paint.
- lauri
P.S. You evaluated Picasso as a third rate illustrator.
What is in the works of the first rate illustrators you admire
- like Disney and Vargas -
that makes them better?
Mani Deli wrote:
> Matisse the 20th century great who can't draw at all was commissioned ---
>
>
Mani Deli
>| ...
>
>right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D):
>| Well, I assume from the premise being put forward - that Picasso's early
>| works prove his skill credentials and therefore his later work must be
>| great art....
>
>I think the skill evidenced in Picasso's early works is
>presented to disprove the proposition that Picasso lacked
>skill, which seems to be one of the broken records some people
>are fond of playing in this newsgroup, an item of fundamentalist
>dogma.
The fundamentalist dogma of The Modern Academic demands that he never
compares artwork which shows how incompetent Picasso was.
> It is not enough to say that one doesn't like Picasso's
>work; it must also be evil, and Picasso, like Satan, cannot
>be thought of as having any good qualities, including even
>mere technical skill.
Please quote anyone who said this.
>Since Picasso did, in fact, evidence
>a lot of technical skill,
Lots of artists have technical skill far beyond Picasso. They aren't
considered masters.
> many are drawn into the mistake
>of trying to set the record straight, which of course isn't
>the point. The point is to root out and destroy Evil in
>favor of the One True Truth.
The point is that when you are contradicted you become somewhat
paranoid and imagine that those who don't care for Picasso compare him
to Satan.
Andrew D
Precisely.
[snip]
>> >For example, during a wet winter in the 1990s, I found I had to wade
>> >through several inches of dirty water to reach my running trail at
>> >Chicago's Oak Street beach, and I constructed a simple series of steps
>> >as a Zen bridge through this filthy water. This was removed by a city
>> >crew that FAILED to fix the leakage causing the mess, and this crew
>> >was offended to learn that I'd constructed this bridge without
>> >authorization.
>> Perhaps because it is the city who would be sued when someone used your
>> "bridge" without success. But I can see how this relates to the
>> deification of Picasso. Did I mention my dog?
>"The city might be sued" becomes a convenient way of answering
>objections. The problem is that lawsuits of that nature usually
>aren't successful, and anyone using a bridge so clearly improvised is
>clearly acting at his or her own risk.
In Australia (spurious litigation is just beginning to get a grip here)
one lady successfully sued a local council because her child got sunburnt
playing at the local playground. Others have attempted to sue councils
after they were dumped by waves at popular beaches or dived off rocks into
shallow water. Another sued a country/bush holiday village because her dog
was bitten by a snake! If enough people try, some will win. But none of
this changes the fact that local council by-laws preventing you from
putting rocks on public pathways is about as relevant to the art
establishment as the most recent count of my dog's legs.
Peter H.M. Brooks
--
We are all of us failures - at least, the best of us are. - J.M. Barrie
Edward G. Nilges
This argument for "relevance" simply means you haven't done your
homework and read the chain of signifiers.
Furthermore, I did not mean to imply that "lawsuits are out of
control": quite the opposite.
Instead, what's out of control is the public's image of lawsuits.
Because it is easy for reporters to get a quick story from a public
filing, lazy and ignorant reporters in America, Australia and
elsewhere meet deadlines by writing "man bites dog" stories about
newly filed lawsuits, MOST of which go nowhere, are denied, or
overturned upon appeal.
These filings of lawsuits have increased in recent years because
elites have disempowered local governing bodies, as in the case of
Margaret Thatcher's destruction of the Greater London Council.
Whenever these bodies gain strength as a result of grassroots
activism, they are represented in the media as "People's Republics"
because they naturally reflect, more, the intelligent views of mothers
and fathers, and not successful and unprincipled men.
And, they prevent lawsuits because they give the citizen an
alternative and they pass laws (such as a sign in a park in Australia,
which in fact is threatened by the destruction of the ozone layer over
Antarctica and the southern continents, warning people, who are
systematically misled by private media about the seriousness of
environmental destruction, about real hazards) which prevent torts.
But in the case of Chicago, it is easier for city workers, unbeholden
to and inattentive to citizen initiatives to merely CLAIM the logical
possibility of a lawsuit. Indeed, the vague and hovering threat is
used, as it was used in my case, to disempower citizen groups, such as
a group of concerned wintertime users of Chicago's beaches.
Australia, in the 1970s, elected a popular left minister...who was
forced from office by the Governor General probably on advice of the
CIA. It therefore tends towards a society in which the citizen has no
recourse but to file lawsuits when a corporate-dominated government
downplays the danger of sunburn.
Now, as an enthusiastic beach user, I concur that city authorities all
too often treat beach users as children and are overenthusiastic in
preventing knowledgeable triathletes from assuming personal
responsibilities for risk.
The answer is empowering, not ignorant administrators but the actual
beach-goers themselves to form a community which polices itself. I
could well imagine a beach where, if you are an adult user, you are
invited to join a citizen watch and clean up community that would look
for danger signs.
Active members of the watch would be rewarded with all night keggers.
But something in the administrative mind is revolted by the very idea,
and the administrative mind prefers the situation seen in Spielberg's
film Jaws, where the policeman in charge of the beach is literally
afraid of the water.
The result is that for most Chicago beachgoers, a visit to the lake
only increases their loneliness, alienation and sense of isolation.
Mani Deli
wrote:
>From where comes this myth of better modernist marketing?
>It may be so now, but a century ago there were no markets for modernist
>painting.
>Between say 1890 and 1910 the modern art did not sell ( except in St
>Petersburg)
>it was not promoted by critics.
>
>The Salon painters like Holy B had a monopoly over the art marketing tools.
>-lauri
Your facts are as wrong as usual. Impressionism had taken off by that
time and was popular from the 1880's on. There were thousands of
painters and B. didn't monopolize anything. In fact by 1910 his
reputation was slipping.
Mani Deli
wrote:
>Even if we doubt Matisse's skills in drawings
>does not imply that he could not paint.
His paintings are little more than jelly bean color schmiers over his
horrible drawings which I suspect he copied from photos.. If you can't
draw it is always apparent in your paintings. I regard painting
drawing with color. In spite of critical praise I regard Matisse's
color sense the worst.
>
>- lauri
>P.S. You evaluated Picasso as a third rate illustrator.
>What is in the works of the first rate illustrators you admire
>- like Disney and Vargas -
>that makes them better?
They (Disney is a collaboration of excellent artists) could draw well.
They had original ideas in the very modern context which is the
supposed confine of Modern Academic art.
Disney art is mostly pure abstraction.
Third rate illustrators don't do this very well. Their craftsmanship
and technical abilities are mediocre by comparison. Indeed like
Picasso and unlike Matisse they can draw but not particularly well.
Mani Deli
found that not one teacher has anything to offer except modern art
instruction(AKA trash). Get this my Color theory teacher gave me a D
in the class after I embarressed her in front of the class by showing
she didn't know jack. The students I was with if you could even call
them that seemed to be majoring in booze."
snip
-sincerely Blair Baskin
Mani Deli
Radiant Baby, the new musical about the artist Keith Haring might be
just as stupid as his paintings. Harring who had enough technical
talent to design novelty neckties and wrapping paper got Modern
Academic art promoters to elevate his stupidity to richy connoisseur
level. The main thing they presently have going for them is the fact
that the guy is dead and can't flood the market with more crap. A
musical certainly won't hurt in order to maintain prices.
I think a musical on Warhol is now in order. We can have a scene in
the night spots where he was snorting coke and one in his factory with
him telling his silk screen workers what to do and of course a big
richie party scene. And what about Picasso?
Mani Deli
The idea rests on the pseudo philosophical idea, that by eliminating
as much as possible from an artwork, the artist in effect has
preserved the essence of practically everything by producing
practically nothing .
Modern Academic Art of this century started by modestly eliminating
what was in the past considered essential to an artwork. Gradually the
minimalist painter produced works exhibiting a minimal of skill,
ideas, and intellect. His only talent if any lay in the verbiage he
produced in order to excuse the lack of content in his artwork.
The successful minimalist is a rare specimen. He is ultimately gauged
by how much currency he can get out of a rich buyer who is betting
that the value his purchase has not yet reached its maximum.
But the vast majority of minimalists are failures who complain that
they are aren't the beneficiaries of rich buyers or the darlings of
museum curators. They never seem to understand why they earn such
minimal amounts of money.
Nikolaus Maack
> Radiant Baby, the new musical about the artist Keith Haring might be
> just as stupid as his paintings.
I like Keith Harring's paintings. They're simple, complex, colourful,
obscene, political, satirical, playful, graffiti-like, and just plain
fun. How can you not love a man who paints Mickey Mouse with a boner?
How can you dislike a guy who makes large, colourful, metal sculpture of
semi-abstract human shapes?
Keith Harring kicks ass. You just don't like him, Mani, because he had
fun, was modern, and made T-shirts.
Here's a guy you should be embracing! He gave the people what they
wanted! No cryptic all blue canvas with a single red square. No
pretentious modern art sensibilities! Harring made engaging, beautiful,
accessable, amusing art.
G*rd*n
| > Radiant Baby, the new musical about the artist Keith Haring might be
| > just as stupid as his paintings.
| I like Keith Harring's paintings. They're simple, complex, colourful,
| obscene, political, satirical, playful, graffiti-like, and just plain
| fun. How can you not love a man who paints Mickey Mouse with a boner?
| How can you dislike a guy who makes large, colourful, metal sculpture of
| semi-abstract human shapes?
|
| Keith Harring kicks ass. You just don't like him, Mani, because he had
| fun, was modern, and made T-shirts.
|
| Here's a guy you should be embracing! He gave the people what they
| wanted! No cryptic all blue canvas with a single red square. No
| pretentious modern art sensibilities! Harring made engaging, beautiful,
| accessable, amusing art.
In order to promote himself, before he was well-known, Haring
used to go around making chalk drawings in his later famous
style on the black paper with which the MTA covered temporarily
out-of-use advertising boards. Without having any idea who
was doing these drawings, people spent hours trying to get
them off without damaging them, which was not easy, because
the black paper was firmly glued to the board under it. These
people _knew_ -- at least, they knew what they liked. Of
course the few which were removed intact are now quite
valuable, besides being fun to have and look at.
So, there goes the propaganda and class-war theory of the
fundamentalists. But I'm sure it won't bother them much.
Chris
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:b40nob$oil$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> So, there goes the propaganda and class-war theory of the
> fundamentalists. But I'm sure it won't bother them much.
>
Err, Gordon;
I think the only one who is still trapped in class war theories around here
is you (I mean, who else besides Nilges goes on forever about capitalists
and the bougeois and ruling classes...Well maybe Leo, I guess).
As for fundamentalists, hmmm, I do think the only one asking us to hold
hands and roll in the aisles of MOMA is (again) yourself....
So here's a little help to get you through those depressivist moments; next
time you think you've come up with the perfect label for all those folks you
think are ruining your world, just chant the mantra
"pahtkeddalblak,pahtkeddalblak" a few thousand times. I think it will really
help.
Perhaps I should have posted this before your "Bush=moron" post, perhaps it
would have saved you from making the same mistake there. Alas, I was busy
drawing....
Cheers;;
Chris
Leo Papandreou
> "G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:b40nob$oil$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> > So, there goes the propaganda and class-war theory of the
> > fundamentalists. But I'm sure it won't bother them much.
> >
>
> Err, Gordon;
>
> I think the only one who is still trapped in class war theories around here
> is you (I mean, who else besides Nilges goes on forever about capitalists
> and the bougeois and ruling classes...Well maybe Leo, I guess).
I beg your pardon? I don't know where that came from--probably the same place
tells you Bush is smarter than another sock puppet--but I'll have you know,
sir, that I have nothing but contempt for /all/ the ant farms, don't care if
their ants are pink or blue. And as for my vast erudition--how much can you
bench? Ha! You are a kittenish weakling. I do not think you can lift my copy
of _Phenomenology of Spirit._
> As for fundamentalists,
They rule you.
--
Leo Papandreou, effete intellectual.