Dali
mdeli
From my book "Modern Art a skeptic's view"
Today the best counter example to MAA trends Picassoid and
Greenbergian both as a critic and an artist is the supposedly
villainously insincere Salvador Dali. No recognized modern artist has
a lower sincerity rating.
Dali spoke out against MAA trends in the mid 1930s well before
Greenberg was heard from. Dali having caught on to the moralizing
ploys of the MAA critics studied them carefully and capitalized on
what he learned. The Dalian formula was to continually do and say
precisely the opposite of what is morally expected of a great Modern
artist.
By this simple counter-ploy, Dali has attracted endless coveted
publicity and at the same time remained at the butt end of
controversy. Much like Bouguereau, Dali is accused of using his array
of acknowledged artistic skills to commit aesthetic evil. According to
MAA critics, Dali doesn't only draw and paint realism very well; he
does it too well. This is considered to be vastly overdoing things and
raises the dreaded kitsch specter. For this offense, Dali is often
labeled "academic" and further accused of flaunting his skills to no
other purpose than to create an avalanche of empty technique in order
to make lots of money. Very insincere!
I suppose Dali would have been far more bearable for the critics had
he just continued to paint "too well" and kept quiet. But Dali bucked
every MAA trend with a maximum amount of noise.
Almost from the beginning of his career he cleverly nurtured
controversy by deliberately offending the largest possible number of
people. Nothing new here of course, but Dali did it through the use of
classical knowledge and skill rather then by the usual method of
creating ever higher degrees of painterly incompetence.
Dali appalled established critics as early as 1929 by defending the
Art Nouveau. But he really stirred the mud when he got on the nerves
of his fellow surrealists during the 1930's. Many fellow Surrealists
were at that time a politicized lot, most were professed communists.
He dared to make fun of communism and, for that matter, all political
extremes. For instance, he offended the communists by skillfully
painting loaves of bread, the staff of life of the workers, in what
could only be called profane circumstances. At that time bread was
considered a sacred object of political sentiment, [ILLUSTRATION:
bread in condom] He even painted Lenin in what appeared to be profane
circumstances.
In the late 1930s, he produced a series of paintings pertaining to
Hitler, each containing either his portrait or a reference to him in
the title. The communists, furious, accused Dali of loving Hitler and
fascism and evoking anti-Communist opinion in the subject matter of
his work. Fascists were equally offended by Dali's profanation of
their idol Adolf Hitler. The ecstatic Dali, however, noisily
proclaimed Hitler to be one of history's unique and greatest
paranoids, who, in his opinion, even possessed no less than three
balls. This combination, Dali claimed to the now outraged Surrealists,
easily qualified him as an ideal subject for any Surrealist
practitioner. For this political and other buffoonery, he was
eventually formally expelled from the Surrealist movement. Needless to
say, Dali was delighted.
The Germans remained equally unappreciative and during the occupation
of France they deliberately destroyed some of Dali's paintings.
Dali could do far more than speak his mind. He had the skill to
illustrate his iconoclastic opinions in the subject matter of his
paintings. In the distant future when the meanings of his paintings
become unimportant or forgotten, Dali's work will be judged as it
should be today: on the basis of his formidable skill, craftsmanship
and ideas.
In times when it was considered etiquette and good manners for artists
to be soft spoken about their brethren, Dali made many offensive
statements against the most sacred modern artists. Unlike his brethren
he was also not prone to return a great favor or a compliment. For
instance, Picasso, who grew to despise Dali, did much to help the
young Dali launch his career and even lent him money. When Dali turned
on Picasso, he provoked the master with a never ending stream of
sarcastic, inverted compliments:
"Who are the greatest living painters," someone would ask of Dali?
The reply would always be just about the same: "I and Picasso."
"And wherein lies the difference between the two of you?" they would
ask. Dali would always reply, "I, the divine Dali, am the genius of
beauty, whereas the divine Picasso is the genius of ugliness."
Dali doubly irritated Picasso by also deliberately painting the
outrageous. Dali filched this approach to subject matter directly
from Picasso which oddly gives these artists a semblance of
similarity.
On the occasion of a highly important Picasso exhibition in which the
master exhibited many of his latest and largest new paintings, Dali
reinforced his kinship for Picasso by sending him a telegram from NY
It started with the words: "Pablo thanks! Your last ignominious
paintings have killed modern art." It goes on to say: "But for you
with the taste and moderation that are the very virtues of French
prudence, we should have had painting that was more and more ugly for
at least one hundred years. . . . You, with all the violence of your
Iberian anarchism, have achieved the limits and the final consequences
of the abominable in a mere few weeks." Dali concludes "Now all that
remains for us is to turn our eyes once more to Raphael. God preserve
you!"
Dali went so far as to paint many wholly abstract works which parodied
the styles of the most popular MAA-isms as they occurred, using his
skill to outdo the artists he aped. He has consistently done this
throughout his career. By dabbling in Cubism in the 20s and abstract
expressionism in the 50s, he is one of the few artists who has
successfully painted in both the Picassoid and Greenbergian styles and
still maintained his popularity.
Dali, unlike other famous artists, lets everybody know that his art is
only a means to attain what he is really interested in: money. This
was perhaps Dali's worst offense against the Greenbergian moral code.
Dali said of money that he aims "to become to the greatest possible
extent a bit of a multimillionaire." He also said that "the simplest
way of refusing any concession to gold is to have some." And of the
MAA critic's money moralizing, he said, "The pure critics who have
consistently despised money and been afraid to dirty their hands by
touching it may rest assured: the abstract values that they defend in
modern paintings will inevitably be converted into absolutely clean,
wholly inoffensive and immaterial money. It will be purely abstract
money."
Dali's anti-MAA campaign has managed to divide the critics into two
schools. One school makes believe he doesn't exist by never mentioning
him. This is best exemplified by innumerable books on art history
especially when the subject is the history of Surrealism, which make
little or no reference to Dali. The other school heaps scorn on Dali
at every opportunity. An Art News article some years ago, included
Dali in the ranks among the worst painters of the twentieth century.
Mani DeLi
you can visit my site at http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
Ariane
On Mon, 17 May 1999, mdeli wrote:
> From my book "Modern Art a skeptic's view"
>
> Today the best counter example to MAA trends Picassoid and
> Greenbergian both as a critic and an artist is the supposedly
> villainously insincere Salvador Dali. No recognized modern artist has
> a lower sincerity rating.
=== It's not necessarily a matter of sincerity. Its a matter of
confusion. Technique is not art, and although people can appreciate
technique, art has more depth and most people sense this. Dali simply
confused technique with art, not in the extreme, but overall this is my
impression (and evidently, the impression of others too).
.....Its a matter of shallowness, not sincerity, in my opinion.
> > Dali spoke out against
> MAA trends in the mid 1930s well
> before > Greenberg was heard from. Dali having caught on to the
> moralizing
> ploys of the MAA critics studied them carefully and capitalized on
> what he learned. The Dalian formula was to continually do and say
> precisely the opposite of what is morally expected of a great Modern
> artist.
=== Maybe its the `formula' then which compromises the art. Not that Dali
is horrible or anything. Its just that aside from the technique, its a
bit simplistic. But this is my objection to surrealism in general, and I
felt the same way about Magritte when I saw him last year in Barcelona.
> > By this
> simple counter-ploy, Dali has attracted endless
coveted > publicity and at the same time remained at the butt end of
> controversy.
=== Simple. Ploy. Things are becoming much clearer now, thanks mani...
> Much like Bouguereau, Dali is accused of using his array
> of acknowledged artistic skills to commit aesthetic evil. According to
> MAA critics, Dali doesn't only draw and paint realism very well; he
> does it too well. This is considered to be vastly overdoing things and
> raises the dreaded kitsch specter. For this offense, Dali is often
> labeled "academic" and further accused of flaunting his skills to no
> other purpose than to create an avalanche of empty technique in order
> to make lots of money. Very insincere!
=== No, just somewhat boring. But on the other hand, I like his
`Temptation of St. Anthony' because it made me reflect on man's hangup
with women's bodies, religion, self-deprivation, etc. All in all mani,
Dali's great, he's just not my personal fave.....
> I suppose Dali would have been far more bearable for the critics had
> he just continued to paint "too well" and kept quiet. But Dali bucked
> every MAA trend with a maximum amount of noise.
>
> Almost from the beginning of his career he cleverly nurtured
> controversy by deliberately offending the largest possible number of
> people. Nothing new here of course, but Dali did it through the use of
> classical knowledge and skill rather then by the usual method of
> creating ever higher degrees of painterly incompetence.
=== This could only `offend' due to the pre-existence of the modernists.
His `ploy' was therefore ENTIRELY dependent on the modern art movement and
therefore he is not distinct from, but rather immersed in the "MAA" (or
whatever).
=== Evidently, he didn't outsmart the Nazis as did Picasso, who also
managed to save Matisse's work in addition to his own, and, well,
this further supports my personal theory on Dali, technique, and
profundity.....
> Dali could do far more than speak his mind.
=== Hope so. Otherwise he wouldn't have much to say eh mani?
> He had the skill to
> illustrate his iconoclastic opinions in the subject matter of his
> paintings. In the distant future when the meanings of his paintings
> become unimportant or forgotten, Dali's work will be judged as it
> should be today: on the basis of his formidable skill, craftsmanship
> and ideas.
=== Well, craftsmanship anyway....I've seen those ideas in junior high
school art classes.
=== Imagine if any one of our (or Dali's) paintings had that much bearing
on art history......
> Dali went so far as to paint many wholly abstract works which parodied
> the styles of the most popular MAA-isms as they occurred, using his
> skill to outdo the artists he aped. He has consistently done this
> throughout his career.
=== Copied the masters, as would a student? Further proof of limited
ideas once the surrealistic formula got boring.....
> By dabbling in Cubism in the 20s and abstract
> expressionism in the 50s, he is one of the few artists who has
> successfully painted in both the Picassoid and Greenbergian styles and
> still maintained his popularity.
>
> Dali, unlike other famous artists, lets everybody know that his art is
> only a means to attain what he is really interested in: money. This
> was perhaps Dali's worst offense against the Greenbergian moral code.
> Dali said of money that he aims "to become to the greatest possible
> extent a bit of a multimillionaire." He also said that "the simplest
> way of refusing any concession to gold is to have some." And of the
> MAA critic's money moralizing, he said, "The pure critics who have
> consistently despised money and been afraid to dirty their hands by
> touching it may rest assured: the abstract values that they defend in
> modern paintings will inevitably be converted into absolutely clean,
> wholly inoffensive and immaterial money. It will be purely abstract
> money."
=== Great. I don't know if Dali would have agreed to your portrayal of
him here, but it's all fitting my theory of Dali.....
> Dali's anti-MAA campaign has managed to divide the critics into two
> schools. One school makes believe he doesn't exist by never mentioning
> him. This is best exemplified by innumerable books on art history
> especially when the subject is the history of Surrealism, which make
> little or no reference to Dali. The other school heaps scorn on Dali
> at every opportunity. An Art News article some years ago, included
> Dali in the ranks among the worst painters of the twentieth century.
>
> Mani DeLi
> you can visit my site at
=== Well, so much for Dali then. Due to his shallowness, he didn't make
the final cut for inclusion amongst the greats. Oh well, maybe next
century will think differently.......
(I think you portrayed Dali to be a lot more shallow than he, in fact was
though mani.......)
a bientot,
A.
bobig
well he made good works in the 20's
dali is an artist who have strange ideas ( sympathy for fascism) during the
30's .andre breton has fired him for this. later dali like Franco the
spanish dictator.
i can't appreciate this artist...
what is the art of dali ? only plagiarism...and skill
i more appreciate francis picabia a real subsersive artist
> ...no skill no art
what a intolerant sentence...i prefer this one from etienne choubard
(sorry in french)
"l'art c'est n'importe quoi et c'est tant mieux"
BOBIG
"free art = free artist"
Etienne CHOUBARD 1984
http://perso.infonie.fr/bobig/
oeuvres en ligne
bobig's webzone 1 "faîtes un collage de bobig sur votre moniteur"
http://perso.infonie.fr/bobig/webzone1.htm
bobig's webzone 2 'tuez l'art / kill art"
http://perso.infonie.fr/bobig/webzone2.htm
Marilyn
>
> On Tue, 18 May 1999, Marilyn wrote:
>
> > He is a good mascot for this group though.
> > Emphasis on skill & Ego...
>
> There is nothing wrong with learning how to use the media to advance your
> career.
>
> > His stupid moustache was the worst thing
> > about him...
>
> How can you not like the mustache? Have you ever seen the book "Dali's
> Mustache"? It's an interview with the mustache, complete with a number of
> humorous photos.
>
> > and he must have been hyperthyroid
> > to have such bulging eyes.
>
> Who knows. Does that make him a poor artist?
Oh Yes, left untreated, or improperly treated it can
lead to dementia.
>
> > He was more famous
> > for being a celebrity than for executing Art.
>
> Yes, but what was he celebrated for?
Self-promotion!
>
> Hutto
>
> ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
> Visit Brother Alphabet's Evergrowing List of Bad Ads
> w w w . b a d - a d s - l i s t . c o m
> ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
John Haber
"skill." I know one means it as something of less importance than the
reactionary contingent here allow. But I'm not buying.
The cold light and unnnaturally hard textures seem to me a distressing
comedown from the great ages of realism. Indeed, we admire them
because they weren't at first MEANT to communicate reality. I mean,
doesn't anyone remember the word "surrealism"?
I think we cut him a big break because he did one or two paintings
with juxtapositions that continue to feel haunting. He's entered
history a little a political cartoonist with an incredibly memorable
image, like Nash's American political parties as donkeys and elephant
-- not as a great realist painter.
That has a lot to do with why he sells so well, too. People aren't
just buying skill. They're buying sentiment, or skill in the service
of the largely cheap, disgraceful poetry of his later themes.
Surrealism was important, and as a minor surrealist he deserves his
place in the books. But let's leave it at that. Titian's flesh,
Vermeer's surfaces, and Monet's light he ain't. More like Mani's
fantasies.
John
Alison A Raimes
<jh...@columbia.edu> writes
>Surrealism was important, and as a minor surrealist he deserves his
>place in the books. But let's leave it at that. Titian's flesh,
>Vermeer's surfaces, and Monet's light he ain't. More like Mani's
>fantasies.
>
>John
Let's leave Mani's fantasies at that too eh, John ... we know they are
both obsessed with the same thing
Alison
abeerortwo
Ariane
On Tue, 18 May 1999, Brother Alphabet wrote:
>
> On Tue, 18 May 1999, Marilyn wrote:
>
> > He is a good mascot for this group though.
> > Emphasis on skill & Ego...
>
> There is nothing wrong with learning how to use the media to advance your
> career.
=== Sure, Dali and the Backstreet Boys have a lot in common in this
respect.
> > His stupid moustache was the worst thing
> > about him...
>
> How can you not like the mustache? Have you ever seen the book "Dali's
> Mustache"? It's an interview with the mustache, complete with a number of
> humorous photos.
=== What did the moustache say?
> > and he must have been hyperthyroid
> > to have such bulging eyes.
>
> Who knows. Does that make him a poor artist?
=== Evidently.....
> > He was more famous
> > for being a celebrity than for executing Art.
>
> Yes, but what was he celebrated for?
>
> Hutto
=== His work, which was quite impressive for a guy with no ideas. Just
proves my point on the last thread. Dali was a great painter despite his
relative shallowness......
A.
Ariane
On Tue, 18 May 1999, Brother Alphabet lied:
> Picasso also made supportive statements of the Franco government until he
> was convinced it was bad to do so by some of his colleagues. The two
> artists made their comments out of loyalty to Spain moreso than to support
> political agendas.
=== Wrong. Either you're lying or you're just sucking wind. Which is it?
Picasso never supported Franco because of his experiences in Barcelona
before he left for Paris. Show me the `supportive' statements.....
A.
Marilyn
>
> well he made good works in the 20's
> dali is an artist who have strange ideas ( sympathy for fascism) during the
> 30's .andre breton has fired him for this. later dali like Franco the
> spanish dictator.
> i can't appreciate this artist...
> what is the art of dali ? only plagiarism...and skill
> i more appreciate francis picabia a real subsersive artist
>
> > ...no skill no art
>
> what a intolerant sentence...i prefer this one from etienne choubard
> (sorry in french)
>
> "l'art c'est n'importe quoi et c'est tant mieux"
>
> BOBIG
He is a good mascot for this group though.
etc. etc.
His stupid moustache was the worst thing
to have such bulging eyes. He was more famous
for being a celebrity than for executing Art.
RIP Dali.
M.
Brother Alphabet
On Tue, 18 May 1999, Marilyn wrote:
> dali is an artist who have strange ideas ( sympathy for fascism)
Dali was mostly apolitical. He was also a supporter of communism. Go
figure.
> during the 30's .andre breton has fired him for this.
This is not true. Breton never "fired" anyone. Breton also never "hired"
anyone. The surrealists weren't paid employees of Breton Inc. Breton was
only one of a number of the original organizers.
Dali is reported to have been thrown out of the surrealists, but mainly he
left intentionally to AVOID being overtly involved with politics. Breton
and others began drifting away from concern over image and toward concern
for politics.
> later dali like Franco the
> spanish dictator.
Picasso also made supportive statements of the Franco government until he
was convinced it was bad to do so by some of his colleagues. The two
artists made their comments out of loyalty to Spain moreso than to support
political agendas.
> i can't appreciate this artist...
> what is the art of dali ? only plagiarism...
What did Dali plagiarize?
> and skill
> i more appreciate francis picabia a real subsersive artist
Subsersive?
Brother Alphabet
On Tue, 18 May 1999, Marilyn wrote:
> He is a good mascot for this group though.
> Emphasis on skill & Ego...
There is nothing wrong with learning how to use the media to advance your
career.
> His stupid moustache was the worst thing
> about him...
How can you not like the mustache? Have you ever seen the book "Dali's
Mustache"? It's an interview with the mustache, complete with a number of
humorous photos.
> and he must have been hyperthyroid
> to have such bulging eyes.
Who knows. Does that make him a poor artist?
> He was more famous
> for being a celebrity than for executing Art.
Yes, but what was he celebrated for?
Hutto
Dream Fish
Who are the sop people?
> here keep throwing Salvador Dali,
> "skill."
Although Dali, was an excellent draughtsman the point of entering
Dali is that the subject matter is not boring. A common critique
of traditional realism and most abstraction. Which undermines an
Idea I would have believed if Dali hadn't existed. That there is
a mutual exclusion between technique and the rebellios fanatical
art (exemplified in the 1920's like Miro, Klee, Dali)...
> The cold light and unnnaturally hard textures seem to me a distressing
You wrote this already knowing that Dali meant for some of his
paintings to be distressing...
Cold light(juxtaposed with warm earth) and hard clear images are
a characteristic of some eras of Dali's work.
> I think we cut him a big break because he did one or two paintings
> with juxtapositions that continue to feel haunting.
What paintings are +you+ talking about... Dali executed a painting
entirely in drips while he was a student in Madrid, Abstract
Expressionism, did not begin till after Dali moved to NYC.
> That has a lot to do with why he sells so well, too. People aren't
> just buying skill. They're buying sentiment, or skill in the service
> of the largely cheap, disgraceful poetry of his later themes.
They are buying art that is considerably more interesting than a
Mondrian, Rothko or a Rockwell at about the same price.
Cheap disgraceful poetry, while innacurate, does portray a sense of
interest. Cheap disgraceful poetry is what I think some artists
are attempting to create ie. Koons, Warhol. Dali like Warhol was
obsessed by fame, and at the same time scandal hence-disgraceful
can adequately describe some of his works... Poetry... Piet niet.
Your critique of Dali cannot close the open doors the art-world
has created.
Face it the bourgoise -Picasso, Pollack, Van Gogh, the tacky -Koons,
Warhol, Flack, Estes, the Bizaar- Klee, Brown, Paschke, are all
defended in the acedemia as such.
Like Rothko' there is a secret club of people who "get it" when they
look at Dali. We see paranoia, spiritualism(aka Rko) as well as a
Spaniard who' hypostatinized the Bourgoise. But as they say in
Canada, C'est la vie!, you cannot critique Dali without invoking
premises that also eliminate several Acedemia artists.
> Surrealism was important, and as a minor surrealist he deserves his
> place in the books.
He was expelled from the surrealists. Dali has no place in the books
since Dali, like Flack and Duchamp wrote enough about his own work
so that one can determine what the artist intended without refering
to these books. Also one can appreciate his work without knowing
what Dali intended. However it would be relevant to note what Dali
intended to communicate by his work... Many of his early images
are verbatum Freud.
> But let's leave it at that.
We will and have ... Can you paint anything?
> Titian's flesh,
> Vermeer's surfaces,
Dali already said that he believed he was inferior to Vermeer. But
you see here is the clincher. You have to compare him to the greats
to find a superior. We can't say his realism is no better than
a daycare recipients, can we? We can even argue that his color is
arguably better than the vast majority of Modern artists...
And post-hoc I think if I existed 200 years in the future I would
look back and consider Dali overall superior to Titian.
> and Monet's light he ain't. More like Mani's
> fantasies.
What about Manet?
If you are angry at Mani you could directly tell him to Fuck off...
> John
Blacklisting us as we speak...
???????????????????????????
? this destroys everything?
???????????????????????????
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Erik A. Mattila
here is that Dali has fallen out of fashion. Do you think that art
appreciation is a fashion system, as I do? It may be that 'flamboyance'
is what has fallen from grace.
Personally, I became disenchanted with Dali when he became a Christian.
But I was pretty young, then. Another time, when he was my hero, I dined
with a fellow in San Francisco who had met him at a cocktail party, and
described Dali as 'a pasty little man with an insincere smile." I was
devastated.
But being a fan, albeit a teenager, I read all his books and studied his
paintings. I think there's some significance there. "Softstuff and
Boiled Beans, Premenitions of the Civil War." I mean the painting could
be crappy, but the title???
Dali wrote once about a planned reunion between his college chums, which
included Bunuel and Garcia Lorca. They said they would meet in 20 years
at their favorite street cornder in Madrid. By the time the meeting was
to take place, only Bunuel and Dali were still living. This was as close
as he could come to making a political statement, I think.
On the other hand, Dali claimed to be representative of the next stage of
human evolution due to the shape of his molars, which he surmised was a
step-up from the standard homo-sapiens-sapiens Y-5 molar, and he said his
dentist agreed. So what can you say?
I think he was a great painter. His contribution to culture was
enormous. I can hardly agree that he was a 'minor' figure in
surrealism. I mean, how do you measure that? Most people only know
surrealism via Dali. Also, he stole Paul Eluard's girlfriend. Give him
credit for that.
I had the pleasure once of viewing one of his paintings made on a copper
plate. You couldn't see any evidence of paint or layers, it was an
exactly flat, contiguous surface. That's no mean achievement. His
'secret' was that he always captured a wasp and dissolved its exoskeleton
in his painting medium. We hear all this talk on this NG about the
artist's personal thang, and I think Dali was the embodiment of this
idea. His flamboyance was another matter -- which I think really
irratates pleople these days.
Erik Mattila
John Haber wrote:
> I have trouble with the sop people here keep throwing Salvador Dali,
> "skill." I know one means it as something of less importance than the
> reactionary contingent here allow. But I'm not buying.
>
> The cold light and unnnaturally hard textures seem to me a distressing
> comedown from the great ages of realism. Indeed, we admire them
> because they weren't at first MEANT to communicate reality. I mean,
> doesn't anyone remember the word "surrealism"?
>
> I think we cut him a big break because he did one or two paintings
> with juxtapositions that continue to feel haunting. He's entered
> history a little a political cartoonist with an incredibly memorable
> image, like Nash's American political parties as donkeys and elephant
> -- not as a great realist painter.
>
> That has a lot to do with why he sells so well, too. People aren't
> just buying skill. They're buying sentiment, or skill in the service
> of the largely cheap, disgraceful poetry of his later themes.
>
> Surrealism was important, and as a minor surrealist he deserves his
> place in the books. But let's leave it at that. Titian's flesh,
> Vermeer's surfaces, and Monet's light he ain't. More like Mani's
> fantasies.
>
> John
Fearless Follower
jh...@columbia.edu wrote:
> I have trouble with the sop people here keep throwing Salvador Dali,
> "skill."
What are sop people?
> The cold light and unnnaturally hard textures seem to me a distressing
> comedown from the great ages of realism.
And what modern artists do you think do acceptional realism?
> I think we cut him a big break because he did one or two paintings
> with juxtapositions that continue to feel haunting.
Subjective; Dali was in fact nearly as famous as Picasso and
moreso than Pollack, his prints presently outsell every other
artist alive or dead.
I think Dali is a necessary component to comprehending the
evolution and devolution of realism in modern art.
> He's entered
> history a little a political cartoonist with an incredibly memorable
> image, like Nash's American political parties as donkeys and elephant
Right??? We know dali because of his fame and influence is a
Roadblock to much pseudo-intellectual thought on art. Thank
goodness we can dismiss it all as only a cartoon.
> -- not as a great realist painter.
Actually Dali did end up as a very good realist painter. He
made several surrealistic images that were not high realism in
his early days... The soft clocks for one - But did make some
good realistic imagery PA:the animated still life for one,
> That has a lot to do with why he sells so well, too. People aren't
> just buying skill. They're buying sentiment, or skill in the service
> of the largely cheap, disgraceful poetry of his later themes.
The Cliche... For Dali has been saying there is something wrong
with his later works(in order to remove the roadblock). I however
dissagree strongly here. Dali's late works like the Hallucigenic
Bull Fighter are amoungsts his best since he is largely free of the
constraints he put on himself as a surrealist and a reactionary.
> Surrealism was important, and as a minor surrealist he deserves his
> place in the books. But let's leave it at that.
The real problem for art history is that Dali is their own
theoretical error their own SNAFU. For the vast majority of
Modern Art to work we must play a game of Rock, Paper, Scissors,
Technical beats Sloppy, Strange Beats Technique, Sloppy beats
Strange,... Dali became a Paper Rock, if you will, by being both
a Technical Artist and a Strange artist. No matter how you play
the game of Modern Acedemic Art, Dali wins, which means Dali is
the greatest MAA artist who ever lived... without having any
ability as a slob. If Dali remains a modern artist, Modern art
has no future unless there are either artists who are Excell
beyond Dali in one area and is compitent in another. Ie. a
better technician or who is equally weird could beat Dali. at
this game. What the Intelligencia of course did to Dali saved
Modernism for themselves. However in the future this won't really
happen since in the future the secret rules of modernism will no
longer apply as the secret rules of the renaissance no longer do.
Dali will of course be looked back at as he was. A technically
crafty artist and a weird one too.
Ultimately I do see deeper meanings in several of his works...
But the history of art is mainly superficial...
> Titian's flesh,
> Vermeer's surfaces, and Monet's light he ain't. More like Mani's
> fantasies.
> John
++ This too shall pass ++
Fearless Follower
Dream Fish <god...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> In article <3741d50c...@news.cc.columbia.edu>,
> jh...@columbia.edu wrote:
> > I have trouble with the sop people
> Who are the sop people?
SOP people Unite and sing...
> > here keep throwing Salvador Dali,
> > "skill."
You could in fact unite two threads and invoke Flack who is
both a women painter and a brilliant realist. If not the actual
inventor of photomechanical high realism dubbed photorealism.
Contemporary high realists include, Charles Bell, Audrey Flack,
Estes(richard I think) for starters. We can add for Modern,
Wyeth, and Magritte.
Whatever skill may mean I don't think necessitates absolute high
realism. But I do think that one (an artist) needs to attempt
high realism just to note how difficult it actually would be to
get exactly what you want on the canvas, where you want it without
props.
TechnoCrate
wrote:
>In article <3741d50c...@news.cc.columbia.edu>,
>> Titian's flesh,
>> Vermeer's surfaces,
>
>Dali already said that he believed he was inferior to Vermeer. But
>you see here is the clincher. You have to compare him to the greats
>to find a superior. We can't say his realism is no better than
>a daycare recipients, can we? We can even argue that his color is
>arguably better than the vast majority of Modern artists...
>
Modern artists often use lousy paint. Dali used Blockx paint and
varnished stuff with Blockx amber varnish (he used the varnish in
layers, adding more and more towards the surface until he finished
with pure varnish). He called his use of Blockx paint and varnish a
"sublime experience".
Ofcourse, using quality paint doesn't yield automatically great color
use but it is a good start. It's amazing to see that in this NG
there's hardly (or none) discussion about materials like paint.
May Flowers
>We hear all this talk on this NG about the
>artist's personal thang, and I think Dali was the embodiment of this
>idea. His flamboyance was another matter -- which I think really
>irratates pleople these days.
I have long wished that all men would take
Dali's lead and wear robes like he wore.
Maybe they would learn to be as sensual as
Dali seems to have been. Does one have
to be a transexual to be sensual?
Bob C
>
> I have trouble with the sop people here keep throwing Salvador Dali,
> "skill." I know one means it as something of less importance than the
> reactionary contingent here allow. But I'm not buying.
>
> because they weren't at first MEANT to communicate reality. I mean,
> doesn't anyone remember the word "surrealism"?
>
I agree. I find it strange that Mani continually uses the loaf of bread
as an example of Dali's realistic painting abilities. I see that same
loaf and it looks flat and unnatural, less realistic than any good
photograph. Dali was a master of a particular technique, one which
required an extremely high level of competence in his abilities to
physical manipulate his materials, but his technique became a slave to
his images and was not used to give value to the paintings as objects in
and of themselves.
The proof of this, to me, is the big let down I've had when actually
seeing his original paintings. Like most adolescents and young adults, I
was at one time enthralled with his images as seen in reproductions.
When finally seeing the originals, however, they might as well have been
reproductions. There simply was no life in the surface of the paintings,
no reason to want to see the original rather than a good quality
reproduction. Contrast this to a painter like Bouguereau - reproductions
of his work look to me like nothing but boring treacle, but the
originals are objects of great beauty. From the technical skill point of
view, this is the difference between an amazing craftsman who was a
master of technique (Bouguereau) and one who only had the technique
(Dali).
Eventually I lost interest in Dali's images. I don't think they were
truly surrealistic, just a commercially viable and more gratuitously
entertaining substitute. Since his technique exists only to serve the
image and there is no particularly high level of craftsmanship (as
defined above), there is nothing left once you lose interest in the
images. At this point, his cultural presence and influences become much
more interesting than his artistic ones.
- Bob C.
Marilyn
>
> I have trouble with the sop people here keep throwing Salvador Dali,
> "skill." I know one means it as something of less importance than the
> reactionary contingent here allow. But I'm not buying.
>
> The cold light and unnnaturally hard textures seem to me a distressing
> comedown from the great ages of realism. Indeed, we admire them
> because they weren't at first MEANT to communicate reality. I mean,
> doesn't anyone remember the word "surrealism"?
>
> history a little a political cartoonist with an incredibly memorable
> image, like Nash's American political parties as donkeys and elephant
>
> just buying skill. They're buying sentiment, or skill in the service
> of the largely cheap, disgraceful poetry of his later themes.
>
> Vermeer's surfaces, and Monet's light he ain't. More like Mani's
> fantasies.
>
> John
Thanks John.
Who even bothers to discuss Dali, (except here)?
He left the room a long time ago.
M.
Marilyn
John Haber
>here is that Dali has fallen out of fashion. Do you think that art
>appreciation is a fashion system, as I do?
No. I think it's something you have to work at, as a way of seeing
beyond your expectations.
John
John Haber
with Salvador Dali.
Dali's iciness, of course, once MEANT something. I meant it when I
said that. It wasn't a put down. Why shouldn't it have meant
something? Masaccio's brilliant art meant something to do with
reality, and the Renaissance took it as a model of realism, even
though it doesn't look like the realism they learned, much less the
fine-drawn realism of later conventions.
Surrealism had everything to do with reality, but inherent to it is an
attack on the surfaces of experience, a diving into the unconscious.
So why use it to defend visible surfaces? Or if the Surrealist circle
and he fought, that means disagreement. One should be driven to ask
about the VARIED ends that implies for art.
These guys can't get the idea that skill means ability with tools
toward an end. One has to agree on what one's ends are before one
knows if its skillful.
In art one can't simply appeal to ends, to an "idea." I concede that
joyously. In art the means change the end in surprising ways -- as I
argued with Ariane, something that's true about writing and
philosophy, too. Still, that makes it only all the sillier to speak
of skill as something obvious. To do so is to take ends as natural,
given, and yet unexplained.
Once one does that, one stops both thinking and looking. One values
plain old bad art, the kind that (as has been pointed out) looks
better in reproduction -- or worse.
Can it be an accident that the conservative contingent of the news
group is also suspicious of difficult writing, dismissing it as
jargon? If the world seems so natural, who needs new thoughts -- and
so new words -- to describe it?
John
Hutto
On Wed, 19 May 1999, John Haber wrote:
> Can it be an accident that the conservative contingent of the news
> group is also suspicious of difficult writing, dismissing it as
> jargon? If the world seems so natural, who needs new thoughts -- and
> so new words -- to describe it?
Here is an apple. It is red speckled with pale yellow and dark green. It
is lit with bright lights.
Here is the fruit of the tree of knowledge, cast down from its high perch
to cause the patriarchal Adam, the matriarchal Eve in us all to fall and
wither, to suffer pain and hardship, to die. See how it is smudged with
crimson, the blood of the ages, of Israel and of Germany - Telltale signs
of struggle, to be, to thrive. Witness here the rays of truth burning like
the sun. Know that darkness hides just beyond its grasp, on the other
side, cast in sinister shadow.
Here is an apple. It is red speckled with pale yellow and dark green. It
is lit with bright lights.
John Haber
Skill is a bad metaphor for art, because art is too special to be
interpreted as a craft alone. However, it's at least a metaphor one
ought to take seriously if one uses it.
I'm a skilled editor, but I'm not the same skilled editor I was back
when I was tinkering around with the plastic sheets that the printer
would photograph, making final changes with an exacto knife. (Now
typesetters kick out negative film directly.) Few books were in color
then, none with a computer-based vocabulary of proof type and quality
mostly still embarrassingly unfamliar to me. But science doesn't
march on exactly: an editor today would have something to learn if he
dumped back to the pre-computer age, when "craft" was a major concept!
Similarly, what makes one think one is so skilled if one doesn't have
a clue as to why one would paint differently? If one doesn't know the
difference between Monet's light and Morrisot's, Pollock's touch and
Matti's, is one a skilled artist?
And the answer is yes. Our skill is what we need for the very special
art we have to invoke. So the doubters of Pollock may be VERY
skilled, for all I know without having seen their work. That's all
the more reason for them to shut up about what they don't understand.
I've a quote at the start of one of my essays defending academic
jargon:
"No analysis of a building is possible unless you have the right
vocabulary. "That thing sticking out of the roof" won't do. If it's a
chimney, call it that. -- J. F. Gorman, ABC of Architecture"
These are people who start to talk about things sticking up when they
leave the TV room, and they've the nerve to call themselves skilled.
John
barrett john erickson
Erik A. Mattila <emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote in message
news:374261E6...@tomatoweb.com...
> I can hardly agree that he was a 'minor' figure in
> surrealism. I mean, how do you measure that? Most people only
know
> surrealism via Dali.
which is to say most people don't know "surrealism."
http://www.magneticfields.org/barrett/texts/surrusa.html
-- barrett
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a certain
point of the mind at which life and death, the real and the
imagined, past and future, the communicable and the
incommunicable, high and low, cease to be perceived as
contradictions."
...André Breton
Fearless Follower
Ariane <da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 May 1999, Brother Alphabet wrote:
> > > He was more famous
> > > for being a celebrity than for executing Art.
Before Warhol
> > Hutto
> === His work, which was quite impressive for a guy with no ideas.
Just
> proves my point on the last thread. Dali was a great painter despite
his
> relative shallowness......
Are you sure Dali had no Ideas? I think work is
comprised mainly of Ideas, whatever you think of
his content I think 'you especially ought to try
to comprehend Dali...
> A.
Bryn (rarely Phillip Poma and Boana) Ayers
Ciao Baby (for the LA crowd)
Fearless Follower
usu...@euronet.nl (TechnoCrate) wrote:
> On Wed, 19 May 1999 04:22:23 GMT, Dream Fish <god...@my-dejanews.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <3741d50c...@news.cc.columbia.edu>,
> >> Vermeer's surfaces,
> >Dali already said that he believed he was inferior to Vermeer. But
> >you see here is the clincher. You have to compare him to the greats
> >to find a superior. We can't say his realism is no better than
> >a daycare recipients, can we? We can even argue that his color is
> >arguably better than the vast majority of Modern artists...
> Modern artists often use lousy paint. Dali used Blockx paint and
> varnished stuff with Blockx amber varnish (he used the varnish in
> layers, adding more and more towards the surface until he finished
> with pure varnish). He called his use of Blockx paint and varnish a
> "sublime experience".
Blockx, produces the same pigments as other paint factories.
But this is a good start. I have in the past put a good amount of
energy into collecting the colors that I like and also have good
drying qualities, and Archivability.
There is little doubt of course that many Modern AA artists have
been known to use paints of bad lightfastness, bad archivability,
and generally reflect little judgement about color by the artist.
> Ofcourse, using quality paint doesn't yield automatically great color
> use but it is a good start. It's amazing to see that in this NG
> there's hardly (or none) discussion about materials like paint.
People in the past have posited adding more newsgoups for this.
We have maybe gone off the theoretical deepend to find nothing
profound.
Miro and Dali were fond of the striper' brush. I saw a photo of
Miro in Barcelona where he had made a giant brush with extra long
(about 3 inches) bristles... I think people are unaware of how
much influence technical application has on impression...
<A href="http://www.wralaw.com/people/bryn/bomb.html"> Bomb! </a>
--
FoAm Destroyer
jh...@columbia.edu wrote:
> I'm honored to have a thead named after me, even if it's side by side
> with Salvador Dali.
You should be even more honored now...
> Dali's iciness, of course, once MEANT something.
Like a sunset a well made archivable painting fades.
> I meant it when I
> said that. It wasn't a put down. Why shouldn't it have meant
> something? Masaccio's brilliant art meant something to do with
> reality, and the Renaissance took it as a model of realism, even
> though it doesn't look like the realism they learned, much less the
> fine-drawn realism of later conventions.
All eras had their readymades... Which is your favorite?
> These guys can't get the idea that skill means ability with tools
> toward an end. One has to agree on what one's ends are before one
> knows if its skillful.
The means justifiy the ends?
> In art one can't simply appeal to ends, to an "idea." I concede that
> joyously.
I painfully concede that the 'end' historically contradicticts itself
and continues to do so.
> Can it be an accident that the conservative contingent of the news
> group is also suspicious of difficult writing, dismissing it as
> jargon?
Who destroys trust? If the Jargon only meant something positive to
art it would not be treated with harsh dismissal. The most telling
detail of art is its critics have not insisted on being called
enthusiasts. Of course Modernism is like its PC aspect is always
only meant to help improve appreciation when asked.
> If the world seems so natural, who needs new thoughts -- and
> so new words -- to describe it?
What new words... I offer sub-incestual, to describe the scandalous
nature(nurture) in post-modern art.
> John
Bryn (Never phil) Ayers
--
Plegmantic , Pleh Pleh plaeheleleee
Glenn Geist
>These guys can't get the idea that skill means ability with tools
>toward an end. One has to agree on what one's ends are before one
>knows if its skillful.
>
Exactly - that's why this defense of skill, with it's self-serving
definitions thereof, sounds more like a defense of old vision and a
bulwark against new visions.
>In art one can't simply appeal to ends, to an "idea." I concede that
>joyously. In art the means change the end in surprising ways -- as I
>argued with Ariane, something that's true about writing and
>philosophy, too. Still, that makes it only all the sillier to speak
>of skill as something obvious. To do so is to take ends as natural,
>given, and yet unexplained.
>
>Once one does that, one stops both thinking and looking. One values
>plain old bad art, the kind that (as has been pointed out) looks
>better in reproduction -- or worse.
>
>Can it be an accident that the conservative contingent of the news
>group is also suspicious of difficult writing, dismissing it as
>jargon? If the world seems so natural, who needs new thoughts -- and
>so new words -- to describe it?
>
but it's wors than that - new thought, new words - they're dangerous,
to be insulted and mocked in a newsgroup and worse when they can get
their hands on it.
Glenn
BurningChurch
> >These guys can't get the idea that skill means ability with tools
> >toward an end. One has to agree on what one's ends are before one
> >knows if its skillful.
> Exactly - that's why this defense of skill,
Skill is absolutely indefensible.
> with it's self-serving
> definitions thereof,
It is only self serving if he who is promotive of skill
is skillfull in such and such a way that he describes...
> sounds more like a defense of old vision and a
> bulwark against new visions.
I will go out on a limb and say that there are many
new-visionary artists who do do work that cannot be
mistook for a daycare recipients. However there is not
a strong linear relationship between visionary art,
invention, and ''skil""l".
Attacks on skill are self-promotive if an artist lacks
skill in such and such a way as he/she/it/one/them defines
skill as.
> but it's wors than that - new thought, new words - they're dangerous,
> to be insulted and mocked in a newsgroup and worse when they can get
> their hands on it.
Disretentative? We are all mistaking words for philosophia in
this sense. Iff such and such a word adequately describes art
then of course it belongs in our canon. However any attempt to
describe art verbally is doomed from the start since if what
art attempts to communicate could be accomplished verbally,
visual(and non-poetic) art would not exist. What Nelson and
Deli miss in their anti-estabolishment attacks on modern art
verbiage is that more than being hard to understand the words
used in some writings suffer from amphiboly(or unclear meaning
and multiple context dependant meaning).
--
++ ++
Dan Fox
> Modern artists often use lousy paint. Dali used Blockx paint and
> varnished stuff with Blockx amber varnish (he used the varnish in
> layers, adding more and more towards the surface until he finished
> with pure varnish). He called his use of Blockx paint and varnish a
> "sublime experience".
>
> Ofcourse, using quality paint doesn't yield automatically great color
> use but it is a good start. It's amazing to see that in this NG
> there's hardly (or none) discussion about materials like paint.
Kurt Vonnegut wrote a wonderful novel called Bluebeard, about an
abex painter who used such lousy paint in the 1950s that, by the 80s,
the paint had fallen off all of his paintings and his entire output
had disappeared. The book is well worth reading, unlike most later
Vonnegut (IMO).
Dan
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet for the Web
mdeli
wrote:
> However any attempt to
>describe art verbally is doomed from the start since if what
>art attempts to communicate could be accomplished verbally,
?
>visual(and non-poetic) art would not exist. What Nelson and
>Deli miss in their anti-estabolishment attacks on modern art
>verbiage is that more than being hard to understand the words
>used in some writings suffer from amphiboly(or unclear meaning
>and multiple context dependant meaning).
What's this guy talking about?
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
mdeli
>John Haber wrote:
>>
>> I have trouble with the sop people here keep throwing Salvador Dali,
>> "skill." I know one means it as something of less importance than the
>> reactionary contingent here allow. But I'm not buying.
You can't afford to buy.
>I agree. I find it strange that Mani continually uses the loaf of bread
>as an example of Dali's realistic painting abilities.
I said, that all of Cezanne's apples aren't worth half a loaf of bread
in Dali's Last Supper.( a painting I consider far from Dali's best)
I mentioned that once in the last five years. I guess it obsesses
you.,
> I see that same
>loaf and it looks flat and unnatural, less realistic than any good
>photograph.
Anyone who sees form and even the forth dimension in Rothko's horse
blankets and flatness in Dali has eye problems.
> Dali was a master of a particular technique, one which
>required an extremely high level of competence in his abilities to
>physical manipulate his materials, but his technique became a slave to
>his images and was not used to give value to the paintings as objects in
>and of themselves.
"and was not used to give value to the paintings as objects in
and of themselves." Nice meaningless Artspeak.
>
>The proof of this, to me, is the big let down I've had when actually
>seeing his original paintings.
Of course its a let down after your mind compares Dali to de Kooning's
cat vomit and Twombly's chicken scratches.
How and where does chimpanzee art grab you?
Bob C
>
>
> >I agree. I find it strange that Mani continually uses the loaf of bread
> >as an example of Dali's realistic painting abilities.
>
> I said, that all of Cezanne's apples aren't worth half a loaf of bread
> in Dali's Last Supper.( a painting I consider far from Dali's best)
>
> I mentioned that once in the last five years. I guess it obsesses
> you.,
You're getting confused, Mani. Your most recent post in this thread was
the one in which you state "For instance, he offended the communists by
skillfully painting loaves of bread..", which a quick search on dejanews
shows that you have posted at least twice in the past year. Your Cezanne
comparison has also been posted at least once, so that's at least 3
mentions in the last one year. Who knows how many times it has *really*
been mentioned in the past 5.
I, of course, have only mentioned it once. According to Mani, this means
it obsesses me.
>
> > I see that same
> >loaf and it looks flat and unnatural, less realistic than any good
> >photograph.
>
> Anyone who sees form and even the forth dimension in Rothko's horse
> blankets and flatness in Dali has eye problems.
Hello, Mani? Did you see anything in my post even mentioning Rothko?
Reread the statement you clipped from my own post. I compared Dali's
painting to photography, not to Rothko. Dali's painting compared
unfavorably. Since you can only deal with that by changing the subject,
I guess you must know that it's true. I'm glad to see you finally being
able to admit something like that; who knows what unexpectedly
reasonable things you may be doing in the future!
>
> > Dali was a master of a particular technique, one which
> >required an extremely high level of competence in his abilities to
> >physical manipulate his materials, but his technique became a slave to
> >his images and was not used to give value to the paintings as objects in
> >and of themselves.
>
> "and was not used to give value to the paintings as objects in
> and of themselves." Nice meaningless Artspeak.
So this means:
a. you don't understand it
b. you can't refute it
c. you didn't really read it
d. all of the above
- Bob C.
Glenn Geist
>In article <37441f6a...@news.earthlink.net>,
> grg...@earthlink.net (Glenn Geist) wrote:
>> jh...@columbia.edu (John Haber) wrote:
>
>> >These guys can't get the idea that skill means ability with tools
>> >toward an end. One has to agree on what one's ends are before one
>> >knows if its skillful.
>
>> Exactly - that's why this defense of skill,
>
>Skill is absolutely indefensible.
>
>> with it's self-serving
>> definitions thereof,
>
>It is only self serving if he who is promotive of skill
>is skillfull in such and such a way that he describes...
>
Yes, exactly - people are defining skill as pertaining to them and
using it to exclude.
>> sounds more like a defense of old vision and a
>> bulwark against new visions.
>
>I will go out on a limb and say that there are many
>new-visionary artists who do do work that cannot be
>mistook for a daycare recipients. However there is not
>a strong linear relationship between visionary art,
>invention, and ''skil""l".
>
>Attacks on skill are self-promotive if an artist lacks
>skill in such and such a way as he/she/it/one/them defines
>skill as.
>
>> but it's wors than that - new thought, new words - they're dangerous,
>> to be insulted and mocked in a newsgroup and worse when they can get
>> their hands on it.
>
>Disretentative? We are all mistaking words for philosophia in
>this sense. Iff such and such a word adequately describes art
>then of course it belongs in our canon. However any attempt to
>describe art verbally is doomed from the start since if what
>art attempts to communicate could be accomplished verbally,
>visual(and non-poetic) art would not exist. What Nelson and
>Deli miss in their anti-estabolishment attacks on modern art
>verbiage is that more than being hard to understand the words
>used in some writings suffer from amphiboly(or unclear meaning
>and multiple context dependant meaning).
>
>
>
>
Glenn Geist
>On Thu, 20 May 1999 22:54:11 GMT, BurningChurch <br...@wralaw.com>
>wrote:
>
>> However any attempt to
>>describe art verbally is doomed from the start since if what
>>art attempts to communicate could be accomplished verbally,
>
>?
>
>>visual(and non-poetic) art would not exist. What Nelson and
>>Deli miss in their anti-estabolishment attacks on modern art
>>verbiage is that more than being hard to understand the words
>>used in some writings suffer from amphiboly(or unclear meaning
>>and multiple context dependant meaning).
>
>What's this guy talking about?
Amphiboles are small, tree-dwelling South American Marsupials.
Glenn
myfan...@my-dejanews.com
grg...@earthlink.net (Glenn Geist) wrote:
> >Skill is absolutely indefensible.
> >> with it's self-serving
> >> definitions thereof,
> >It is only self serving if he who is promotive of skill
> >is skillfull in such and such a way that he describes...
> Yes, exactly - people are defining skill as pertaining to them and
> using it to exclude.
Skill is fairly straight foward concept. Who has exactly
defined skill to suit themselves?
Skill is less ambigous than using ambiguity as the
primary standard...
Which is I admit my primary standard... That combination of
skill, spirituality, and cynicism that ultimately forms the
inneffible thing called myself...
Bryn (smoking phils carcasse) Ayers
myfan...@my-dejanews.com
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
> On Thu, 20 May 1999 22:54:11 GMT, BurningChurch <br...@wralaw.com>
> wrote:
> > However any attempt to
> >describe art verbally is doomed from the start since if what
> >art attempts to communicate could be accomplished verbally,
> ?
> >visual(and non-poetic) art would not exist.
A translation...
What visual art attempts to communicate is not-verbal.
Hence verbal description is already doomed.
If what art means to communicate could be communicated
verbally art would not exist.
>What Nelson and
> >Deli miss in their anti-estabolishment attacks on modern art
> >verbiage is that more than being hard to understand the words
> >used in some writings suffer from amphiboly(or unclear meaning
> >and multiple context dependant meaning).
> What's this guy talking about?
If your not joking...
Besides using big-words, ArtSpeak(your term) uses them
carelessly if not incorrectly.
> Mani DeLi
> ...no skill no art
> A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
> check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
> http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Glenn Geist
>In article <3746c5fc...@news.earthlink.net>,
> grg...@earthlink.net (Glenn Geist) wrote:
>> BurningChurch <br...@wralaw.com> wrote:
>> >> Exactly - that's why this defense of skill,
>
>> >Skill is absolutely indefensible.
>
>> >> with it's self-serving
>> >> definitions thereof,
>
>> >It is only self serving if he who is promotive of skill
>> >is skillfull in such and such a way that he describes...
>
>> Yes, exactly - people are defining skill as pertaining to them and
>> using it to exclude.
>
>Skill is fairly straight foward concept. Who has exactly
>defined skill to suit themselves?
It seems some here have done just that - it's skill if you paint in a
certain way and "schmiering" if you don't
>
>Skill is less ambigous than using ambiguity as the
>primary standard...
>
>Which is I admit my primary standard... That combination of
>skill, spirituality, and cynicism that ultimately forms the
>inneffible thing called myself...
>
There's nothing whatever wrong, IMO with defining skill for yourself,
but I think it's short sighted to say something isn't art because the
artist doesn't paint according to some standard. I think history is
full of examples of these arbitrary determinations that seem ludicrous
in retrospect.
I see too many of the assertions of the true knowledge of "skill" as a
way to promote the skills of the arguer to a supreme status, or to
dictate what art should be and not be. Again, history argues against
it - art changes - perhaps without change, it stops being art.
For all I know, Mani and Hutto are great artists, I just object to the
idea that they are the authorities, or that there are immutable
standards for art.
Glenn
>
>Bryn (smoking phils carcasse) Ayers
>
>
myfan...@my-dejanews.com
grg...@earthlink.net (Glenn Geist) wrote:
> myfan...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >In article <3746c5fc...@news.earthlink.net>,
> > grg...@earthlink.net (Glenn Geist) wrote:
> >> BurningChurch <br...@wralaw.com> wrote:
Let me highlite this... This argument if finding fault with
a "defense" of skill... not fault with 'assult on non-skill'
> >Skill is fairly straight foward concept. Who has exactly
> >defined skill to suit themselves?
> It seems some here have done just that - it's skill if you paint in a
> certain way and "schmiering" if you don't
I haven't; But if 'schmiering' is a gut response and it is safe
to say the only techniqeu apperent, there would be at least some
question that that work shows as much skill as a Flack or Carravagio.
> >Skill is less ambigous than using ambiguity as the
> >primary standard...
> >Which is I admit my primary standard... That combination of
> >skill, spirituality, and cynicism that ultimately forms the
> >inneffible thing called myself...
> There's nothing whatever wrong, IMO with defining skill for yourself,
I defined ambiguity as my primary standard. I am well aware that
what I define as skillfull is not only what I aspire to.
I think that to a certain extent skilled work can be a way that an
artist avoids his own conscienceness, -like Estes- but that there
is neither freedom in minimalistic Bourgoise excess.
I also think that skill is avoided because the average art instructor
is aware that many of his students would produce typical insipid
Illustration of bourgoise taste, rather than work that shows true
modern Ideation like Dali, or Magritte. I think our aversion to
skill has failed to create many Klee's and Dubuffetes, but has
instead created a few million square inches of metiocre messes...
But has successfully removed elemental artists devoid of conscienceness
rebellion from the after thought of art history. Because lets face
it any work of Abstract Expressionism not signed by someone famous
that no one really likes is really destined for the trash,... Any
work of 19th century realism that no one really likes will be
preserved by a Museum based on extrinsic value.
> but I think it's short sighted to say something isn't art because the
> artist doesn't paint according to some standard.
I think It's long sighted to say that if an artists work does not
meat an archival standard nor is it interesting it won't last.
> I think history is
> full of examples of these arbitrary determinations that seem ludicrous
> in retrospect.
There are none- All of these determinations make sense as a dicto
simplicitum and- none define what art is exactly. Obviously it is
a word that describes decorative tools of conscienceness.
> I see too many of the assertions of the true knowledge of "skill" as a
> way to promote the skills of the arguer to a supreme status, or to
> dictate what art should be and not be.
> Again, history argues against
> it - art changes - perhaps without change, it stops being art.
Perhaps...
> For all I know, Mani and Hutto are great artists, I just object to the
> idea that they are the authorities, or that there are immutable
> standards for art.
Bryn! There are of course immutable authorities.
mdeli
Suddenly all the ass kissing mutual self complimenting artzy fartzies
get thrown in a tizzy.
Marilyn, head cackle hen of the group discusses his mustache of which
she apparently disapproves. I guess anyone who likes Dali will be
influenced by this important point and immediately reassess their
opinion.
mdeli
>Skill is less ambigous than using ambiguity as the
>primary standard...
The artist who possesses skill, can produce artwork possessing
qualities which few others can equal and many others wish they could.
This is precisely what most critically approved Modern Artists lack.
What counts in Modern Academic Art is little more than a coveted
signature.
The real Modern Artists are the people who write the bullshit that is
the tenuous crutch which maintains the price tag for a coveted
signature.
mdeli
When I asked the meaning of some of your statments you gave a clear
answer. Why not try to write clearly in the first place?
>In article <3744b76d...@news.interlog.com>,
> hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 May 1999 22:54:11 GMT, BurningChurch <br...@wralaw.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> > However any attempt to
>> >describe art verbally is doomed from the start since if what
>> >art attempts to communicate could be accomplished verbally,
>> ?
>> >visual(and non-poetic) art would not exist.
>A translation...
>
>What visual art attempts to communicate is not-verbal.
>Hence verbal description is already doomed.
>
>If what art means to communicate could be communicated
>verbally art would not exist.
>
>
>>What Nelson and
>> >Deli miss in their anti-estabolishment attacks on modern art
>> >verbiage is that more than being hard to understand the words
>> >used in some writings suffer from amphiboly(or unclear meaning
>> >and multiple context dependant meaning).
>
>> What's this guy talking about?
>
>If your not joking...
>
>Besides using big-words, ArtSpeak(your term) uses them
>carelessly if not incorrectly.
>
>> Mani DeLi
>> ...no skill no art
>
>> A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
>> check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
>> http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
>
>
>
>--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
>---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
mdeli
wrote:
>It seems some here have done just that - it's skill if you paint in a
>certain way and "schmiering" if you don't
Its schmiering if most anyone including you can do it.
>There's nothing whatever wrong, IMO with defining skill for yourself,
>but I think it's short sighted to say something isn't art because the
>artist doesn't paint according to some standard.
It probably isn't art if that standard doesn't reach above the
abilities of an eight year old or a mature talented chimpanzee.
>
>I see too many of the assertions of the true knowledge of "skill" as a
>way to promote the skills of the arguer to a supreme status, or to
>dictate what art should be and not be. Again, history argues against
>it - art changes - perhaps without change, it stops being art.
If we used your outlook all artwork would simply be about the same in
quality and merit wouldn't be worth discussing.
>
>For all I know, Mani and Hutto are great artists, I just object to the
>idea that they are the authorities, or that there are immutable
>standards for art.
>
Why do you write such silly statements? No one here claimed any great
authority or is making immutable statements. If you don't like some
ones opinions try to refute them.
mdeli
>I also think that skill is avoided because the average art instructor
>is aware that many of his students would produce typical insipid
>Illustration of bourgoise taste, rather than work that shows true
>modern Ideation like Dali, or Magritte.
Skill isn't avoided by the average art instructor. It isn't taught
because he has none.
snip
> Because lets face
>it any work of Abstract Expressionism not signed by someone famous
>that no one really likes is really destined for the trash,...
>> I see too many of the assertions of the true knowledge of "skill" as a
>> way to promote the skills of the arguer to a supreme status, or to
>> dictate what art should be and not be.
?
>Bryn! There are of course immutable authorities.
The immutable authorities good and bad, hang on the wall.
Glenn Geist
>In article <374ac3bf...@news.earthlink.net>,
> grg...@earthlink.net (Glenn Geist) wrote:
>> myfan...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> >In article <3746c5fc...@news.earthlink.net>,
>> > grg...@earthlink.net (Glenn Geist) wrote:
>> >> BurningChurch <br...@wralaw.com> wrote:
>""""this defense of skill,"""
>
>Let me highlite this... This argument if finding fault with
>a "defense" of skill... not fault with 'assult on non-skill'
And I certainly find no fault with having skill - all I'm saying is
that making art involves many skills and perhaps sometimes involves
creating skills or emphasizing some that have not been included
before.
>
>> >Skill is fairly straight foward concept. Who has exactly
>> >defined skill to suit themselves?
>
>> It seems some here have done just that - it's skill if you paint in a
>> certain way and "schmiering" if you don't
>
>I haven't; But if 'schmiering' is a gut response and it is safe
>to say the only techniqeu apperent, there would be at least some
>question that that work shows as much skill as a Flack or Carravagio.
>
Question indeed, but I refer once again to the hundreds of years it
took western art critics and 'experts' to notice the skill involved in
non western art. Any number of critics from the British Raj called
Indian Classical music "infernal caterwauling" even after a lifetime
of listening to it, yet I and others find it sublime. did it suddenly
begin to require skill in the mid twentieth centure, or did we just
make our definition of skill or merit a lottle more open minded?
>> >Skill is less ambigous than using ambiguity as the
>> >primary standard...
>
>> >Which is I admit my primary standard... That combination of
>> >skill, spirituality, and cynicism that ultimately forms the
>> >inneffible thing called myself...
>
>> There's nothing whatever wrong, IMO with defining skill for yourself,
>
>I defined ambiguity as my primary standard. I am well aware that
>what I define as skillfull is not only what I aspire to.
>
>I think that to a certain extent skilled work can be a way that an
>artist avoids his own conscienceness, -like Estes- but that there
>is neither freedom in minimalistic Bourgoise excess.
>
I think there is much confusion of skill with intent.
>I also think that skill is avoided because the average art instructor
>is aware that many of his students would produce typical insipid
>Illustration of bourgoise taste, rather than work that shows true
>modern Ideation like Dali, or Magritte. I think our aversion to
>skill has failed to create many Klee's and Dubuffetes, but has
>instead created a few million square inches of metiocre messes...
>But has successfully removed elemental artists devoid of conscienceness
>rebellion from the after thought of art history. Because lets face
>it any work of Abstract Expressionism not signed by someone famous
>that no one really likes is really destined for the trash,... Any
>work of 19th century realism that no one really likes will be
>preserved by a Museum based on extrinsic value.
>
It's hard to say how it will be seen when it is as old as 19th century
art is today - impossible actually. Don't forget that Bach's works
were seen as primitive and dated for a very long time.. Intrinsic
value is the result of desire - it's worth what people say it is and
it's worth is inseperable from it's historic value. Rockwell may weel
be seen in the same way as Breughel 400 years from now - it's value
will relate to the way they are then, not the way we are now.
I do agree that there is much mediocre and repetitive and derivitive
art being made - probably more than ever before, but I don't see it as
evidence for moral or artistic decay - there are si,ply more people
buying and the world is probably supporting more artists because of
it's vastly greater wealth. Doubtless much of it will go up in smoke,
but I doubt any of us can accurately predict which ones. Of course I
have my opinions as well as anyone else.
>
>> but I think it's short sighted to say something isn't art because the
>> artist doesn't paint according to some standard.
>
>I think It's long sighted to say that if an artists work does not
>meat an archival standard nor is it interesting it won't last.
>
I can't argue against that, that's why I don't like butter statues,
but durability as a standard, seems arbitrary. I'll bet all kinds of
great art has disappeared, but it was art while it lasted.
>> I think history is
>> full of examples of these arbitrary determinations that seem ludicrous
>> in retrospect.
>
>There are none- All of these determinations make sense as a dicto
>simplicitum and- none define what art is exactly. Obviously it is
>a word that describes decorative tools of conscienceness.
>
There are none of what? I agree that none of them (determinations)
define what art is exactly - that's what I've been trying to say. I
think art is always being redifined and that sticking with definitions
is a defense of self not of art.
>> I see too many of the assertions of the true knowledge of "skill" as a
>> way to promote the skills of the arguer to a supreme status, or to
>> dictate what art should be and not be.
>
>
>> Again, history argues against
>> it - art changes - perhaps without change, it stops being art.
>Perhaps...
Who knows?
>
>> For all I know, Mani and Hutto are great artists, I just object to the
>> idea that they are the authorities, or that there are immutable
>> standards for art.
>
>Bryn! There are of course immutable authorities.
>
Intractible authorities, for sure, but time buries them and us.
>> Glenn
>
yes, there's an immutible authority for sure
>> >Bryn (smoking phils carcasse) Ayers
>
Smoke em if you got em.
Glenn Geist
>
>Its schmiering if most anyone including you can do it.
>
It's funny that anyond never does do what they say their cat could do,
but I can write like Shakespeare - what doth it mean?
>>There's nothing whatever wrong, IMO with defining skill for yourself,
>>but I think it's short sighted to say something isn't art because the
>>artist doesn't paint according to some standard.
>
>It probably isn't art if that standard doesn't reach above the
>abilities of an eight year old or a mature talented chimpanzee.
>
Again, if it were os easy, why doesn't it happen? Standards change
and radically, that's all I'm saying. Would Giotto have recognized
REmbrandt's skill? Obviously I don't know, but I'll bet he might have
called it schmiering.
>>
>>I see too many of the assertions of the true knowledge of "skill" as a
>>way to promote the skills of the arguer to a supreme status, or to
>>dictate what art should be and not be. Again, history argues against
>>it - art changes - perhaps without change, it stops being art.
>
>If we used your outlook all artwork would simply be about the same in
>quality and merit wouldn't be worth discussing.
>
Quality is hard to talk about, and the common idea of what it is all
about changes. I'm the first to admit that there's a lot of junk
being presented as art, but I'm quite sure that 100 years from now our
ten best lists will be seen as hilarious and much of our criticism
will be too. One thing can't be argued against, the opinions of the
future will supercede ours and our ideas will fade and seem old.
I'm arguing against confidence, not against criticism - maybe it's my
quasi scientific background, but I abhor certainties.
>
>
>>For all I know, Mani and Hutto are great artists, I just object to the
>>idea that they are the authorities, or that there are immutable
>>standards for art.
>>
>Why do you write such silly statements? No one here claimed any great
>authority or is making immutable statements. If you don't like some
>ones opinions try to refute them.
You can't refute opinion - de gustibus and all that., particulary
since I think that standards for art are arbitrary and changeable. I
don't try to refute your opinions as opinion, I just don't agree that
standards for art criticism are like physical laws. Making them seem
so is a claim to authority, IMO.
I'm willing to concede that something I like could look like crap to
someone else, but broad statements about what is or isn't art, seem
too arbitrary and too personal to pass off as commandments.
>
>
>Mani DeLi
>...no skill no art
>
So what is this? Isn't it a claim to authority?
Glenn
Erik A. Mattila
was a surviving manuscript from 3rd century Constantinople which describes
a newly completed mosaic of the virgin in the apse of the Hagia Sophia.
Looking at the mosaic today, albeit beautiful, it is quite clunky in terms
of our ideas of 'realism.' But in the manuscript it is described as
'unbelievably real' as if the Virgin was standing before the viewer as a
living perosn-- more real than all other works of art. We have to keep in
mind that Constantinople was full of Greek and Roman marbles, which we
would say, today, are quite anatomically correct and realistic. By
comparison the mosaics look like comic art. Could it be that our ideas of
realism, skill and artistic virtuosity employ some sorts of public
consensus about these ideas?
Erik Mattila
Glenn Geist
>One thing I found remarkable in my studies of the history of art, Glenn,
>was a surviving manuscript from 3rd century Constantinople which describes
>a newly completed mosaic of the virgin in the apse of the Hagia Sophia.
>Looking at the mosaic today, albeit beautiful, it is quite clunky in terms
>of our ideas of 'realism.' But in the manuscript it is described as
>'unbelievably real' as if the Virgin was standing before the viewer as a
>living perosn-- more real than all other works of art. We have to keep in
>mind that Constantinople was full of Greek and Roman marbles, which we
>would say, today, are quite anatomically correct and realistic. By
>comparison the mosaics look like comic art. Could it be that our ideas of
>realism, skill and artistic virtuosity employ some sorts of public
>consensus about these ideas?
>
>Erik Mattila
Most certainly - I think you've said very succinctly what I've been
trying to say: our ideas about art are part of our changing culture.
Applying the standards of 10 decades ago, is valid in a way, but
hopeless. I don't think there are eternal standards for art, or
difinitions of skill that are universal.
What ever one thinks about contemporary or modern art, if people are
buying it as such, it's art by the standards of the present. It may
well be that Rothko couldn't paint of that people who buy Joseph Beuys
are really autograph collectors, but if that's what the public calls
art, that's what art is at the moment. Culture doesn't descend from
above or from academia or from disgruntled minorities or from the
Church, although all those have some influence - culture just is.
That's why I don't say Mani's opinions are wrong, I just think they
can only be said to be correct within his own definitions of art.
Glenn
mdeli
wrote:
>hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Its schmiering if most anyone including you can do it.
>>
>It's funny that anyond never does do what they say their cat could do,
>but I can write like Shakespeare - what doth it mean?
Go to an art school year end show and you will see schmiering equal if
not superior to much of the crap in museums.
>
>>It probably isn't art if that standard doesn't reach above the
>>abilities of an eight year old or a mature talented chimpanzee.
>>
>
>Again, if it were os easy, why doesn't it happen?
Why doesn't what happen?
> Standards change
>and radically, that's all I'm saying. Would Giotto have recognized
>REmbrandt's skill? Obviously I don't know, but I'll bet he might have
>called it schmiering.
What is this supposed to infer?
If a painting looks like the work of an eight year old does that mean
at some future time it will become a masterpiece?
>>>
>>>I see too many of the assertions of the true knowledge of "skill" as a
>>>way to promote the skills of the arguer to a supreme status, or to
>>>dictate what art should be and not be. Again, history argues against
>>>it - art changes - perhaps without change, it stops being art.
Art changes but there is always a judgment of skill. Nothing
considered great art will ever impress the viewer if it is aparant to
him that it lacks skill..
>>If we used your outlook all artwork would simply be about the same in
>>quality and merit wouldn't be worth discussing.
>>
>Quality is hard to talk about, and the common idea of what it is all
>about changes. I'm the first to admit that there's a lot of junk
>being presented as art, but I'm quite sure that 100 years from now our
>ten best lists will be seen as hilarious and much of our criticism
>will be too. One thing can't be argued against, the opinions of the
>future will supercede ours and our ideas will fade and seem old.
>I'm arguing against confidence, not against criticism - maybe it's my
>quasi scientific background, but I abhor certainties.
>>
You didn't answer the point.
>>
>>>For all I know, Mani and Hutto are great artists, I just object to the
>>>idea that they are the authorities, or that there are immutable
>>>standards for art.
>>>
>>Why do you write such silly statements? No one here claimed any great
>>authority or is making immutable statements. If you don't like some
>>ones opinions try to refute them.
>
> I just don't agree that
>standards for art criticism are like physical laws. Making them seem
>so is a claim to authority, IMO.
>
Nobody said they were.
>I'm willing to concede that something I like could look like crap to
>someone else, but broad statements about what is or isn't art, seem
>too arbitrary and too personal to pass off as commandments.
>>
>>
>>Mani DeLi
>>...no skill no art
>>
>So what is this? Isn't it a claim to authority?
>
No more than your statements, Anyone is free to decide whether the
statement is right or wrong.
I suppose any art critic I consider to be an idiot lays some claim to
authority. I have no argument with this claim. What do you have
against authority?
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
mdeli
wrote:
> I don't think there are eternal standards for art, or
>difinitions of skill that are universal.
>
You keep saying the same thing as if someone disagreed with the point.
>What ever one thinks about contemporary or modern art, if people are
>buying it as such, it's art by the standards of the present. It may
>well be that Rothko couldn't paint of that people who buy Joseph Beuys
>are really autograph collectors, but if that's what the public calls
>art, that's what art is at the moment.
No Argument. Its art.
When Christo farts, its art. When Marilyn praises a room full of
banannas, its art. Duchamp's pisspot is art. So is Rockwell and Dali.
But the real question is IS ANY OF THIS art ANY GOOD?
The is it art question is a ploy to avoid discussing whether a piece
has any merit.
> Culture doesn't descend from
>above or from academia or from disgruntled minorities or from the
>Church, although all those have some influence - culture just is.
>
>That's why I don't say Mani's opinions are wrong, I just think they
>can only be said to be correct within his own definitions of art.
I guess your reading comprehension has failed you on this.
I carefully avoid using the term art especially where it might relate
to whether something deserves that label. I usually refer to artwork
and I usually express my opinions on merit, technical etc.
Indeed I did say, "It probably isn't art if that standard doesn't
reach above the abilities of an eight year old or a mature talented
chimpanzee.
Take note of the qualifier "probably" in the above. That's as far as I
wish to delve into the is it art question, which I believe leads into
little more than a verbose quagmire.
Indeed this does not prevent me from discussing any artwork I
sincerely think is lousy.
Bob C
>
>
> That's why I don't say Mani's opinions are wrong, I just think they
> can only be said to be correct within his own definitions of art.
>
This statement is meaningless if the definitions have been created for
no other reason than to support the opinions. A rhetorical tactic of the
unreasonable is the attempt to redefine language such that their
opinions are the only ones which could possibly be supported and to
reject prima facie any premise or definition which might potentially
lead to a differing opinion.
- Bob C.
Glenn Geist
>On Fri, 28 May 1999 14:20:26 GMT, grg...@earthlink.net (Glenn Geist)
>wrote:
>
>> I don't think there are eternal standards for art, or
>>difinitions of skill that are universal.
>>
>You keep saying the same thing as if someone disagreed with the point.
>
>>What ever one thinks about contemporary or modern art, if people are
>>buying it as such, it's art by the standards of the present. It may
>>well be that Rothko couldn't paint of that people who buy Joseph Beuys
>>are really autograph collectors, but if that's what the public calls
>>art, that's what art is at the moment.
>
>No Argument. Its art.
>
>When Christo farts, its art. When Marilyn praises a room full of
>banannas, its art. Duchamp's pisspot is art. So is Rockwell and Dali.
>
>But the real question is IS ANY OF THIS art ANY GOOD?
>
>The is it art question is a ploy to avoid discussing whether a piece
>has any merit.
No argument here - I agree completely. of course merit is much harder
to argue, IMO and more subjective and changeable over time. The
argument I'm trying to make works both ways - I would defend Rockwell
by saying that in his own time Breughel could be considered kitch and
sentimental, but well drawn. Perhaps Leroy Neiman will seem the same
way in 500 years, we can't tell. Likewise, Pollock may be seen very
significant - or a dead end. We can't tell. The kids now in diapers
will laugh at our judgements and will write the next generation of
criticism and they will be right and we can't do anything about it.
>
>> Culture doesn't descend from
>>above or from academia or from disgruntled minorities or from the
>>Church, although all those have some influence - culture just is.
>>
>>That's why I don't say Mani's opinions are wrong, I just think they
>>can only be said to be correct within his own definitions of art.
>
>
>I guess your reading comprehension has failed you on this.
>
>I carefully avoid using the term art especially where it might relate
>to whether something deserves that label. I usually refer to artwork
>and I usually express my opinions on merit, technical etc.
Then I won't accuse you of that - it's just that the hyperbole and
bluster gets strong in here and it's hard to see past it.
>
>Indeed I did say, "It probably isn't art if that standard doesn't
>reach above the abilities of an eight year old or a mature talented
>chimpanzee.
>
>Take note of the qualifier "probably" in the above. That's as far as I
>wish to delve into the is it art question, which I believe leads into
>little more than a verbose quagmire.
>
Duly noted.
>Indeed this does not prevent me from discussing any artwork I
>sincerely think is lousy.
>
I wouldn't have it any other way. Want to talk about Jeff Koons?
Glenn Geist
>On Thu, 27 May 1999 19:41:06 GMT, grg...@earthlink.net (Glenn Geist)
>wrote:
>
>>hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Its schmiering if most anyone including you can do it.
>>>
>>It's funny that anyond never does do what they say their cat could do,
>>but I can write like Shakespeare - what doth it mean?
>
>Go to an art school year end show and you will see schmiering equal if
>not superior to much of the crap in museums.
>>
I wouldn't argue that - there is a lot of mediocre stuff out there.
But Idon't go to art school and never have, so I can't say anything
about what's going on. I would be surprised if they were still
teaching people to paint like Rothko, but I don't know.
I was just at the MOCA in Chicago and the current head turner is a
full sized replica of a fire engine by Charles Ray. It took
tremendous skill, but is it just a piece of playground equipment or is
it art?
>
>>>It probably isn't art if that standard doesn't reach above the
>>>abilities of an eight year old or a mature talented chimpanzee.
>>>
>>
>>Again, if it were os easy, why doesn't it happen?
>
>Why doesn't what happen?
>
8 year olds or apes painting like Picasso. - if you find one I want to
represent him. <s> The kid, not the ape.
>
>> Standards change
>>and radically, that's all I'm saying. Would Giotto have recognized
>>REmbrandt's skill? Obviously I don't know, but I'll bet he might have
>>called it schmiering.
>
>What is this supposed to infer?
>
>If a painting looks like the work of an eight year old does that mean
>at some future time it will become a masterpiece?
I think it very well might, but it's impossible to predict the future.
If scientists are bad at predicting technology, art critics are worse
at predicting future art. I really hate to quote Greenberg, since I'm
not a fan of his, but he said everything sufficiently original looks
ugly at first. I think there is some truth to it. I wouldn't be
willing to bet either way on whether some 22nd century critic will
find Rothko or Rockwell to be the greatest painter of our century
>
>>>>
>>>>I see too many of the assertions of the true knowledge of "skill" as a
>>>>way to promote the skills of the arguer to a supreme status, or to
>>>>dictate what art should be and not be. Again, history argues against
>>>>it - art changes - perhaps without change, it stops being art.
>
>Art changes but there is always a judgment of skill. Nothing
>considered great art will ever impress the viewer if it is aparant to
>him that it lacks skill..
>
I'm not arguing that - just saying that there is more than one skill
to be impressed with. I love photography, but the photographer didn't
paint the image. I'm admiring a different skill. MAybe Pollock pried
the lid off the paint can with extreme skill. <s>
>>>If we used your outlook all artwork would simply be about the same in
>>>quality and merit wouldn't be worth discussing.
>>>
>>Quality is hard to talk about, and the common idea of what it is all
>>about changes. I'm the first to admit that there's a lot of junk
>>being presented as art, but I'm quite sure that 100 years from now our
>>ten best lists will be seen as hilarious and much of our criticism
>>will be too. One thing can't be argued against, the opinions of the
>>future will supercede ours and our ideas will fade and seem old.
>>I'm arguing against confidence, not against criticism - maybe it's my
>>quasi scientific background, but I abhor certainties.
>>>
>You didn't answer the point.
>>>
I don't remember what it was - if it was about quality relating to
skill I agree that it does, but I just don't want to restrict the
viewer to some approved set of skills as being the only ones to
admire. I admire originality too - doesn't that count?
>>>>For all I know, Mani and Hutto are great artists, I just object to the
>>>>idea that they are the authorities, or that there are immutable
>>>>standards for art.
>>>>
>>>Why do you write such silly statements? No one here claimed any great
>>>authority or is making immutable statements. If you don't like some
>>>ones opinions try to refute them.
>>
>> I just don't agree that
>>standards for art criticism are like physical laws. Making them seem
>>so is a claim to authority, IMO.
>>
>Nobody said they were.
>
Not directly, but if you say no skill no art, don't you have to say
*which skills? and then it's an authoritative statement about taste.
>>I'm willing to concede that something I like could look like crap to
>>someone else, but broad statements about what is or isn't art, seem
>>too arbitrary and too personal to pass off as commandments.
>>>
>>>
>>>Mani DeLi
>>>...no skill no art
>>>
>>So what is this? Isn't it a claim to authority?
>>
>No more than your statements, Anyone is free to decide whether the
>statement is right or wrong.
I agree. I'm not trying to define art or put limits on it though -
just asking everyone to wait a century or two before saying that art
is dead. The fact we're arguing about it means it isn't.
>
>I suppose any art critic I consider to be an idiot lays some claim to
>authority. I have no argument with this claim. What do you have
>against authority?
>
That it's usually self appointed, and unwilling to admit falibility.
That's why I distrust criticism in general, but particularly when it's
negative. Doesn't it get to you when someone says you *shouldn't like
something when in fact you do like it?
Glenn Geist
>Glenn Geist wrote:
>>
>>
>> That's why I don't say Mani's opinions are wrong, I just think they
>> can only be said to be correct within his own definitions of art.
>>
>
>This statement is meaningless if the definitions have been created for
>no other reason than to support the opinions.
I get the feeling that this is just what happens all too often - the
definitions of art serving either the taste or ability or stock in
trade of the arguer. Yes, the statement is meaningless, that's sort
of the point.
>A rhetorical tactic of the
>unreasonable is the attempt to redefine language such that their
>opinions are the only ones which could possibly be supported and to
>reject prima facie any premise or definition which might potentially
>lead to a differing opinion.
>
True enough, but I'm not good enough to have tactics - I just shoot
from the hip and sometimes into the foot.
>- Bob C.
John Haber
primitives"?
John
D. & N. Harvey
>
> On Fri, 28 May 1999 14:20:26 GMT, grg...@earthlink.net (Glenn Geist)
> wrote:
>
> > I don't think there are eternal standards for art, or
> >difinitions of skill that are universal.
> >
> You keep saying the same thing as if someone disagreed with the point.
>
> >What ever one thinks about contemporary or modern art, if people are
> >buying it as such, it's art by the standards of the present. It may
> >well be that Rothko couldn't paint of that people who buy Joseph Beuys
> >are really autograph collectors, but if that's what the public calls
> >art, that's what art is at the moment.
>
> No Argument. Its art.
>
> When Christo farts, its art. When Marilyn praises a room full of
> banannas, its art. Duchamp's pisspot is art. So is Rockwell and Dali.
>
> But the real question is IS ANY OF THIS art ANY GOOD?
>
> The is it art question is a ploy to avoid discussing whether a piece
> has any merit.
>
> >above or from academia or from disgruntled minorities or from the
> >Church, although all those have some influence - culture just is.
> >
> >can only be said to be correct within his own definitions of art.
>
>
> I carefully avoid using the term art especially where it might relate
> to whether something deserves that label. I usually refer to artwork
> and I usually express my opinions on merit, technical etc.
>
> reach above the abilities of an eight year old or a mature talented
> chimpanzee.
>
> wish to delve into the is it art question, which I believe leads into
> little more than a verbose quagmire.
>
> sincerely think is lousy.
>
> ...no skill no art
>
> A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
> check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
> http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
D.Harvey
mdeli
wrote:
>hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 27 May 1999 19:41:06 GMT, grg...@earthlink.net (Glenn Geist)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>>Go to an art school year end show and you will see schmiering equal if
>>not superior to much of the crap in museums.
>>>
>I was just at the MOCA in Chicago and the current head turner is a
>full sized replica of a fire engine by Charles Ray. It took
>tremendous skill, but is it just a piece of playground equipment or is
>it art?
It would take skill to carve a perfect toothpick out of a teak log. So
what. There are skills universal to all art of the past considered
great. Extract these skills and i believe you get something close to
the point.
>8 year olds or apes painting like Picasso. - if you find one I want to
>represent him. <s> The kid, not the ape.
Picasso could draw. Not very well, but far better than most
contemporaries considered great. Yet much of more recent work falls
into the above category.
>>If a painting looks like the work of an eight year old does that mean
>>at some future time it will become a masterpiece?
>
>I think it very well might, but it's impossible to predict the future.
But one can have an opinion about it and say it is highly improbable.
>>Art changes but there is always a judgment of skill. Nothing
>>considered great art will ever impress the viewer if it is aparant to
>>him that it lacks skill..
>>
>I'm not arguing that - just saying that there is more than one skill
>to be impressed with.
Indeed there is; artwork requires a list of skills. Where any are
absent it demolishes the quality of the work. Now I know that the
absence or presence of these skills is debatable. That is what among
other things we discuss here.
> I love photography, but the photographer didn't
>paint the image. I'm admiring a different skill. MAybe Pollock pried
>the lid off the paint can with extreme skill. <s>
Right, but its not something required for fine artwork, nor is it a
skill, because most anyone can learn to do it.
>>>>If we used your outlook all artwork would simply be about the same in
>>>>quality and merit wouldn't be worth discussing.
>>>>
>>>Quality is hard to talk about, and the common idea of what it is all
>>>about changes.
Roughly speaking, quality is more about constants than changes.
>> I'm the first to admit that there's a lot of junk
>>>being presented as art, but I'm quite sure that 100 years from now our
>>>ten best lists will be seen as hilarious and much of our criticism
>>>will be too. One thing can't be argued against, the opinions of the
>>>future will supercede ours and our ideas will fade and seem old.
Most of my opinions take a stab at predicting the future. When I say
that Rothko is practically nothing that certainly is what I think his
work will come to in the future. I'm under no illusion that present
critics held as authorities disagree with me. In a sense praise or
derision is a future prediction and certainty is a factor in the
opinion of the critic.
> I admire originality too - doesn't that count?
It only counts when it is done with artistic skill. Most originality
counts for nothing, especially the supposed originality of AE; which
anyone who knows art history can show very unoriginal. Is Vermeer,
Caneletto, Corot, Monet, really original? Artwork is usually an
evolutionary matter with new mutations added. The artist who uses
these best rather than the originator is usually the one more highly
valued.
>>> I just don't agree that
>>>standards for art criticism are like physical laws. Making them seem
>>>so is a claim to authority, IMO.
>>>
>>Nobody said they were.
>>
>Not directly, but if you say no skill no art, don't you have to say
>*which skills? and then it's an authoritative statement about taste.
The statement is an aphoristic one but it hits home. If you read my
book I defend it in great detail.
>>>>Mani DeLi
>>>>...no skill no art
>>>>
>>>So what is this? Isn't it a claim to authority?
>>>
>>No more than your statements, Anyone is free to decide whether the
>>statement is right or wrong.
>
>I agree. I'm not trying to define art or put limits on it though -
>just asking everyone to wait a century or two before saying that art
>is dead. The fact we're arguing about it means it isn't.
Well no one here has that time left. By this reasoning one would have
to postpone saying anything.
>>
>>I suppose any art critic I consider to be an idiot lays some claim to
>>authority. I have no argument with this claim. What do you have
>>against authority?
>>
>
>That it's usually self appointed, and unwilling to admit falibility.
>That's why I distrust criticism in general, but particularly when it's
>negative. Doesn't it get to you when someone says you *shouldn't like
>something when in fact you do like it?
>
If I were really offended I guess the flack I get on this conference
would have sent me packing long ago. I find the fray amusing,
Art is not my religion. If someone gave a convincing argument
countering my belief about something I would change my opinion; as I
suspect you would.
What keeps me going in art is that most people like my work and many
agree with my opinions. If that weren't the case I might get into
doing something else.
mdeli
>Glenn Geist wrote:
>>
>>
>> That's why I don't say Mani's opinions are wrong, I just think they
>> can only be said to be correct within his own definitions of art.
>>
>
>This statement is meaningless if the definitions have been created for
>no other reason than to support the opinions. A rhetorical tactic of the
>unreasonable is the attempt to redefine language such that their
>opinions are the only ones which could possibly be supported and to
>reject prima facie any premise or definition which might potentially
>lead to a differing opinion.
>
>- Bob C.
The terms kitsch, commercial and illustration are the best examples of
this.
mdeli
>
>>On Fri, 28 May 1999 14:20:26 GMT, grg...@earthlink.net (Glenn Geist)
>>wrote:
>>When Christo farts, its art. When Marilyn praises a room full of
>>bananas, its art. Duchamp's pisspot is art. So is Rockwell and Dali.
>>
>>But the real question is IS ANY OF THIS art ANY GOOD?
>>
>>The is it art question is a ploy to avoid discussing whether a piece
>>has any merit.
>
>No argument here - I agree completely. of course merit is much harder
>to argue, IMO and more subjective and changeable over time.
The details of merit are harder to argue. There are qualities that are
constant throughout art which is considered classical. Subject matter,
ideas and technique changes.
> The
>argument I'm trying to make works both ways - I would defend Rockwell
>by saying that in his own time Breughel could be considered kitch and
>sentimental, but well drawn.
Rockwell and Breughel do far more than just draw. As to kitsch its a
label used by our holy critics in order to avoid comparing what they
call art to the work they so label.
> Perhaps Leroy Neiman will seem the same
>way in 500 years, we can't tell.
I think we can and we can discuss our opinions on the matter.
> Likewise, Pollock may be seen very
>significant - or a dead end. We can't tell.
I disagree and I have stated my reasons here many times.
> The kids now in diapers
>will laugh at our judgements and will write the next generation of
>criticism and they will be right and we can't do anything about it.
They will probably agree with one side or the other and I think I know
which side they will be on.
>>
>>> Culture doesn't descend from
>>>above or from academia or from disgruntled minorities or from the
>>>Church, although all those have some influence - culture just is.
I disagree. I don't think all cultural views are without any reason
what so ever.
>>>That's why I don't say Mani's opinions are wrong, I just think they
>>>can only be said to be correct within his own definitions of art.
If that's true, it would leave us with an inability to value any
opinion. I believe that one can present convincing arguments even in a
subject as mirky as artwork.
>>I guess your reading comprehension has failed you on this.
>>
>>I carefully avoid using the term art especially where it might relate
>>to whether something deserves that label. I usually refer to artwork
>>and I usually express my opinions on merit, technical etc.
>
>Then I won't accuse you of that - it's just that the hyperbole and
>bluster gets strong in here and it's hard to see past it.
>>
Well that depends on how it effects the reader. I think that's what
makes the fray fun. I have read 40 years of one sided criticism. Its
time for some counter jargon, satire, rational criticism and some
truthful art history.
>>Indeed I did say, "It probably isn't art if that standard doesn't
>>reach above the abilities of an eight year old or a mature talented
>>chimpanzee.
>>
>>Take note of the qualifier "probably" in the above. That's as far as I
>>wish to delve into the is it art question, which I believe leads into
>>little more than a verbose quagmire.
>>
>Duly noted.
>
>>Indeed this does not prevent me from discussing any artwork I
>>sincerely think is lousy.
>>
>I wouldn't have it any other way. Want to talk about Jeff Koons?
>
Well say something about him.
Glenn Geist
John Haber
seemed alive, even when you and I would find them so "primitive" it's
incredible.
We were talking about one thing learned from that -- relative
standards of representation (and thus "skill"). The whole Gombrich
thing. Or if you're postmodern or just philosphical, the way art
stimulates change in how we perceive things, too. Now, a couple of
other lines of inquiry keep returning to me as well, but I'm having
incredible trouble expressing them.
One is to admit that there's long been this shared aim, to evoke a
mirror of what one sees, and then acknowledge again how daring it was
to get where we are now. Another paradoxically is to follow all it's
roots and meanings to see how conservative that was. How it can be
traced back to Romanticism's dissatisfaction with this external world
as apart from the growth of the artist's or poet's mind and spirit.
How it depended conversely on the delicacy of perception, wanting all
those precise colors Monet had seen, wanting to care about what paint
and its support looks like. In other words, different kinds of
continued searches for "reality."
A third is to see more in the quote even than the goal of skill and
mirroring. It's the dream that the image doesn't just resemble things
correctly: it feels alive. In the Middle Ages, an image might sit
beside something that to us looks like mere "decorative art": a
reliquary, a thorn from the cross, a hair. Something that felt like
something dead still living. So in a sense skill and mirroring were
not exactly the point.
Not to cast doubt on our first line of inquiry, just random thoughts
on other things. I know if they don't make sense, as they don't yet
to me, you'll help!
John
Glenn Geist
>
>The details of merit are harder to argue. There are qualities that are
>constant throughout art which is considered classical. Subject matter,
>ideas and technique changes.
>
I think they're *Very hard to argue, and I don't think I've got any
particular facility to explain what I like or don't like. I'm not
sure taste can be argued about. - I know, taste is not all there is to
art criticism.
>> The
>>argument I'm trying to make works both ways - I would defend Rockwell
>>by saying that in his own time Breughel could be considered kitch and
>>sentimental, but well drawn.
>
>Rockwell and Breughel do far more than just draw. As to kitsch its a
>label used by our holy critics in order to avoid comparing what they
>call art to the work they so label.
I've given up using the term in any serious way - I think again that
it's got too much to do with taste and fashion to be useful. The
point I'm trying to make is that Breughel and Rockwell may have more
in common than it seems and some of what may appear as differences in
quality are differences in the appeal of the respective centuries.
Looking at the Seurat "Grand Jatte" painting that Chicago is so proud
of - what would it look like if we exchanged the 19th century costumes
for baggy shorts and tee shirts and baseball caps? Kitcsch maybe? Is
a great deal of the charm of this painting the result of our
sentimental nostalgia for the last century? Kitsch may be in the
mind of the beholder.
>
>> Perhaps Leroy Neiman will seem the same
>>way in 500 years, we can't tell.
>
>I think we can and we can discuss our opinions on the matter.
>
It will be fun but moot unless we can live 500 years.
>> Likewise, Pollock may be seen very
>>significant - or a dead end. We can't tell.
>
>I disagree and I have stated my reasons here many times.
>
I know!
>> The kids now in diapers
>>will laugh at our judgements and will write the next generation of
>>criticism and they will be right and we can't do anything about it.
>
>They will probably agree with one side or the other and I think I know
>which side they will be on.
Then your crystal ball is better than mine. I look around and see
Diesel driving women with Army boots, men who wear hats backwards and
all the time and Who predicted this? I don't dare predict anything
other than things will change and that my grandchildren will repudiate
the taste of my children just like my children did to me and I did to
my parents.
>>>
>>>> Culture doesn't descend from
>>>>above or from academia or from disgruntled minorities or from the
>>>>Church, although all those have some influence - culture just is.
>
>I disagree. I don't think all cultural views are without any reason
>what so ever.
>
I didn't mean it to sound absolute, but like the whether, the further
away it is, the more unpredictable. Culture is affected by many
things we can't forsee.
Actually I do think we're already seeing changes in how we see art and
what art we like enough to buy. As I've said, I consider the
international shows to be a better indicator of trends than the
doctrines taught in schools and the tastes of the curators. What I
see there is more photography, more electronics but mostly more work
derived from classical styles.
>>>>That's why I don't say Mani's opinions are wrong, I just think they
>>>>can only be said to be correct within his own definitions of art.
>
>If that's true, it would leave us with an inability to value any
>opinion. I believe that one can present convincing arguments even in a
>subject as mirky as artwork.
>
Yes you can - just don't be too amazed when things turn out
differently.
>>>I guess your reading comprehension has failed you on this.
>>>
>>>I carefully avoid using the term art especially where it might relate
>>>to whether something deserves that label. I usually refer to artwork
>>>and I usually express my opinions on merit, technical etc.
>>
>>Then I won't accuse you of that - it's just that the hyperbole and
>>bluster gets strong in here and it's hard to see past it.
>>>
>
>Well that depends on how it effects the reader. I think that's what
>makes the fray fun. I have read 40 years of one sided criticism. Its
>time for some counter jargon, satire, rational criticism and some
>truthful art history.
>
No argument
>>>Indeed I did say, "It probably isn't art if that standard doesn't
>>>reach above the abilities of an eight year old or a mature talented
>>>chimpanzee.
>>>
>>>Take note of the qualifier "probably" in the above. That's as far as I
>>>wish to delve into the is it art question, which I believe leads into
>>>little more than a verbose quagmire.
>>>
>>Duly noted.
>>
>>>Indeed this does not prevent me from discussing any artwork I
>>>sincerely think is lousy.
>>>
>>I wouldn't have it any other way. Want to talk about Jeff Koons?
>>
>Well say something about him.
>
From what I've heard, which may be wrong, he will call up a producer
of ceramic novelties and order something like a gross of ceramic cats
- this becomes a limited edition "Koons"
I don't follow his operations with a great deal of interest, but I've
always considered that the involvement of the artist in his work had
something to do with it's being art. If not, Chevrolets would be fine
art.
Glenn
Glenn Geist
>The terms kitsch, commercial and illustration are the best examples of
>this.
>
That's why I'm reluctant to use them as pejoritives - Besides I think
the trend is toward renewed appreciation for what was dismissed as
"illustration" the prices of american illustrators are booming and
Commercial art is too. Do we thank Warhol for that <s> or end of
century nostalgia? I don't know, but it's happening.
Glenn
Glenn Geist
>
>It would take skill to carve a perfect toothpick out of a teak log. So
>what. There are skills universal to all art of the past considered
>great. Extract these skills and i believe you get something close to
>the point.
>
Yes, but isn't there more to art than skill? Does technical skill
make you and artist or enable whatever you're trying to do with the
art?
>>8 year olds or apes painting like Picasso. - if you find one I want to
>>represent him. <s> The kid, not the ape.
>
>Picasso could draw. Not very well, but far better than most
>contemporaries considered great. Yet much of more recent work falls
>into the above category.
>
>>>If a painting looks like the work of an eight year old does that mean
>>>at some future time it will become a masterpiece?
>>
>>I think it very well might, but it's impossible to predict the future.
>
>But one can have an opinion about it and say it is highly improbable.
>
Without a doubt - I'm just thinking of the best predictions of the
past and it always fall short in some important way - like the science
fiction that predicted we'd be living on the moon but didn't forsee
baseball caps and running shoes as business attire, or that Cadillac
would build a truck or even fax machines. I think it's hard to
predict the future or tell whether something is a trend or a passing
fancy. It may very well be that modernism is a strange footnote in
history, but it has had and will continue to have an effect just
because it did happen.
>>>Art changes but there is always a judgment of skill. Nothing
>>>considered great art will ever impress the viewer if it is aparant to
>>>him that it lacks skill..
>>>
>>I'm not arguing that - just saying that there is more than one skill
>>to be impressed with.
>
>Indeed there is; artwork requires a list of skills. Where any are
>absent it demolishes the quality of the work. Now I know that the
>absence or presence of these skills is debatable. That is what among
>other things we discuss here.
>
It's more fun than the babble now being posted, by some mystery
impostor, that's for sure
>> I love photography, but the photographer didn't
>>paint the image. I'm admiring a different skill. MAybe Pollock pried
>>the lid off the paint can with extreme skill. <s>
>
>Right, but its not something required for fine artwork, nor is it a
>skill, because most anyone can learn to do it.
>
I am agreeing that skills are required, I'm just more interested in
what makes one skilled painter very much more interesting than another
- perhaps you can define that as the result of a skill too, but isn't
that the important skill? Otherwise what's the difference between
technical illustration and art?
>>>>>If we used your outlook all artwork would simply be about the same in
>>>>>quality and merit wouldn't be worth discussing.
>>>>>
>>>>Quality is hard to talk about, and the common idea of what it is all
>>>>about changes.
>
>Roughly speaking, quality is more about constants than changes.
>
There have been so many changes in human expression - why not in art?
Music of the renaissance still sounds like music, but they would not
understand Beethoven much less Miles Davis. We've learned to hear
differently and perhaps we can learn to see differently. Yes I know,
Miles had all kinds of skill <s>
>>> I'm the first to admit that there's a lot of junk
>>>>being presented as art, but I'm quite sure that 100 years from now our
>>>>ten best lists will be seen as hilarious and much of our criticism
>>>>will be too. One thing can't be argued against, the opinions of the
>>>>future will supercede ours and our ideas will fade and seem old.
>
>Most of my opinions take a stab at predicting the future. When I say
>that Rothko is practically nothing that certainly is what I think his
>work will come to in the future. I'm under no illusion that present
>critics held as authorities disagree with me. In a sense praise or
>derision is a future prediction and certainty is a factor in the
>opinion of the critic.
>
The only way to know is to live a long time. I intend to re-examine
this 50 years from now. I am not knowledgeable about the history of
criticism, but I have the vague impression that some critics of the
past haven't been great at predicting the lasting appeal of what they
liked or the failure of what they disliked. I'm only advising
caution.
>> I admire originality too - doesn't that count?
>
>It only counts when it is done with artistic skill. Most originality
>counts for nothing, especially the supposed originality of AE; which
>anyone who knows art history can show very unoriginal. Is Vermeer,
>Caneletto, Corot, Monet, really original? Artwork is usually an
>evolutionary matter with new mutations added. The artist who uses
>these best rather than the originator is usually the one more highly
>valued.
That's true, I think. Anything original enough not to seem an
outgrowth of what we know will seem ugly - it may *be ugly.
I can make an original noise and it may not be music, but I also think
I can make sounds that may be music to some and noise to others and
that one can acquire a taste or appreciation for something one once
found ugly.
My problem stems from the fact that I really love, among other things,
Cun=bism. So perhaps other artists could draw as well or better - or
at least more accurately than Picasso or Braque - I still love the
stuff and I don't know how to tell you why. I may be putting in
something that isn't there, but I still like it and the same holds
true for TOoker who I love and I know that you approve of as well.
Perhaps the artist's ability to draw me into the work is in itself a
skill as important as rendering perspective.
>
>>>> I just don't agree that
>>>>standards for art criticism are like physical laws. Making them seem
>>>>so is a claim to authority, IMO.
>>>>
>>>Nobody said they were.
>>>
>>Not directly, but if you say no skill no art, don't you have to say
>>*which skills? and then it's an authoritative statement about taste.
>
>The statement is an aphoristic one but it hits home. If you read my
>book I defend it in great detail.
>
I intend to.
>>>>>Mani DeLi
>>>>>...no skill no art
>>>>>
>>>>So what is this? Isn't it a claim to authority?
>>>>
>>>No more than your statements, Anyone is free to decide whether the
>>>statement is right or wrong.
>>
>>I agree. I'm not trying to define art or put limits on it though -
>>just asking everyone to wait a century or two before saying that art
>>is dead. The fact we're arguing about it means it isn't.
>
>Well no one here has that time left. By this reasoning one would have
>to postpone saying anything.
I'm joking of course, but again just reminding that the ability to
predict has a spotty record of accuracy. Which means you could be
absolutely right or wrong, but more likely something in between.
>>>
>>>I suppose any art critic I consider to be an idiot lays some claim to
>>>authority. I have no argument with this claim. What do you have
>>>against authority?
>>>
>>
>>That it's usually self appointed, and unwilling to admit falibility.
>>That's why I distrust criticism in general, but particularly when it's
>>negative. Doesn't it get to you when someone says you *shouldn't like
>>something when in fact you do like it?
>>
>If I were really offended I guess the flack I get on this conference
>would have sent me packing long ago. I find the fray amusing,
>
That's why I'm here too
> Art is not my religion. If someone gave a convincing argument
>countering my belief about something I would change my opinion; as I
>suspect you would.
I hope I would too - that my opinions change, and they do, keeps me
hopeful that I'm not a complete idiot.
Glenn
mdeli
Geist) wrote:
>hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>
>
>>The terms kitsch, commercial and illustration are the best examples of
>>this.
>>
>
>That's why I'm reluctant to use them as pejoritives - Besides I think
>the trend is toward renewed appreciation for what was dismissed as
>"illustration" the prices of american illustrators are booming and
>Commercial art is too. Do we thank Warhol for that <s> or end of
>century nostalgia? I don't know, but it's happening.
The best illustration expresses ideas with skill and contains a high
degree of complexity and craft. Illustrators unlike artzy fartzies get
paid for the unique things they can do rather than for what they say,
their signature or connections. The attractiveness of the illustrators
artwork is the only thing that ultimately counts..
I also suspect this interest is further due to a certain degree of
boredom and rejection of the repetitive square miles of abstraction
expressing practically nothing which most viewers sense as lacking
even a modicum of skill.
I mention some top illustrators on my web site. Compare their style of
modernism and abstraction to hack museum species.
>
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
mdeli
Geist) wrote:
>hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>Yes, but isn't there more to art than skill? Does technical skill
>make you and artist or enable whatever you're trying to do with the
>art?
Technical skill in a narrow sense is like the foundation of a building
if its not there the building collapses. In a broader sense skill even
refers to the ability to get ideas, technique, composition and the
ability to handle complexity.
>>>I think it very well might, but it's impossible to predict the future.
>>
>>But one can have an opinion about it and say it is highly improbable.
>>
> I think it's hard to
>predict the future or tell whether something is a trend or a passing
>fancy.
I think its fairly easy to notice vast incompetence and make a good
guess that when the fashion passes it will be judged as common
mediocrity.
>
>>>> Nothing
>>>>considered great art will ever impress the viewer if it is aparant to
>>>>him that it lacks skill..
>>>>
>>>I'm not arguing that - just saying that there is more than one skill
>>>to be impressed with.
Skills in the grand sense are a combination of differing abilities
which the deliberatly artist combines to attract the viewer.
>
>I am agreeing that skills are required, I'm just more interested in
>what makes one skilled painter very much more interesting than another
If one painter is more interesting that means you are comparing
artwork. When you do this you are usually comparing subject matter and
skills.
>- perhaps you can define that as the result of a skill too, but isn't
>that the important skill? Otherwise what's the difference between
>technical illustration and art?
Depends on the illustration. I suspect a rendering by Gaudi is more
interesting than a blueprint.
>>>>>>If we used your outlook all artwork would simply be about the same in
>>>>>>quality and merit wouldn't be worth discussing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Quality is hard to talk about, and the common idea of what it is all
>>>>>about changes.
>>
>>Roughly speaking, quality is more about constants than changes.
>>
>There have been so many changes in human expression - why not in art?
>Music of the renaissance still sounds like music, but they would not
>understand Beethoven much less Miles Davis. We've learned to hear
>differently and perhaps we can learn to see differently. Yes I know,
>Miles had all kinds of skill <s>
I think you are talking about changes in style more than quality.
>>Most of my opinions take a stab at predicting the future. When I say
>>that Rothko is practically nothing that certainly is what I think his
>>work will come to in the future. I'm under no illusion that present
>>critics held as authorities disagree with me. In a sense praise or
>>derision is a future prediction and certainty is a factor in the
>>opinion of the critic.
>>
>The only way to know is to live a long time. I intend to re-examine
>this 50 years from now.
Look at older issues of Art magazines and you'll see a hundreds of
abstract has-beens no worse than the fashionable present crap. Some of
the names were Heise scheisse in their day.
>>> I admire originality too - doesn't that count?
>>
>>It only counts when it is done with artistic skill. Most originality
>>counts for nothing, especially the supposed originality of AE; which
>>anyone who knows art history can show very unoriginal. Is Vermeer,
>>Caneletto, Corot, Monet, really original? Artwork is usually an
>>evolutionary matter with new mutations added. The artist who uses
>>these best rather than the originator is usually the one more highly
>>valued.
>
>That's true, I think. Anything original enough not to seem an
>outgrowth of what we know will seem ugly - it may *be ugly.
>I can make an original noise and it may not be music, but I also think
>I can make sounds that may be music to some and noise to others and
>that one can acquire a taste or appreciation for something one once
>found ugly.
A great deal of Modern Art isn't ugly. Mondrian, Rothko, Malevich, etc
aren't any uglier than an average neck tie. But I believe that without
a continous torrent of hype these works would hardly interest any one.
>Perhaps the artist's ability to draw me into the work is in itself a
>skill as important as rendering perspective.
Exactly. If the artist can do that for a long time period surpassing
the fashion it is often judged as fine artwork, carefully preserved,
reproduced, imitated and admired for its skill craftsmanship and how
cleverly it expresses its subject matter..
>>
>>>>> I just don't agree that
>>>>>standards for art criticism are like physical laws. Making them seem
>>>>>so is a claim to authority, IMO.
>>>>>
>>>>Nobody said they were.
>>>>
>>>Not directly, but if you say no skill no art, don't you have to say
>>>*which skills? and then it's an authoritative statement about taste.
>>
>>The statement is an aphoristic one but it hits home. If you read my
>>book I defend it in great detail.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
myfan...@my-deja.com
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
> On Wed, 26 May 1999 06:39:44 GMT, myfan...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> Skill isn't avoided by the average art instructor. It isn't taught
> because he has none.
Granted but even if an artist goes out on there own they are
discouraged...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/