Fusions 2002
Alison A Raimes
http://raimes.com/fusions.htm
mdeli
>New series of Abstract photographs by London artist Alison A Raimes now at
>http://raimes.com/fusions.htm
She aptly quotes the latest artzy fartzy blue chip idiot Gerhard
Richter. "Abstract art is inherently about the search - and about not
finding anything"
The fuzzy photos look like what Alison found inside of her nose. They
are a notch better than her paintings.
Keep persuing nothing. Its in fashion.
...no skill no art
"The Emperor's New Clothes aren't clothing you stupid little girl. They are body installations containing invisible Color Fields."
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page
New address- http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli
Dean
you REALLY need to stop a gerbil from exploding, danf...@yahoo.com(Dan
Fox) distracted me by babbling thusly:
>I thought they were different views of her vagina. I like the paintings
>better.
OK, I had to look at the website. "Negative destroyed on sale." should be
made to "Negative destroyed BEFORE sale."
samuel.chapman
supposed to make of these images. If someone is clever enough to devise an
abstact image, they should also be clever enough to tell us what the image
is supposed to be about. I'm sorry, but abstracts without a description, is
like telling me that God exists without being able to read the bible. Too
many people use it as a way of making a fast buck without justifying what
they are presenting ... Like the vast majority of Installation Art ...
That's the public paying to see well, invairably rubbish!
Alison A Raimes <alison...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f6243c1f.02033...@posting.google.com...
samuel.chapman
have the decency to explain to us mortals what they are supposed to convey
to the veiwer? If it's just an arranement of pattens or colours, that IS
what it is, not some artified title like 'Abstract' ... which conveys to me,
rubbish tarted up to look like something it isn't. TITLES AND DESCRIPTIONS
PLEASE ON ALL 'ABSTRACT' ART! I do not wish to be patronised by someone who
hasn't the intellegence or decency to explain what the hell you are looking
at!
Alison A Raimes <alison...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f6243c1f.02033...@posting.google.com...
Nik Maack
"samuel.chapman" wrote:
> Sorry, but although the images may show 'something', couldn't the 'artist
> have the decency to explain to us mortals what they are supposed to convey
> to the veiwer?
Look at the photos as a set.
Alison A Raimes photos:
http://raimes.com/fusions.htm
My first reaction was, "Wow, what am I looking at? They're all wet, and
slimy, and real looking, but there's no way for me to figure out just
what the hell it is I'm seeing."
They sort of look like landscapes -- especially the ones with the big
patch of blue, which I at first thought was a lake. And then I
wondered, am I looking at something very small, shot very close up?
Some look like wet, foetal, burn victims -- both incredibly young, and
disturbingly old. Alien and strange, leafy, organic, almost obscene,
but familiar. It's like I should know what I am seeing, but I can't
figure it out. The answer stays just out of range of my understanding
-- and I like that feeling.
Have you ever looked at a pattern of some kind from a distance, some
photo or some drawing, and you can't figure out what it is? It's too
far away to make out. So you try to puzzle it out as you walk closer.
It sort of looks like a face, or maybe a landscape. Then -- BAM! You
realize what it is. It's a photograph, upside down, of a guy on a
horse. That's what it is. Now you know.
And then, for fun, you try to see what you saw before you knew what it
was. Where's that landscape? Where's that strange face? But now that
you know what it is -- an upside down photo of a guy on a horse -- it's
difficult to UNSEE it. You can't go back to seeing that weird unknown
blur of a face.
That's why I like these photographs. I have no idea what I'm seeing.
They are extremely complex and real distortions, and they stay that way.
There is no explanation. I will never see the guy on the horse. And
that's good.
> TITLES AND DESCRIPTIONS
> PLEASE ON ALL 'ABSTRACT' ART!
Do you want it all served to you in a neat little package, all labeled
and coherent and clear? Where's the fun in that?
I like to go to the art gallery and retitle the abstract art myself.
I'm particularly fond of "the cruel dissection of Santa Claus as seen
from above" which hangs in the Canadian National Gallery. That's what I
call it. I can't remember what the artist called it, but that's fine --
my title is far superior.
> I do not wish to be patronised by someone who
> hasn't the intellegence or decency to explain what the hell you are looking
> at!
The intelligence or decency to explain? Please. I think it's
intelligent and decent to let the viewer decide for themselves. An
artist is patronizing when they explain everything, when they assume the
viewer is too stupid to figure it out for themselves.
Don't be so lazy. Don't just passively look at the photographs. Work
at understanding them. They are a challenge. "What are we? Can you
guess? Solve the mystery. Go on! What are we?"
That you have chosen to reject their challenge and demand an explanation
from the artist, that they so frustrate you, indicates what a success
these photographs really are.
Peter H.M. Brooks
"samuel.chapman" <samuel....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:D_oq8.11119$lq6.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> Abstract they certainly are, but where are the descriptions of what
you are
> supposed to make of these images. If someone is clever enough to
devise an
> abstact image, they should also be clever enough to tell us what the
image
> is supposed to be about. I'm sorry, but abstracts without a
description, is
> like telling me that God exists without being able to read the bible.
Too
> many people use it as a way of making a fast buck without justifying
what
> they are presenting ... Like the vast majority of Installation Art ...
> That's the public paying to see well, invairably rubbish!
>
art is indeed an abstraction from reality. Decorative art isn't.
--
non illegitimi te carborundum
Alison A Raimes
> Do you want it all served to you in a neat little package, all labeled
> and coherent and clear? Where's the fun in that?
Indeed! There is often this huge confusion between pure abstract art
and abstraction. The abstract exists only in the mind - therefore
abstract art will always be different for every single individual. The
artists should not impose his mind on the viewer - only offer a door
to it. Some will engage with it, some will not. By all means put an
explanation next to the work and tell the viewer what he/she is
viewing .. and then watch them pass by fast as they have *get it*. Or
else challenge them to stretch their minds. At exhibitions I often
watch the viewers go from instant delight to disgust when they see my
work. Of course, I see many who don't have the desire to challenge
what they see - but I'm not particularly interestd in them ;-)
Abstract art is about contemplation; reflection; disturbance; unease.
Things are not as they at first seem. So what are they about? The
analogy of the God without the Bible is fantastic. Of course there is
a God without the Bible! You don't need set of warped and distorted
words to convince you of the Divine. The mind is the only source to
it. You can take it or leave it. Like Abstract Art.
The title of the work is _Fusions_ 1-12 if that helps the less able.
Fusions of the mind, if you like. The second series is _Diffusions_
http://raimes.com/diffusions.htm
I'm waiting for film to be processed, but have started to put some of
them up which you are welcome to look at - or not.
Alison A Raimes
http://raimes.com