the abstract expressionisim problem
taipe...@hotmail.com
all the way back to '96,...weird.
>From: Mdeli (hu...@interlog.com)
>Subject: the abstract expressionisim problem
>Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
>View this article only
>Date: 1996/08/16
>-Vast tracts of Artspeak praise lead mystically
>oriented people to imagine that these works have
>transcendental significance.
These people were not themselves mystics.
The only one that, to my knowledge, might have been,
possibly, was Kandinsky, but then he followed
a charasmatic "new age" cult leader. The first,
perhaps.
It was more like, "Oh cool, a book about astral colors,
let's put it in the art, man. Oh, sure, I'll make my horses blue,
but I don't like t hat color scheme made up by that guy
who wrote about seeing auras, so I'll just make up my own
color scheme!" And it goes like this.
And we are supposed to accept that this is mystical, when
the person doing the painting can't see astrally, and
very possibly the guy who wrote the book couldn't either???
>Mani DeLi
>...no skill no art
taipe...@hotmail.com
>Subject: Re: The Abstract Expressionisim problem
>View this article only
>
>Socrates was executed for his 'modern ideas.' The Committee of 30 in Athens
>wanted to re-establish conventional ideas. In the progression of time there
>have always been stubborn individuals like Mani who set themselves up as
>stumbling blocks to any kind of evolution or progression. But time keeps
>ticking away, ideas keep evolving, change is the Universal imperative. You
>can't stop time, Mani.
What does the ability to draw or paint well, or the desirability of it,
have to do with time?
>Nor can you regurgitate artistic standards (according to you) from the time
>of Ingres. Not after the 20th century,
>of two massive world wars,
>the holocaust, atomic and hydrogen bombs
>and the self-genocidal course which we are on today.
>You might think of yourself as an oracle proclaiming that the emperor has no
>clothes and that only you, the clever one are aware of this. And it is your
>duty, of course to warn everyone of this Fact.
>You are only a stumbling block, incessantly repeating the same old, same old.
>Move on, change the tape.
>Marilyn
*****************************************************
>From: mdeli (hug...@interlog.com)
>Subject: Re: The Abstract Expressionisim problem
>Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
>View this article only
>Date: 2000/07/24
>>The
>>reason the paintings are worth so much is because they were the
>>*first* artists to paint in that style.
>They weren't the first. This is modern art theology baloney.
That is true. Malevich did it before Rothko. And then he went
back to representational art.
>>And yes, the astronomical prices of Modern Art are partly a
>>result of a scheme between collectors, dealers, and museums.
>Indeed!
>>So
>>quit using that to attack the artists themselves-- those things
>>are a result of the system.
>Besides criticizing the system, I criticize these artists because
>their work is crap.
>Mani DeLi
*******************************************************************************
>From: mdeli (hug...@interlog.com)
>Subject: Re: The Abstract Expressionisim problem
>Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
>View this article only
>Date: 2000/07/28
>
>lake wrote:
>Lake wrote:
>>I'm glad you took the trouble to respond to my points one by one,
>>mdeli. Since you seem unwilling, or perhaps unable to grasp the sense
>>of my premeses, I'll try to be more specific:
>>1 - When I say, "real painting" I mean painting that has spirit.
>>Painting with a sense of adventure and risk. As opposed to the
>>copyist's mentality. Constable, Rembrandt and Van Gogh, and certainly
>>Turner, were explorers. Essentially, they were explorers and not
>>maestros - whereas Bougereau and Ingres were not explorers, they were
>>maestros. Can you dig the difference, mdeli?
>No, I can't. Apparently you believe "real painting"= Painting with a
>sense of adventure and risk. Which says your usual nothing. Why not
>just say you like a particular technique.
Mani, you say that technique is not the only thing you are able to
appreciate, but this is an example, among others, that to me show
you really do value only technique.
Which is why you cannot see why criticisms against Bougeaurati
could be valid. Bougeareau was indeed for the candy box lid,
and the fact that candy boxes are no longer so nifty either is beside
the point.
How do we know that Bougeaurati was fit only for the candy box lid?
The same way we can tell an actor cannot act. And we can tell this by
looking at his work, and one doesn't have to be the only one to go down
into the moldy basement at the Louvre to see his rejected works to see it.
He did not mean it. I put to you: Bougeaureau was just painting little
cherubs kissing each other because that was the fashion of the day.
He "meant it" as much as The guy who recently sold a sink with his
signature on it for $850,000. And I dislike both.
There were plenty of other great representational artists that did
"mean it".
**********************************************************************************************
>From: Maharat1 (maha...@aol.com)
>Subject: Re: The Abstract Expressionisim problem
>Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
>View this article only
>Date: 2000/08/30
>
>I know I wasn't invited into this, but I was reading and I can't help but to
>assert Duchamp pretty much wrote the book on what it means to be an artist, and
>what Duchamp didn't finnish, warhol and chris burden did. I guess my point is
>to be an artist is to extend the art beyond the canvass, to the point
>conceptualism can be almost, in some of its more common manifestations,
>considered craft.
Like getting permits? And the rest of the population had no idea they
were doing art by standing in line to get a permit.
Now that *really* extends beyond the canvass.
>That is, in my opinion, the difference between a painter and
>an artist. To declare oneself an artist is to performance with an interactive
>audience in which one's peers are by far the most hostile. To do this, to
>assert and maintain oneself as an artist, takes an immense amount of
>self-confidence.
I will assert myself to be a permit-gathering, standing in line at a government
agency artist.
>Anyone who dares call themselves an artist, in the company of
>other self-declared artist, and even more in the company of acomplished
>craftspersons, and carries their portfolio to back themselves up, has my
>uncompromised respect as an artist without regard to what their work looks
>like.
I guess skill does mean something after all......
**************************************************************************************
>Message 127 in thread
>From: lake (lakeNO...@plateautel.net.invalid)
>Subject: Re: The Abstract Expressionisim problem
>Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
>View this article only
>Date: 2000/07/29
>Breakers of the mold, like Giotto, like Vincent. Of course in the 20th
>century, it became merely fashionable to break molds, until there
>weren't any molds left to break. Molds went the way of the buffalo.
>That's what gives Mdeli his charm - he pretends they still exist.
If there are no more molds to break, then we should stop trying to be 'original'.
At least start being honest with ourselves about it. I think Malevich
really got it way back then.
I think it is the "modern artists" who pretend the molds still exist. They are
the ones that benefit financially from the idea.
Andrew D
wrote:
+> From: Marilyn (wq...@victoria.tc.ca)
+>Subject: Re: The Abstract Expressionisim problem
+>Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
+>View this article only
+>Date: 2000/07/21
+>
+
+>Socrates was executed for his 'modern ideas.' The Committee of 30 in Athens
+>wanted to re-establish conventional ideas. In the progression of time there
+>have always been stubborn individuals like Mani who set themselves up as
+>stumbling blocks to any kind of evolution or progression. But time keeps
+>ticking away, ideas keep evolving, change is the Universal imperative. You
+>can't stop time, Mani.
+
+What does the ability to draw or paint well, or the desirability of it,
+have to do with time?
Well, apparently, as time ticks by the ability to actually draw or paint
*well* is of less and less importance when assessing someone's ability to
draw or paint....er, well. Get it?
It's a bit like punctuation, spelling and grammar in general being
considered unnecessary in written communication.
[snip]
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Jean Pule
right@the_end.of.my_tether says...
>Well, apparently, as time ticks by the ability to actually draw or paint
>*well* is of less and less importance when assessing someone's ability to
>draw or paint....er, well. Get it?
So, as time ticks by, eventually one can place
a smear of paint or charcoal (or whatever) onto
a blank surface and everyone else will
recognize the "intent of the artist" was to
depict a ____________? (fill in the blank)
NOT! I think...
Andrew D
Pule) wrote:
+In article <right-03090...@i204-178.nv.iinet.net.au>,
+right@the_end.of.my_tether says...
+
+>Well, apparently, as time ticks by the ability to actually draw or paint
+>*well* is of less and less importance when assessing someone's ability to
+>draw or paint....er, well. Get it?
+So, as time ticks by, eventually one can place
+a smear of paint or charcoal (or whatever) onto
+a blank surface and everyone else will
+recognize the "intent of the artist" was to
+depict a ____________? (fill in the blank)
Everyone won't recognise the intent at all, unless the work is accompanied
by a lengthy explanation. As for the simple smear masquerading as art -
it's happening already....and it doesn't have to involve recognised art
media, it can be anything (and I mean "anything") smeared onto anything
else (longevity is often not an issue in modern "art").
+NOT! I think...
Me too - but the reality is that if the art elite have their way, anything
containing recognisable forms will be dismissed. If it doesn't require a
verbose explanation, preferably containing the word "juxtaposition", then
it won't be art, it will be "a picture".
But I'm happy painting pictures (that don't require narcotics) and I'm
even happier that other people appreciate them enough to want them without
me having to explain them.
Jean Pule
right@the_end.of.my_tether says...
>But I'm happy painting pictures (that don't require narcotics) and I'm
>even happier that other people appreciate them enough to want them without
>me having to explain them.
To coin a phrase: One person's reality is
another person's abstraction!
Peter H.M. Brooks
Dan Fox <danf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20010904115722.392$l...@newsreader.com...
>
>
> Picasso said, 'the most important part of a painting is the part you
can't
> talk about.' Most laymen, of course, think they have to 'understand' a
> piece to enjoy it, and this is probably where this opinion comes from.
The
> idea that you can just let it hit your eyeballs and enjoy it is
foreign to
> them.
>
Isn't that just what 'I know what I like' means?
--
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Who has custard with custard creams?
Major Molesworth Major Rtd. G&T&Bar
Jean Pule
>They are intelligent and open-minded,
>and that's really all it takes.
That's so true for most of today's
"difficult" art, but the average
dullard still gets their appreciation
from trite and easily recognized subject
matter. I agree it takes a greater
intellect - as well as the open mind -
to appreciate the "difficult" stuff.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
> > Dan Fox <danf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:20010904115722.392$l...@newsreader.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Picasso said, 'the most important part of a painting is the part
you
> > can't
> > > talk about.' Most laymen, of course, think they have to
'understand' a
> > > piece to enjoy it, and this is probably where this opinion comes
from.
> > The
> > > idea that you can just let it hit your eyeballs and enjoy it is
> > foreign to
> > > them.
> > >
> > Isn't that just what 'I know what I like' means?
>
>
I think that you will find that a large section of the public, the
laymen you talk about, would disagree with you.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> An art education enhances the appreciation of any good work of art,
since
> it provides a context as well as a knowledge of basic color,
composition,
> etc. But it isn't necessary. Another thing I've noticed - in music and
art,
> is that just looking at/listening to good work over a period of time
> educates a person's sensibility and advances their appreciation.
Sharpens
> their eye and ear, if you will. Jean, have you noticed this?
>
Yes, this is true. This is indeed a matter of aesthetics as well. Some
people, and it isn't apparent just who they are, however, find quite the
opposite - the more they are exposed to culture the more they object to
it. {You may remember the old joke [Dorothy Parker, I think] 'you can
take a horticulture, but you can't make her think}
Jean Pule
>Jean, have you noticed this?
I sure have. It goes without saying that when
someone gets interested in any subject they
are going to learn something about it, even
if only by association. I've never been a
student of any musical form, although I took
music during my formal education days. And
I know little about the fine points but I
know that I DON'T like opera while most of
my listening pleasure (and my budget for music)
is for classical music. But ask me about
who the artist is and you'll get a blank
look from me. It's a matter of "knowing
what I like when I hear it" but not knowing
much else about it. Same for visual arts
for a lot of people who have no interest in
art history, methods, or artist bios.
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com)
I have read most of the comments and
will proceed to add my own two cents.
Mani has it right Kandinsky had a
mystical streak. Kandinsky also had
skill but not the kind of skill Mani can
recognize.
Kandinsky used skill to bridge into the
mystical world of art. Art will never
die because it is the only existing
shelter from the rational world.
Rationalists like Mani keep preaching
that art belongs to the rational world
when it belongs to the world of being.
The rationalists fear the world of being
because it is absolutely individualized
and they have no power over it. The
rationalists live by rules and will
attack anyone who ignores their rules.
have fun: keith
Jean Pule
says...
>Art will never
>die because it is the only existing
>shelter from the rational world.
>Rationalists like Mani keep preaching
>that art belongs to the rational world
I like that thought. Although I am not
sure that I like being thought of as being
irrational. Undisciplined I'll accept...
Chris
> Interesting:
> I have read most of the comments and
> will proceed to add my own two cents.
>
> Mani has it right Kandinsky had a
> mystical streak. Kandinsky also had
> skill but not the kind of skill Mani can
> recognize.
>
> Kandinsky used skill to bridge into the
> mystical world of art. Art will never
> die because it is the only existing
> shelter from the rational world.
> Rationalists like Mani keep preaching
> that art belongs to the rational world
> when it belongs to the world of being.
> The rationalists fear the world of being
> because it is absolutely individualized
> and they have no power over it. The
> rationalists live by rules and will
> attack anyone who ignores their rules.
>
> have fun: keith
errr, keith - rationality is what leads to the notion of individuality
(notice how rationalism is strangely absent in tyrannical regimes -
ranging from the Taliban to Hitlerism and right back to Sparta?). Though
certainly in the RAF zoo, where people can happily proclaim that the
Committee of 30 put Socrates to death, or that supporting tyranny in
1930 isn't possible if your country was destroyed in 1940, or when
someone can say on the one hand great art requires no explanation and
then blithely contradict that by saying that constant exposure is what
generates an appreciation for it, irrationalism often triumphs. But in
the real world? I'd say if anything art gives us the toehold into the
irrational that we need to use the rational to understand and improve
our condition.
Cheers;
Chris
Andrew D
Pule) wrote:
+In article <3B96A780...@tinmangallery.com>, ke...@tinmangallery.com
+says...
+
+>Art will never
+>die because it is the only existing
+>shelter from the rational world.
+>Rationalists like Mani keep preaching
+>that art belongs to the rational world
+I like that thought. Although I am not
+sure that I like being thought of as being
+irrational. Undisciplined I'll accept...
If it's a question of art being an undisciplined (or irrational)
exprerssion then we surely come back to your earlier suggestion that a
simple smear of medium on a canvas must be art....providing it wasn't the
result of calculated, concious thought.
This then leads us back to the idea that, if art can only be the result of
entirely individual, undisciplined, irrational, subconcious expression
then there simply can be no rules and therefore no way whatsoever of
deeming some art to be great and other art to be something less than good
or indeed to suggest that any one type of art is "more difficult" tha
another.
Yet those who elevate expressionist abstraction to the artistic pinnacle
DO speak of great art and DO claim to be able to assess and understand it.
They DO profess to know what makes some art great because they've studied
art and art history and been taught what must surely be some sort of rules
or other means of objective assessment.
At best this is contradictory; at worst, hypocritical.
Jean Pule
right@the_end.of.my_tether says...
>Yet those who elevate expressionist abstraction to the artistic pinnacle
>DO speak of great art and DO claim to be able to assess and understand it.
>They DO profess to know what makes some art great because they've studied
>art and art history and been taught what must surely be some sort of rules
>or other means of objective assessment.
This is the crux of MY argument. You can try to compartmentalize
art as some are wont to do.
Illustration=realism=objectivity.
versus
Abstraction=improvisation=subjectivity.
Good/better/best.
versus
Bad/worse/worst.
>At best this is contradictory; at worst, hypocritical.
Unfortunately today's ART WORLD is all of it.
I used the word "unfortunately." Others will contradict
that by saying "fortunately." In the context of
how I mean "unfortunately" to be understood; I mean
that it's unfortunate everything about the ART WORLD
isn't cut and dried, black or white. But what makes
it exciting for me, and those who use the word
"fortunate" to imply positive thinking; it's the
"grey shades" (gray shades!) of the art world and
the very nature of that greyness/grayness.
Winston
So according to, you, one need not know anything about art or art
history in order to come up with great and wonderful proclemations
about art. Following that line of thought I wonder what your even
doing here posting about art since a person need not know anything
about art in order to be great at it. I would suggest that you find
another field of interest perhaps open heart surgery since in your
world an individual needs no knowledge of there chosen subject.
Chris
>
> So according to, you, one need not know anything about art or art
> history in order to come up with great and wonderful proclemations
> about art. Following that line of thought I wonder what your even
> doing here posting about art since a person need not know anything
> about art in order to be great at it. I would suggest that you find
> another field of interest perhaps open heart surgery since in your
> world an individual needs no knowledge of there chosen subject.
No Winston , all his post claims is that there is a significant contradiction between claiming art as the refuge
for unbridled irrationalism and other claims that art needs to be taught, and requires some knowledge of its
historical development. It's very similar to the contradiction that arises if one were to claim that great art
requires no explanation while at the same time claiming that the appreciation for it is a learned process. Andy is
just playing Socrates here - asking someone to resolve this. Why don't you have a go at it?
Regards;
Chris
Andrew D
winsto...@yahoo.com (Winston) wrote:
+right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D) wrote in message
news:<right-06090...@i204-104.nv.iinet.net.au>...
+> In article <3b96b...@oracle.zianet.com>, jp...@noemailever.com (Jean
+> Pule) wrote:
+>
+> +In article <3B96A780...@tinmangallery.com>, ke...@tinmangallery.com
+> +says...
+> +
+> +>Art will never
+> +>die because it is the only existing
+> +>shelter from the rational world.
+> +>Rationalists like Mani keep preaching
+> +>that art belongs to the rational world
+>
+> +I like that thought. Although I am not
+> +sure that I like being thought of as being
+> +irrational. Undisciplined I'll accept...
+>
+> If it's a question of art being an undisciplined (or irrational)
+> exprerssion then we surely come back to your earlier suggestion that a
+> simple smear of medium on a canvas must be art....providing it wasn't the
+> result of calculated, concious thought.
+>
+> This then leads us back to the idea that, if art can only be the result of
+> entirely individual, undisciplined, irrational, subconcious expression
+> then there simply can be no rules and therefore no way whatsoever of
+> deeming some art to be great and other art to be something less than good
+> or indeed to suggest that any one type of art is "more difficult" tha
+> another.
+>
+> Yet those who elevate expressionist abstraction to the artistic pinnacle
+> DO speak of great art and DO claim to be able to assess and understand it.
+> They DO profess to know what makes some art great because they've studied
+> art and art history and been taught what must surely be some sort of rules
+> or other means of objective assessment.
+>
+> At best this is contradictory; at worst, hypocritical.
+>
+> Andy D.
+>
+> "I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
+
+So according to, you, one need not know anything about art or art
+history
No. I never said I don't believe there is good and bad. I said that, if
abstract expressionists insist their work is great because it is
individual, irrational and undisciplined then they cannot also claim to
know great art because they have learned the rules of art. But they often
do both.
Andrew D
<bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
+Winston wrote:
+
+>
+> So according to, you, one need not know anything about art or art
+> history in order to come up with great and wonderful proclemations
+> about art. Following that line of thought I wonder what your even
+> doing here posting about art since a person need not know anything
+> about art in order to be great at it. I would suggest that you find
+> another field of interest perhaps open heart surgery since in your
+> world an individual needs no knowledge of there chosen subject.
+
+No Winston , all his post claims is that there is a significant
+contradiction between claiming art as the refuge
+for unbridled irrationalism and other claims........
....,often by the very same people writing about the same types of
work,.........
+.............. that art needs to be taught, and requires some knowledge of its
+historical development. It's very similar to the contradiction that
+arises if one were to claim that great art requires no explanation while
+at the same time claiming that the appreciation for it is a learned process.
Now who would do that? ;)
+Andy is just playing Socrates here - asking someone to resolve this.
+Why don't you have a go at it?
+Regards;
Thanks Chris. I look forward to some explanations.
Andy.
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com)
To leave the rational world and enter
the world of being requires a level of
skill. The implication of that statement
is that rational skill and the world of
being skills are different. Eg. rational
skill uses measurement devices to
determine of a spot is in the center of
the square. The world of being skill
uses the eye to determine if the dot is
in the center of the square. (we will
assume no eye defects for this example).
I am saying that you tap into your
personal individual biological response
systems and abandon the abstract
rational, which deals with abstract
constructed unites of measurement.
You now enter a world that is the equal
of the rational but uses none of the
tools of the rational world.
Most people can't let go of the rational
world.
have fun: keith
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com)
wrote:
>
> ----------------------------------------
>
> keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com) <ke...@tinmangallery.com>
> curator/ceo
> tinman gallery
>
> keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com)
> curator/ceo <ke...@tinmangallery.com>
> tinman gallery
> Netscape Conference Address
> Netscape Conference DLS Server
> Additional Information:
> Last Name o'connor (tinmangallery.com)
> First Namekeith
> Version 2.1
Peter H.M. Brooks
Andrew D <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
news:right-07090...@i161-013.nv.iinet.net.au...
>
>
> No. I never said I don't believe there is good and bad. I said that,
if
> abstract expressionists insist their work is great because it is
> individual, irrational and undisciplined then they cannot also claim
to
> know great art because they have learned the rules of art. But they
often
> do both.
>
contradictions are fine if you embrace 'post-modernism'. Of course,
their 'arguement' is worthless as post-modernism would show that it is
equally 'valid' to agree with them as to say they are talking utter
crap.
Jean Pule
right@the_end.of.my_tether says...
>No. I never said I don't believe there is good and bad. I said that, if
>abstract expressionists insist their work is great because it is
>individual, irrational and undisciplined then they cannot also claim to
>know great art because they have learned the rules of art. But they often
>do both.
You're obviously over-generalizing again.
You choose to ignore the fact that many AE artists
have evolved from realists who had the
"usual" art training in their formative
years but by choice are now expressing
themselves through non-representation. And
in danger of generalizing myself, I would guess
that MOST of the AE crowd evolved away from
representational art. And I'm certain there
are those who have gone the other way or
returned to representation from AE.
Here's one artist whose works I admire,
both early representational and current AE:
Chris
"Rationalism" means being governed by reason, not simply using tools.
It is interesting though how your misinterpretation then leads to an
example of a desired "state of being" that excludes those with physical
imperfections. Sound familiar?
Chris
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com)
good point: I can see where my over
simplification lead you.
My eye defect has caused me to be
conscious of the role of both abstract
metaphorical tools and to physical tools
both used in the shaping of thought and
the shaping physical matter.
(1) The concept of Rationalism is based
upon rules of reasoning. Rules function
in the role of tools used to shape
ideas. The theory of causation is an
example of a rule used for many
centuries to prove the existance of god
- even though under intense analysis it
has been shown to contain the classic
first term contradiction.
(2) I excluded physical imperfections
from the example in order not to
complicate it. A person with a visual
imperfection my not be able to locate
the center in the example. That happens
to be my problem. In order for me to
target the center I need measurement
tools. I abandon the use of measurement
tools in order to get in touch with my
personal perceptual system which is
naturally off center, but it does not
look that way to me, only to others.
I know then that I can only experience
my personal reality. I cannot see the
proportions that others see. This
explains my emphasis on personal being
because for me there is nothing else.
take care: keith
Andrew D
Pule) wrote:
+In article <right-07090...@i161-013.nv.iinet.net.au>,
+right@the_end.of.my_tether says...
+
+>No. I never said I don't believe there is good and bad. I said that, if
+>abstract expressionists insist their work is great because it is
+>individual, irrational and undisciplined then they cannot also claim to
+>know great art because they have learned the rules of art. But they often
+>do both.
+
+You're obviously over-generalizing again.
Generalising perhaps, but over-generalising? I guess that depends on
whether you agree with me or not ;)
+You choose to ignore the fact that many AE artists
+have evolved from realists who had the
+"usual" art training in their formative
+years but by choice are now expressing
+themselves through non-representation.
I'm not ignoring anything. I'm making observations on discussion in art
circles, especially that which takes place here. On one hand we have
people dismissing representational art as mere "pictures" (some will say
"why not just take a photo?") then going on to explain that you shouldn't
study a piece but just let it hit you in the eyeballs.
I'm sorry but I'm having trouble understanding why it would matter if the
artwork was representational or not if you aren't actually looking at
content but simply letting it play on your retina.
Often, these same people - after explaining that real art is not of the
rational mind - will advise that they know what they're talking about
because they've learned about art either through academic channels or by
years of exposure to "art" (the latter being a conundrum all by itself).
They may even go on to critique other people's work and explain why one
artist is better than another.
Surely it is absolutely impossible to critique that which is not supposed
to be rational? On what criteria could any discussion take place if there
can be no rational basis for assessment? Even to dismiss a piece as "too
rational" would require some form of rational assessment which would
immediately render the assessor's comments invalid...wouldn't it?
Jean Pule
right@the_end.of.my_tether says...
>Generalising perhaps, but over-generalising? I guess that depends on
>whether you agree with me or not ;)
You were replying directly to my post so...
>I'm not ignoring anything.
Bad choice of words on my part - and making assumptions
is always in bad form. Sorry about that. I find
nothing to disagree with in the rest of your reply
which I've therefore skipped over to...
>Surely it is absolutely impossible to critique that which is not supposed
>to be rational? On what criteria could any discussion take place if there
>can be no rational basis for assessment? Even to dismiss a piece as "too
>rational" would require some form of rational assessment which would
>immediately render the assessor's comments invalid...wouldn't it?
I've carefully avoided jumping into the rational
vs irrational argument since in my opinion, all
art has some rational basis. Whether or not the
viewer believes the finished presentation to have
any rational is another matter. As is ever and
forever pointed out here, ART is many DIFFERENT
things to many different folks. That got me to
using terms like "over-generalizing." I suppose
that's a grammatical stretch due to my taking
too much poetic license with the language at times.
And again, I think we're agreeing on the "rational
vs irrational" argument, in spite of the different
words used.
Andrew D
Pule) wrote:
[snip]
+I've carefully avoided jumping into the rational
+vs irrational argument since in my opinion, all
+art has some rational basis. Whether or not the
+viewer believes the finished presentation to have
+any rational is another matter. As is ever and
+forever pointed out here, ART is many DIFFERENT
+things to many different folks. That got me to
+using terms like "over-generalizing." I suppose
+that's a grammatical stretch due to my taking
+too much poetic license with the language at times.
+
+And again, I think we're agreeing on the "rational
+vs irrational" argument, in spite of the different
+words used.
Okay then. :)
As I recall it wasn't you who referred to the irrational nature of real
art but those who did don't seem to want to deal with the questions I've
raised. No doubt they'll soon be back defending their choice for "great
art" with rational critiques of that which they would otherwise deem
inexplicable.
I'm in total agreement that it is probably impossible to dictate what is
and is not art. However, it is that which leads me (and others I suspect)
to question the criteria used by publicly-funded galleries that seem to be
blinded by wierd and seemingly childish - sorry 'naive' - aspects of art
to the near total exclusion of representational art. It seems that
shocking the taxpayers is more important today than recognising and
supporting any sort of real talent or skill.
"If it shocks, then it is proved to be art."
Jean Pule
right@the_end.of.my_tether says...
>"If it shocks, then it is proved to be art."
That's but one definition, and to generalize
about what galleries and museums sponsor today
is a gross error and only shows a very narrow
knowledge of what's what. A subscription to
one of the popular art magazines might be
beneficial - or you can view them in your
public library.
Tim Simmons
"Jean Pule" <jp...@noemailever.com> wrote in message
news:3b9e1...@oracle.zianet.com...
Tim S.:
Sad.
Tim