Debunking and Defaming...
Fanny Whyde
It's simply amazing how much time and energy
some people spend posting to this forum trying
to debunk "Modern Art" and in the process
attempting to defame the artists and those who
find their art agreeable.
The honorable ex-president of the USA
said it - er - is - that is, he said it all
depends on "what IS is." And there is one
undeniable fact about Modern Art, or ALL
contemporary art, and the art that came
before it - IT IS! Griping and harping and
denouncing IT IS not going to change a damned
thing. IT IS and IT will continue to be
and no amount of Mani Delisms is going to change
that fact!!!!
When I have a bit more time, I'm going to throw
out another rag for the hounds to chew on and
rag over...stay tuned.
Tracy Miller
they can make a difference with what they do.
On 4 Apr 2001 16:01:57 -0700, fa...@noemailever.com (Fanny Whyde)
wrote:
Fanny Whyde
>
>That's just it, Fanny, they have delusioned themselves into thinking
>they can make a difference with what they do.
Like pissing into a hurricane wind! The
winds of change blow so hard they don't even
realize they're wetting only themselves.
As much as some would love to rewrite history
in all segments of society, it ain't gonna
happen. Maybe Mani should lead the charge in
attempting to get all Art History books burned.
Or he could try blocking people from entering
the MOMA or something. Do like Robt Lederman
does and stand outside the MOMA on a soap box.
That would at least be a productive use of
his YEARS of ranting against the system
as opposed to the futility of trying
to impose his beliefs on this forum.
These lone crusaders are like Don Quixote
clones, minus even a sidekick like Sancho.
mdeli
> Maybe Mani should lead the charge in
>attempting to get all Art History books burned.
>Or he could try blocking people from entering
>the MOMA or something. Do like Robt Lederman
>does and stand outside the MOMA on a soap box.
>That would at least be a productive use of
>his YEARS of ranting against the system
>as opposed to the futility of trying
>to impose his beliefs on this forum.
>These lone crusaders are like Don Quixote
>clones, minus even a sidekick like Sancho.
>
This is the sort of stuff nut cases who can't handle any criticism of
their idols compulsively write. Its always amusing to inflame their
cerebral hemorrhoids. Interestingly I never met similar types even in
the nuttiest art schools I attended. I guess the population of cranky
failures is on the increase.
Advise: When confronted with a modern artzy fartzy always mention
Norman Rockwell and wait for the usual reaction. Never tell them they
are bitter etc. etc.
...no skill no art
Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
RBrac53660
>the MOMA or something. Do like Robt Lederman
>does and stand outside the MOMA on a soap box.
When I was in art school there was some persons who did go to jail for blocking
the entrance to the MOMA.
www.geocities.com/winston53660/wbphotog.html
RBrac53660
thought? In my opinion you know alot about an awful lot.........
www.geocities.com/winston53660/wbphotog.html
Andrew D
+On 4 Apr 2001 16:01:57 -0700, fa...@noemailever.com (Fanny Whyde)
+wrote:
+>It's simply amazing how much time and energy
+>some people spend posting to this forum trying
+>to debunk "Modern Art" and in the process
+>attempting to defame the artists and those who
+>find their art agreeable.
[snip]
+That's just it, Fanny, they have delusioned themselves into thinking
+they can make a difference with what they do.
"They" are making a difference. Just as the pendulum is starting to swing
against the anti-family feminists around the world (the fundamentalist
brand of feminism that actually seeks to limit women's choices), the
pendulum is also starting to swing against the fundamentalist approach to
"art" that sees anything vaguely traditional as outdated and worthless.
These changes will only come about as a result of public resistance to
systemic elitism. This group is just a forum where views can easily be
expressed.
Andy
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Lissa Robinson
>
>
> These changes will only come about as a result of public resistance to
> systemic elitism. This group is just a forum where views can easily be
> expressed.
>
> Andy
Each art system that has made a place for itself in history is elitist. Do you
actually believe a revision of a traditionalist genre would not be elitist???
It sure sounds elitist to me.
Andrew D
+Andrew D wrote:
+
+>
+>
+> These changes will only come about as a result of public resistance to
+> systemic elitism. This group is just a forum where views can easily be
+> expressed.
+Each art system that has made a place for itself in history is elitist. Do you
+actually believe a revision of a traditionalist genre would not be elitist???
+It sure sounds elitist to me.
When it occurs at the exclusion of all other art, then yes it will be
elitist. The problem currently is that traditional, representational art
is being condemned as mere illustration while other, less fathomable work
is hailed as "great art" even if the major public response to it is one of
overwhelming revulsion and disgust.
People who oppose the shift are told to just accept that it's "All Art" -
but that doesn't solve the problem that "their art" is being ignored by
major institutions who insist on promoting the obscure.
In my experience, the vast majority of "hobby artists" pursue some form of
traditional art, be it landscape, still life, portraiture...whatever. Yet
the vast majority of contemporary work hanging in major galleries is
abstract. Clearly the "art establishment" is out of touch with what the
wider community perceives as "art". Why is the establishment right and the
community wrong? Is the publicly-funded establishment only there to
represent the minority?
Barry Stevens
I agree, Andy.
There's also a wonderful mechanism available to all who care to use it to
take advantage of "public resistance to systematic elitism." Those who use
it well accomplish two objectives simultaneously:
1. They do, in fact, move public opinion; and
2. They make money with their work.
The mechanism? Market your work, and let the public vote.
Will the public vote? Not everyone likes Thomas Kincaide, but a lot of
investors and customers voted on him. Did he produce art? Did he produce
GREAT art? Opinions vary. What he DID do, however, is clearly establish to
the financial world that art is a real business. Not just for collectors, or
Sotheby's auctions, or the elite, but for the public in general.
Part of the trick is for the artist to produce the art that comes from the
soul, and stay true to that vision. The rest of the trick involves some kind
of marketing mechanism to make that work available to the public at large,
so they get the opportunity to "vote". Being married to an artist, this is
near to my heart.
My business partner and I are exploring such a mechanism, probably a private
placement sufficient to produce a marketing program for a pool of, say, 10
artists. It'll either work or it won't. As the first private placement
works, we'll try a second. Once we get to the third "round", we can expect
to see a newspaper headline:
"The Starving Artist Is Dead."
--
Barry Stevens
"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
news:right-10040...@i003-123.nv.iinet.net.au...
Lissa Robinson
> When it occurs at the exclusion of all other art, then yes it will be
> elitist. The problem currently is that traditional, representational art
> is being condemned as mere illustration while other, less fathomable work
> is hailed as "great art" even if the major public response to it is one of
> overwhelming revulsion and disgust.
This, in my opinion, is a gross exaggeration. At least it is in the Canadian
context. For example, in commercial galleries the stables are generally about half
modern and half traditional.
Also, there is NO reason to believe that major public response to a piece of art
is the great key to whether it's good or bad. Look at hollywood. Most blockbuster
films are mediocre at best. Usually the most incredible films are the ones nobody
bothers to see.
> People who oppose the shift are told to just accept that it's "All Art" -
> but that doesn't solve the problem that "their art" is being ignored by
> major institutions who insist on promoting the obscure.
My question is why artists are so concerned about the major institutions? If all
you care about is making your art then who cares what the major institutions
think. This is the type of thinking which has annoyed me about Robert Batemen. He
not only bastardized the notion of what a real print is but has also marketed the
idea of the signature holding the value more than any modern artist I can think
of. And now he is mad that major museums won't give him a show. Yuck.
> In my experience, the vast majority of "hobby artists" pursue some form of
> traditional art, be it landscape, still life, portraiture...whatever. Yet
> the vast majority of contemporary work hanging in major galleries is
> abstract. Clearly the "art establishment" is out of touch with what the
> wider community perceives as "art". Why is the establishment right and the
> community wrong? Is the publicly-funded establishment only there to
> represent the minority?
The hobby artist is exactly that, a hobby artist.
I wish some of you would take a psychology of aesthetics course.
lissa
Fanny Whyde
right@the_end.of.my_tether says...
>The problem currently is that traditional, representational art
>is being condemned as mere illustration while other, less fathomable work
>is hailed as "great art" even if the major public response to it is one of
>overwhelming revulsion and disgust.
I have NO IDEA what you are talking about. WHO you
are talking about. Such a generalized statement as
you've formulated above is nonsense - simplistic and
worthless.
"The problem currently is that," at least in this
newsgroup, there are those who believe they speak
for the art world at large when all they're doing
is uttering personal opinion based on their own
very narrow interests. "Overwhelming revulsion and
disgust" is another absurdity. I've yet to enter an
art museum, REGARDLESS of the current exhibit, where
people were either consensually revulsed or disgusted.
People's reactions are as varied as the people themselves
in any given circumstance. How many times does anyone
witness a group of people who are in total accord,
either protesting or proclaiming over the art work
they are viewing? Ain't gonna happen as long as
people are people and artists are artists.
But we will continue to be plagued by those who think
they speak for the entire world here in these forums.
That's also just human nature.
mdeli
<ljro...@cadvision.com> wrote:
>My question is why artists are so concerned about the major institutions? If all
>you care about is making your art then who cares what the major institutions
>think. This is the type of thinking which has annoyed me about Robert Batemen. He
>not only bastardized the notion of what a real print is but has also marketed the
>idea of the signature holding the value more than any modern artist I can think
>of. And now he is mad that major museums won't give him a show. Yuck.
Bateman doesn't give a damn about museums. He has also had exhibitions
in many museums, however he isn't in many permanent collections. There
is no such thing as a "real" print.'
Most Modern Academic Art museums are run by fundamentalist art school
goons whose job it is to keep out anything they label as Kitsch or
commercial.
Based on the visually attractiveness of Bateman it is completely
necessary to keep such works away from the incompetent abstract idiocy
that inhabits these places. If viewers got an opportunity to compare
Bateman to the curators favorite academic crap they might just laugh
him out of a job.
Eventually the likes of Bateman will be admitted to museums. For now
its Artzy fartzy turf.
>> In my experience, the vast majority of "hobby artists" pursue some form of
>> traditional art, be it landscape, still life, portraiture...whatever. Yet
>> the vast majority of contemporary work hanging in major galleries is
>> abstract. Clearly the "art establishment" is out of touch with what the
>> wider community perceives as "art". Why is the establishment right and the
>> community wrong? Is the publicly-funded establishment only there to
>> represent the minority?
>
>The hobby artist is exactly that, a hobby artist.
>
The worlds best so called illustrators aren't "hobby artists," nor
are most realists in the sense Modern Art fundamentalists like to
imagine. A lot of illustration contains abstract elements. Take a look
at the Illustrator's Annual.
mdeli
D) wrote:
>When it occurs at the exclusion of all other art, then yes it will be
>elitist. The problem currently is that traditional, representational art
>is being condemned as mere illustration while other, less fathomable work
>is hailed as "great art" even if the major public response to it is one of
>overwhelming revulsion and disgust.
The best illustration isn't at all traditional representational art.
Its totally modern in concept and subject matter. No one but an
ignoramus would mistake it for work of the past.
Lissa Robinson
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 13:07:35 +0800, right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew
> D) wrote:
>
> >When it occurs at the exclusion of all other art, then yes it will be
> >elitist. The problem currently is that traditional, representational art
> >is being condemned as mere illustration while other, less fathomable work
> >is hailed as "great art" even if the major public response to it is one of
> >overwhelming revulsion and disgust.
>
> The best illustration isn't at all traditional representational art.
> Its totally modern in concept and subject matter. No one but an
> ignoramus would mistake it for work of the past.
Okay oh bright one. give us some examples of modern artists who fit your
description.
Lissa Robinson
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 07:08:05 -0600, Lissa Robinson
> <ljro...@cadvision.com> wrote:
>
> >My question is why artists are so concerned about the major institutions? If all
> >you care about is making your art then who cares what the major institutions
> >think. This is the type of thinking which has annoyed me about Robert Batemen. He
> >not only bastardized the notion of what a real print is but has also marketed the
> >idea of the signature holding the value more than any modern artist I can think
> >of. And now he is mad that major museums won't give him a show. Yuck.
>
> Bateman doesn't give a damn about museums. He has also had exhibitions
> in many museums, however he isn't in many permanent collections. There
> is no such thing as a "real" print.'
Hey jerk off ...get your facts straight. He was interviewed on a Canadian biography
called "Life & Times" and damn straight he is mad that he isn't given more
recognition by museums, curators and the such.
You are so ******* dumb. By real prints I meant hand made plates and pulled off the
press by the artist. His prints are made from photographs of his paintings and he
makes hundreds of them. And then he sells them for his signature not the image. The
image is a by product. His images are manufactured. So is his art.
Get educated.
>
>
> Most Modern Academic Art museums are run by fundamentalist art school
> goons whose job it is to keep out anything they label as Kitsch or
> commercial.
Yawn.
>
>
> Based on the visually attractiveness of Bateman it is completely
> necessary to keep such works away from the incompetent abstract idiocy
> that inhabits these places. If viewers got an opportunity to compare
> Bateman to the curators favorite academic crap they might just laugh
> him out of a job.
Yawn.
> Eventually the likes of Bateman will be admitted to museums. For now
> its Artzy fartzy turf.
His work belongs in a mall.
>
>
> >> In my experience, the vast majority of "hobby artists" pursue some form of
> >> traditional art, be it landscape, still life, portraiture...whatever. Yet
> >> the vast majority of contemporary work hanging in major galleries is
> >> abstract. Clearly the "art establishment" is out of touch with what the
> >> wider community perceives as "art". Why is the establishment right and the
> >> community wrong? Is the publicly-funded establishment only there to
> >> represent the minority?
> >
> >The hobby artist is exactly that, a hobby artist.
> >
> The worlds best so called illustrators aren't "hobby artists," nor
> are most realists in the sense Modern Art fundamentalists like to
> imagine. A lot of illustration contains abstract elements. Take a look
> at the Illustrator's Annual.
I wasn't talking about serious illustrators you loser. I was talking about hobby
artists. Can you read?
mdeli
<wq...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
>Lissa,
>
>By his own admission, Bateman rented a suite at the Empress waited for his
>prints to be flown in on a chartered jet and signed 30,000 over the
>week-end.
So tell us why this is a crime.
>
>He was given an exhibition at the Greater Victoria Art Gallery once but it
>was an acknowledged slip-up.
?
>
>When his "prints"/mechanical reproductions start to fade in a couple of
>years, it might be an improvement.
>
>Marilyn
If you ever manged to sell your prints you would be a lot less crabby.
mdeli
>> The best illustration isn't at all traditional representational art.
>> Its totally modern in concept and subject matter. No one but an
>> ignoramus would mistake it for work of the past.
> Lissa Robinson wrote:
>Okay oh bright one. give us some examples of modern artists who fit your
>description.
Ok stupid, here are five names---Braldt Bralds, Bernie Fuchs, Wilson
McLean, Mark English, Heather Cooper. You can find hundreds more if
you look in illustrators Annuals old and new.
I'm sure the average artzy fartzy here will carefully avoid this lest
he sees work which might make his output look stupid.
I'm Looking forward to another brilliant comment from you like "fuck
off"
Andrew D
+Andrew D wrote:
+
+> When it occurs at the exclusion of all other art, then yes it will be
+> elitist. The problem currently is that traditional, representational art
+> is being condemned as mere illustration while other, less fathomable work
+> is hailed as "great art" even if the major public response to it is one of
+> overwhelming revulsion and disgust.
+This, in my opinion, is a gross exaggeration. At least it is in the Canadian
+context. For example, in commercial galleries the stables are generally
about half
+modern and half traditional.
Yes, in commercial galleries. So why not in galleries funded from the
public purse?
+Also, there is NO reason to believe that major public response to a piece
of art
+is the great key to whether it's good or bad. Look at hollywood. Most
blockbuster
+films are mediocre at best. Usually the most incredible films are the
ones nobody
+bothers to see.
"Incredible" meaning "lacking credibility" :) Sorry, had to do it.
+> People who oppose the shift are told to just accept that it's "All Art" -
+> but that doesn't solve the problem that "their art" is being ignored by
+> major institutions who insist on promoting the obscure.
+My question is why artists are so concerned about the major institutions?
Because "our" taxes fund them while they essentially debase "our" work by
ignoring or dismissing it.
[snip]
+> In my experience, the vast majority of "hobby artists" pursue some form of
+> traditional art, be it landscape, still life, portraiture...whatever. Yet
+> the vast majority of contemporary work hanging in major galleries is
+> abstract. Clearly the "art establishment" is out of touch with what the
+> wider community perceives as "art". Why is the establishment right and the
+> community wrong? Is the publicly-funded establishment only there to
+> represent the minority?
+The hobby artist is exactly that, a hobby artist.
But that's where all art begins - in the individual. Who gets to decide
that hobby artists are wrong?
+I wish some of you would take a psychology of aesthetics course.
Why?
Lissa Robinson
>
>
> Yes, in commercial galleries. So why not in galleries funded from the
> public purse?
I was actually only using commercial galleries as an example. There is
traditional work also being shown in every public gallery I have entered in
Canada.
As for the public purse, only a very small portion of the funds going to public
galleries are actually taxes (at least in Canada). In fact, if you break the
money pie down into percentages ... the amount given to arts and culture don't
even show up on the pie! The other point is that most government money given to
public galleries is from lottery money funds not taxes. And as well, most public
galleries survive by a combination of private donations, fundraising and public
money.
>
> +Also, there is NO reason to believe that major public response to a piece
> of art
> +is the great key to whether it's good or bad. Look at hollywood. Most
> blockbuster
> +films are mediocre at best. Usually the most incredible films are the
> ones nobody
> +bothers to see.
>
> "Incredible" meaning "lacking credibility" :) Sorry, had to do it.
Actually, it means "hard to believe; surprising." But this response just proves
that you are looking towards a scientific way of thinking to decide what makes
art good. Since the above is the only response you could come up with I have to
believe you couldn't really dispute the point I was making.
I'll say it again: Usually the most stunning and provocative films
(aesthetically and psychologically) are the ones nobody bothers to see.
>
>
> +> People who oppose the shift are told to just accept that it's "All Art" -
> +> but that doesn't solve the problem that "their art" is being ignored by
> +> major institutions who insist on promoting the obscure.
>
> +My question is why artists are so concerned about the major institutions?
>
> Because "our" taxes fund them while they essentially debase "our" work by
> ignoring or dismissing it.
Not in CANADA. Our traditional artists are celebrated here.
> +> In my experience, the vast majority of "hobby artists" pursue some form of
> +> traditional art, be it landscape, still life, portraiture...whatever. Yet
> +> the vast majority of contemporary work hanging in major galleries is
> +> abstract. Clearly the "art establishment" is out of touch with what the
> +> wider community perceives as "art". Why is the establishment right and the
> +> community wrong? Is the publicly-funded establishment only there to
> +> represent the minority?
>
> +The hobby artist is exactly that, a hobby artist.
>
> But that's where all art begins - in the individual. Who gets to decide
> that hobby artists are wrong?
To a degree. But then I could also say that this is where all doctors or lawyers
or scientists begin. Who gets to decide who are the better doctors? The
institution or the people? Just like most professions in contemporary society it
is decided by a combination of the institution, one's peers and the public. I am
not saying hobby artists are wrong but I am saying that their work probably
doesn't represent the finest art. A hobbyist by term refers to someone who
enjoys engaging in the subject but finds this is not their main business or
interest. Personally, I am more fond of supporting artists who give their life
to support their artmaking.
>
>
> +I wish some of you would take a psychology of aesthetics course.
>
> Why?
>
Because, it studies artistic behaviour from both the perspective of the viewer
and the maker. It looks at visual arts through the eyes of experimental,
developmental and biological psychology. There is both valid scientific evidence
to making and viewing art as well as speculation.
Lissa Robinson
I love the universe. It always sends you what you need if you keep your eyes open for it. Today at work I went to the library during my lunch break to read an art magazine (a Canadian mag called Artichoke) and lo and behold what article does it contain? A feature on Robert Bateman. Now this is a fairly contemporary magazine so I don't want a certain person whining because he thinks it's only a hobbyist magazine. Anyway, in this article Bateman states a few very interesting ideas (ones which I think will send Mani through the roof!):
"Around this time [1958] Bateman realized that no one was painting wildlife and so he dropped animal art "like a hot potato," he says, and entered his impressionist phase. He was heavily influenced by Cezanne's approach to composition. Other influences included paintings by Jack Shadbolt, Harold Town, Mark Rothko, Clyfford Still and Franz Kline. In his own paintings he moved through impressionist, cubist, and ultimately abstract-expressionist styles. Of his abstract and semi-abstract works he says, "This was the high-art Bateman, so to speak, but at the same time the underground low-art Batemabn was still doing very naturalistic accurate renderings of nature. But I considered those to be just records, not real art."
Bateman comments on illustration:
"My definition of an illustration is when the raison d'etre or the motivation comes from outside the artist's own spirit or desires, as when publishing company contacts an illustrator and invites him to provide illustrations for, let's say, RObert Louis Stevenson's Kidnapped. ... Illustrations are when you illustrate someone else's story."
Bateman on painting:
"I like to show depth in my paintings, but I really also like flatness. A hallmark of my work is the very, very delicate playing with tone. I'm not a great colourist. Art begins where nature ends and I take great liberties. Basically it's my painting, and I can do what I want. My main aim is o get the feeling of tone and form."
Dan Fox wrote:
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>There is no such thing as a "real" print.'
While there is little point in responding to any of Mani's 'bait' posts
except as diversion, I think it's worthwhile to respond to outright
falsehoods such as this - particularly when they can be so easily exposed.
Anyone actually reading this group for art information may benefit.The following definitions are are based on internationally
recognized standards, available in any library.PRINTS
To call a work a print, these criteria must be met:
- The pictorial content is cut or etched into a ground, such as a stone
or copper plate. There is no original painting or drawing.- The plate is inked, once for each color, and each print created
('pulled') using pressure on the ground.- The artist must be present when prints are pulled. His signature on the
print indicates his or her approval of the individual print.- An edition size is determined in advance. When the correct number of
acceptable prints have been pulled (plus variants such as artist's proofs),
the plate is defaced or destroyed, preventing any additional prints from
being pulled. This defines a 'limited edition.'REPRODUCTIONS
Much of what is sold in 'print galleries' and through other outlets are
not prints at all, but photomechanical reproductions. A high-quality
photo is taken of an existing painting or other work. Prints are run on
archival paper. (These are called 'posters' in the trade.) The artist signs
each poster; often an 'edition' is indicated (112/1000), and the poster
is fraudently marketed as a 'limited-edition print.'Recently, 'giclee prints' have appeared on the market. They sound
high-class (french, after all!). They are really just inkjet reproductions,
done with a special printer onto paper or canvas.-----------------------end of definitions---------------
Schlock artists like Bateman (Canada) and McKnight (US) are only two of
thousands of artist and galleries that are doing this. Also, fake 'prints'
by the masters - Picasso, Miro, Chagall, and Dali in particular - are
sold to gullible doctors, dentists, etc, at high prices. They are nearly
worthless, and the vendors go to jail when caught. Dali is the biggest
offender, as he willingly participated in the fraud. There is a great
book out on the fake print industry - if anybody's interested email
me and I'll look it up.--
Dan'The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom.' - Blake
http://www.danfoxart.com
zoo
>
> My question is why artists are so concerned about the major institutions?
If all
> you care about is making your art then who cares what the major
institutions
> think. This is the type of thinking which has annoyed me about Robert
Batemen. He
> not only bastardized the notion of what a real print is but has also
marketed the
> idea of the signature holding the value more than any modern artist I can
think
> of. And now he is mad that major museums won't give him a show. Yuck.
>
Looking forward to a great round of Bateman bashing! I'll be joining in
just as soon as I finish my research paper at the end of the month
(different topic) ....
Louise Marleau
rubbing her hands with glee... ;-)
Andrew D
+Andrew D wrote:
[snip]
+> Because "our" taxes fund them while they essentially debase "our" work by
+> ignoring or dismissing it.
+Not in CANADA. Our traditional artists are celebrated here.
Then the discussion probably doesn't apply to Canada.
[snip]
+> But that's where all art begins - in the individual. Who gets to decide
+> that hobby artists are wrong?
+To a degree. But then I could also say that this is where all doctors or
lawyers
+or scientists begin.
People die if you're a bad doctor - or a bad engineer. There are clear
"rights and wrongs" in medicine, physics, chemistry etc...
+ Who gets to decide who are the better doctors?
+ The institution or the people?
The Grim Reaper.
+Just like most professions in contemporary society it
+is decided by a combination of the institution, one's peers and the
public. I am
+not saying hobby artists are wrong but I am saying that their work probably
+doesn't represent the finest art.
I'm not saying it does either. What I'm saying is that it seems illogical
that the majority of "artists" would pursue some sort of representational
artform yet the "establishment" seem to favour the non-representational.
Since you've said this isn't so in Canada, there is parhaps hope for the
rest of us.
+ A hobbyist by term refers to someone who
+enjoys engaging in the subject but finds this is not their main business or
+interest. Personally, I am more fond of supporting artists who give their life
+to support their artmaking.
(Unless they mass produce prints of their works?)
That still includes a huge range of representational/realist artists. Few
of whom are recognised by the "establishment" (outside Canada that is).
Andy.
Andrew D
[snip] Dan wrote
+> Schlock artists like Bateman (Canada) and McKnight (US) are only two of
+> thousands of artist and galleries that are doing this.
[snip]
+Anyway, in this article Bateman states a
+few very interesting ideas (ones which I think will send Mani through the
+roof!):
+"Around this time [1958] Bateman realized that no one was painting wildlife
+and so he dropped animal art "like a hot potato," he says, and entered his
+impressionist phase. He was heavily influenced by Cezanne's approach to
+composition. Other influences included paintings by Jack Shadbolt, Harold
+Town, Mark Rothko, Clyfford Still and Franz Kline. In his own paintings he
+moved through impressionist, cubist, and ultimately abstract-expressionist
+styles. Of his abstract and semi-abstract works he says, "This was the
+high-art Bateman, so to speak, but at the same time the underground low-art
+Batemabn was still doing very naturalistic accurate renderings of nature. But
+I considered those to be just records, not real art."
Is this "high-art" phase the reason Dan referred to Bateman as a "Schlock
artist"?
;)
Ricardo Pontes
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/free_video/
"Fanny Whyde" <fa...@noemailever.com> wrote in message
news:3ad30...@oracle.zianet.com...
> In article <right-10040...@i003-211.nv.iinet.net.au>,
> right@the_end.of.my_tether says...
>
> >The problem currently is that traditional, representational art
> >is being condemned as mere illustration while other, less fathomable work
> >is hailed as "great art" even if the major public response to it is one
of
> >overwhelming revulsion and disgust.
>
> I have NO IDEA what you are talking about. WHO you
> are talking about. Such a generalized statement as
> you've formulated above is nonsense - simplistic and
> worthless.
>
Norman Rockwell, Andrew Wyeth, Alma Tadema etc.. for Representational art
Pollock, Dekooning, Warhol for less fathomable work.
I think that is what he meant. Now with that movie Pollock, they can only
glamorize it more :)
Ricardo Pontes
mdeli
> (Andrew D) wrote:
>>
>> [snip] Dan wrote
>> +> Schlock artists like Bateman (Canada) and McKnight (US) are only two
>> of +> thousands of artist and galleries that are doing this.
>>
>> Is this "high-art" phase the reason Dan referred to Bateman as a "Schlock
>> artist"?
>
>Abolutely! Seriously, practitioners (hardly artists) like Bateman,
>McKnight, Tom Kincade, Leroy Neiman, etc., are schlockmeisters because they
>knowingly and deliberately pander to the taste of well-meaning but ignorant
>people with no taste who are attracted to phony art.
I suspect Fox is feeling a bit guilty about pandering his incompetent
schmiers on phony richy aesthetes. The fact that the likes of Bateman
makes tons more money than he does is what bothers him.
>They get astronomical
>prices for work that is essentially the same as 'Taiwan art' or 'mall art'
>('Original Oil Paintings for $49.95 - Framed').
>
The quality of Taiwan Art looks the same to you as Bateman because you
haven't looked at anything carefully besides Twombly in a long time. I
would say you are a Hong Kong version of Twombly for the moment.
Take a look at Fox's latest schlock on his web site.
mdeli
>hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>
> >There is no such thing as a "real" print.'
>
>While there is little point in responding to any of Mani's 'bait' posts
>except as diversion,
So why bother?
> I think it's worthwhile to respond to outright
>falsehoods such as this - particularly when they can be so easily exposed.
>Anyone actually reading this group for art information may benefit.
>
>The following definitions are are based on internationally
>recognized standards, available in any library.
>
>PRINTS
>
>To call a work a print, these criteria must be met:
>
>- The pictorial content is cut or etched into a ground, such as a stone
>or copper plate. There is no original painting or drawing.
>
>- The plate is inked, once for each color, and each print created
>('pulled') using pressure on the ground.
>
>- The artist must be present when prints are pulled. His signature on the
>print indicates his or her approval of the individual print.
>
>- An edition size is determined in advance. When the correct number of
>acceptable prints have been pulled (plus variants such as artist's proofs),
>the plate is defaced or destroyed, preventing any additional prints from
>being pulled. This defines a 'limited edition.'
As a collector of prints I'm well aware of this. However printing has
changed. BTW newspaper prints are collected as prints. Daumier is
perhaps the best example.
>
>REPRODUCTIONS
>
>Much of what is sold in 'print galleries' and through other outlets are
>not prints at all, but photomechanical reproductions. A high-quality
>photo is taken of an existing painting or other work. Prints are run on
>archival paper. (These are called 'posters' in the trade.) The artist signs
>each poster; often an 'edition' is indicated (112/1000), and the poster
>is fraudently marketed as a 'limited-edition print.'
>
>Recently, 'giclee prints' have appeared on the market. They sound
>high-class (french, after all!). They are really just inkjet reproductions,
>done with a special printer onto paper or canvas.
>
The whole lot in a generic sense are prints. If an artist wants to
sell and sign what you call reproductions I happen to see nothing
wrong with it. Artists have every right to sell any of their work in
any form. If an image attracts the viewer and people are willing to
pay for it so be it whether you like it or not.
>
>Schlock artists like Bateman (Canada) and McKnight (US) are only two of
>thousands of artist and galleries that are doing this.
So tell us what's illegal about it.
>Also, fake 'prints'
>by the masters - Picasso, Miro, Chagall, and Dali in particular - are
>sold to gullible doctors, dentists, etc, at high prices. They are nearly
>worthless, and the vendors go to jail when caught.
Vendors go to jail for fake signitures and misrepresentation. If a
schlock artist like you did what Bateman does you might try to turn
yourself in and see how far you get.
>Dali is the biggest offender, as he willingly participated in the fraud.
Not true. There was lots of fraud about these prints but it was not
due to Dali. Check some biographies that go into detail about. What
Dali did do was knock out mediocre designs and they happened to sell
well. However the place to look for merit is in an artist's best work.
RBrac53660
>Spring Island, I hear the river otters are running amok all over his
>place. As for realism, a few biologists have complained that his animals
>are anatomically wrong.
>When his "prints"/mechanical reproductions start to fade in a couple of
>years, it might be an improvement.
>
Yes entropy would make his work better
RBrac53660
can mean the difference between food and shelter or?
> My question is why artists are so concerned about the major institutions?
>> If all
>> > you care about is making your art then who cares what the major
>> institutions
>> > think.
>He
>> > not only bastardized the notion of what a real print is but has also
>> marketed the
>> > idea of the signature holding the value more than any modern artist I can
>> think
>> > of.
Think of Mark Kostabi, Jeff Koons, Robert Longo
Ricardo Pontes
> > [snip] Dan wrote
> > +> Schlock artists like Bateman (Canada) and McKnight (US) are only two
> > of +> thousands of artist and galleries that are doing this.
> >
"Schlock
> > artist"?
>
> McKnight, Tom Kincade, Leroy Neiman, etc., are schlockmeisters because
they
> knowingly and deliberately pander to the taste of well-meaning but
ignorant
> prices for work that is essentially the same as 'Taiwan art' or 'mall
art'
> ('Original Oil Paintings for $49.95 - Framed').
>
Dan, who do you consider the ignorant people to be? I cant say i like any of
those artists above there, but one thing is for sure, they are alot better
than you will ever be, and they arent the best. Baffoons always say that
skilled talented artists pander to tastes of the low brow public only to
elevate their untalented ego above the rest of the general public. As if
making art for the humanity is wrong.
Ricardo Pontes
ljrobins
RBrac53660 wrote:
> One reason that artist are concerened abou tht e major institutions is that it
> can mean the difference between food and shelter or?
This is a farce. No one makes a living by showing in the major institutions. All
it serves to do is increase an artists public or professional profile (of course,
that is a good thing but most artists income don't depend on it). And I know many
(in fact most) artists who make money without the backing of major institutions.
If you really want to make money than do what Robert Bateman does. In Canada, not
one single 'art star' I know makes a living off of ONLY his or her art. They have
to teach or work at other jobs. In fact, I think mall artists probably make more
money than all of us.
mdeli
>hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
><print definitions snipped>
>
>> As a collector of prints I'm well aware of this. However printing has
>> changed.
>
>Do tell us how it has changed.
Modern color presses, jet printers, copy machines etc.
>
>>
><snip definitions>
>> >
>> The whole lot in a generic sense are prints.
>
>Have you ever taken a print course or even read a book or article on the
>subject?
Why are you such a patronizing ass?
As I said I collect prints and am familiar with the processes,. I ve
done engraving etching lithos and woodcuts in art school. I've also
collected many artist's prints, Japanese prints, illustrated books,
medical and scientific illustration and steel engravings. I also do
restoration of rare papers which requies some knowledge on that
subject.
>You apparently can't even read my post (simplified for you).
>Generically, anything printed on any medium is a print. I am talking about
>a specific use of the term in the art world. These definitions and
>requirements are not my opinion - they are international standards.
And I maintain that these hard edged views of what you call the art
world has changed.
>If an artist wants to
>> sell and sign what you call reproductions I happen to see nothing
>> wrong with it. Artists have every right to sell any of their work in
>> any form. If an image attracts the viewer and people are willing to
>> pay for it so be it whether you like it or not.
>
>Where have you been? Of course they have a right to sell anything they
>want. If you had any idea of the business of art, you would know that
>selling such 'prints' is not illegal - just shady business practice, since
>they do not fit the standard definition of a print.
My point is that It's not shady and these definitions no longer hold
with their past rigidity.
>> >Dali is the biggest offender, as he willingly participated in the fraud.
>>
>> Not true. There was lots of fraud about these prints but it was not
>> due to Dali. Check some biographies that go into detail about. What
>> Dali did do was knock out mediocre designs and they happened to sell
>> well. However the place to look for merit is in an artist's best work.
>
>Wrong again. It is well known that Dali signed as many as 300,000 blank
>sheets in later life, knowing that they would be used for phony prints.
>He said of this endeavor, 'I like to make $20,000 before breakfast.' The
>quality of his work is not relevant here.
>
>For an informative look at the fake print industry, see Catterall, The
>Great Dali Art Fraud and Other Deceptions, Barricade Books: NJ, 1992.
Dali was never prosecuted and the papers got into the wrong hands.
Signing blank papers isn't illegal. Its true that Dali planned to
flood the market. Dali got a charge out of goofing on anything. This
irritates people like you as much as it amuses me. I even have further
inside information which might interest you. Ive heard from relieable
sourses that Dali had a guy working for him who signed his papers for
him. Those blanks probably weren't even signed by the master.
>Do provide us with some references to back up your claims. Bet you can't.
>
Check out Salvador Dali - M.Secrest. Page 218 - -. Indeed other books
have several other versions.
mdeli
wrote:
>
>
>RBrac53660 wrote:
>
>> One reason that artist are concerened abou tht e major institutions is that it
>> can mean the difference between food and shelter or?
>
>This is a farce. No one makes a living by showing in the major institutions.
Some artists certainly do
snip
>If you really want to make money than do what Robert Bateman does.
Try it see how far you get. Most nature artists don't come near
Bateman, with good reason. Most here havent the skill to copy an
eyeball in a Bateman.
> In Canada, not
>one single 'art star' I know makes a living off of ONLY his or her art.
...the ones you know.
>They have
>to teach or work at other jobs. In fact, I think mall artists probably make more
>money than all of us.
Mall artists make more money because the are usually better artists
who can produce something people find attractive. No song and dance
necessary.
ljrobins
>
> >Have you ever taken a print course or even read a book or article on the
> >subject?
>
> Why are you such a patronizing ass?
Ummmmmm ... POT. KETTLE. BLACK. Probably the same reason you are.
Guerdis
"Ricardo Pontes" <Ricard...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> Norman Rockwell, Andrew Wyeth
Please, please, please...Don't list these two in the same category.
N.C. Wyeth goes with Rockwell, as both were illustrators.
Really, if you can't look from an Andrew Wyeth to a Norman Rockwell and see
the differences, you need immediate optometric assistance.
Hutto
Tracy Miller
>On 12 Apr 2001 15:05:37 GMT, danf...@yahoo.com(Dan Fox) wrote:
>
>> (Andrew D) wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip] Dan wrote
>>> +> Schlock artists like Bateman (Canada) and McKnight (US) are only two
>>> of +> thousands of artist and galleries that are doing this.
>>>
>>> Is this "high-art" phase the reason Dan referred to Bateman as a "Schlock
>>> artist"?
>>
>>Abolutely! Seriously, practitioners (hardly artists) like Bateman,
>>McKnight, Tom Kincade, Leroy Neiman, etc., are schlockmeisters because they
>>knowingly and deliberately pander to the taste of well-meaning but ignorant
>>people with no taste who are attracted to phony art.
Oh, wait! That's exactly the truth about Bougeureau, your GOD.
But then you will say, oh what's wrong with that? You Neurotic!