Lucian Freud
The drunken Lord
Paul Mesken
<dr...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>Wednesday BBC1 23.30 dont miss it
Thanks, Drunken Lord Jack "Karl" Rubin :-)
DNALJM
/sigh I love this guy. It's very inspiring to see him teach himself to paint
and emerge as a great artist.
Jane
nob...@nowhere.com
They totally emptied the Foundation Maeght in St. Paul de Vance south of
france and filled the whole museum for a month with Lucien Freud and
Francis Bacon. It was a great show. However, he did go to art school
during the war and had his first show when he was 22. What amazes me is
how drastically his style changed as he aged. d.
Dilettante
> Wednesday BBC1 23.30 dont miss it
I think I will, if you don't mind.
Dilettante
Martin Higgs
Its 22:35
Dilettante
> Its 22:35
i missed it sorry.
D.
Martin Higgs
Very interesting programme, Freud appeared very briefly (non speaking
part), buit lots of interviews with his daughters, lovers etc. Lots
of paintings though.
Martin.........
Dilettante
> Very interesting programme,
> Martin.........
yes, we could just look at police crime photos and get the same
effect, n'est ce pas?
D.
D.
Nikolaus Maack
(in message <ba63903f.04061...@posting.google.com>):
I love Lucian Freud, and I would love to see an exhibit of police crime
photos. Both have appeal.
Dilettante
> n'est pas? je tu corrige. Peut etre, une typo? d.
tu as tort. "n'est CE pas" est la phrase correcte
Dilettante
D
plain n'est pas????? d.
Dilettante
> non, j'ai raison. You have to say Ce n'est pas or n'est-ce pas or just
> plain n'est pas????? d.
je voudrai take off my belt and whipper toi beaucoup de fois sur ton mauvais butt.
Dilettante
Dilettante
> I love Lucian Freud, and I would love to see an exhibit of police crime
> photos. Both have appeal.
>
> Nik
> http://www.nikart.ca
Lucien Freud should be the official police painter.
Dilettante
D
The drunken Lord
Maybe sex is eerything
These nudes are so amazing.
"Nikolaus Maack" <nikm...@sympatico.ca> schreef in bericht
news:0001HW.BCF23C9E...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
Dilettante
> It is the nudes that are amazing about Lucian Freud.Three you have it.
>
> Maybe sex is eerything
Not at all. Look at this website with some of his paintings.
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/freud/
The portraits that include their settings, like Interior at
Paddington, 1951, are much better than the Nude Girl Asleep II, 1968.
Here he has removed all the scene giving us only a brushy heavy
non-erotic, not even well modeled figure.
The scenes are more interesting. The nude is like a piece of meat
hanging in a meat market. This has not been helped by Freud's shift to
a more brushy painterly style.
But all of his work suffers from the exaggerated emotionalism, the
same you see in Marvel comics. He is just making a parody and not a
very pretty one of everything he does.
Girl with White Dog, 1951-52, is a staged, garishly sentimental
piece of junk. Look at the expression on her face. Is it because
Freud wanted it that way, or because that is only way he can paint
faces. If he wanted it that way, it makes the woman look like a
stupid, dissipated slattern. This makes Freud look like an overblown
cartoonist.
We can compare Freud to Alvin Allbright.
Dilettante
Nikolaus Maack
(in message <ba63903f.04061...@posting.google.com>):
> Not at all. Look at this website with some of his paintings.
> http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/freud/
>
> The portraits that include their settings, like Interior at
> Paddington, 1951, are much better than the Nude Girl Asleep II, 1968.
> Here he has removed all the scene giving us only a brushy heavy
> non-erotic, not even well modeled figure.
But there's something grotesque and heavy about it, and you can see this in a
lot of Freud's works. He paints people naked, making them seem almost like
monsters, or as you put it...
> The nude is like a piece of meat
> hanging in a meat market.
I know you mean the comment to be a harsh criticism, but you've described the
very reason I like Freud's stuff. He makes a naked person look like a piece
of meat. There's almost something cruel about his nudes, and even some of his
portraits. It's like he's not only painting a person -- he's dissecting them.
Or maybe even vivisecting them.
You joked in a previous post that there's not much difference between Freud
and crime scene photos. I agree, and that's why I like his stuff. A lot of
his nudes look like they're dead. The naked girl asleep, for example...
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/freud/freud.naked-girl-asleep.jpg
She could be dead. And there's nothing sexy or pretty about her at all. It's
extremely personal, vulnerable, and harsh. Almost pornographic, but with all
the veneer ripped off. It's like seeing her guts. That doesn't make for a
"pretty" painting, and it's definitely not everyone's cup of tea -- but the
paintings hit me like a punch in the stomach. That's why I love them so much.
> But all of his work suffers from the exaggerated emotionalism, the
> same you see in Marvel comics. He is just making a parody and not a
> very pretty one of everything he does.
It's not parody, exactly, but there is an exagerated, almost insulting
quality to it. What's interesting is Freud doesn't even spare himself from
his cruel gaze. Some of his self portraits show himself as a sneering
monster, looking down upon the world.
I don't see these qualities as negative. Freud's work seems very personal to
me, like he's exploring his own eye, his own attitudes, his own hubris.
Something about the way he paints feels intense -- as though he rapes
everything he paints, getting inside them and ripping out a piece of them,
and putting it in the painting.
I know you disagree. What I find interesting about your comments on Freud is
that you're seeing the same things I see in him, but expressing those
qualities as negative, whereas I express them as positive.
D
> hanging in a meat market.
Dilettante
It's like he's not only painting a person -- he's dissecting them.
> Or maybe even vivisecting them.
I would not mind a painter who dissects a person in order to show an
unattractive quality, or any kind of inner truth. But from Freud I do
not get the sense that he is telling us something about the inner
quality of any of his models, including himself.
Dilettante
Dilettante
It's like he's not only painting a person -- he's dissecting them.
> Or maybe even vivisecting them.
I would not mind a painter who dissects a person in order to show an
Dilettante
> > The nude is like a piece of meat
> > hanging in a meat market.
> What do you expect. He was Francis Bacon's lover. d.
that does not necessarily follow. Raphael was Perugino's student but
became the better painter.
Bacon had some good works--the cardinal, or was it the archbishop
screaming-- although later when he achieved stratospheric success, he
may just have been grinding out paintings with one little idea
apiece--resting on his laurels.
Dilettante
Nikolaus Maack
(in message <ba63903f.04062...@posting.google.com>):
> I would not mind a painter who dissects a person in order to show an
> unattractive quality, or any kind of inner truth. But from Freud I do
> not get the sense that he is telling us something about the inner
> quality of any of his models, including himself.
It might not be an inner quality of his models, but I believe it is an inner
quality of himself. He's showing a perspective of the world and of people
that is hard and unyielding. All the rags lying around in bare apartments,
with sleeping naked people sprawled like corpses. People sitting for
portraits staring blankly ahead. The thick, heavy strokes of paint. It all
establishes a powerful mood.
There's something so heavy, depressing, solid, and yet alive about these
works. Not to get too carried away by a flight of fancy, but there is this
sense of overwhelming destiny and doom. People are meat and they have to do
something, be something, but what? And to what end? There they are. Look at
them. What can we say about them? What can we do about them?
Nothing. They just exist and that's the end of it. Every Freud painting is a
thoughtful and well spoken "Fuck you."
Johnny
"Dilettante" <hu...@myself.com> schreef in bericht
news:ba63903f.04062...@posting.google.com...
D
that Bacon painted. Anyway, I don't agree with your assessment of Freud.
I really like his work. d.
Erik A. Mattila
D wrote:
> Well damn, I was trying to make a joke re: the pieces of hanging meat
> that Bacon painted. Anyway, I don't agree with your assessment of Freud.
> I really like his work. d.
Meat? Did you say hanging meant?
http://www.artsmia.org/uia-bin/uia_doc.cgi/list/173?uf=mia_collection.ldb&key=paintings&noframes=x&hr=null&nd=355
Erik
Nikolaus Maack
(in message <40D69AA6...@oco.net>):
> Meat? Did you say hanging meant?
> http://www.artsmia.org/uia-bin/uia_doc.cgi/list/173?uf=mia_collection.ldb&key
> =paintings&noframes=x&hr=null&nd=355
I've been eagerly awaiting someone mentioning Soutine. God, what a terrible
painter he was. And yet his work is fantastic. I adore it. He makes
everything look terrible, ugly, warped.
And I love the stories about him buying carcasses and hanging them up -- to
paint their likenesses, naturally. The neighbours complained about the smell
of rot. Soutine played the tormented artist bit. Why can't they just let him
paint?
Because the neighbourhood smells like an abandoned slaughterhouse, Mr
Soutine.
Didn't he burn most of his paintings, at one point? Hmm. A little research
turned up this:
http://www.artcult.com/soutine.htm
"In fact, Soutine could never detach himself from the memories of the
hardship suffered during his younger days. A kind of feverish passion drove
him to produce distorted and violently coloured paintings and on reaching
fame he said that if he had failed in his attempt to become a great artist he
would probably have given up painting to become a boxer. Ill-tempered and
unsociable, Soutine was kind only with women. Often facing depression he was
once saved from suicide by his friend Krémègne."
The site also mentions Soutine "destroyed many paintings during fits of
despair".
Electric Nachos
Erik A. Mattila wrote in message <40D69AA6...@oco.net>...
>
>
>D wrote:
>> Well damn, I was trying to make a joke re: the pieces of hanging meat
>> that Bacon painted. Anyway, I don't agree with your assessment of Freud.
>> I really like his work. d.
>
>Meat? Did you say hanging meant?
>http://www.artsmia.org/uia-bin/uia_doc.cgi/list/173?uf=mia_collection.ldb&k
ey=paintings&noframes=x&hr=null&nd=355
>
>Erik
>
I hope this painting is a historical record. Otherwise it's as artless as
those hog casings I saw on display!!
Dilettante
> It might not be an inner quality of his models, but I believe it is an inner
> quality of himself. He's showing a perspective of the world and of people
> that is hard and unyielding. All the rags lying around in bare apartments,
> with sleeping naked people sprawled like corpses. People sitting for
> portraits staring blankly ahead. The thick, heavy strokes of paint. It all
> establishes a powerful mood.
What you are describing could just as well be said of those marvel or
dell or dc comic books. Faces always the same. Looming depressing
cityscapes.
>
> Nothing. They just exist and that's the end of it. Every Freud painting is a
> thoughtful and well spoken "Fuck you."
That is rather an easy place to stop in art. There are plenty of
artists who can do that. But who can turn stone into crystal? Who can
make sadness into power? Who can make lead into dancing light?
It is easy to find people and make them look bad or just find unlucky
people and rub it in. Bad people who really do bad, like corrupt
politicians who steal the people's money and make poor people suffer
when nobody is looking--they should be told fuck you.
But if people are not doing harm to others, there is no glory or
purpose or self-hood to be derived from making them ugly just for
ugly's sake.
D.
Dilettante
> Fuck you Fuckface
sorry lucian. i didn't think you would take it so hard.
D.
Erik A. Mattila
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 4:21:58 -0400, Erik A. Mattila wrote
> (in message <40D69AA6...@oco.net>):
>
>>Meat? Did you say hanging meant?
>>http://www.artsmia.org/uia-bin/uia_doc.cgi/list/173?uf=mia_collection.ldb&key
>>=paintings&noframes=x&hr=null&nd=355
>
>
> I've been eagerly awaiting someone mentioning Soutine. God, what a terrible
> painter he was. And yet his work is fantastic. I adore it. He makes
> everything look terrible, ugly, warped.
Me too. Agnst Chops in boiled blood gravy. I like Georges Bataille for
many of the same reasons: he lived with his syphillitic dad whose eyes
had glazed over and it terrified him as a child - and he spent the rest
of his life trying to work that out, using pornography as his therapy
strategy. "The Story of the Eye" is a masterpiece.
BTW, Rembrandt did a side of beef too - real pretty.
Erik A. Mattila
Well, yeah. I mean Soutine made it into the art history books, if
that's what you mean. Well, I mean the "better" art history books.
(Why did I just write "mean" three times?)
>
>
Mike Stengl
>
> Well, yeah. I mean Soutine made it into the art history books, if
> that's what you mean. Well, I mean the "better" art history books.
> (Why did I just write "mean" three times?)
>
> >
> >
cause yer a meanie.
Electric Nachos
Erik A. Mattila wrote in message <40D93642...@oco.net>...
No, I meant some art is significant because it records certain aspects of
history. So if that was the purpose of this painting, then it is excusible.
:-o
Erik A. Mattila
As Nik pointed out, Soutine's work responded to the hardships he
suffered in his youth, in a Lithuanian Ghetto. So you might say it's a
historical significance. But you should look at some of his other
works...he did more that meat. Apparently his heirs are pulling stuff
off the web, but you can find some links. Here's a start:
http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ArtistWorks?cgroupid=999999961&artistid=1971&page=1
Personally, I think these ptngs rock. Especially "Paysage de Cagnes"
which makes me feel like a fish swiming around Atlantis.
Erik
>
>
>
>
Electric Nachos
Erik A. Mattila wrote in message <40D9FB2D...@oco.net>...
>As Nik pointed out, Soutine's work responded to the hardships he
>suffered in his youth, in a Lithuanian Ghetto. So you might say it's a
>historical significance. But you should look at some of his other
>works...he did more that meat. Apparently his heirs are pulling stuff
>off the web, but you can find some links. Here's a start:
>
>http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ArtistWorks?cgroupid=999999961&artistid=1971
&page=1
>
>Personally, I think these ptngs rock. Especially "Paysage de Cagnes"
>which makes me feel like a fish swiming around Atlantis.
Wow. Your mind works in mysterious ways, dude.
I didn't know that we had permission to mentally manipulate art (outside of
the abstract that is...) , I was under the impression that we had to
(respectfully) suffer from what was presented.
You know... like opera.
>Erik
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Erik A. Mattila
I met a guy at UC Davis who did ptngs from the pov of having the "spins"
after some hard partying. He really got it down good. I almost threw
up when I was looking at them. Hehehehe...he would have been really
complimented.
Electric Nachos
Erik A. Mattila wrote in message <40DA51B...@oco.net>...
>
>>>http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ArtistWorks?cgroupid=999999961&artistid=19
71
>>
>> &page=1
>>
>>>Personally, I think these ptngs rock. Especially "Paysage de Cagnes"
>>>which makes me feel like a fish swiming around Atlantis.
>>
>>
>> Wow. Your mind works in mysterious ways, dude.
>>
>> I didn't know that we had permission to mentally manipulate art (outside
of
>> the abstract that is...) , I was under the impression that we had to
>> (respectfully) suffer from what was presented.
>
>I met a guy at UC Davis who did ptngs from the pov of having the "spins"
>after some hard partying. He really got it down good. I almost threw
>up when I was looking at them. Hehehehe...he would have been really
>complimented.
I would have to agree - the ends justified the artist's means. Lol
But don't think you're off the hook in re: to Tate the Terrible. That UC
artist seemed to have escaped your ability to manipulate the imagery...
Why? and why -not- the Terrible?
Also need to know if you learned of the UC artist's method **prior** to
viewing the work and thus, open to suggestion. I can't remember where I read
it, but I learned that visuals are just as suggestive as action, text,
and/or sound (speech)... and that is why I refuse to stare at photographs of
diseases or other equally peace disturbing images.
So back to Tate, what prompted your mind to create a (more acceptable?)
scene - bordom? distaste? fear? a possible monetary investment? ;-D
Erik A. Mattila
Electric Nachos wrote:
>>I met a guy at UC Davis who did ptngs from the pov of having the "spins"
>>after some hard partying. He really got it down good. I almost threw
>>up when I was looking at them. Hehehehe...he would have been really
>>complimented.
>
>
> I would have to agree - the ends justified the artist's means. Lol
>
> But don't think you're off the hook in re: to Tate the Terrible. That UC
> artist seemed to have escaped your ability to manipulate the imagery...
> Why? and why -not- the Terrible?
>
> Also need to know if you learned of the UC artist's method **prior** to
> viewing the work and thus, open to suggestion. I can't remember where I read
> it, but I learned that visuals are just as suggestive as action, text,
> and/or sound (speech)... and that is why I refuse to stare at photographs of
> diseases or other equally peace disturbing images.
>
> So back to Tate, what prompted your mind to create a (more acceptable?)
> scene - bordom? distaste? fear? a possible monetary investment? ;-D
None of the above, I think. I was looking at the pix of the painting,
really enjoying how Soutine had distorted the landscape, and it gave me
a pleasant feeling of floating. The "fish" story came to my mind when I
was searching for the words to describe the feeling.
>
>
Electric Nachos
Erik A. Mattila wrote in message <40DAEC0B...@oco.net>...
>> So back to Tate, what prompted your mind to create a (more acceptable?)
>> scene - bordom? distaste? fear? a possible monetary investment? ;-D
>
>None of the above, I think. I was looking at the pix of the painting,
>really enjoying how Soutine had distorted the landscape, and it gave me
>a pleasant feeling of floating. The "fish" story came to my mind when I
>was searching for the words to describe the feeling.
Oh, I see... Well now that makes me wonder if Tate had that feeling in mind
while he painted the thing (and it transferred over to you)!
You seem to be awfully susceptible to patterns... One could have a lot of
evil fun with you! Lol - But your experiences **Do** offer insight into why
some people admire the works of artists like Gogh (a pattern freak, imo).
I.E. Mystery solved! I find this interesting because while you "went with
the flow" and --enjoyed-- the distortion (for an explicable reason), I
fought it and deemed it "incorrect" and 'wrong...'
I'll be damned - but silent on which interepretation is the "right"
interepretation.
Electric Nachos
Electric Nachos wrote in message <10dlsjo...@corp.supernews.com>...
That should be, "interpretation" (twice). Hey - can you clue me into what's
"right" about Cezanne? (I gotta get rid of some bad karma.)
Erik A. Mattila
I'm not a great Cezanne fan, so I've ignored most of his work. It's
just a matter of taste - nothing to fault him for. I do like a couple
of his painting very much - and generally I like his still lifes. But I
think he was a 1st class painter.
I've never paid that much attention to Soutine either - but in the last
couple of days I've seen some of his work that I really do like. I'm
ready to look at more.
How about Anselm Kiefer? He ought to really irritate you (just
kidding). Personally, I am a great fan of Kiefer. Check it out:
http://www.nga.gov/cgi-bin/pimage?70391+0+0
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/ftptoc/kiefer_ext.html
>
>
Electric Nachos
Erik A. Mattila wrote in message <40DB1B37...@oco.net>...
>I'm not a great Cezanne fan, so I've ignored most of his work. It's
>just a matter of taste - nothing to fault him for. I do like a couple
>of his painting very much - and generally I like his still lifes. But I
>think he was a 1st class painter.
But why? Cezanne's work does not follow the rules and as I've said in the
past, I believe he broke the rules out of ignorance - not intention. Why
does that make him 1st class? Someone here once said his painterly
goofy-ness is part of his charm... but I don't understand how the ignorance
of a grown man is charming... unless it's pity (as in charmingly pitiful).
And how can you not be his fan, yet call him a 1st class painter??
>I've never paid that much attention to Soutine either - but in the last
>couple of days I've seen some of his work that I really do like. I'm
>ready to look at more.
Uh... better take a look see at this one first!!
http://www.humanitiesweb.org/cgi-bin/human.cgi?s=g&p=c&a=p&ID=1304
See now this is just terrible! Just horrible! Bad! Bad! Bad! (blecch!) )
(ptooey!) (yuck!) (euw!)
No amount of underwater mind tricks could fix that one. I am sorry. Are
*all* of his works skewed like that?? no - no - no... I see they are just a
mess (sloppy)!
>How about Anselm Kiefer? He ought to really irritate you (just
>kidding). Personally, I am a great fan of Kiefer. Check it out:
>
>http://www.nga.gov/cgi-bin/pimage?70391+0+0
>http://www.artchive.com/artchive/ftptoc/kiefer_ext.html
Hm... never heard of the guy but I see he made into the history archives.
This one: http://www.artchive.com/artchive/K/kiefer/jerusalm.jpg.html caught
my attention... at certain points in the painting, it actually looks like
people are standing (working) amidst an underdeveloped piece of land. But I
will admit that my interpretation is due to a physical ---> disorder <--- -
as I am irritating-ly nearsighted, so I KNOW what it feels like to see like
that!!!
I don't know... it's not that bad... I mean... you can see all kinds of
stuff in it... I like his color schemes... "Zim Zum" makes me think of
cavemen, so that's kind of fun. I see that Keifer's stuff is more refined
than Soutine's, and he's non-representational so it's hard to criticize the
rendition of subject matter.
But why on earth are you attracted to Soutine's work? Why do you like
"crooked" things?? I don't like that you like crooked things! Things should
be straight!! Straight = right, Crooked = wrong!!
I don't understand any of this!
>
Electric Nachos
Electric Nachos wrote in message ...
>But why on earth are you attracted to Soutine's work? Why do you like
>"crooked" things?? I don't like that you like crooked things! Things should
>be straight!! Straight = right, Crooked = wrong!!
>
>I don't understand any of this!
>
Ok look - the underwater view worked once and it was, you know, creative and
everything... but you can't do that with everything! You can't go around
looking at art with fish eyes all the time!
I'm sorry, but I'm really trying.
Erik A. Mattila
Electric Nachos wrote:
> Erik A. Mattila wrote in message <40DB1B37...@oco.net>...
>
>
>>I'm not a great Cezanne fan, so I've ignored most of his work. It's
>>just a matter of taste - nothing to fault him for. I do like a couple
>>of his painting very much - and generally I like his still lifes. But I
>>think he was a 1st class painter.
>
>
> But why? Cezanne's work does not follow the rules and as I've said in the
> past, I believe he broke the rules out of ignorance - not intention. Why
> does that make him 1st class? Someone here once said his painterly
> goofy-ness is part of his charm... but I don't understand how the ignorance
> of a grown man is charming... unless it's pity (as in charmingly pitiful).
>
> And how can you not be his fan, yet call him a 1st class painter??
I think it's because of how I regard "Art" in general, Nachos. I try to
see it as the whole thing, which includes the artist, the work, the
market, the history etc. So "Art" in my view is a very broad cultural
apparition. The individual work of art itself is less important that
the whole shebang. It's not complicated. But I don't see myself as any
sort of criteria for what is good or bad art. In other words, I don't
like a lot of work that I know is good art (and I use the word "good"
carefully - meaning that it (the work of art) has gathered around itself
some sort of consensus.
>
>
>>I've never paid that much attention to Soutine either - but in the last
>>couple of days I've seen some of his work that I really do like. I'm
>>ready to look at more.
>
>
> Uh... better take a look see at this one first!!
> http://www.humanitiesweb.org/cgi-bin/human.cgi?s=g&p=c&a=p&ID=1304
>
> See now this is just terrible! Just horrible! Bad! Bad! Bad! (blecch!) )
> (ptooey!) (yuck!) (euw!)
I do like the portrait. But I know what you mean. BTW, I saw a very
good show on German Expression at the Crocker in Sacto in 1987 or 88 -
and at the time I really didn't like it that much. But when I studied
the movement and became familiar with the history and context, it began
making inroads into my likeability lock-box, and now I really do like
stuff like this.
But the little bits and pieces of bio that I've seen about Soutine, even
comments from his friends like Marc Chagall and Modigliani, show him to
be an almost characature of the "Suffering Jew" - and I'm not trying to
diminish any of the pain and anquish he may have felt about life in
general. But I'll bet he was almost insufferable to be around - like I
think Van Gogh was insufferable to his friends and colleagues. It's a
personality type, I think. Heavy, the kind of person gets into your
head and you want to get away. Like a Speed Freak. Other
expressionists like Kirschner, for example, portrayed the human with the
same kind of sharpness, angularity and distortions, and it had something
to do with the historical events in Europe at the time - namely the
trauma of a rural people being urbanized, farm economies being
industrialized, and of course the outrageous unthinkability of WW I -
the wholesale human carnage.
>
> No amount of underwater mind tricks could fix that one. I am sorry. Are
> *all* of his works skewed like that?? no - no - no... I see they are just a
> mess (sloppy)!
>
>
>>How about Anselm Kiefer? He ought to really irritate you (just
>>kidding). Personally, I am a great fan of Kiefer. Check it out:
>>
>>http://www.nga.gov/cgi-bin/pimage?70391+0+0
>>http://www.artchive.com/artchive/ftptoc/kiefer_ext.html
>
>
> Hm... never heard of the guy but I see he made into the history archives.
> This one: http://www.artchive.com/artchive/K/kiefer/jerusalm.jpg.html caught
> my attention... at certain points in the painting, it actually looks like
> people are standing (working) amidst an underdeveloped piece of land. But I
> will admit that my interpretation is due to a physical ---> disorder <--- -
> as I am irritating-ly nearsighted, so I KNOW what it feels like to see like
> that!!!
>
> I don't know... it's not that bad... I mean... you can see all kinds of
> stuff in it... I like his color schemes... "Zim Zum" makes me think of
> cavemen, so that's kind of fun. I see that Keifer's stuff is more refined
> than Soutine's, and he's non-representational so it's hard to criticize the
> rendition of subject matter.
>
> But why on earth are you attracted to Soutine's work? Why do you like
> "crooked" things?? I don't like that you like crooked things! Things should
> be straight!! Straight = right, Crooked = wrong!!
>
> I don't understand any of this!
Understanding isn't really necessary. I'm glad you see Keifer
interesting. He rose to international recognition on the coattails of
the German "Neoexpressionist" movement, which was dominated by George
Bazlitz - who I thought was over-rated. But Keifer had something - you
know, he was after this look and feel of Hitler's Neuremburg Stadium -
or Albert Speer's Monumental Roman Imperial Indimidating architecture.
His generation really suffered through the complex of "What did your dad
do during the war" thing, which became thematic among young German
artists after WWII. So Kiefer has this quality - it's like a ghost of
the huge gatherings at Neuremburg Stadium during the Third Reich, but it
is always about to decompose, to rot away, to prove itself to be an
illusion.
"Jerusalem" is a knock-out - a really fine work of art, to my taste.
Your observation about the people that may or not be there is great, I
think. I think that that is what the artist wants - to suggest the
presence of the human in the overbearing enormity of State Architecture.
As for Soutine - yes, I like crooked thing, I guess. But what I'm
seeing is something really very pretty behind all the overt doom and
gloom of his paintings. A glimmer of hope? I don't know. WW I
generated a lot of cynacism in Europe and Russia, and elsewhere. I mean
about utopian visions of the future and all that. People lost faith,
DaDa was born.
>
>
>
>
Erik A. Mattila
I guess that while "pretty" can be a motive for art, it doesn't have to
be. I think more about the term "interesting." Or even "compelling."
And I have no beef at all with what you are calling 'straight' - it's a
fine way to approach painting, IMO.
And 'rules.' I don't know. I think everyone is perfectly ok to develop
rules for themselves and follow them. I like a lot of Renaissance art,
for example, but after looking at a great deal of it, I realized that
the invention of linear perspective had more or less taken over the
imagination of the artists - like each painting was designed to showcase
Alberti's maths. It kind of got boring after a while, and I really
started to dig Giotto's "clumsy" effort to paint 3d space, and even
started looking at the background details where the Renaissance artist
didn't feel compelled to demonstrate his/her knowledge of Alberti.
As for using my fish eyes...well, yes, I can do that all the time if I
wish. But you're probably right, I would get tired of it after a while.
No matter, I can then go to see some frog-eyed paintings, and start
the whole cycle over again.
>
>
>
D
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/cezanne/portraits/cezanne.father.jpg
D
Erik A. Mattila wrote:
Very enjoyable post. Thinking of Max Beckman and Soutine. I like very
much soutine's painting of the road going up the hill past the house.
Don't remember the name. So many artists I know these days are embodied
with Beckman. He was so clear about the future zeitgeist. Way before his
time. So when you bring up German Neo-expressionism my mind is drawn to
Beckman. d.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
D
Erik A. Mattila
I agree. I think I resisted Beckman much longer than some of the
others, but his work eventually captured me. That whole "late period"
expressionsim is fascinating, after the war when the Zurich DaDa artists
moved to Berlin - especially all the Berlin Night Club paintings. That
must have been the role model for the Beatniks.
And Hannah Hoch - "Cut with a kitchen knife."
Erik
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
D
look at his paintings I'm almost there. Makes me want to pay attention
to where I am right now. d.
Electric Nachos
>I guess that while "pretty" can be a motive for art, it doesn't have to
>be. I think more about the term "interesting." Or even "compelling."
>
>And I have no beef at all with what you are calling 'straight' - it's a
>fine way to approach painting, IMO.
>
>And 'rules.' I don't know. I think everyone is perfectly ok to develop
>rules for themselves and follow them. I like a lot of Renaissance art,
>for example, but after looking at a great deal of it, I realized that
>the invention of linear perspective had more or less taken over the
>imagination of the artists - like each painting was designed to showcase
>Alberti's maths. It kind of got boring after a while
<gasp!>
<whisper> Shut your mouth! You're not supposed to say things like that -
Just hush now! </whisper>
Lol
>and I really
>started to dig Giotto's "clumsy" effort to paint 3d space, and even
>started looking at the background details where the Renaissance artist
>didn't feel compelled to demonstrate his/her knowledge of Alberti.
Well I agree to a point, but there has got to be a definitive line where
realism must stop and creativity must begin (or vice versa). I suppose that
line varies in prominence with each artist... Right now, I'm really diggin'
on Escher cause imo, his work embodies equal and superior amounts of both -
neither outweighs the other and the viewer ends up lost in the pictures -
which is phucking phantastic! :-D
>As for using my fish eyes...well, yes, I can do that all the time if I
>wish. But you're probably right, I would get tired of it after a while.
> No matter, I can then go to see some frog-eyed paintings, and start
>the whole cycle over again.
Do you teach?
Electric Nachos
>Is this a mistake? Can you see the merit? d.
>http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/cezanne/portraits/cezanne.father.jpg
Part of my problem in understanding much of anything lay in this silly thing
called the English language. Although I am a born American, I get irritated
with the multiple meanings of a single word, or the multiple words for a
single meaning, and especially words that have NO meanings!
Merit (when used in art), is one those words that have no meaning. My
dictionary says merit means the quality of being deserving. So I have to ask
you, just WHAT does this painting deserve??
Admiration?
NOT
Denise, I want my normal 40/60 vision tomorrow, so I aint' gonna "go there."
But I will tell you that this painting is perspectively and proportionally
way off. Look at the perspective of the window cut out in the wall and
compare that to the perspective of the doorway's floor. Look at the size of
the guy's hands in proportion to his head. Look at the angle of the chair's
arms in relation to the angle of the chair's legs. Look at the man's
thighs - they seemed "squashed" by that lead weight of the newspaper he's
holding. The hips of the man do not align with the man's shoulders. And dude
does not appear to have an ass although the weight of the right side of the
man's coat sure seems to push down the chair's seat.
Cezanne is a great artist to poke fun of, but there are karmic consequences.
Electric Nachos
>I think it's because of how I regard "Art" in general, Nachos. I try to
>see it as the whole thing, which includes the artist, the work, the
>market, the history etc. So "Art" in my view is a very broad cultural
>apparition. The individual work of art itself is less important that
>the whole shebang. It's not complicated.
Oh!... Well?... aint' nuttin' wrong with that... if I have studied the
industry of fine art collecting correctly, that -is- the intelligent way to
appreciate art.
>But I don't see myself as any
>sort of criteria for what is good or bad art. In other words, I don't
>like a lot of work that I know is good art (and I use the word "good"
>carefully - meaning that it (the work of art) has gathered around itself
>some sort of consensus.
Because...? (If it aaaaint got that paaaain, than it aaaaint' got that
swaaaang: doo wop - doo wop - doo wop - doo wop)? LoL
Nah. I know what you're saying. It's "significance" - not necessarily the
"art." ...and yes, I know 'pain' is not a requirement for significance. But
yeah - that's cool - cause in a way, one can look at art and learn history
all in one nice swoop. Hm....
Alright, so I'll say that an artist's artwork is (to you) but a door, which
you like to open and tour inside life stories. Well hell, that's a neat way
to explore life! Damn... <smile>
>Understanding isn't really necessary. I'm glad you see Keifer
>interesting. He rose to international recognition on the coattails of
>the German "Neoexpressionist" movement, which was dominated by George
>Bazlitz - who I thought was over-rated. But Keifer had something - you
>know, he was after this look and feel of Hitler's Neuremburg Stadium -
>or Albert Speer's Monumental Roman Imperial Indimidating architecture.
>His generation really suffered through the complex of "What did your dad
>do during the war" thing, which became thematic among young German
>artists after WWII. So Kiefer has this quality - it's like a ghost of
>the huge gatherings at Neuremburg Stadium during the Third Reich, but it
>is always about to decompose, to rot away, to prove itself to be an
>illusion.
>
>"Jerusalem" is a knock-out - a really fine work of art, to my taste.
>Your observation about the people that may or not be there is great, I
>think. I think that that is what the artist wants - to suggest the
>presence of the human in the overbearing enormity of State Architecture.
>
>As for Soutine - yes, I like crooked thing, I guess. But what I'm
>seeing is something really very pretty behind all the overt doom and
>gloom of his paintings. A glimmer of hope? I don't know. WW I
>generated a lot of cynacism in Europe and Russia, and elsewhere. I mean
>about utopian visions of the future and all that. People lost faith,
>DaDa was born.
Okay, well I see right now that one needs a damn good grasp of history to
understand what you've come to conclude! Jeez - what must you think of
fantasy art! Think it's silly? Insignificant?
D
your own hole..:) d.
Electric Nachos
new pair of boxing gloves and show me a thing or two!
Where (or what) is the merit in this work? Or better yet, --how-- can I
'appreciate' it? What should I be looking for? Tell me, Obi-Wan Kenobi... I
can only hope.
D wrote in message ...
Erik A. Mattila
I did in ancient times (early 90s) but it's been awhile. I liked
teaching drawing because it's not ambiguous - it's more structured and
all that. In painting classes I tried to get the students to break away
from preconceived notions about what a painting should be, and follow
their lucky stars, and do whatever they were inclined to do well - so
there's things you can teach about that.
I had some kewl students too. There was a couple who lived in Davis who
were both clinical schizophrenics who survived on heavy medication.
They would enroll in every art class offered from Vacaville to
Sacramento - they loved it. And they were both terrific artists -
especially...dang, what was her name? Faye...Eric and Faye. She was an
incredible artist, but she was so completely non-chalant about it,
always acting bored as she dashed off the most incredible drawings
you've ever seen. I would be jumping around in excitement exclaiming
"God, Faye, this is so great!" and she would be just looking at me with
a "So what?" look on her face. Eric was much more enthusiastic about
it, and his ptngs were really good to. But he would get distracted with
his stories about being a convicted bank robber and his prison nostalgia.
Another one was a guy named "Jorge" who was a barber in Dixon (he ended
up going to Sac State.) He took a painting class from me and was sort
of stand-offish and remote, but one day he said he wanted to show me a
painting that he was trying to work on for a long time. It was sort of
a construction - a fairly large canvas with all sorts of personal stuff
glued onto it: a picture of Cesar Chevez, old family photos from Mexico
(he was born in San Luis Rio Colorado, which is near to where I am
living now) and some other stuff. I thought it was terrific, but Jorge
was really embarassed about it because it was so personal and it didn't
fit his definition about what he thought a work of art should be. So we
went around and around about that for a while, and I was finally able to
convince him, on a deep level, that it was legit, and it was Art in the
real sense of the words. Wow, the guy went into orbit. Before I knew
it he was enrolled in the art program at Sac State, exhibiting all over
town, and most of all he was as happy as a clam. Last I heard he had
moved down to San Diego and was working with some Mexican muralists
there. That really made me feel good, anyway.
Erik
>
>
>
>
Erik A. Mattila
Electric Nachos wrote:
> Erik A. Mattila wrote in message <40DB94BA...@oco.net>...
>
>
>>I think it's because of how I regard "Art" in general, Nachos. I try to
>>see it as the whole thing, which includes the artist, the work, the
>>market, the history etc. So "Art" in my view is a very broad cultural
>>apparition. The individual work of art itself is less important that
>>the whole shebang. It's not complicated.
>
>
> Oh!... Well?... aint' nuttin' wrong with that... if I have studied the
> industry of fine art collecting correctly, that -is- the intelligent way to
> appreciate art.
>
>
>>But I don't see myself as any
>>sort of criteria for what is good or bad art. In other words, I don't
>>like a lot of work that I know is good art (and I use the word "good"
>>carefully - meaning that it (the work of art) has gathered around itself
>>some sort of consensus.
>
>
> Because...? (If it aaaaint got that paaaain, than it aaaaint' got that
> swaaaang: doo wop - doo wop - doo wop - doo wop)? LoL
Well, yeah, now that you mention it. (I remember one of Arsinio Hall's
best routines was "going to the funk store.") But here's a memory -
years ago I was at a Jazz Club and Anita O'Day was performing. Since I
was really a jazz fan, I was totally enchanted by her performance -
like, she was one of the all time great singers. But the crowd there
seemed oblivious ,,, she was sort of 'over the hill' in her career, to
tell you the truth, but still great in my estimation. Anyway, all the
customer's were making noise, talking and joking and generally ignoring
O'Day. All of a sudden, her pianist crashed down on the key board,
klanguuuurannng, and stood up and cussed out the audience - something
like "You stupid fuckers! You're in the presence of a Queen, and your
too stupid to even know it!" Wow, a Kodak moment. And it was at Howard
Rumsey's "Lighthouse" which was a world famous club - all the greats
performed there from Mambo Santamaria to Cal Tjader to Dizzy Gillespie.
But the point is that O'Day had fallen out of favor with culture, I
guess. Whatever it is that made that glue between an artist and an
audiance wasn't there anymore. But her performance - well, it was
probably better than when she was a hot item on the circuit.
>
> Nah. I know what you're saying. It's "significance" - not necessarily the
> "art." ...and yes, I know 'pain' is not a requirement for significance. But
> yeah - that's cool - cause in a way, one can look at art and learn history
> all in one nice swoop. Hm....
I don't know...pain helps. I mean, at least, the pain of confronting a
blank canvass and wondering what the hell you're doing. Not having a
clue. Knowing that you could dash off an acceptabl painting that you
could probably easily sell, but questioning why you should do it.
I was looking at your dad's painting on the links you posted. Very nice
stuff. Why did he do them? What is he reaching for? Is he exploring too?
Most of it is, I think. But it's because its the same old story, told
over and over and over again. Mythology is always compelling, but not
because it has any great message. It's because we already know the
story without realizing that we already know it. So the story unfolds,
and we feel very competent and knowing. Recognition is one of the great
human pleasures. It's the "pop" in "pop" culture.
One thing I am curious about, though, is what's the reason so many
fantasy artist have those big-boobed armoured women in them? What's
that all about. There was a gay team of cartoonists who used to do a
strip in the SF Chronicle in the 60s, Wong and Kahn, called "Romulous
and Remus" that was really trashy political satire - you know, like
their was a roman tyrant named "Casdro" who controlled the narcotic
"Kooban Kiss" market and all that. But the women in the strip were
portrayed like the fantasy art women, stacked, dressed in Frederic's of
Hollywood togas, and completely unaccessible. But those guy were gay,
so Herb Caen had no problem figuring out that one. But why does the
same iconography exist in today's fantasy art? (not that all fantasy
art uses this, of course.)
>
>
Electric Nachos
>> Because...? (If it aaaaint got that paaaain, than it aaaaint' got that
>> swaaaang: doo wop - doo wop - doo wop - doo wop)? LoL
>
>Well, yeah, now that you mention it. (I remember one of Arsinio Hall's
>best routines was "going to the funk store.") But here's a memory -
>years ago I was at a Jazz Club and Anita O'Day was performing. Since I
>was really a jazz fan, I was totally enchanted by her performance -
>like, she was one of the all time great singers. But the crowd there
>seemed oblivious ,,, she was sort of 'over the hill' in her career, to
>tell you the truth, but still great in my estimation. Anyway, all the
>customer's were making noise, talking and joking and generally ignoring
>O'Day. All of a sudden, her pianist crashed down on the key board,
>klanguuuurannng, and stood up and cussed out the audience - something
>like "You stupid fuckers! You're in the presence of a Queen, and your
>too stupid to even know it!" Wow, a Kodak moment. And it was at Howard
>Rumsey's "Lighthouse" which was a world famous club - all the greats
>performed there from Mambo Santamaria to Cal Tjader to Dizzy Gillespie.
> But the point is that O'Day had fallen out of favor with culture, I
>guess. Whatever it is that made that glue between an artist and an
>audiance wasn't there anymore. But her performance - well, it was
>probably better than when she was a hot item on the circuit.
Ouch. :-[
Your stories hurt. But I'm damn glad to hear someone had sense enough to
'correct' the audience!
>> Nah. I know what you're saying. It's "significance" - not necessarily the
>> "art." ...and yes, I know 'pain' is not a requirement for significance.
But
>> yeah - that's cool - cause in a way, one can look at art and learn
history
>> all in one nice swoop. Hm....
>
>I don't know...pain helps. I mean, at least, the pain of confronting a
>blank canvass and wondering what the hell you're doing. Not having a
>clue. Knowing that you could dash off an acceptabl painting that you
>could probably easily sell, but questioning why you should do it.
>
>I was looking at your dad's painting on the links you posted. Very nice
>stuff. Why did he do them? What is he reaching for? Is he exploring too?
>
Tough question. My father is NOT a communicator. Personally, I think the
poor guy just can't help being an artist because one night, he confessed
that almost everything he looks at for some length of time turns into lines,
shapes, and paint strokes!
If he's searching for something, he's keeping it a secret.
>> Okay, well I see right now that one needs a damn good grasp of history to
>> understand what you've come to conclude! Jeez - what must you think of
>> fantasy art! Think it's silly? Insignificant?
>
>Most of it is, I think. But it's because its the same old story, told
>over and over and over again. Mythology is always compelling, but not
>because it has any great message. It's because we already know the
>story without realizing that we already know it. So the story unfolds,
>and we feel very competent and knowing. Recognition is one of the great
>human pleasures. It's the "pop" in "pop" culture.
I think throughout the decades, the 'myth' gets a little more and more
unpredictable, however yes, the "good guy" still wins... and that can be
frustrating for minds that want more of a challenge.
>One thing I am curious about, though, is what's the reason so many
>fantasy artist have those big-boobed armoured women in them? What's
>that all about. There was a gay team of cartoonists who used to do a
>strip in the SF Chronicle in the 60s, Wong and Kahn, called "Romulous
>and Remus" that was really trashy political satire - you know, like
>their was a roman tyrant named "Casdro" who controlled the narcotic
>"Kooban Kiss" market and all that. But the women in the strip were
>portrayed like the fantasy art women, stacked, dressed in Frederic's of
>Hollywood togas, and completely unaccessible. But those guy were gay,
>so Herb Caen had no problem figuring out that one. But why does the
>same iconography exist in today's fantasy art? (not that all fantasy
>art uses this, of course.)
I dunno... tradition maybe? Repeated use of "How to draw fantasy characters"
textbooks? Maybe it's expected - some sort of trademark of "fantasy art."
Well, what about science fiction art? Now that certainly isn't based on
myth. What significance do paintings of ufos and aliens have? Ok - squash
that - What I'm really asking is what significance does the human
imagination have in art. I mean, it certainly doesn't reflect the times...
... or... does it? <insert twilight zone music here>
Electric Nachos
>> Do you teach?
>
>I did in ancient times (early 90s) but it's been awhile. I liked
>teaching drawing because it's not ambiguous - it's more structured and
>all that. In painting classes I tried to get the students to break away
>from preconceived notions about what a painting should be, and follow
>their lucky stars, and do whatever they were inclined to do well - so
>there's things you can teach about that.
>
>I had some kewl students too. There was a couple who lived in Davis who
>were both clinical schizophrenics who survived on heavy medication.
>They would enroll in every art class offered from Vacaville to
>Sacramento - they loved it. And they were both terrific artists -
>especially...dang, what was her name? Faye...Eric and Faye. She was an
>incredible artist, but she was so completely non-chalant about it,
>always acting bored as she dashed off the most incredible drawings
>you've ever seen. I would be jumping around in excitement exclaiming
>"God, Faye, this is so great!" and she would be just looking at me with
>a "So what?" look on her face. Eric was much more enthusiastic about
>it, and his ptngs were really good to. But he would get distracted with
>his stories about being a convicted bank robber and his prison nostalgia.
Heh heh... so what's your analysis? Think the most creative artists are nuts
or what?
>Another one was a guy named "Jorge" who was a barber in Dixon (he ended
>up going to Sac State.) He took a painting class from me and was sort
>of stand-offish and remote, but one day he said he wanted to show me a
>painting that he was trying to work on for a long time. It was sort of
>a construction - a fairly large canvas with all sorts of personal stuff
>glued onto it: a picture of Cesar Chevez, old family photos from Mexico
>(he was born in San Luis Rio Colorado, which is near to where I am
>living now) and some other stuff. I thought it was terrific, but Jorge
>was really embarassed about it because it was so personal and it didn't
>fit his definition about what he thought a work of art should be. So we
>went around and around about that for a while, and I was finally able to
>convince him, on a deep level, that it was legit, and it was Art in the
>real sense of the words. Wow, the guy went into orbit. Before I knew
>it he was enrolled in the art program at Sac State, exhibiting all over
>town, and most of all he was as happy as a clam. Last I heard he had
>moved down to San Diego and was working with some Mexican muralists
>there. That really made me feel good, anyway.
You've got some pretty powerful persuasion skills there, bud - I can tell.
Just from your text, I've been thinking about what I'm doing and whether
I'll stick with it or not. It ain't exactly easy reading ;-)
>Erik
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Dilettante
> Well damn, I was trying to make a joke re: the pieces of hanging meat
> that Bacon painted. Anyway, I don't agree with your assessment of Freud.
> I really like his work. d.
Excuse me, but the rule in this forum is that anyone who disagrees
with me has to go on a date with mani.
Dilettante
(I don't make the rules, I just enforce 'em.)
D
D
face on it :) I love that painting. It has passion. d.
Mani Deli
>
>Excuse me, but the rule in this forum is that anyone who disagrees
>with me has to go on a date with mani.
The Dill and god are too busy going on double dates together.
>Dilettante
>(I don't make the rules, I just enforce 'em.)
& Big Dick Dilettante wrote:
>Picasso's dick is a thousand times the size of Dali's, which was always, btw, in his own mouth.
I'm sure the Dill judges paintings on this important basis.
Dill's vast knowledge of art would not lead anyone to doubt that
Dali's dick was indeed considerably smaller than Picasso's
By reading the recent list of the Dill's self compliments it would be
hard to imagine that the Dill's dick is any smaller then a very large
unsliced baloney.
That's why the Dill is so keen on elephants even though he can't draw
them..
Dill, I'm always interested in important new information and
respectfully ask if you will reveal the actual Picasso and Dali dick.
No skill no art!
Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Electric Nachos
D wrote in message ...
>face on it :) I love that painting. It has passion. d.
What is passion! I do not know of this.... passion?
In music, I have identified passion as an increase of notes in a maddening
ensemble of --complementary-- sounds and rhythms... or... (in music) it can
be a slow melding of notes from one passage to another with varying degrees
of volume... (again) in music, passion can even be a playful series of hops
of notes - pausing ever so slightly just to tease the audience's
anticipation...
But in art?
If I use the analogy above, in art... passion could be a maddening ensemble
of complementary colors and shapes?... or smooth gradations of these
elements with varying degrees of value?... or a playful display of shapes,
appearing and disappearing to tease the viewer's visual senses?
Are there more types? And are these types visible in the artwork of
CeZaint'? (sorry - Lol) But when I look at his art, I can audibly compare
his "moves" to a fine melody ending on flat keys in various places
throughout the composition.
Is "passion" an act of **trying**? Have I confused passion with perfection?
I can't find it in his work, Obi Wan. Please point your light saber in the
direction of this... passion.
D
Electric Nachos
>You are hostile.
Huh?! Cause I asked what visual passion is?? And where it exists in
Cezanne's art?!?
LMAO!!!
>Fuck you. d.
Bye! Lol
Dilettante
> The Dill and god are too busy going on double dates together.
>
if you had a pussy like god, i'd go a date with you and your mother.
Dilettante
No Pussy No God!
Paul Mesken
<bueno...@mother.fucker> wrote:
>D wrote in message ...
>
>>You are hostile.
>
>Huh?! Cause I asked what visual passion is?? And where it exists in
>Cezanne's art?!?
Hehehe, perhaps she read some of your older posts (Google is such a
drag ;-)
Anyway, I don't see passion in Cezanne's art either. I do see it in
Van Gogh's though but it is hard to tell to what extent this is
because of Van Gogh's background (the feeble talented but very driven
madman). Erik already pointed out that such "external things" might
have an impact on the artwork's perception (things not present in the
painting itself but associated with it like Art History, the artist's
history, public opinion, hype, etc.).
Take a look at this painting for example (before reading further) :
http://www.paulmesken.net/temp/jopiehuisman.jpg
It's a painting by Jopie Huisman, a Dutch painter. Just looks like
some guy rolling a cigarette. He looks a bit tired perhaps. However,
this is a portrait of Jopie's father just after his wife died (Jopie's
mother). This piece of information juxtaposed with the painting alters
the perception of the painting. The grief is far more present now
where it was virtually lacking without the backstory.
To me, it's very hard to perceive this painting without taking into
account the fact that it is about a man mourning over his deceased
wife. As such, I perceive sadness. Lev Kuleshov was a director
experimenting with such juxtapositions in movies (the "Kuleshov
Experiment") but the domain is obviously not restricted to images
alone as the "backstory" shows.
You're raising an interesting issue. Passion is an emotion. Emotions
can be associated with works of art in at least 3 ways and it's
important to distinguish between them :
1 - The emotion can be expressed in the work of art.
2 - The emotion can be aroused in the onlooker by the work of art.
3 - The emotion can be thought to be the driving force behind the work
of art.
I speculate that the passion you speak of is of case 1 whereas D
speaks of case 3. Of course, emotions are private to humans and other
animals. There can be no emotion in a work of art itself. Saying that
there's a lot of emotion in a painting is just a figure of speech.
Since emotions are most often aroused by external things, alter
perception and bring about a visible change in our behaviour and body,
they are associated with a number of things.
To express an emotion in a work of art, the work of art has to be
dedicated to the associations of the emotion. Emotions are associated
with colors (schemes), symbols, contrasts, perspective, "movement"
(rhythm and shape), more concrete things like facial expressions and
actions, etc.
Take "rage" for example. The facial expression accompanying rage could
be used (a lot of emotional facial expressions have been shown to be
universal and are thus readily understood by all). Rage is also
explosive strength and this can be achieved by a strong perspective.
It's focused, which can be achieved by dead center symmetry (perhaps a
radial all over effect as well) and it's threatening which can be
achieved by showing the face really close up, looking at the onlooker
with wild eyes (the eyes are very important in rage, rage reaches out
unlike being deeply in thought which can be achieved by a turned away
and tilted down face with the eyes lost in the shadows). And, of
course, it's high energy which can be achieved by strong color and
value contrasts (but not chaotic, the radial scheme would do well).
There are tons of other things which can be used to express this
single emotion. I believe however that a study of facial expressions
and postures is quite important as this is about the closest of
associations we have with emotions, other things can be infered from
them.
This is all about the "face of the emotion". To arouse an emotion OTOH
needs an expression of a cause of such an emotion. Showing an
injustice to cause anger in the onlooker, suffering to cause
compassion, a child who has stopped playing, sitting on a rusting, old
car in the sunset to cause melancholy (accessing childhood memories
juxtaposed with symbols of decay and death), etc. But it doesn't need
to be so concrete. Simple abstract trees in bright, strong primay
colors (Paul Klee's "Park Near Lucerne" for example) can cause
hapiness. It should be clear the "the face of the emotion" can cause
the emotion as well or the opposite emotion (the "rage" example can
cause fear). Hapiness seems to be brightly colored, rhytmic and
chaotic and simple. Sadness is void of color, dark and deep (achieved
by many values).
The emotion of the artist can be expressed as well (either
intentionally or unintentionally). Broad and quick sweeping brush
strokes indicate a firy version of passion (like Van Gogh's work).
Some emotions leave well known traces in the execution of a work.
Here, the emotion lies in the execution of the expression. Execution
is part of the expression as well and it might take a lot of training.
Take an ice dancer for example, seemingly effortlessly performing a
triple axle. Of course, it isn't done effortlessly but it is made to
look effortlessly to add to the expression of weightlessness. The same
goes for ballet dancers. They wear tights to hide the fact that their
muscles are in fact pumped like those of body builders. They're not
weightless, they're very powerfull.
I believe the best art combines these 3 things : the expression of the
emotion, causing the emotion in the onlooker and the infered emotion
of the artist. There's lots of overlap between them.
To return to Cezanne, I don't see any of them played out deliberately.
Electric Nachos
>On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 00:28:01 -0700, "Electric Nachos"
><bueno...@mother.fucker> wrote:
>
>>D wrote in message ...
>>
>>>You are hostile.
>>
>>Huh?! Cause I asked what visual passion is?? And where it exists in
>>Cezanne's art?!?
>
>Hehehe, perhaps she read some of your older posts (Google is such a
>drag ;-)
Google is today's hall of records. And I don't give a shit - my past posts
were made on my GOOD days!
>Anyway, I don't see passion in Cezanne's art either. I do see it in
>Van Gogh's though but it is hard to tell to what extent this is
>because of Van Gogh's background (the feeble talented but very driven
>madman). Erik already pointed out that such "external things" might
>have an impact on the artwork's perception (things not present in the
>painting itself but associated with it like Art History, the artist's
>history, public opinion, hype, etc.).
>
>Take a look at this painting for example (before reading further) :
>
>http://www.paulmesken.net/temp/jopiehuisman.jpg
>
>It's a painting by Jopie Huisman, a Dutch painter. Just looks like
>some guy rolling a cigarette. He looks a bit tired perhaps. However,
>this is a portrait of Jopie's father just after his wife died (Jopie's
>mother). This piece of information juxtaposed with the painting alters
>the perception of the painting. The grief is far more present now
>where it was virtually lacking without the backstory.
At best, I get a feeling of "Life Goes On". Imo, his "grief" could have been
portrayed in a much more dramatic manner than just rolling a cigarette.
Nothing in this painting really suggests grief... not the posture, not the
man's expression... nothing - Guy looks like it's just another day.
I do appreciate the fine art of subtlety though, and I suppose the history
of this painting serves as another medium added to the palette - but you
know, I was taught that if an artist has to 'explain' the imagery, the
imagery failed.
>To me, it's very hard to perceive this painting without taking into
>account the fact that it is about a man mourning over his deceased
>wife. As such, I perceive sadness. Lev Kuleshov was a director
>experimenting with such juxtapositions in movies (the "Kuleshov
>Experiment") but the domain is obviously not restricted to images
>alone as the "backstory" shows.
Yes - it definitely *can* enrich a painting, but I still think a form of art
should be able to stand on its own. So I have a hard time accepting a
"backstory" when the "frontstory" doesn't own any of the backstory's
elements. Take the cover illustration of a storybook for example... the
illustration usually contains some imagery described in the book's text. Now
if I've read a book, and found none of the story's events on the cover's
illustration, I would wonder what the editor was smoking when s/he put the
two together!
>You're raising an interesting issue. Passion is an emotion. Emotions
>can be associated with works of art in at least 3 ways and it's
>important to distinguish between them :
>
>1 - The emotion can be expressed in the work of art.
>2 - The emotion can be aroused in the onlooker by the work of art.
>3 - The emotion can be thought to be the driving force behind the work
>of art.
>
>I speculate that the passion you speak of is of case 1 whereas D
>speaks of case 3.
If executed properly, don't you believe that either one of these factors
should influence/affect the others? I can't imagine that a well done
painting can own one of these qualities, and not any of the others. It's
like the "domino effect." Note that I said well done.
Oh, I see you do believe (above).