The Cezanne in Iian's Piano
bt
the glorious stories of kings and gods. Frank Sinatra was incompetent
because he couldn't read music. And so on... What is the purpose of this
line of argument? (Nominations encouraged.)
Rather than labor over a new entry in the disheartening thread about
Cezanne (not much about Cezanne, really) and Iian's claim to be
"avant-garde" (!), I'd like to repost a reply to the Iian which I hope
that readers will find relevant to the current discussions about
competence and criticism. I'm still hoping that Iian (among others) will
respond to this one. (No criticism implied, Iian--I know how much effort
it takes to write, and I've left good newsgroup questions unanswered
myself, simply because other responsibilities intervened.)
Begin re-post:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iian Neill <s36...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
[...] The point at issue is whether the term "free expression" (or ones
like it) can be
> used to excuse incompetent art, or to exalt as "art" something which is
not. This
> issue is complicated by a widely-held belief that art is, at essence,
> indefinable, which has left the gate wide open for the lunatic fringe in
> asserting that anything they wish can be, and is, art.
Leaving aside for now the mythology of "free expression," we are faced
with an implied assertion of standards for judging artistic competence.
But no standards are specified; instead, Iian seem to say that the correct
standards for competent art are universal and self-evident. (Do I
misunderstand?) Reading further, we learn that individuals or
institutions that support art (or "art") that does not conform to these
unwritten standards are INSANE! (Or, to be exact, "sanity-defying" members
of "the lunatic fringe.") Is this what you really believe? That explains
it--those curators see a halved cow, but because they are insane, they
believe they are looking at a masterful oil painting of angels surrounded
by naked putti.
>[...] Just as an objective critic can appraise a performance
> by a pianist on its merits and defects, so should we also be allowed to
>judge the art of all times.
Far as I know, nobody has suggested that art cannot be appraised, although
I would argue that interesting thinking about art usually doesn't have
much to do with declaring the work to have "correct" and "defective"
components.
I think that you've made an error here, Iian. I suspect that you are
mistaken when you identify "the widely-held belief that art is, at
essence, indefinable." Perhaps it is more accurate to say that you have
been confronted with the belief that ART IS NOT DEFINED IN TERMS OF
SPECIFIC MATERIALS AND TECHNIQUES. This is not at all the same as saying
that there are no standards, no definitions, anything is as valid as
anything else, or that these people are insane.
> The classical music critic is allowed to say, "His performance
> was very shoddy indeed - the technique was atrocious, there were wrong notes
> everywhere, the conception was distorted, the tone feeble" - yet what can the
> modern art critic (or interested bystander) say? He can say virtually nothing,
> because technique, in Modern Academic circles, has been "debunked" as a valid
> criteria for the objective appreciation of contemporary art.
It is telling that you choose performance of classical piano music as an
analogy for producing new art. The classical performer is attempting to
persuasively interpret a fixed set of instructions from a bygone era.
Nothing wrong with that, but is that really what an artist, who is the
"author" of new works--with all of the historical, economic, technical and
political opportunities and constraints which that implies--is trying to
do?
I propose that the visual artist--the "fine" artist, as he or she exists
in western culture today--is more analogous to the composer, or
composer/performer, of new music.
If the performer of a Mozart piano sonata spends the whole performance
banging his head against the piano bench, never touching the keys or
pedals of the piano, your "objective critic" is correct in pointing out
that this does not reflect Mozart's design. That performer doesn't
evidence the most minimal competence that Mozart would have recognized in
a performer; indeed, had Mozart hired a player who behaved this way, the
"pianist" might have reasonably been suspected of mental instability. The
same would be true of a Motzartean hired today by the Sydney Philharmonic.
If, on the other hand, this performance is a new work by Iian
Keybordovitch, one can't dismiss it on the same grounds. The audience may
have expected Keybordovitch to strike the piano keys in the civilized
manner they've seen so many times before, but the composer/performer is
presenting something else, perhaps an invitation to reflect on their own
expectations about music performance.
The critic who dismisses this performance as incompetent on the grounds
that Keybordovitch can't even play scales is an incompetent critic. This
is equivalent to condemning the pianist because he did not play a
trumpet. The grand piano on stage, the performer's tuxedo, and the
printed program all set up an expectation that this event is to be
understood in relationship to classical piano performance, but it does not
follow that the performance must conform to all of the standards of performances
a century or two ago. The performer's ability to play scales or to master
the sonata form is probably irrelevant to evaluation of this new piece.
(I can imagine it being relevant if the piece is intended as a public
renunciation of the well-known virtuosity of Keybordovitch, or as a kind
of "garage band" education-is-for-the-birds aesthetic, but I think you see
what I mean.)
The critic, in this case, has a more difficult job: he or she needs to
identify which histories of music and performance are relevant to
understanding the work at hand; in this case much of that history has
occured since the time of Chopin. In other words, the critic has the job
of illuminating the context(s) in which this work functions. He or she
might be closer to the mark if criticising this performance as a poor
imitation--maybe even "incompetent," on grounds that the performer doesn't
seem to understand what he's doing--of works done half a century ago by
John Cage.
In "Modern Academic circles," as I understand such geometry, technique is
seen as a meaningful element that more-or-less effectively serves the
overall conception of the artwork. In other words, the specifics of
effective technique may be wildly different from context to context. You
seem to think that if you can't judge a work of art against a fixed
eternal universal inherant standard of technical skill, there is nothing
left to say. The vast and varied library of discussions of (post-)
modernist art would seem to effectively refute that idea, unless you
subscribe to the "it's all bullshitism" theory, an argument that seems to
me an attempt to prohibit thought.
> Rubens and many others are still loved by art enthusiasts even today,
centuries
> after their deaths - this says something about their innate quality.
I am not at all sure that this is true. What does it say?
> [...] the intellectual elite of [our] time ; an elite which worships
incomprehensible and
> sterile works as "masterpieces".
Iian, the charge of "philistinism" that you mentioned elsewhere in your
post doesn't have anything to do with embracing classicism: it means smug
ignorance.
Assuming that you want to clarify and strengthen your arguments, allow me
to make two suggestions:
1. I think it would be valuable for you (as well as for the group
discussion, if you do this here) if you would specify as explicitly as
possible the criteria that you hold for judging art competent. Part two
of this suggestion is to identify the historical origins of those ideas.
2. I also urge you to actually grapple with some examples of art that
seems to be venerated for crazy reasons, i.e., learn more and more about
it until you are sure that you understand what the people who value this
work believe. I expect that you will find very few critics or artists who
claim to worship sterile, incomprehensible masterpieces.
Sincerely,
BT
mdeli
snip
>Assuming that you want to clarify and strengthen your arguments, allow me
>to make two suggestions:
>
>1. I think it would be valuable for you (as well as for the group
>discussion, if you do this here) if you would specify as explicitly as
>possible the criteria that you hold for judging art competent. Part two
>of this suggestion is to identify the historical origins of those ideas.
I discuss what is incompetent. I rarely discuss what I like here
except when it comes to comparison. Competence and incompetence are a
comparative matter.
What is incompetent? Here are some examples.
-A bunch of stripes fortified by a barrage of artspeak.
-A huge canvas done with accidental paint drips whose only value is a
matter of the signature.
-A painting which exhibits little more than the skill of a very
mediocre student and claims to be great art because of some convoluted
historical justification and an excuse theory claiming that the artist
really wanted it that way. (every art school failure will tell you he
actually wanted it that way.)
-A style which is repeatable by most anyone with very little skill.
>2. I also urge you to actually grapple with some examples of art that
>seems to be venerated for crazy reasons, i.e., learn more and more about
>it until you are sure that you understand what the people who value this
>work believe. I expect that you will find very few critics or artists who
>claim to worship sterile, incomprehensible masterpieces.
Check out Artforum mag. and you will find loads of what you are
looking for.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
bt
> What is incompetent? Here are some examples.
>
> -A bunch of stripes fortified by a barrage of artspeak.
>
> -A huge canvas done with accidental paint drips whose only value is a
> matter of the signature.
>
> -A painting which exhibits little more than the skill of a very
> mediocre student and claims to be great art because of some convoluted
> historical justification and an excuse theory claiming that the artist
> really wanted it that way. (every art school failure will tell you he
> actually wanted it that way.)
>
> -A style which is repeatable by most anyone with very little skill.
Thanks for weighing in, Mani.
I'm trying to understand your thinking. Is this a fair summary of your views?:
1. Good art must present specialized labor of unusual skill.
2. "Artistic" skills are those based in pre-industrial traditions of image
making. (e.g., hand-brushed oil painting is a medium for art, while the
space shuttle--though a product of great skill-- is not in the realm of
art.)
3. Skillful representation aims to depict physical appearances with the
greatest possible degree of objectivity.
3. Good art is self-evidently good: one can plainly see that the artist
possesses skills that the viewer doesn't have; it does not require
cultural or historical knowledge on the part of the viewer.
4. Good artworks are judged good based entirely on their appearance: the
historical circumstances in which they were created and the intellectual
issues that their contemporaries were discussing are not important to
assessing artistic quality.
5. Good arworks remain equally good regardless of the time and place in
which they are presented.
6. Art can be fruitfully discussed in terms of materials and techniques:
any other meaning of art is so subjective that it is irrelevant to the
work of an artist or the education of a viewer.
Please confirm, correct, refine or add to these characterizations.
Sincerely,
BT
Iian Neill
> Thanks for weighing in, Mani.
>
> I'm trying to understand your thinking. Is this a fair summary of your views?:
I am not going to answer this letter, nor should I, for I am not Mani.
All I want to do is express my admiration for the way you have condensed certain
views into clear and concise paragraphs. I am not saying that Mani hadn't expressed
them clearly - they were certainly clear enough for me, at any rate. But what you
have achieved in your letter is worthy of praise. Also to be appreciated is your
impartiality and receptiveness to the actual answer which will result.
Well done.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
bt
> All I want to do is express my admiration for the way you have condensed
certain
> views into clear and concise paragraphs [...and] your
> impartiality and receptiveness to the actual answer which will result.
Thank you, Iian. I hope that it will be useful to try to formulate these
ideas as positive statements--Mani's response was limited to descriptions
of "what is incompetent." I try to be fair and accurate, and I hope that
Mani will accept my invitation to refine these views to the point where he
agrees with them. I don't claim impartiality, though--the truth is that I
strenuously disagree with many of the notions which I attributed to Mani,
but I think that all sides of the discussion will benefit from clarifying
our underlying assumptions.
It's a selfish exercise, I suppose: it helps my own thinking to attempt
to articulate the arguments of others.
But we digress... I'm still hoping that Iian (and others) will respond to
my challenges about "competent" critical judgement of art, which was the
impetus for this thread.
if...@my-dejanews.com
Once you've defined art it's finished, it's dead.
We can only see that it's a living thing, constantly changing, not subject
to any definitions. Realist drawing can be competent or incompetent and so
it is with an abstract drawing - it can also be either competent or
incompetent. So, what is it that makes a drawing a 'competent' one? Is it
one and the same thing with which we measure 'competence' of a realist work
and of an abstraction? I think it is, if look deeply enough. Anyone's
interested in going into that?
When judging art, the realist-fanatic will stress the finish, the polish,
the attention to detail and, by doing that, would probably miss the essence
of the drawing, the beauty of the expression and also the originality in the
execution. Realism (which is limited) and originality (which is based in
creative freedom) don't really go together. But 'originality' can certainly
use realism! The best works by Rembrandt, Roubens, Tintoretto, Poussen,
Ingres can't really be called realist, can they?
ifree
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
mark webber
On Mon, 31 Aug 1998 if...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> The best works by Rembrandt, Roubens, Tintoretto, Poussen,
> Ingres can't really be called realist, can they?
>
> ifree
I strongly agree with this. To the list I would add the following great
masters: Piero della Francesca, Uccello, Raphael, Leonardo, Michelangelo,
Titian, Veronese, El Greco, LaTour, Watteau, Fragonard, Gericault, David,
Ingres, Delacroix and, to throw in one contemporary, Balthus.
An essential point, I believe.
Mark
if...@my-dejanews.com
ABSOLUTELY!
>
> An essential point, I believe.
>
> Mark
>
Thank you
mark webber
On Tue, 1 Sep 1998 if...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
(snip bulk of mutual appreciation)
> >
> > An essential point, I believe.
> >
> > Mark
> >
>
> Thank you
>
> ifree
You're welcome. Hey rec.arts.fine has become a real friendly place these
days. It's pleasing.
Mark
Ade Oshineye
>
> On Sat, 29 Aug 1998 12:46:30 -0700, b...@notarealaddress.org (bt) wrote:
>
> >hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
<snip>
> >2. "Artistic" skills are those based in pre-industrial traditions of image
> >making. (e.g., hand-brushed oil painting is a medium for art, while the
> >space shuttle--though a product of great skill-- is not in the realm of
> >art.)
>
> FIne furniture, Persian rugs, chinese porcelain, fine jewelry etc are
> good art aren't they? Space shuttle is a result of engineering not
> painting skill.
This begs the question about where the distinction between engineering
and art must be drawn. I take it the space shuttle isn't art because
it's creators didn't see it that way. They were not consciously setting
out to create art. What if some people from NASA decided to build a
model space shuttle out of porcelain or precious metals in the style of
Carl Faberge or paint a picture of it. Would that count as art if it
were built in such a way that it evinced skill and if the creators
intended it to be an artistic project? If not, why not?
<snip>
> >6. Art can be fruitfully discussed in terms of materials and techniques:
> >any other meaning of art is so subjective that it is irrelevant to the
> >work of an artist or the education of a viewer.
> >
> it rarely produces further interest beyond a period at which it might
> have been fashionable. Indeed there are poorly done propaganda posters
> or some important persons scribbles that might have great historical
> interest.
This raises a couple of interesting questions. How do we tell that the
technique in an artwork is inferior? Also what do we compare it to when
deciding that it is inferior? Do we compare it to the greatest works of
the time/culture in which it was created or do we compare it to the
greatest works of every human culture that ever existed?
Bob C
>
> On Mon, 31 Aug 1998 if...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > The best works by Rembrandt, Roubens, Tintoretto, Poussen,
> > Ingres can't really be called realist, can they?
> >
> > ifree
>
> I strongly agree with this. To the list I would add the following great
> masters: Piero della Francesca, Uccello, Raphael, Leonardo, Michelangelo,
> Titian, Veronese, El Greco, LaTour, Watteau, Fragonard, Gericault, David,
> Ingres, Delacroix and, to throw in one contemporary, Balthus.
>
>
> Mark
Excuse my asking, but who does this leave? If I'm going to start really
nitpicking here, I can't think of any painting that I would consider to
be truly and completely realistic (A perfect forgery, perhaps, in which
you can't distinguish the object - the original painting - from the
representation of that object - the forgery; but as ifree pointed out
earlier, this would also entail the least possible amount of
creativity). On the other hand, I wouldn't say that any of the painters
listed above are completely unrealistic, either.
I don't think it makes much sense to label artists as "realist" unless
we are using the term to describe a particular style and not the extent
to which we think a painting is or is not realistic. Even then it is
going to depend on the context of the conversation. I can easily imagine
that many of the painters listed could be considered realists in the
proper context.
I don't mean to sound contrary, I'm just wondering where this discussion
is going. Personally, I find it that these painters combine both
realistic and unrealistic elements in their paintings, and, furthermore,
that they often use unrealistic elements to add to the feeling of
realism.
- Bob C.
mark webber
Again I find your post thoughtful. I was wondering if anyone would ask who
I think the realists are, or as you put it, who's left. I don't even see
it as a comprehensive list. But before I address your specific remarks,
let me say that among those whom I think we can sometimes label realists
are Caravaggio, Courbet and Corot and both not just because of their
rendering but because of context as well.
Caravaggio feels enormously like a realist, to me, when viewed as someone
following the Mannerists and Venetians. While I love much work from these
latter two, I'm impressed by how different Caravaggio is from these two
mainstream schools. I don't think he is any less devoted to more important
visual issues - namely formal - but his rendering is stunning.
Courbet and Corot also strike me as being realists in spite of the poetic
qualities in their work. Yes, there is an element of the prosaic, to my
mind, in realism. But these two guys seem to work very much in opposition
to the Neo Classical and Romantic movements they follow and so we have
context again as well.
All those great masters on the non-realist list are there not because they
have no facility with "realistic" depiction, but because the content is
not of this world, or the form is so idealized or mannered or baroque as
to make something very genre-oriented, like a Chardin bowl of
strawberries, seem very realist.
Well, let me see how to respond specifically to you....
Obviously I agree with you completely, and unless I'm mistaken, all the
more noted art historians operate the same way. I've never seen Janson or
any of those big guns refer to Titian as a realist.
>
> I don't mean to sound contrary, I'm just wondering where this discussion
> is going.
Not sounding contrary at all - I think this is just another definition
session, which I think is good exercise.
> Personally, I find it that these painters combine both
> realistic and unrealistic elements in their paintings, and, furthermore,
> that they often use unrealistic elements to add to the feeling of
> realism.
>
> - Bob C.
Yes, I think part of the key here is that the words realist and realistic
have a relationship similar to the words cubist and cubistic or classical
and classic. (Braque made paintings we call cubist; the futurists made
paintings that can be called cubistic because they are obviously formally
related but not cubist works.)
Mark
Bob C
>
> Caravaggio feels enormously like a realist, to me, when viewed as someone
> following the Mannerists and Venetians. While I love much work from these
> latter two, I'm impressed by how different Caravaggio is from these two
> mainstream schools. I don't think he is any less devoted to more important
> visual issues - namely formal - but his rendering is stunning.
I wish there were some Caravaggio's in DC to see (does anybody know of
any?). I've only had very few opportunities to see originals and you'll
have to excuse me for copying your use of the word stunning to describe
them but I can't think of any better words at the moment.
>
> Courbet and Corot also strike me as being realists in spite of the poetic
> qualities in their work. Yes, there is an element of the prosaic, to my
> mind, in realism. But these two guys seem to work very much in opposition
> to the Neo Classical and Romantic movements they follow and so we have
> context again as well.
There's a wonderful Courbet painting at the National Gallery in DC that
I always go back to, called "the Stream". It's a very simple scene with
no pronounced focal points or subjects. There is very little detail, yet
it captures the mood and atmosphere of the forest perfectly with its
colors and textures. A simple branch with a few leaves in the foreground
at first glance appears to be perfectly rendered with striking detail;
on closer inspection, it looks like just a few quick strokes of the
palette knife.
Homer strikes me as being very realistic in spite of what I would
consider to be the strong romantic qualities of his work. And I
certainly can't let a discussion of realists go by without mentioning
Eakins.
>
> All those great masters on the non-realist list are there not because they
> have no facility with "realistic" depiction, but because the content is
> not of this world, or the form is so idealized or mannered or baroque as
> to make something very genre-oriented, like a Chardin bowl of
> strawberries, seem very realist.
Well, I might disagree with Gericault, Ingres, or LaTour, but it isn't a
strong disagreement and I do agree with you in principle.
- Bob
if...@my-dejanews.com
Now this is a very interesting question!
I'm itching to go into it, but will wait and see what some of our esteemed
aestheticians and propagators of traditional Western values in art here have
to say.
Marilyn
> Re: The Cezanne in Iian's Piano
>
> From: if...@my-dejanews.com
> Reply to: [1]if...@my-dejanews.com
> Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 00:49:59 GMT
> Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
> Newsgroups:
> [2]rec.arts.fine
> Followup to: [3]newsgroup(s)
> References:
> [4]<bt-280898...@ppp-223-138.usc.edu>
> [5]<35e789a5...@news.interlog.com>
> [6]<bt-290898...@ppp-223-104.usc.edu>
> [7]<35e9f986...@news.interlog.com>
> [8]<35EC07...@QMWCC7.qmw.ac.uk>
>
>> technique in an artwork is inferior? Also what do we compare it to when
>> deciding that it is inferior? Do we compare it to the greatest works of
>> the time/culture in which it was created or do we compare it to the
>> greatest works of every human culture that ever existed?
>
>
> Now this is a very interesting question!
> I'm itching to go into it, but will wait and see what some of our esteemed
> aestheticians and propagators of traditional Western values in art here have
> to say.
>
It is also a global question. A contributor to this ng, "N" said that
we are not evolving, that the best art/craft/skillfully-rendered works
of the human hand were done in antiquity. I agreed with him.
Go into it!.
Perhaps some people are more interested in
"comparing"
"evaluating"
"judging"
than in enjoying what they see just for what it is.
Yeah, everything is relative, and we unconsciously
compare everything we see
with what is already familiar.
My painting instructor kept repeatng, "Don't judge it, just
notice it. Don't enter a scene as a conqueror, enter quietly
and take it in."
Your turn...
Marilyn
mark webber
On Tue, 1 Sep 1998, Bob C wrote:
> mark webber wrote:
> >
> > Caravaggio feels enormously like a realist, to me, when viewed as someone
> > following the Mannerists and Venetians. While I love much work from these
> > latter two, I'm impressed by how different Caravaggio is from these two
> > mainstream schools. I don't think he is any less devoted to more important
> > visual issues - namely formal - but his rendering is stunning.
>
> I wish there were some Caravaggio's in DC to see (does anybody know of
> any?). I've only had very few opportunities to see originals and you'll
> have to excuse me for copying your use of the word stunning to describe
> them but I can't think of any better words at the moment.
Yep, for me he is truly one of the very-greats. Unless I am mistaken there
aren't any in D.C., but there are three now in the Met in NYC. Rome is
really the place to see Caravaggio as there are no fewer than 20 of his
works there and every one is a kick in the ass.
>
> >
> > Courbet and Corot also strike me as being realists in spite of the poetic
> > qualities in their work. Yes, there is an element of the prosaic, to my
> > mind, in realism. But these two guys seem to work very much in opposition
> > to the Neo Classical and Romantic movements they follow and so we have
> > context again as well.
>
> There's a wonderful Courbet painting at the National Gallery in DC that
> I always go back to, called "the Stream". It's a very simple scene with
> no pronounced focal points or subjects. There is very little detail, yet
> it captures the mood and atmosphere of the forest perfectly with its
> colors and textures. A simple branch with a few leaves in the foreground
> at first glance appears to be perfectly rendered with striking detail;
> on closer inspection, it looks like just a few quick strokes of the
> palette knife.
Yep, that's just the type of work I had in mind.
>
> Homer strikes me as being very realistic in spite of what I would
> consider to be the strong romantic qualities of his work. And I
> certainly can't let a discussion of realists go by without mentioning
> Eakins.
>
Again, I don't see realistic as the same thing as realist. I don't think
you have to be one to be the other.
> > All those great masters on the non-realist list are there not because they
> > have no facility with "realistic" depiction, but because the content is
> > not of this world, or the form is so idealized or mannered or baroque as
> > to make something very genre-oriented, like a Chardin bowl of
> > strawberries, seem very realist.
>
> Well, I might disagree with Gericault, Ingres, or LaTour, but it isn't a
> strong disagreement and I do agree with you in principle.
>
> - Bob
Bob, here's how I would argue against seeing these guys I realists:
The drama and point of view of a painting like "Raft of the Medusa" (where
*did* he set up his easel?) seem in conflict with realism to me - the
rendering is, however, realistic.
Ingres exagerates and distorts anatomy (like the extra vertabrae in the
"Grand Odalisque", the mislocated shoulder in the portrait in the Frick
Collection) in such a beautiful, classical way that I can't see him as a
realist. His rendering, however, is realistic.
LaTour, (not unlike his biggest influence Caravaggio) is such a
committed formalist that his shape making takes on a fluidity and
responsiveness I don't see in nature. The flow from one object into the
next, the simplification and near stylization prevent me from seeing him
as a realist.
Naturally, these are only my observations.
Saluts,
Mark
Bob C
>
> On Tue, 1 Sep 1998, Bob C wrote:
>
> > mark webber wrote:
> > >
> > > Caravaggio feels enormously like a realist, to me, when viewed as someone
> > > following the Mannerists and Venetians. While I love much work from these
> > > latter two, I'm impressed by how different Caravaggio is from these two
> > > mainstream schools. I don't think he is any less devoted to more important
> > > visual issues - namely formal - but his rendering is stunning.
> > >
> > > qualities in their work. Yes, there is an element of the prosaic, to my
> > > mind, in realism. But these two guys seem to work very much in opposition
> > > to the Neo Classical and Romantic movements they follow and so we have
> > > context again as well.
> >
> >
> > consider to be the strong romantic qualities of his work. And I
> > certainly can't let a discussion of realists go by without mentioning
> > Eakins.
> >
>
> Again, I don't see realistic as the same thing as realist. I don't think
> you have to be one to be the other.
>
>
it really should mean to term an artist as a realist. Greatly
simplified, it is to depict something as if it actually exists, not as
if it could have actually existed, and, from a stylistic point of view,
to do so with a certain degree of optical accuracy (van Gogh, for
instance, would satisfy the first criteria for me but I would still not
consider him a realist purely for stylistic reasons, although I'm open
to being convinced otherwise).
Given this, I would stick by my listing of Homer and Eakins as being not
only very realistic, but very much realists as well. I will, however,
retract my previous disagreements with your lists of non-realists. On
closer inspection, all of those artists do seem to be depicting things
as they might have existed, not as they actually existed.
This also clarifies the listing of Caravaggio as a realist, particularly
when based on the context of his time. Compared to the more modern
realists we have listed, his work (based mainly on viewing
reproductions) seems to be very theatrical and very staged. But there is
a feel that the staging is very genuine, very honest, enough so that in
his own way Caravaggio is telling us that this is exactly as it
happened. Out of the context of his time, then, whether the work is
realist or not becomes uncertain for me. Within the context you point
out, however, I think it most clearly is.
- Bob C.
mdeli
<TA5...@QMWCC7.qmw.ac.uk> wrote:
>mdeli wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 29 Aug 1998 12:46:30 -0700, b...@notarealaddress.org (bt) wrote:
>>
>> >hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
><snip>
>> >2. "Artistic" skills are those based in pre-industrial traditions of image
>> >making. (e.g., hand-brushed oil painting is a medium for art, while the
>> >space shuttle--though a product of great skill-- is not in the realm of
>> >art.)
>>
>> Wrong.
>> FIne furniture, Persian rugs, chinese porcelain, fine jewelry etc are
>> good art aren't they? Space shuttle is a result of engineering not
>> painting skill.
>This begs the question about where the distinction between engineering
>and art must be drawn. I take it the space shuttle isn't art because
>it's creators didn't see it that way. They were not consciously setting
>out to create art.
I wouldn't know how to argue the point one way or the other. I feel
that the is-it-art arguments here and elsewhere aren't worth the
bother. What is of concern is whether whatever is presented as art is
any good or not. Wonder whether you agree?
> What if some people from NASA decided to build a
>model space shuttle out of porcelain or precious metals in the style of
>Carl Faberge or paint a picture of it. Would that count as art if it
>were built in such a way that it evinced skill and if the creators
>intended it to be an artistic project? If not, why not?
Don't know.
>> >6. Art can be fruitfully discussed in terms of materials and techniques:
>> >any other meaning of art is so subjective that it is irrelevant to the
>> >work of an artist or the education of a viewer.
Art can also be discussed in terms of comparison. That is why I
believe much modern art is no better then bed sheets or patch quilts.
>> >
>> If the technique in an artwork (I use the term broadly) is inferior
>> it rarely produces further interest beyond a period at which it might
>> have been fashionable. Indeed there are poorly done propaganda posters
>> or some important persons scribbles that might have great historical
>> interest.
>This raises a couple of interesting questions. How do we tell that the
>technique in an artwork is inferior?
By comparison with what has classically been considered best.
>Also what do we compare it to when
>deciding that it is inferior?
The above and works generally considered technically inferior. If a
work is technically on a level with average student work it isn't
great art in my opinion.
> Do we compare it to the greatest works of
>the time/culture in which it was created or do we compare it to the
>greatest works of every human culture that ever existed?
I think we do a bit of both. Mainly we compare in context. Painting
with painting etc. But not always. For example it is easier to
compare many modern abstract painting to abstract bath towels and
floor covering than to very much done in the past. The design
composition and draftsmanship is often similar.
mdeli
> Once you've defined art it's finished, it's dead.
What's that supposed to mean?
> We can only see that it's a living thing, constantly changing, not subject
>to any definitions.
Gee, do your paintings perform the life functions?
> Realist drawing can be competent or incompetent and so
>it is with an abstract drawing - it can also be either competent or
>incompetent.
Is that all the permutations you can think of?
snip
> When judging art, the realist-fanatic will stress the finish, the polish,
>the attention to detail
What is a realist fanatic?
>and, by doing that, would probably miss the essence
>of the drawing, the beauty of the expression and also the originality in the
> execution.
Sounds like Artspeak
the essence?
the beauty of the expression?
> Realism (which is limited) and originality (which is based in
>creative freedom) don't really go together.
Like in Leonardo, Rubens, Picasso?
> But 'originality' can certainly
>use realism! The best works by Rembrandt, Roubens, Tintoretto, Poussen,
>Ingres can't really be called realist, can they?
The usual quibble over labels by someone who has nothing to say.
mdeli
>Perhaps some people are more interested in
>"comparing"
>"evaluating"
>"judging"
>than in enjoying what they see just for what it is.
Artspeak logic!
The implication here is that those who compare etc don't enjoy.
Its the sort of stuff Marilyn needs to tell herself when she admires
those rooms fulls of banana peels.
>
>Yeah, everything is relative, and we unconsciously
>compare everything we see
>with what is already familiar.
>
>My painting instructor kept repeatng, "Don't judge it, just
>notice it.
Good Artspeak. Short concise and meaningless. Just the sort of stuff
that attracts the wishy washey mind.
> Don't enter a scene as a conqueror, enter quietly
>and take it in."
I'm sure this has done much to improved you artwork. I think you have
been taken in.
mark webber
On Wed, 2 Sep 1998, Bob C wrote:
> > you have to be one to be the other.
> >
> >
> Well, I think I'm finally getting a better handle on my own idea of what
> it really should mean to term an artist as a realist. Greatly
> simplified, it is to depict something as if it actually exists, not as
> if it could have actually existed, and, from a stylistic point of view,
> to do so with a certain degree of optical accuracy (van Gogh, for
> instance, would satisfy the first criteria for me but I would still not
> consider him a realist purely for stylistic reasons, although I'm open
> to being convinced otherwise).
I'm on board with this, I think.
>
> Given this, I would stick by my listing of Homer and Eakins as being not
> only very realistic, but very much realists as well.
I don't disagree here either.
> I will, however,
> retract my previous disagreements with your lists of non-realists. On
> closer inspection, all of those artists do seem to be depicting things
> as they might have existed, not as they actually existed.
>
> This also clarifies the listing of Caravaggio as a realist, particularly
> when based on the context of his time. Compared to the more modern
> realists we have listed, his work (based mainly on viewing
> reproductions) seems to be very theatrical and very staged. But there is
> a feel that the staging is very genuine, very honest, enough so that in
> his own way Caravaggio is telling us that this is exactly as it
> happened. Out of the context of his time, then, whether the work is
> realist or not becomes uncertain for me. Within the context you point
> out, however, I think it most clearly is.
>
> - Bob C.
Well I think we have accord here, and I also like the way you are putting
it.
By the way, the story is that the woman who posed for the Madonna in
several of Caravaggio's paintings was a prostitute who worked the
neighborhood of Piazza Navona. This is the same neighborhood where
several of his finest paintings hang in little churches - one of these
depicts the Madonna and I can't help but wonder how the neighbors didn't
recognise her. Just a trivial bit.
See you,
Mark
Ron Thomas
> >and, by doing that, would probably miss the essence
> >of the drawing, the beauty of the expression and also the originality in the
> > execution.
>
> Sounds like Artspeak
>
So as not to call names I snip all but these two
statements. Please, someone
explain -
If you can not use words like essence, expression and
originality of execution,
how do you describe a painting or comment on its effects on
yourself?????
Artspeak is obviously any language/terminology used to
describe the effects of
a painting. Someone out there please descibe a painting
without using "Artspeak"!!!
Ron
mark webber
Hi Ron,
I support your choosing not to continue the flame war by leaving the
authors anonymous, and I agree with your position.
Mark
mdeli
<rtho...@postoffice.pacbell.net> wrote:
>Attention all:
>
>> >and, by doing that, would probably miss the essence
>> >of the drawing, the beauty of the expression and also the originality in the
>> > execution.
>>
>> Sounds like Artspeak
>>
>So as not to call names I snip all but these two
>statements. Please, someone
>explain -
>If you can not use words like essence, expression and
>originality of execution,
They are Artspeak in the context used.
What is The "essence" of a drawing or the beauty of the expression?
The single words used in this context really amounts to saying "I like
it." I find nothing wrong with saying this unless it unclear or
becomes long winded and filled with modifiers.
One of the main tactics of Artspeak is to say "I like it" in as many
ways and as long winded as possible.
Originality is an other matter but the statement has to be defended by
means of comparison if it is to be any more than merely subjective.
>how do you describe a painting or comment on its effects on
>yourself?????
>Artspeak is obviously any language/terminology used to
>describe the effects of
>a painting. Someone out there please descibe a painting
>without using "Artspeak"!!!
Non-Artspeak is expressed by writing clearly so that what is said is
understandable after a degree of scrutiny.
When I asked why Cezanne's figure in his "Card Players" looks like a
cone-head with an ill fitting hat. I believe that my statement was
clear whether or not someone agrees with me.
If I were to say, "and, by doing that, Cezanne missed the essence
of the drawing, the beauty of the expression and also the originality
in the execution," I doubt that anyone would clearly understand my
point.
Ron Thomas
>
> On Fri, 04 Sep 1998 00:16:45 -0700, Ron Thomas
> <rtho...@postoffice.pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >Attention all:
Someone out there please descibe a painting
> >without using "Artspeak"!!!
>
> Non-Artspeak is expressed by writing clearly so that what is said is
> understandable after a degree of scrutiny.
>
> When I asked why Cezanne's figure in his "Card Players" looks like a
> cone-head with an ill fitting hat. I believe that my statement was
> clear whether or not someone agrees with me.
This statement sounds like a friend of mine whose art
knowledge does
not extend beyond, "I like that picture".
> If I were to say, "and, by doing that, Cezanne missed the essence
> of the drawing, the beauty of the expression and also the originality
> in the execution," I doubt that anyone would clearly understand my
> point.
I understand from the statement above that your knowledge of
Cezanne's art
is rather poor and you do not understand the artist or his
work.
> --
> Mani DeLi
> ...no skill no art
>
> Check out my webpage to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
I checked out your webpage and find your art very good.
Your view of modern art
is educationally lacking.
Ron