skill
mdeli
can equal and many others wish they could. It is astoundingly present
in the artwork of both present and past which people admire.
Skill is precisely what most critically approved Modern Artists lack.
What counts in Modern Academic Art is little more than a coveted
signature.
The real modern Artists are the people who write the bullshit that is
the tenuous crutch which maintains the price tag for a coveted
signature.
...no skill no art
Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
RBrac53660
Tim Simmons
"RBrac53660" <rbrac...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010820163934...@mb-fw.aol.com...
> Yawn, your still a bore.
>
Tim S.:
Apparently, English class was a bore to you, as well.
Tim
RBrac53660
happy now?
Tim Simmons
Tim S.:
I'm always happy. Especially when I can bust someone while they are trying
to bust someone. hehehehheheheheHEEEEEEEE
Oh, I asked you a question in another post. Ref: the great and contemporary
'is it art/where's the skill?' debate.
Tim
Sharon Barcone
"Tim Simmons" <tim...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:mfng7.249$c05....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Tim S.:
>
> I'm always happy. Especially when I can bust someone while they are
trying
> to bust someone. hehehehheheheheHEEEEEEEE
>
> Oh, I asked you a question in another post. Ref: the great and
contemporary
> 'is it art/where's the skill?' debate.
>
> Tim
>
>
I frequently check a variety of resources on this question. Most
dictionaries concur. "Is it art?" Yes...
There is a catagory of ART for almost anything you can imagine, enough to
include anything and everything you can think of to be classed as "Art". So
yes it is art. But then there is "Fine Art" and every source I check
includes in the defination both "Skill" and "Permanance".
So is it "Fine Art"? Most often, No.
Then I wonder, If this is Rec.Arts.Fine why is that other garbage discussed
so often?
sharon
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Tim Simmons
"Sharon Barcone" <sha...@usadatanet.net> wrote in message
news:3b827...@corp.newsgroups.com...
>
> "Tim Simmons" <tim...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:mfng7.249$c05....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > Tim S.:
> >
> > I'm always happy. Especially when I can bust someone while they are
> trying
> > to bust someone. hehehehheheheheHEEEEEEEE
> >
> > Oh, I asked you a question in another post. Ref: the great and
> contemporary
> > 'is it art/where's the skill?' debate.
> >
> > Tim
> >
> >
>
> I frequently check a variety of resources on this question. Most
> dictionaries concur. "Is it art?" Yes...
> There is a catagory of ART for almost anything you can imagine, enough to
> include anything and everything you can think of to be classed as "Art".
So
> yes it is art. But then there is "Fine Art" and every source I check
> includes in the defination both "Skill" and "Permanance".
> So is it "Fine Art"? Most often, No.
> Then I wonder, If this is Rec.Arts.Fine why is that other garbage
discussed
> so often?
>
> sharon
>
Tim S.:
I am worried about Mr. Fox. I asked a point-blank question and he said that
it was a "legitimate" question that he would answer soon and yet he never
did. I then posted saying that I was still waiting and he later posts
indirect jabs at me in a reply to another poster! I have been honestly
asking yet have only gotten assertions instead of explanations backed up by
examples/evidence. If someone claims A is true and I ask why and they say
because it's true... you get the picture.
"The Bible is God's word."
"How do you know?"
"Because it says so in the Bible."
"But how do you know the Bible is telling the truth?"
"Because it's God's word!"
Tim
RBrac53660
>> contemporary
>> > 'is it art/where's the skill?' debate.
Can't find it can you ask again?
Tim Simmons
Tim S.:
Yes. My original question was a request to help me understand how painting
four or five stripes across a white canvas was "more difficult" than
painting something like "The Last Supper" or some realism work. This was a
question born from a statement Dan Fox made. He said that abstract was
"more difficult". I'm sure it's still out there. Might need to search
Google for it but the gist is:
How is painting 5 stripes across a white canvas "more difficult" (in any
way) than painting a Bateman wildlife scene, for example.
I was hoping Dan would do what he said and answer it but he never did :(
Dan?
Thanks,
Tim
RBrac53660
>four or five stripes across a white canvas was "more difficult" than
>painting something like "The Last Supper" or some realism work.
Going down the road already built is easier then building the road.
Tim Simmons
> >Yes. My original question was a request to help me understand how
painting
> >four or five stripes across a white canvas was "more difficult" than
> >painting something like "The Last Supper" or some realism work.
>
> Going down the road already built is easier then building the road.
>
Tim S.:
Easier THAN. Soooooo many people are using THEN when they need to be using
THAN. 'Then' refers to a time period. 'Than' refers to a comparison.
Bigger than. Less than. THEN Tom went to the store.
Your Confucius-like answer makes no sense. Would you mind speaking plainly
and not in parables, please?
Thanks,
Tim
Andrew D
rbrac...@aol.com (RBrac53660) wrote:
+>Yes. My original question was a request to help me understand how painting
+>four or five stripes across a white canvas was "more difficult" than
+>painting something like "The Last Supper" or some realism work.
+
+Going down the road already built is easier then building the road.
And flagmakers have used coloured stripes on variously coloured
backgrounds for centuries. Hardly new - or interesting.
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Andrew D
Simmons" <tim...@earthlink.net> wrote:
+"RBrac53660" <rbrac...@aol.com> wrote in message
+news:20010822030758...@mb-fn.aol.com...
+> >Yes. My original question was a request to help me understand how
+painting
+> >four or five stripes across a white canvas was "more difficult" than
+> >painting something like "The Last Supper" or some realism work.
+> Going down the road already built is easier then building the road.
[snip English lesson]
+Your Confucius-like answer makes no sense. Would you mind speaking plainly
+and not in parables, please?
RB would have you believe that it's easy to paint an intricately detailed
wildlife piece because lots of people have done it before. It was much
more difficult for Rothko to paint stripes because he was supposedly the
first person to ever paint stripes.
I would suggest that if you stuck 100 people in a room with a Carl
Brenders original and a striped canvas and gave them whatever media they
required and as much time as they liked to copy the painting of their
choice - for $20 cash - 99 of them (there's alway one isn't there?) would
choose the stripes and a fair few of them would produce something
virtually indistiguishable from the original. The one who chooses the
Brenders would probably have a hard time creating an acceptable copy
despite being told that it's easier.
Chris
It's an adage, not a parable; soooooo many people get those confused.
Pot, kettle, black :)
Chris
Todd Strickland
> Tim S.:
>
> Yes. My original question was a request to help me understand how painting
> four or five stripes across a white canvas was "more difficult" than
> painting something like "The Last Supper" or some realism work. This was a
> question born from a statement Dan Fox made. He said that abstract was
> "more difficult". I'm sure it's still out there. Might need to search
> Google for it but the gist is:
>
> How is painting 5 stripes across a white canvas "more difficult" (in any
> way) than painting a Bateman wildlife scene, for example.
>
> I was hoping Dan would do what he said and answer it but he never did :(
>
> Dan?
>
> Thanks,
> Tim
Excuse me for asking such a silly question, but do you have a real
painting in mind when you say "four or five stripes across a white
canvas," or are you simply imagining some hypothetical painting? If
it's a real painting please tell us which one and maybe we can give
you a better answer to your question.
I don't feel comfortable guessing what Dan meant, but obviously you
and he are using this word "difficult" in a much different way. You
seem to define difficultly as requiring the specific skills to make a
representational picture. Dan may have meant the ability to concieve
of a painting in a new and interesting way, or perhaps the ability to
look at a scene and distill the important information from it
(abstracting it) rather than merely copying it.
Without trying to define difficulty (which I don't think is an
important point in a work of art, anyway) you might think of it like
this; many of this century's most famous abstract and semi-abstract
artists (Malevich, Kandinsky, Mondrian, all of the German
Expressionists and most of the American Abstract Expressionists, etc.)
were rather traditionally trained and in their early works they made
representational pictures which were skillful enough. Many of them
found work as graphic artists, art professors, or flat-out successful
fine artists. Clifford Still is a prime example; in the '30s, when
Thomas Hart Benton and Edward Hopper were painting their Regionalist
works (representational paintings of "regional" scenes) Clifford Still
was doing the same, and doing it quite well. He also had a
professorship which gave him a comfortable salary. He could have
worked in that style for the rest of his life. But he felt compelled
to move in a new direction. He gave up the professorship because he
felt it distracted him from his art, and he stopped painting in his
"safe" representational style (safe for him, that is) and began
painting more and more abstract images, which were less and less
popular. Eventually he found success as an abstract artist, but it
took years and he risked his career following this path.
If we think of an artist as developing through his career, moving on
to more complex forms, finding his true calling (i.e. making more
"difficult" paintings) then Still's abstract works are the more
difficult ones. He could draw skillful representations of the human
form, or nature scenes, in his sleep. But it took him half a lifetime
to reach his abstract style. The point of the story is, easier to
copy or not, the abstract works of Still are the more important ones,
the more significant ones, the ones which convey "something" of
importance to viewers. I've seen examples of both and I, personally,
am more moved by the abstract ones. I really couldn't care less if it
took him 2 years or 2 hours to paint the picture.
Just because a work was "difficult" to make doesn't mean that it's
great. Likewise, just because a work is "easy" to copy doesn't mean
it's worthless trash; there are plenty of people in the world who can
do "dead ringer" copies of the Mona Lisa, yet will never be (nor
should ever be) recognized as "important" artists.
Todd Strickland
Dik F. Liu
ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp (Todd Strickland) writes:
>Just because a work was "difficult" to make doesn't mean that it's great. <
You are right. It doesn't. And the belief that it does stemmed from our long
held admiration to persons who supposedly learned the skills and exert the
efforts to achieve their aims. We admire Abraham Lincoln who learned his math
lessons by drawing on the sand, our grandparents who supposedly walked four
miles to school, bare feet, uphill both ways. It is what lead us to value hand
woven baskets over mass manufactured baskets, hand cut furniture over the Ikea
variety. We price the more difficult tasks. They are somehow better, however
nebulous. It is a kind of Protestant work ethics, that somehow hard work
builds character; and that suffering is good for the soul.
In the same spirit, banks should discard their surveillance cameras. Instead,
hire artists who learn the difficult skills of realistic charcoal portrait
drawings. I mean, it's more difficult, right?
By the way, real men use DOS.
Dik
Tim Simmons
"Chris" <bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3B83AC13...@ns.sympatico.ca...
Tim S.:
Thanks soooo much for nothing.
Tim
Tim Simmons
"Todd Strickland" <ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:910eb03.01082...@posting.google.com...
Tim S.:
Thanks for the detailed info.
In fact, I was referring to the self-portraits on Dan's website. He may
view it as bashing but as long as I state my honest opinion (and I don't
even know Dan except for his posts here) I cannot be blamed for bashing.
Here's the deal. I just viewed Rothko's and Pollock's abstract stuff for
the first time last night. I found Pollock's stuff very detailed and
Rothko's stuff very... boxy? heheh Yet, even I could find something
interesting in the Pollocks. I was less impressed with Rothko and even less
impressed with Dan's self-portraits. It's like this: Moving from high
detail and complexity to low detail and simplicity apparently is (to me)
moving from interesting to boring. If I may be so bold as to think out
loud for a sec...
"Hmmm. Five horizontal red stripes on a white canvas. So, where's the
meaning (can there be one with 5 red horizontal stripes?)? Where's the
detail? Where's the idea? Where's the depth? Where's the (winces) skill?
Where is the (big one) originality? Why plagiarize our flag?"
So, I suppose I'm saying that I don't (yet?) understand how anyone could
paint stripes in that way and claim it is good since it's devoid of most of
the attributes which define good art (some amount of originality, some
amount of skill, some amount of detail, etc.)
I hope I am making sense.
Now, I am asking because if I am somehow mistaken, wouldn't it be great to
know it and get the real low-down? I see that Dan has responded so I'll
read it and hopefully, he will refrain from trying to psychoanalyze me via
my posts and just give me his defense of his self-portraits and his abstract
work in general. Only then can I possibly gain some real insight. Even so,
I may just disagree anyway.
Thanks,
Tim
Dale Ford
Tim Simmons wrote:
>
>
> Thanks,
> Tim
You really have to see a Rothko in person. I always thought they were over rated
( to say the least) until I saw one in person. Prints don't do his work any
justice and computer images destroy his work.
Dale
Tim Simmons
"Dale Ford" <bdf...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3B847053...@mb.sympatico.ca...
>
>
MUCH snippage
>
> You really have to see a Rothko in person. I always thought they were over
rated
> ( to say the least) until I saw one in person. Prints don't do his work
any
> justice and computer images destroy his work.
> Dale
>
>
Tim S.:
Well, at least I got to see them (net). But I am sure that seeing them as
large as they really are and without the details lost from downward sampling
would definitely give me a different perspective. I live in hickville, I
admit. I'm about 10 min from Memphis, TN, home of... a dead man with long
sideburns. I wonder where a poor uninitiated southern boy like me could
actually see some fine art near here? Hmmm silly me. I can ask someone in
my little art society that I pay $10/yr to be a member.
Well, nice chatting with you.
Tim
Clara Knett
ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp says...
>> Yes. My original question was a request to help me understand how painting
>> four or five stripes across a white canvas was "more difficult" than
>> painting something like "The Last Supper" or some realism work.
I've tried to resist jumping into this fray
for the simple reason that the original question
smacks too much of "trolling." Anyone who needs
an answer to questions such as this needs to
take the time to educate themself in ART HISTORY.
Personal opinions of why a painting
of stripes is equivalent to a Rembrandt
are nothing more than...personal opinions!
Chris
Tim;
Here's an article that you, and others, may find of interest. I had forgotten
about it till it came up on another group.
http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/13/sept94/helprin.htm
Chris
Neil Maxwell
wrote:
>
>You really have to see a Rothko in person. I always thought they were over rated
>( to say the least) until I saw one in person. Prints don't do his work any
>justice and computer images destroy his work.
>Dale
>
well) are much more resonant and vibrant in real life. Photos and
scans just can't capture the visual depth. Some works do come across
well on computers or in books, but there's no substitute for seeing
them in real life.
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Tim Simmons
Tim S.:
An interesting pro-Christian slant cleverly embedded within an essay on
modernism. His bashing of rationalism and equating it with nihilism is
pretty much weak. But he makes some good points about art, though.
Tim
Tim Simmons
"Clara Knett" <ckn...@noemailever.com> wrote in message
news:3b851...@oracle.zianet.com...
Tim S.:
Perhaps you didn't know, but it wasn't I who made the original assertion
that abstract is "more difficult". I simply wanted clarification. You
would have known this if you had read one or two posts of mine which are
higher in the thread.
Tim
Peter H.M. Brooks
Marilyn Welch <wq...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.1010823234351.9967A-100000@vtn1...
>
> Helprin views the world from a Western monotheist and anthropocentric
> position. Abstract painting is only decorative design to him. He
> seems to be afraid of the unfamiliar like most conservatives.
>
That seems to be a strange remark. I am not sure if you mean truly
abstract painting or 'pure abstraction' in your remark, the latter can
well be described as decorative. It is, however, unfamiliar to only
somebody from Mars and any conservative painter would, almost by
definition, feel it important to produce decorative pieces of this sort
in order to conform to the current norm.
It is difficult, in this time of mass communication, to imagine any art
that would be wholly unfamiliar to anybody exposed to it.
Conservatives, as far as I have been able to see, are not afraid of the
unfamiliar - in fact many that I know seek it out avidly. They are of
the opinion that embracing the unfamiliar simply because it is
apparently new and apparently different is unwise.
--
Want of variety leads to satiety.
Clara Knett
tim...@earthlink.net says...
>Perhaps you didn't know, but it wasn't I who made the original assertion
>that abstract is "more difficult". I simply wanted clarification. You
>would have known this if you had read one or two posts of mine which are
>higher in the thread.
Perhaps, but you asked a very specific question
regarding painting of stripes. The fact that you
refer to this sort of painting as "abstract"
suggests to the reader that you have no clue
about what the word "abstract" means in art
historical terms. I would refer you to any number
of art history books for your enlightenment,
but here is the best - since you seem to want
a definition of "abstract expressionism:"
The Triumph of American Painting (A history of
abstract expressionism) by Irving Sandler.
You won't find any Op, Pop, Pattern and Decoration,
or other genres discussed except perhaps
peripherally.
Todd Strickland
> holocaust and modern artists are collaborators of
> the conquerors such as "Franco,and Mussolini, and
> Hitler,and Stalin"
>
> I wonder why all those painters
> like
> Hans Hoffman
> Marcel Duchamp
> Emile Nolde
> Paul Klee
> were refugees from the Nazis.
> If Helprin's claim is true why did the Nazis consider
> modern art to be degenerative? By his 'logic' they
> should have embraced it as the harbinger of their politics.
>
(snip)
I completely agree! This was alluded to in another thread recently,
the idea that Modernism and Post-Modernism were somehow more likely to
lead to fascism and dictatorships because of some perceived... who
knows what! But the historical record is clear which kind of art
dictatorships prefer; Social Realism.
When the Soviets took over in Russia, many vanguard artists, like
Kandinsky, rushed to Moscow with the hope that Communism would be more
receptive to Modern art. For a brief couple of years it seemed to be
so, but after the Communists had consolidated their power they began
making it clear that the society of the future didn't need such
"hedonistic," "decadent," and "immoral" art. What the people needed
were huge murals showing happy factory workers turning their faces up
to meet the sun...
Most of these artist fled Russia, and many ended up in Germany working
at the Bauhaus, and other such bastions of Modernism. But then the
Nazis came to power and closed the Bauhaus. The Nazis also started
making their own exhibitions, in which they hung Modern art alongside
works by the insane (some of which were excellent, but that's not the
point the Nazis were trying to make). Soon the artists were forced to
flee again, and the psychiatric ward patients were sent to the gas
chambers...
Picasso painted his Guernica in protest against the fascist Franco;
David Smith did a series called Medals of Dishonor, protesting many of
the attrocities of fascists, dictators, and capitalists alike! I'd go
so far as to say if you want to know how far to the extreme right or
left a regime is, just look at its art. Dictatorships have a definite
preference for Realism.
Todd Strickland
Chris
read the article. As a result we've got tangents trying to associate/disassociate various artists with specific
dictators, and other irrelevant point. But then again, one out of four ain't bad....
The focus of the article isn't who did or who did not work with whom; the focus of the article is Ortega y Gassett's
championing the dehumanization of art - separating art from human concerns and common understanding - as well as his
expectation of an art that will divide the enlightened from the hoi polloi., and what these mean in the light of
history. (It's interesting to hear how his terminology for people - "like horses and mules" is so often echoed on
this list with it's references to "the herd", the "ignorant masses" , which is essentially the restriction of the
notion of humanity to a select few). Ortega and Helprin share common ground in the belief that modern art is
dehumanized and dehumanizing - for Ortega, that's a good thing, for Helprin, a bad one.
As for "collaboration" - it's not an issue of politics - the victor with whom artists collaborate is the sum of forces
in our societies that serve to dehumanize our existence.
Now, if anyone would care to reread the article without their blinkers on, I'd be interested in discussing it.
Cheers;
Chris
PS - Marilyn Why would anyone consider monotheism or anthropocentrism derogatory? Many people are monotheists, so
what? As for anthropocentric - if you mean in its less common definition of humanistic - understanding the world in
terms of human values and experience - is this wrong? Another meaning involves seeing humans as the "most significant
entity in the universe" - but in that case he couldn't be monotheistic, could he, since that implies a belief in God.
Or are they just labels, like "conservative" ?
Peter H.M. Brooks
Todd Strickland <ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:910eb03.01082...@posting.google.com...
>
> David Smith did a series called Medals of Dishonor, protesting many of
> the attrocities of fascists, dictators, and capitalists alike! I'd go
> so far as to say if you want to know how far to the extreme right or
> left a regime is, just look at its art. Dictatorships have a definite
> preference for Realism.
>
atrocities - the Vietnam and Korean war and the recent murder of
millions of children through sanctions in Iraq. Is this a recommendation
for abstract art? Or is it that the generals also have a liking for
Realism?
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Of the four responses I've seen so far (Marilyn, Todd, Peter, Tim),
only Peter seems to have actually taken time to
> read the article. As a result we've got tangents trying to
associate/disassociate various artists with specific
> dictators, and other irrelevant point. But then again, one out of four
ain't bad....
>
>
> The focus of the article isn't who did or who did not work with whom;
the focus of the article is Ortega y Gassett's
> championing the dehumanization of art - separating art from human
concerns and common understanding - as well as his
> expectation of an art that will divide the enlightened from the hoi
polloi., and what these mean in the light of
> history. (It's interesting to hear how his terminology for people -
"like horses and mules" is so often echoed on
> this list with it's references to "the herd", the "ignorant masses" ,
which is essentially the restriction of the
> notion of humanity to a select few). Ortega and Helprin share common
ground in the belief that modern art is
> dehumanized and dehumanizing - for Ortega, that's a good thing, for
Helprin, a bad one.
>
orthodox 'abstract' art urges) is necessarily dehumanising art. Hasn't
art always been the province of the shaman and the elite?
>
> As for "collaboration" - it's not an issue of politics - the victor
with whom artists collaborate is the sum of forces
> in our societies that serve to dehumanize our existence.
>
be 'dehumanising'? Isn't it really that you are arguing for two sorts of
humanity, the enlighetened elite and the proles
>
> PS - Marilyn Why would anyone consider monotheism or anthropocentrism
derogatory? Many people are monotheists, so
> what? As for anthropocentric - if you mean in its less common
definition of humanistic - understanding the world in
> terms of human values and experience - is this wrong? Another meaning
involves seeing humans as the "most significant
> entity in the universe" - but in that case he couldn't be
monotheistic, could he, since that implies a belief in God.
> Or are they just labels, like "conservative" ?
>
I think that it is also true that anthropocentrism is something that we
have to be aware of when considering behaviour - after all human sexual
behaviour isn't that different from non-human sexual behaviour. To argue
otherwise is to be simply wrong. However art, culture, war and fast-food
are uniquely human.
Chris
Todd also demonstrates a certain lack of knowledge with respect to history
- for example, while Hitler was "anti-modern", Goebbels was quite the fan,
and kept a good deal of the looted and or "degenerate" art himself. The
Nazi's themselves didn't take much of a formal position as a party until
1937. After that, the use - or rather abuse - of art and artists were
basically a convenient means to an end. It's not unlike the Nazi's approach
to homosexuality - which was openly tolerated (for example) in the upper
reaches of the S.A., until the existence of the S.A. was seen as a
challenge to Hitler's domination - after which it became a handy excuse for
eradication of opponents, and another way to terrorize the population. And
if one is interested in trying to define political movements by the likes
and dislikes of leaders - a dubious exercise at best - one shouldn't forget
the support that Mussolini gave the Futurists ( and the reciprocal support,
from artists like Marinetti), or the cozy relationship between Russian
abstract artists such as Malevich and el Lissitzky, and the Bolsheviks.
Regards,
Chris
Peter H.M. Brooks
though art can be, is, and has been political (as well as aesthetic),
when politics tries to tie itself to art it tends to fail. I think that
this is for the good reason that real politics (as opposed to
realpolitik) is part of the world of the artist. Even though an artist
may not be political his instinctive involvement with humanity means
that the results often are political. However they are unlikely to be of
use to any particular political grouping because art is, or should be,
more profound.
Dale Ford
Marilyn Welch wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, Chris wrote:
>
> > >
> >
> Helprin makes the claim that modernism led to the
> holocaust and modern artists are collaborators of
> the conquerors such as "Franco,and Mussolini, and
> Hitler,and Stalin"
Perhaps he should have done a little research and found out about Nazi's burning
art work that was deviant and sending deviant artist to the camps. Hard to
collaborate when you are being murdered in a concentration camp.
Dale
>
>
> I wonder why all those painters
> like
> Hans Hoffman
> Marcel Duchamp
> Emile Nolde
> Paul Klee
> were refugees from the Nazis.
> If Helprin's claim is true why did the Nazis consider
> modern art to be degenerative? By his 'logic' they
> should have embraced it as the harbinger of their politics.
>
> The article is pure vitriol from a writer who just prefers
> representational art work, like Winslow Homer's illustrations.
> Even Homer tried to get away from his illustrative background
> to eventually break free into being his expressive self.
>
> Helprin views the world from a Western monotheist and anthropocentric
> position. Abstract painting is only decorative design to him. He
> seems to be afraid of the unfamiliar like most conservatives.
>
> Marilyn
Dik F. Liu
Welch <wq...@victoria.tc.ca> writes:
>Abstraction is a landscape of the mind.<
So what was Bob Ryman thinking?
Dik
Marilyn Welch
What am I, a mind-reader???
<haha>
Tim Simmons
> Of the four responses I've seen so far (Marilyn, Todd, Peter, Tim), only
Peter seems to have actually taken time to
> read the article.
Tim S.:
Oh great Chris, the god of alt.arts.fine, only you are worthy. Only you are
to be praised for your perfect holiness and omniscience.
Too bad you are wrong. I read the entire article. But perhaps your tiny
mind equates a short response on my part to lack of understanding. That's
unfortunate.
Why would one post a link saying "this might interest you" and then accuse
someone of not reading it just because their comment wasn't what the poster
wanted to hear?
Chris: Great arbiter of who is right and wrong.
*** Snipped the -correct- and only correct view of Helprin's article.
Tim
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> Oh great Chris, the god of alt.arts.fine, only you are worthy. Only
you are
> to be praised for your perfect holiness and omniscience.
>
> Too bad you are wrong. I read the entire article. But perhaps your
tiny
> mind equates a short response on my part to lack of understanding.
That's
> unfortunate.
>
with a tiny mind would accuse somebody else of having one?
Now then, come on chaps, why not address the substance of the matter
rather than go in for these silly ad hominems?
We haven't got to the bottom of the matter yet. I suspect that it will
take some time to get there. Let me make a blatant suggestion in favour
of the new group I am proposing uk.philosophy.aesthetics were we can
finally sort out the matter of abstract, 'pure' abstract', decorative,
profound and really awful art.
Sharon Barcone
"Tim Simmons" <tim...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:Z1Ih7.2372$Ib.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...Tim S.:BEGIN DAN FOX------A couple of the new Mani-clones have been baiting me to 'explain' why
abstract art is more difficult than figurative art. (I can visualize them
sitting by their computers, smoking and drinking coffee, looking at their
watches, patiently waiting for me to stand up and be a target....)The
short answer is this: abstract art requires all the skill, craft, and
imagination as does figurative art - but without the starting point of
recognizable forms: figures, landscape, etc. This is why most teachers
won't allow students to paint non-objective art without first learning
drawing, color, composition, etc., by doing traditional figurative work.****I was staying out of this but....."abstract art without the starting point of recognizable forms"?From what I have read it is exactly recognizable forms that are the starting point for abstraction which abstracts form into pure design that is no longer recognized as form. Some time ago I, like Tim, looked to the Dan clones here for an explanation that would give me some insight into abstract work that I could not accept as competent art since most I had seen didn't even appear to be based on an understanding of design. Dan refered me to "A Fine Disregard", a book that gives me a new take on Modern Art, but still doesn't answer the question.The above comment about teachers is a new twist since there have been many comments here about current teaching methods that don't bother with the fundamentals of art but instead aim at expressing one's self and teaching one how to learn but not bothering with what to learn.When people try to do abstract art because they think it's *really easy*,
you get a mess like the piece one of the clones posted recently.END DAN FOX ---Now, Dan states that abstract art requires all of the skill needed for figurative art. He also believes that abstract art is more difficult to produce and I have asked for him to explain this to me and instead of replying to me with his explanation, he replied to someone else and posted a load of crap.Is someone a Mani clone if they find Dan Fox's abstract work lacking? I really don't care to play hide-n-seek with Dan but I will not be accused falsely.Seems there are two camps, the Mani clones and the Dan clones. Well this is really nothing new. But trying to get intelligent answers from the Dan camp only gets excuses. "Trolling"? Why is asking one to defend ideas in a debate format trolling? Don't want to be a target then get out of the kitchen. But if there are legitimate answers to the question of difficulty I would also like to hear them. Most abstract work shows about as much knowledge of design as is evident in the scratches of a two year old. And while I think there are many types of skill needed to create a work of art, I don't find much skill in most abstract work. If someone resorts to name-calling or excuses instead of answering questions it would seem that there must be a reason. We are left to draw our own conclusions which places us in the appropriate camp and offers no path of understanding to the other side.sharon
Todd Strickland
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
>
> > Todd Strickland <ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp> wrote in message
> > news:910eb03.01082...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > Picasso painted his Guernica in protest against the fascist Franco;
> > > David Smith did a series called Medals of Dishonor, protesting many of
> > > the attrocities of fascists, dictators, and capitalists alike! I'd go
> > > so far as to say if you want to know how far to the extreme right or
> > > left a regime is, just look at its art. Dictatorships have a definite
> > > preference for Realism.
> > >
> - for example, while Hitler was "anti-modern", Goebbels was quite the fan,
> and kept a good deal of the looted and or "degenerate" art himself. The
> Nazi's themselves didn't take much of a formal position as a party until
> 1937. After that, the use - or rather abuse - of art and artists were
> basically a convenient means to an end. It's not unlike the Nazi's approach
> to homosexuality - which was openly tolerated (for example) in the upper
> reaches of the S.A., until the existence of the S.A. was seen as a
> challenge to Hitler's domination - after which it became a handy excuse for
> eradication of opponents, and another way to terrorize the population. And
> if one is interested in trying to define political movements by the likes
> and dislikes of leaders - a dubious exercise at best - one shouldn't forget
> the support that Mussolini gave the Futurists ( and the reciprocal support,
> from artists like Marinetti), or the cozy relationship between Russian
> abstract artists such as Malevich and el Lissitzky, and the Bolsheviks.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris
I commend you on your knowledge of art trivia; I did not know that
Goebbels was a fan of Modern art. But considering that he was the
Reich Minister for Propaganda and Popular Enlightenment and was
directly involved with the Entarte Kunst (Degenerate Art) exhibition
of 1937 in which Modern works were compared to the art of the insane,
it seems that you're missing the forest for the trees here. I don't
give a rat's ass what kind of art Goebbels personally liked; in his
official capacity he was one of the staunchest opponents of Modern art
of the 20th century! So who's showing a lack of historical knowledge
here?
Furthermore, your statement that the Nazis didn't take a formal
position regarding art until 1937 is also historically shortsighted.
The suppression of the Bauhaus took place in April of 1933, within
weeks of Hitler becoming dictator of Germany! The Nazis had, in fact,
supported a motion in parliament that the Bauhaus building should be
destroyed a year previous, but they didn't have the votes to pass the
motion. As soon as Hitler came to full power, they wasted no time in
suppressing Modern art in Germany.
Moving on to the Futurists in Italy, you have a point that Marinetti,
the poet/leader of the Futurists was an early admirer of Mussolini.
But your statement that Mussolini "gave support" to the Futurists is
unsubstantiated. I'm not really a student of the history of fascism,
so I may indeed be naive about some Mussolini/Futurist connection, but
I've never heard of any such thing; please tell me any Futurist works
which were commissioned by Mussolini, or any exhibitions of Futurism
which were organized by Mussolini's regime. Again, I don't mean
whether or not Mussolini ever said he liked Giacometti at a dinner
party; please give examples of official support.
Now, on to the "cozy relationship" of Malevich and El Lissitzky with
the Bolsheviks. As I stated in my post, there was a brief time
(throughout most of the '20s) when these artists were given free reign
to do what they pleased as artists, and positions of authority in art
schools. But as the '20s progressed the Party demanded more and more
that artists adopt Social Realism as the "approved" style. Why do you
think that Klee, Kandinsky, and the entire Constructivist camp left
Russia for Germany? In 1930, Malevich and El Lissitzky (two of the
few who stayed) were purged from their official positions, and
Malevich was actually sent to prison! He was released in poor health,
a broken man, and he spent the last few remaining years of his life in
poverty and obscurity.
I suggest you brush up on your own knowledge of history before
commenting on my shortcomings.
By the way, I certainly did read that moronic article by Mark Helprin
in The New Criterion before I posted my opinion about it. His art
criticism views are so tired and boring that I have nothing to say
about them. But as HE DID EQUATE Modernism with the rise of Stalin
and Hitler, Marilyn and I were right on topic in our responses. In
Helprin's own assinine words...
"But this was absolutely not the moment to put down the pen. It was
not the moment when “obedience to the order of the day” was the most
hopeful choice for the individual. For not only was the “flock of
questions” not asked by those who should have asked and answered
them, but when Ortega put down his pen up jumped Franco, and
Mussolini, and Hitler, and Stalin. And the fruit of the dehumanization
that Ortega correctly perceived and incorrectly championed was a
century of a hundred million dead in war, holocaust, and purge, and
the general degradation of art and life in which the living and
imperfect form of man has been forced into the iron maiden of
rationalism, there to suffer, wilt, and die. The abstract play of
ideas did, after all, have consequences. It was consequential for the
paratroopers who were machine-gunned as they floated to earth, for the
cities that were ground to rubble, for the millions of mothers and
children who were murdered in the camps, and for whole families that
perished in seas of fire, because those whose first responsibility it
had been to check nihilism and dehumanization had instead embraced
them.
With the rise of science, the industrial state, and super-efficient
social organization, aspects of culture that had been evolving for
millennia according to distinct humanistic principles were pressed to
abandon those principles in favor of various rationalistic systems;
from modernism to Marxism. That which was humane proved also to have
been surprisingly defenseless, and was rather quickly overpowered.
Modernism is the movement that arose in art to collaborate with the
conqueror, and most of today’s artists and theorists, the thinking
and unthinking acolytes of Ortega and his precursors, are the
collaborators."
What a bunch of crap! The "dehuminization" which led to 100 million
deaths can much more easily be explained simply as mankind's age old
obsession with war married with modern technology. The lesson of war
in the 20th century is not how ideologically different it was from
previous ages; it was sadly just the same old thing in that regard.
Territorial expansion and genocide of ethnic minorities are as old as
history itself. The new twist was simply the use of modern technology
to achieve those ends. This has nothing to do with Picasso! Helprin
is just a tired old right-wing fart, taking a stab at Modernism
because it's a fashionable target for right-wing farts!
Todd Strickland
Tim Simmons
"Sharon Barcone" <sha...@usadatanet.net> wrote in message
news:3b87b...@corp.newsgroups.com...
Tim S.:
BEGIN DAN FOX------
END DAN FOX ---
sharon
Tim S.:
Very true. Thanks.
Tim
Joe Bennett
I've been reading this and snickering at the to and fro-ing and then you
came along and introduced intelligence. You keep doing that. From
Chris's first post, the whole conversation has become an unanswerable
argument. Thus, I, who now am firmly entrenched in the mid-1850s,
started out as a follower of Mondrian, Kandinsky, Klee and so forth, and
swore that I would never paint another "picture." After very few years,
it became apparent that I had "painted myself out" and was feeling
totally impotent.
In the depths of something, I started painting a tree and had a Damascus
experience, just in time for a woman who already had two of my
abstractions hanging in her home to come by seeking a third. This was
no dumb bunny. A PhD in motivational something or other, president of
her own company, bucks in the bank, a fondness for my abstractions. She
saw my tree and flipped. "I didn't know you could *paint*!" she said.
"I thought you were doing these wonderful abstractions because you
couldn't *draw*!" But she didn't go for the tree. She went home with
her third abstraction, one of the few still left around. (I will make no
more, forever.)
Moral: Lots of intelligent people, who actually like and want abstract
pieces, really and truly believe that the producers of such work do so
because they haven't the basic skill to *paint*! Now, I'd say the
abstractionists have a larger job to do in educating the public, even
their fans, that what they are doing actually isn't a reflection of
inadequate basic training.
All the rest of this back and forth stuff is just flummery. No one will
ever convince anyone of anything.
(By the way, Sharon, have you heard directly from that Italian who
wanted to body-paint you? I thought he'd be on a plane by now!)
Joe
Peter H.M. Brooks
Joe Bennett <joseph...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3B88347B...@mediaone.net...
> >
> In the depths of something, I started painting a tree and had a
Damascus
> experience, just in time for a woman who already had two of my
> abstractions hanging in her home to come by seeking a third. This was
> no dumb bunny. A PhD in motivational something or other, president of
> her own company, bucks in the bank, a fondness for my abstractions.
She
> saw my tree and flipped. "I didn't know you could *paint*!" she said.
> "I thought you were doing these wonderful abstractions because you
> couldn't *draw*!" But she didn't go for the tree. She went home with
> her third abstraction, one of the few still left around. (I will make
no
> more, forever.)
>
>
> Moral: Lots of intelligent people, who actually like and want
abstract
> pieces, really and truly believe that the producers of such work do so
> because they haven't the basic skill to *paint*! Now, I'd say the
> abstractionists have a larger job to do in educating the public, even
> their fans, that what they are doing actually isn't a reflection of
> inadequate basic training.
>
Tim Simmons
Tim S.:
I disagree. Present a cogent argument that is based on facts that are
either evident or can be verified and you will have influenced the other
side to some degree (possibly the proverbial straw that broke the
dromedary's hump).
Make unfounded assertions and then run away and you will ALSO influence but
it will simply reaffirm the beliefs already in place.
Tim
Sharon Barcone
I enjoyed your story Joe and it brings up a very good point. Those who have
created the market for these abstract works, by buying them, are not
necessarily knowledgeable about either the artist creating the work or the
"idea" behind the work. So in reality all the discussion about needing a
page or two to explain the "idea" behind the work is a bit of a moot point.
The buyer, it would seem, has other motives for the purchase.
Being in, buying a designer name, owning a work no one else understands or
can afford, and paying big bucks for art are all heavy motivators for some
people. I was selling cyprus clocks ( a big tourist item in Florida) at a
beach resort in Maryland. A fancy lady dripping in diamonds came by and was
very interested in one until she saw the price. She promptly told me "My
dear, you are selling these entirely to cheap. I could not possibly purchase
one of these for THAT price."
>
> All the rest of this back and forth stuff is just flummery. No one will
> ever convince anyone of anything.
>
> (By the way, Sharon, have you heard directly from that Italian who
> wanted to body-paint you? I thought he'd be on a plane by now!)
>
> Joe
>
Actually Joe, Alphonso and I have only communitated in this very public
forum. He did express however that I must buy my own ticket and he will meet
my plane. I am afraid it may be a while. In the mean time I may be able to
get to Texas and then I could start drinking again and hit the bars with
Dale!
sharon
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Dale Ford
Dale
Sharon Barcone
sharon
"Dale Ford" <bdf...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3B886282...@mb.sympatico.ca...
Dale Ford
think I would probably melt if I went there during summer.
Dale
Chris
Thanks for your response - re. the trivia, while various Nazi's and factions took actions
against modern (as well as other "non-Germanic") artists before 1937, it was in July of that
year that Hitler and Goebbels put into effect the policy to clear Nazi Germany of these works,
seizing them from museums, galleries, and private collects. (FWIW - Goering also took his
share, according to Peter Adam's book, of 4 van Goghs, 4 Munchs, 3 Marcs, 1 Gaugin, 1 Signac,
and 1 Cezanne). As for the number seized, I've seen estimates from 5 to 10000; many weren't
destroyed but sold to raise money for the Reich. He also makes an interesting comment that
while "Exhibition of Degenerate Art" borrowed heavily from the Dadaist for its aggressive style
of display. Goebbels actively supported what he termed "Nordic Expressionism" and in return
recieved support from artists like Nolde, Kirchner, and Munch.
Re. Marinetti - Mussolini made him a founding member of the Italian Academy; and who (if not
Mussolini) do you think fostered the Italian Furturist Exhibition in Berlin, in 1933? Their
very pro-war attitude fit right in with Il Duce's posturing (at least for awhile).
Re. Pre-Stalinist Russia; don't forget the Supremacists.
But all these issues really have nothing to do with the article; Helprin is discussing the
environment that fostered the rise to power of these (and other) totalitarian states. Once
totalitarian states become entrenched obviously anything that smacks of independent thought is
eventually going to be proscribed. The question isn't how to overturn these states once they
occur (history shows it is very difficult) - but rather how to avoid them forming in the first
place. The best way to avoid the plague, after all, is to not create an environment conducive
to rats.
The roots of the Third Reich lie in the Weimar Republic- as an artistic environment, it still
resonates today, with (on the one hand) its sense of anarchy and freedom (which I personally
see as good things), but uninformed by any interest in humanist concerns, such as the meaning
and value of life. (Allen Bloom - cranky as he may be, drew an interesting parallel between the
the Weimar and 1960's America, with the popularity of the song "Mack the Knife").Yes, one can
go further back, and place blame on the Western powers after the first war, or look at
Germany's Prussian heritage, etc.; but even given the conditions of post WWI Germany, perhaps
it was still possible to avoid its collapse into Hitlerism. This why Helprin says that at that
juncture it was precisely the time for for writers like Ortega to pick up the pen, not abandon
it.
Artists of course weren't the only - or even major - cause; but I don't think we can simply
write them off only as a symptom.
Regards;
Chris
Todd Strickland wrote:
> not the moment when ?gobedience to the order of the day?h was the most
> hopeful choice for the individual. For not only was the ?gflock of
> questions?h not asked by those who should have asked and answered
> them, but when Ortega put down his pen up jumped Franco, and
> Mussolini, and Hitler, and Stalin. And the fruit of the dehumanization
> that Ortega correctly perceived and incorrectly championed was a
> century of a hundred million dead in war, holocaust, and purge, and
> the general degradation of art and life in which the living and
> imperfect form of man has been forced into the iron maiden of
> rationalism, there to suffer, wilt, and die. The abstract play of
> ideas did, after all, have consequences. It was consequential for the
> paratroopers who were machine-gunned as they floated to earth, for the
> cities that were ground to rubble, for the millions of mothers and
> children who were murdered in the camps, and for whole families that
> perished in seas of fire, because those whose first responsibility it
> had been to check nihilism and dehumanization had instead embraced
> them.
>
> With the rise of science, the industrial state, and super-efficient
> social organization, aspects of culture that had been evolving for
> millennia according to distinct humanistic principles were pressed to
> abandon those principles in favor of various rationalistic systems;
> from modernism to Marxism. That which was humane proved also to have
> been surprisingly defenseless, and was rather quickly overpowered.
> Modernism is the movement that arose in art to collaborate with the
> conqueror, and most of today?fs artists and theorists, the thinking
Chris
>
> Oh, dear! We are back to the 'tiny mind' debate. Surely only somebody
> with a tiny mind would accuse somebody else of having one?
>
> Now then, come on chaps, why not address the substance of the matter
> rather than go in for these silly ad hominems?
>
> We haven't got to the bottom of the matter yet. I suspect that it will
> take some time to get there. Let me make a blatant suggestion in favour
> of the new group I am proposing uk.philosophy.aesthetics were we can
> finally sort out the matter of abstract, 'pure' abstract', decorative,
> profound and really awful art.
>
Alas Peter, my news server doesn't carry the uk.philosophy hierarchy, so
if you posted there rather than here, I would find it regrettable (and I
am far to lazy to change servers.).
Cheers;
Chris
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> Alas Peter, my news server doesn't carry the uk.philosophy hierarchy,
so
> if you posted there rather than here, I would find it regrettable (and
I
> am far to lazy to change servers.).
>
for the uk.* hierarchy to be included.
It's a nice thought though!
--
Conflict is a contrary virtue - Sun Pin 'Military Methods'
Sharon Barcone
everywhere you go is air-conditioned. Next time I'll go when it's cooler.
sharon
"Dale Ford" <bdf...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3B8A70C0...@mb.sympatico.ca...
Dale Ford
Chris wrote:
> Todd;
>
> Thanks for your response - re. the trivia, while various Nazi's and factions took actions
> against modern (as well as other "non-Germanic") artists before 1937, it was in July of that
> year that Hitler and Goebbels put into effect the policy to clear Nazi Germany of these works,
> seizing them from museums, galleries, and private collects. (FWIW - Goering also took his
> share, according to Peter Adam's book, of 4 van Goghs, 4 Munchs, 3 Marcs, 1 Gaugin, 1 Signac,
> and 1 Cezanne).
At this time those works were recognized as being worth a lot of money. Of course they did not
destroy those works. Although they supposively destroyed some of Millet's work because it smacked
of communism. They also had a section of the military assigned to collect works of art from
countries they invaded. ( Private and Publicly owner works). The officers would make list ahead of
time of the location of works of art and then walk in and take them.....for safe keeping of course.
> As for the number seized, I've seen estimates from 5 to 10000; many weren't
> destroyed but sold to raise money for the Reich.
Many of these private collections refer to forced auction of the belongings of Jewish people. They
were sold to raise money for the Reich because the owner was Jewish not because the art was
degenerate.
> He also makes an interesting comment that
> while "Exhibition of Degenerate Art" borrowed heavily from the Dadaist for its aggressive style
> of display. Goebbels actively supported what he termed "Nordic Expressionism" and in return
> recieved support from artists like Nolde, Kirchner, and Munch.
Goebbels also smoked a lot of drugs and did many other things that were not approved of. Nordic
expression meant some thing a lot different to Hitler then what you are alluding too. In public
Goebbels supported what ever Hitler said. His personal taste are irrelevant.
Munch's country was invaded by the Germans. Hard to see how he would have supported them. Nolde and
Kirchner were both strong social critics, the National Socialist party was not big on that either.
Remember all opposition was silenced.
>
>
> Re. Marinetti - Mussolini made him a founding member of the Italian Academy; and who (if not
> Mussolini) do you think fostered the Italian Furturist Exhibition in Berlin, in 1933? Their
> very pro-war attitude fit right in with Il Duce's posturing (at least for awhile).
The futurist were a different kettle of fish. Their canvases were dehumanizing in that the forms
were mechanized and portrayed in a violent motion. They believed that science had violently
transformed the life of their time and they wanted to break with all art of the past. It is no
wonder they were attracted to Mussolini, many people of that time were. He was modern and a very
forward thinker. Pre war he had many admirers.
>
>
> Re. Pre-Stalinist Russia; don't forget the Supremacists.
Malevich? His main goal was to produce an expression of non objectivity. Doesn't really fit.
>
>
> But all these issues really have nothing to do with the article; Helprin is discussing the
> environment that fostered the rise to power of these (and other) totalitarian states. Once
> totalitarian states become entrenched obviously anything that smacks of independent thought is
> eventually going to be proscribed. The question isn't how to overturn these states once they
> occur (history shows it is very difficult) - but rather how to avoid them forming in the first
> place. The best way to avoid the plague, after all, is to not create an environment conducive
> to rats.
Helprin is ignoring most of history and political and social climate to support his belief.
Most historians point out a constitutional flaw that allowed Hitler to be elected and then
essentially get rid of the elected body, and rule as dictator. In Canada we have a similar flaw
that has never been removed from our constitution. It is called the war measures act here. Once it
is enacted the Prime Minister can rule the country with out the consent of Parliament. I have
studied German history and I have never ever heard of a historian even mention artists creating an
environment that lead to Hitler's rise. They may discuss the state sponsored propaganda, but that
is not any artist whom you have mentioned.
Historians also point to the harsh terms of treaty of Versailles as a major cause of the second
world war. These terms caused great hardship in post WW1 Germany and a whack of hate and discontent
among Germans. They did not feel the treaty was fair. Compounding this was the fact that Germany
was never invaded during the first world war. Many believed that they never really lost so why
should they suffer so. War reparations alone bankrupted the country and created a lot of hardship
for the German people. It is no wonder that the beaten down populace voted for a man who promised
them money, jobs, and a place in the sun. A return to the glorious past.
Politicians created the errors that lead to a country that was rife for dictatorship. Not artists,
artist are more of a mirror of society rather than a creator of that society (Bloom would agree).
While I would love to believe we have such power, we don't.
Dale Ford
Do you live in Edmonton?
Dale
Dale Ford
Dale Ford wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
> > Todd;
> >
> > Thanks for your response - re. the trivia, while various Nazi's and factions took actions
> > against modern (as well as other "non-Germanic") artists before 1937, it was in July of that
> > year that Hitler and Goebbels put into effect the policy to clear Nazi Germany of these works,
> > seizing them from museums, galleries, and private collects. (FWIW - Goering also took his
> > share, according to Peter Adam's book, of 4 van Goghs, 4 Munchs, 3 Marcs, 1 Gaugin, 1 Signac,
> > and 1 Cezanne).
>
> At this time those works were recognized as being worth a lot of money. Of course they did not
> destroy those works. Although they supposively destroyed some of Millet's work because it smacked
> of communism. They also had a section of the military assigned to collect works of art from
> countries they invaded. ( Private and Publicly owner works). The officers would make list ahead of
> time of the location of works of art and then walk in and take them.....for safe keeping of course.
BTW after the war the Americans sent a bunch of art work from the German museums to the States for the
same safe keeping.
Dale
Chris
I must admit you have an intriguing and creative view of history, so I'll respond to some of the
specific points.
The policy put into place in July of 1937 was specifically aimed at "degenerate "artworks,
irregardless of the owner. They weren't auctioned inside the Reich (as were seized Jewish holdings)
but primarily sold abroad to raise foreign currency. The looting of art - a rather European tradition
- is something else altogether.
"Nordic Expressionism" wasn't coined by Hitler, it was a label generated by Goebbels in an attempt to
find a means to separate art from artists who met his racial and political standards from those he
didn't.
Munch's country wasn't invaded until 1940. His support was given in the late 20's and early 30's. To
discount his support on the basis of events that happened a decade later is curious to say the least.
By the same peculiar logic could one then argue that Roehm and his S.A. buddies were really alright
kinda guys? Nolde and Kirchner - again silenced, yes, but well after they had made their contribution
during the critical phases.
The Futurists wanted more than just a break with the past, and they admired Mussolini for more than
just his modernism. An essential element of Futurism was the glorification of war (though in itself,
that's hardly a modern thought). A basic tenet was "Art, in fact, can be nothing but violence cruelty,
and injustice'. You are hereby sentenced to read Marinetti manifestos.
If you don't think "non-objectivity" doesn't fit with totalitarianism, then what can I say?
Totalitarianism is above all subjective - when all moral codes become the whim of an individual.
As for Helprin's ignoring history - hardly. Show me one major historian who believes that Hitler came
to power on the simple basis of a constitutional flaw. I don't, on the whole like putting in longish
quotes, but as he sums it up nicely, here's Shirer, from "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich":
"The Hohenzollern Empire had been built on the armed triumphs of Prussia, the German Republic on the
defeat by the Allies after a great war. But the Third Reich owed nothing to the fortunes of war or to
foreign influence. It was inaugurated in peacetime, and peacefully, by the Germans themselves, out of
both their weaknesses and strengths. The Germans imposed the Nazi tyranny on themselves. Many of them,
perhaps a majority, did not quite realize it that hour of noon of January 30, 1933, when President
Hindenburg, acting in a perfectly constitutional manner, entrusted the chancellorship to Adolph
Hitler.
"But they were soon to learn."
With respect to the general contribution of artists, and artistic movements, to the rise of the Third
Reich, a good book is Modris Eksteins' "Rites of Spring". From his preface:
"The Weimar period, 1918 to 1933, and the Third Reich, 1933 to 1945, were stages in a process.
Avant-garde has for us a positive ring, storm troops a frightening connotation. This book suggests
that there may be a sibling relationship between these two terms that extends beyond their military
origins. Introspection, primitivism, abstraction, and myth making in the arts, and introspection,
primitivism, abstraction, and myth making in in politics, may be related manifestations. Nazi kitsch
may bear a blood relationship to the highbrow religion of art proclaimed by many moderns."
So Helprin, like him or not, is hardly writing from an unknown - or even unusual -vantage point.
But there is a bigger issue - your statement that "Politicians created the errors that lead to a
country that was rife for dictatorship. Not artists, artist are more of a mirror of society rather
than a creator of that society (Bloom would agree). While I would love to believe we have such power,
we don't."
Isn't this precisely what Helprin was pointing out as collaboration? The cause is always some one
else's fault, one has to just go with the flow? A mirror has no choice in what it reflects, it is
inanimate, it is without individual will. Is this how you see yourself? (And just where does Bloom
agree with this?). It places art at a level of Sgt. Shultz, of Hogan's Heroes fame....
Regards;
Chris
Dale Ford
Chris wrote:
> Dale,
>
> I must admit you have an intriguing and creative view of history, so I'll respond to some of the
> specific points.
>
> The policy put into place in July of 1937 was specifically aimed at "degenerate "artworks,
> irregardless of the owner. They weren't auctioned inside the Reich (as were seized Jewish holdings)
> but primarily sold abroad to raise foreign currency. The looting of art - a rather European tradition
> - is something else altogether.
>
> "Nordic Expressionism" wasn't coined by Hitler, it was a label generated by Goebbels in an attempt to
> find a means to separate art from artists who met his racial and political standards from those he
> didn't.
I am not saying he coined the phrase rather Goebbels had a different meaning of what Nordic Expressionism
was and what should be tolerated as art, and an extension of the German school of painting and what Hitler
thought should be tolerated.
>
>
> Munch's country wasn't invaded until 1940. His support was given in the late 20's
To Goebbels????
> and early 30's.
In the early to 30's up until the war many people in many countries admired the work the National
Socialist were doing with their domestic policy. Hitler had many admirers. Up until the day before the war
was declared Germany was still in free trade talks with England. Hitler never wanted to go to war with
England just continental Europe.
> To
> discount his support on the basis of events that happened a decade later is curious to say the least.
To use the art works of people whose paintings were obvious social criticisms of the times they lived in
and view these paintings as setting the stage for one of the greatest humanitarian catastrophes in history
is unique.
>
> By the same peculiar logic could one then argue that Roehm and his S.A. buddies were really alright
> kinda guys?
I am sure they were to people that they felt were all right type of guys. Their families loved them too.
What they did was monstrous but the weren't monsters they were humans. Many people ( all colours, all
nationalities, all creeds) could and have done just as terrible things when they feel they are justified.
Turn on the local TV station.......it hasn't stopped.
> Nolde and Kirchner - again silenced, yes, but well after they had made their contribution
> during the critical phases.
Why silence your biggest supporters?
>
>
> The Futurists wanted more than just a break with the past, and they admired Mussolini for more than
> just his modernism. An essential element of Futurism was the glorification of war (though in itself,
> that's hardly a modern thought). A basic tenet was "Art, in fact, can be nothing but violence cruelty,
> and injustice'. You are hereby sentenced to read Marinetti manifestos.
I have read Marinetti (I don't like him very much). I basically agree with you on the manifestos of the
futurists. But this manifesto was to break with art of the past. Marinette is discussing art, not foreign
policy. They were artists and not military tacticians after all. But war is the epitome of massive change
and technology why wouldn't they be fascinated by military hardware not to mention a return to the glories
of Rome. However war is not an extension of poetry or art. Essentially war is merely an extension of
foreign policy. Who controls foreign policy??????
>
>
> If you don't think "non-objectivity" doesn't fit with totalitarianism, then what can I say?
> Totalitarianism is above all subjective - when all moral codes become the whim of an individual.
So explain specifically how a painting of a white square on an off white background supports
totalitarianism?
>
>
> As for Helprin's ignoring history - hardly. Show me one major historian who believes that Hitler came
> to power on the simple basis of a constitutional flaw.
Come on I never said on just that issue. And there are many other factors not discussed here. Just as well
since this is a fine arts news group after all.
> I don't, on the whole like putting in longish
> quotes, but as he sums it up nicely, here's Shirer, from "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich":
>
> "The Hohenzollern Empire had been built on the armed triumphs of Prussia, the German Republic on the
> defeat by the Allies after a great war. But the Third Reich owed nothing to the fortunes of war or to
> foreign influence. It was inaugurated in peacetime, and peacefully, by the Germans themselves, out of
> both their weaknesses and strengths. The Germans imposed the Nazi tyranny on themselves. Many of them,
> perhaps a majority, did not quite realize it that hour of noon of January 30, 1933, when President
> Hindenburg, acting in a perfectly constitutional manner, entrusted the chancellorship to Adolph
> Hitler.
> "But they were soon to learn."
Hey there's that constitutional thing here and that politician thing too............. Gee are you trying
to support what I am saying.
>
>
> With respect to the general contribution of artists, and artistic movements, to the rise of the Third
> Reich, a good book is Modris Eksteins' "Rites of Spring". From his preface:
>
> "The Weimar period, 1918 to 1933, and the Third Reich, 1933 to 1945, were stages in a process.
> Avant-garde has for us a positive ring, storm troops a frightening connotation. This book suggests
> that there may be a sibling relationship between these two terms that extends beyond their military
> origins. Introspection, primitivism, abstraction, and myth making in the arts, and introspection,
> primitivism, abstraction, and myth making in in politics, may be related manifestations.
Maybe....meaning he can't support this argument with any substantive proof.
> Nazi kitsch
> may bear a blood relationship to the highbrow religion of art proclaimed by many moderns."
>
> So Helprin, like him or not, is hardly writing from an unknown - or even unusual -vantage point.
I don't know the man at all, but I think in all fairness to him he must have a book that deals with a lot
of various different issues relative to this connection of art and the rise of the third Reich. I have
not read it, and probably won't so I have no idea what his research is based on or how in depth it goes. I
would guess he probably uses the examples of the artist in the French Revolution to help document the
power of art and it's effect on the populace.( Please keep in mind my next point will be that film had a
greater roll in Germany in the 30's than paintings where as the French revolutionaries did not have this
medium.) But he needs a hell of a lot more than an article to support these statements. And the evidence
put forth is not enough to support his conclusions.
>
>
>
> But there is a bigger issue - your statement that "Politicians created the errors that lead to a
> country that was rife for dictatorship. Not artists, artist are more of a mirror of society rather
> than a creator of that society (Bloom would agree). While I would love to believe we have such power,
> we don't."
>
> Isn't this precisely what Helprin was pointing out as collaboration? The cause is always some one
> else's fault, one has to just go with the flow?
BUT CHRIS, They didn't go with the flow at all. The German Expressionists were all about social critique.
Look at their art work.
> A mirror has no choice in what it reflects, it is
> inanimate, it is without individual will. Is this how you see yourself?
Yeah that's it. Come on talk about trolling. I do not create in a vacuum. I am affected by my environment,
what I see, how I see it and a million other thing, just like every other artist.
> (And just where does Bloom
> agree with this?).
> It places art at a level of Sgt. Shultz, of Hogan's Heroes fame....
Now that is a piece of propaganda, the brilliant allies getting the best of the hapless germans. (
Meanwhile the hapless Germans were putting the USA space program on the map.) Also an attempt to make them
seem less threatening as the USSR was the next enemy and hey we might need the German's on our side.
Brilliant.
I would guess millions more people would recognize Hogan's Heroes than a painting by Nolde. So that leads
us to the next question which had the greater impact?
Todd Strickland
> Todd,
> Do you live in Edmonton?
> Dale
>
Todd Strickland
Dale Ford
of military history so I thought you had to be the same person.
Dale
Chris
> Chris,
> "Artists of course weren't the only - or even major - cause; but I don't
> think we can write them off only as a symptom."
>
> The thread is about abstract art.
> Helprin's article was directed at abstract art.
> None of the painters you just mentioned from Van Gogh
> to Munch were abstractionists.
> Emile Nolde has a large group
> of paintings he called "The Forbidden Paintings"
> because he was actually forbidden to paint
> under the Nazis.If he received any initial support
> from the Nazis, it was fleeting.
>
Hi Marilyn, sorry for the delay on getting back on this, I've been looking
into the issue elsewhere. I also admit I dropped the article in as a bit of
a troll, but with good intent. This abstract art thread was getting tedious,
it's skill, it's not skill, the same endless cycle as the Bateman it's art/
it's not art cycle. But (unlike a real troll) it was related to the issue;
after all, Helprin's article, relating to the meaning and purpose of art, is
a more fertile ground for discussion than the skill/no skill issue. Or at
least not as overcropped.
As for Nolde, the issue isn't who the Nazi's supported, but who supported
the Nazis - and not after their criminal nature became widely known, but at
the time when (though obvious) was overlooked. I don't see Nolde, Kirchner,
et al as any worse than any other average person - in fact better than most.
FWIW, I guess I would consider Pastor Martin Neimoller - again an original
supporter, but later a vocal critic - as one of the real heroes of the
period.
>
> There is an exhibition of drawings from the
> Weimar republic at the Vancouver Art Gallery
> right now. The content is very political and
> full of foreboding of what is to come. It is
> amazing how much foresight these artists had.
> Because they were more keenly aware of their
> historical context and its consequences for
> the future doesn't make them responsible for
> that future. They were Cassandras.
It's a fascinating period in the history of the relationship between art and
greater society, and I'm jealous. One of these days I'm going to move to BC,
you folks have some good art shows out there...
But I also think that crediting Weimar artists with the role of Cassandras
is not justified.; to be such they would have had to be actively warning
against the collapse of traditional moral values (such as good and evil,
right and wrong, the devaluation of human life and dignity). On the
contrary, it would seem that Weimar art was primarily marked by an active
destruction towards aspects of what is now termed "civil society", and the
traditions and institutions that help prevent us from tearing ourselves
apart.
Not that they were unjustified. The slaughter house of WW I, (and the
resultant corrupt and ineffective Weimar Government) can easily be taken -at
least in part - to be the result of tradition taken to extremes, where
normal moral codes were obliterated.
>
> Just what is your definition of "dehumanization of art"
> - non figurative work?
Not at all. I guess for me dehumanization is symbolized when an artist can
look at the Pieta and only grunt "Beautiful", and not thought to be brain
dead, or effuse about van Gogh's art only in terms of the alignment of paint
on a surface, entirely overlooking the meaning of the work as van Gogh
created it, and be taken seriously. Similarly, I would point to a Pollock
as being far more humanistic than virtually all of the representational art
of the Third Reich (which had a number of master draughtsmen), and
certainly more so than our favorite boogeymen Kinkade and Bateman; but to
understand why one has to go well below the superficial aspects of the work,
and look at the context and expressed meaning .
Dehumanization in art would be - for me - the abandonment of the humanistic
aspects of art - which is loosely the study of man in his nature and place
in the universe, based on notions of the inherent dignity and worth of human
life.(Yes, I know that sounds Kinkadian and trivial, but it is hardly easy
to summarize several thousand years of philosophy into a sentence or two.
Though trying to do so probably underlines the essential problem of his
art). Maybe the solution is to simply pose the question asked by Gauguin -
"Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going?" to every
matriculating student (in or out of art), and when they have learned the
tools to explore this on their own, grant them their degrees.
Cheers;
Chris
Dale Ford
Chris wrote:
Because hindsight is 20/20. If you have never read the policy/program of the
national socialist party in the early thirties read it. I used to have a copy of
it from a history prof. He threw it up on the screen and said hey look at this
political platform. A minimum of 95% of the people said they would vote for this
unnamed party vs any other party in Canada. This was a class at a left wing
multicultural University and every body loved it. We were all upset when he had
a mock election and we found out we elected the Nazis.
Like I said hindsight is cheap.
>
> >
> > There is an exhibition of drawings from the
> > Weimar republic at the Vancouver Art Gallery
> > right now. The content is very political and
> > full of foreboding of what is to come. It is
> > amazing how much foresight these artists had.
> > Because they were more keenly aware of their
> > historical context and its consequences for
> > the future doesn't make them responsible for
> > that future. They were Cassandras.
>
> It's a fascinating period in the history of the relationship between art and
> greater society, and I'm jealous. One of these days I'm going to move to BC,
> you folks have some good art shows out there...
>
> But I also think that crediting Weimar artists with the role of Cassandras
> is not justified.; to be such they would have had to be actively warning
> against the collapse of traditional moral values (such as good and evil,
> right and wrong, the devaluation of human life and dignity). On the
> contrary, it would seem that Weimar art was primarily marked by an active
> destruction towards aspects of what is now termed "civil society", and the
> traditions and institutions that help prevent us from tearing ourselves
> apart.
You see I don't see the work of the German Expressionist as agreeing with the
dehumanization of the masses. Nolde's broken prostitutes are not saying hey this
is a good thing. They are criticizing the social decay, the loss of humanity of
caring. Beckman is another great example of that. The German expressionist were
huge critics of the decay they many have made the mistake of thinking Hitler
could fix that decay, but once they realized what that scene was all about,
they did not support it, they were vocal critics and were silenced.
Dale
RBrac53660
>dehumanization of the masses. Nolde's broken prostitutes are not saying hey
>this
>is a good thing. They are criticizing the social decay, the loss of humanity
>of
>caring. Beckman is another great example of that. The German expressionist
>were
>huge critics of the decay they many have made the mistake of thinking Hitler
>could fix that decay, but once they realized what that scene was all about,
>they did not support it, they were vocal critics and were silenced.
>Dale
>
Take a look a t John Heartfelds (sp?) work. He did a lot of political photo
montages and published a magaizine in Wiemer (sp?) Germany.
>Because hindsight is 20/20. If you have never read the policy/program of the
>national socialist party in the early thirties read it. I used to have a copy
>of
>it from a history prof. He threw it up on the screen and said hey look at
>this
>political platform. A minimum of 95% of the people said they would vote for
>this
>unnamed party vs any other party in Canada. This was a class at a left wing
>multicultural University and every body loved it. We were all upset when he
>had
>a mock election and we found out we elected the Nazis.
>
>Like I said hindsight is cheap.
>
Hehehehehehehehehehehe that is funny. I would like to get a copy of that paper
and give that test to some of my Republican friends here in Texas. Hey I'm
stuck in Texas where sometimes I think 99.9% is Republican, and its not the
friggen water.
Chris
>
>
> Because hindsight is 20/20. If you have never read the policy/program of the
> national socialist party in the early thirties read it. I used to have a copy of
> it from a history prof. He threw it up on the screen and said hey look at this
> political platform. A minimum of 95% of the people said they would vote for this
> unnamed party vs any other party in Canada. This was a class at a left wing
> multicultural University and every body loved it. We were all upset when he had
> a mock election and we found out we elected the Nazis.
>
Dale - I don't have time right now to discuss most of this, but with regard to the
political platform, do you mean the 25 Points?, Here's a link to a translation the
full platform, and I would be curious as to just what one could find so agreeable
in them (although a number would probably go down well in a politically correct,
left wing university, while others are certainly echoed in the views of Quebec's
Jean Baptiste Society, and ultra nationaist wings of the Parti Quebecois).
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points.htm
Chris
Dale Ford
they actually handed out to people on the streets and published in the papers. If I
ever find it I will send it to you. It was an excellent piece of political literature.
They knew what they were doing. Obviously it would have been based on the 25 points,
but it left out the obvious racial ingredients. It included universal access to
education ( including university) , health care, better pensions, maternity benefits,
building up culture and eliminating unemployment.