Job of the modern art critic
NSWEISS
Subject: re: Job of the modern art critic
From: spino...@msn.com
Date: Tue, Dec 1997 11:41 AM
Message-id: <882894445....@dejanews.com>
>Subject: Re: Job of the Modern Art critic
>From: "Michele Sciam" <sc...@grisnet.it>
spinoza1111 wrote:
>> All artist make kitch even if it is by accident or for money.
>Some artist, not all of them and I am afraid the ones who do make art for
>money are not the ones who finally make the history of art.
>Mondrian and Matisse, for instance.
Michele, I suggest that the original poster's spelling mistake ("kitch"
in place of "kitsch") was not a mere typo, but evidence that they don't
know what they are talking about.
漂ou may of course suggest anything you desire, but there is NO evidence to
support that a typo (which traditioanlly would have been corrected by a proof
reader) is evidence to support lack of knowledge on a topic.
spinoza1111:
>>If it will take a dayglow abortion skull-fucking
>> a cybernetic cow to get people to contemplate the beauty and mystery of
>> the landscape behind it then I will paint it. This is a lie and this is
>> also what I think Dali was doing.
>If your art needs such people then you may as well not care much about
>beauty and truth..
Here in the states, the decline of government support for the arts (which
had its own problems) has resulted in neo-barbaric spectacle. For
example, here in Chicago, it is now a "Christmas Tradition" for
suburbanoids to come in this week with their squalling brats and stare
without comprehension at Art. They usually attend the latest
"blockbuster" exhibition of some safe artist...this week it is Renoir.
The trustees of the Art Institute seem to have little choice but to cater
to their desires because the museum would not otherwise survive.
ç–‹on't underestimate the suburbs.
Recognize that your analysis is not of 'the suburbs', but of your abstract,
generalized, mythic construction of the suburbs that you have forwarded because
it supports your prejudices.
I for one will support the experiences of suburban art viewers, and would
challange you to state why your relation to art is more significant, and not
less so, particularly since it appears to deny a certain cross section of our
republic the validity of their experience and values, as if your aesthetic
enconters were superior (on what grounds the latter could be true I cannot
fathom). You are stereotyping a vast range of individual experience in your
comments, then throwing a veil of per-judgement over your construction, in
order to dismiss a group of viewers. However, rather than dismissing a group of
viewers, you are merely dismissing your own weak-blooded fabrication of gross
genralization/sterotype. This finds you falling into the same traps and
exhibiting the 'lack of comprehension' that I am certain you would attribute to
your 'political' opponents. Your unwillingness to be critical, whatever the
particularities of the content, affords you no bragging rights. Indeed, it puts
you in the camp of Bush and many enemies of the NEA, as your analytical methods
are equally driven by demogogery rather than reason.
I wouldn't mind being one of those "neo-barbarians' getting a chance to see
Renoir. After all, the exhibition is not compulsory, and I imagine that many of
those suburbanites never set foot in the museum, and have no intention of doing
so; or conversely, some may have the intention, but not the will to see it
through. Just the act of arriving at the museum already implies an interest and
desire (dismissing of course, the mindless and disinterested brought against
their will, or for reasons other than looking at art). Yet the ones who make
the decision to go, to make the time, to take the effort and pay their dime,
you tend to be looking down upon them, but from what heights? Other than empty
and pretentious allusions to a position of superiority where's 'the beef' in
your arguements? I am not sensing a coherent asthetic position, but
contradictions and ignorance shrouded in uncritical application of historical
events [ironically, perhaps in the same order of analysis that fed the
dismantlers of the NEA]. The possiblity, not as an artist, but as a viewer, of
individuating certain experiences seems a major use of art, so important in
fact, that it can seem a little silly falling back onto Marx or Adorno,
compared to the freedom one has in using art in the way that makes the most
sense to them (not to say that this cannot be an incorporative venture
incorporating the latter sources, if the viewer deems it relavant, but this is
always a purely subjective read and need)...in this I will state for the record
my beleif in a 'freedom' in art, and I will side with the 'thick as a post'
Chicago Suburbanites over those that would deny them their experience, in the
name of theory, history, art, politics,or whatever.
Your proclaimaitions are particulary odd coming as they do from your position
of psuedo left-wing politics (truth be told, your writing has more in common
with the vapid demogogery of the diplomat than the resasoned production of a
scholar...there is also the notion of the inadequate and unformes scholar--the
manquee).
One either has faith and trust in art and the people, or they don't. I suppose
you (,the Pope,) and George Bush (as referenced in another of your posts) know
which art is better for 'the public' to see.
If you eliminate the posiblity of art viewers having a significance, havingn a
significant and meaningful aesthetic expereince...and I mean ALL art viewers
and ALL aesthetic experience, in favour of 'better' (and if art involves an
interface between viewer and art, one cannot predict or pre-judge its
significance, one cannot imagine the outcome (responces are infinite, or close
to it) in which the viewer will integrate the experience of viewing art into
their lives, and it always boils down to a one-on-one case basis [private if
you will]...we are left with the task of integrasting the experience, creating
meaning (yes, creating). How could one presume to make grand proclamations and
prescriptions based upon such an enterprise, the data and impact of which, is
unavailible to us. In this case your 'Reichminister' position vis-a-vis art is
as beside the point as most of the other 'idiot critiques' on this NG. Both
are predicated upon lack of openess and availibility to an experience...a
valuable tool to have in the viewing expereince in art. The art experience is
born of the interface with the viewer, her demands, needs, history, etc. (which
does not rule out social formations in personal histories). Seeking objective
measure here is not only impossible, but beside the point, perhaps even a form
of avoidance. The viewing of art can be likened to falling in love: it happens
sometimes despite one's preferences,criterea, and conscious values. Is the
historian's or critic's experience and usage of art superior to the layman?
A resounding No is the answer.
On the other hand, have you seen all the Renoirs in this show? Would not this
be an opportunity to view, as yet unseen work ? Surely this has formed at least
a part of the motivation that has inspired some viewers to get themselves to
the musuem...to see art they have not yet seen and think they might like to
have an opportunity to see. Is this very different from your artistic quest
(and the possibility of viewing works that fit YOUR limited paradigm...after
all, it sounds as if you wouldnt see the Renoir because what it represents
(outside your paradigm...I am blindly speculating as to here aesthetics,
agreed). You are seeking your life and aesthetic experience, and they seeking
theirs, is your life better, more significant, your response to art deeper,
more moving? If it is, you have failed to communicate that to me in a cogent
manner. If you haven't seen the show (I haven't) perhaps you should get in
line with the suborbinites and have a look. I hear that there are works that
are surprising and prompt one to rethink Renoir. Additionally, if you have a
stake in the arts, either in the making or the viewing, perhaps Renoir will
lead you to an important insight or synthesis, your previous post suggests as
much: to wit,
in an earlier post you wrote:
"Theodore
Adorno writes "one of the disastrous transferences from the field of
economic planning to that of theory, which is no longer really
distinguished from the ground-plan of the whole, is the belief that
intellectual work can be administered according to the criterion of
whether an occupation is necessary or reasonable." That is, the movement
of Taylorist industrial thinking (in which the common laborer was
directed to work and focus on things he would not naturally work on) to
intellectual work directs the intellectual to focus on specific labeled
topics. It assumes that if the intellectual gets off-topic he is engaged
in a detour and frolic of his own (charming phrase from employment law!)
from which he will return hung-over, or not at all."
Seems it would be in line with your previously stated views...I'm not so sure
what you are arguing against(or FOR, for that matter ): are you unconsciously
arguing against yourself(?)or simply from the need to argue for the sake of
arguement?
I am an artist. One thing, always important for me to maintain, is that I do
work for a large and unknown audience. I appreciate and enjoy other artists
viewing and commenting on formal issues and strategies (sometimes it is
insightful for me, sometimes not), I am interested in critical or theoretical
work if it is moving and insightful (OK, admittedly R.A.F. is not the place to
go for that): but I also appreciate the 'ordinary' unskilled, untrained viewer
(of course ALL viewers are indoctrinated in some manner) that looks and isn't
always sure why they look other than that they are interested, and who walk
away with a moving and rich experience, whether or not they are able to
articulate that into words or the production of other works of art. It is for
these latter also that my art is made, after all, so very often formal and
theoretical issues can appear irrelevant and evicerated (refer to R.A.F. for
examples). I have had the impression, on many occasions, that the 'girl next
door', or the unaccredited viewer has equal or more powerful relations with the
art than the art specialist. Additionally, as an artist, I know how to take
such energy and incorporate it into art fuel, as well as integration of a
formal or theoretical response (indeed...I do not think criticism alters much,
as it is merely another opinion among many, sometimes well articulated and
limpid, more often poorly communicated and unclear...[Dave Hickey wrote
recently how his own writing enterprise, criticism, is the weakest form of
writing and changes nothing....Whistler is still looked at AND admired, despite
anything Ruskin had to say a hundred years ago: the art is still here and doing
it's thing: the criticism irrelavant. As well, there is the place where that
'seemingly simple' response seems the ne plus ultra of aesthetic experience,
after all, there is the place where theory and shop talk reveal to the artist
that the latter are a fraction of the art experience, not the monolith they
would like to see themselves as. Let us not mention the mountains of
incompetent 'reasoning' that is inflicted upon the unwary.
spinoza1111:
Kingsley Amis has a novel about America w
hose very title captures the
essence of this country in the Nineties, although it was published some
time ago: "The Moronic Inferno."
é«ssence?
The traditions of Modernism and Postodernism would find meaning and beauty in
the mechanical/synthetic environment at the expense of the Natural
(additiojnally, sometime a nostalgia creeps in here: Nature can be viscious,
cruel, and ugly. Since we have not experienced that land minus the European
derived settlers, we cannot judiciously make claims as to the experience of the
land).
On anohter tack, Duchamp, for example, couldn't stand the countryside. He said
"c'est trop vert" (its far too green). Woody Allen, Judd, Venturi, Graham, are
just a few examples of alternative readings of your essential country. And of
course, these readings are liberally sprinkled and bolstered by a CULTURAL
ideology, not a natural event: this CONCEPT of Nature (for Nature is many, many
things simultaneously) is itself a cutural construct.
spinoza1111:
A more compassionate restatement of the above would be that the
suburbanoids have been systematically deprived of meaning and beauty.
Beginning as "the place where the wild onions grow", Chicago is a flat
expanse by an inland sea (to paraphrase Saul Bellow.) It was settled by
"practical" men who wanted to make money and felt that the appreciation
of beauty was something to do after one has made one's "pile."
匹uriously, what Western settlement took their 'beauty' before survival or
maintaining a foothold in the land?...who shot down aesthetic roots before
economic roots and made prosperity second fiddle? Art has in the past had a
tendency to thrive in cultures where 'piles' of money exist, at the very least
through a trickle down to bohemia. Rome, New York, etc..
spinoza1111:
Somerset Maughm had their number in his novel "The Razor's Edge", about a
young Chicagoan who realizes the futility of the money game as a result
of his experiences in World War I and who becomes a EuroStyle Seeker
after Truth. Maughm comments on the lack of natural beauty of the
Midwest, an artifact of man's domination, for the original prairie was
magnificent and unlike any other place on earth. We trashed it, however,
and the only beauty on tap costs money: the houses of the upper-class
suburbs of Wilmette and Kenilworth are funded by anxious men and women
with no time for beauty, except for a Christmas visit to the Art
Institute, planned and executed with military precision.
柊gain, in the eye of the beholder, or an expression of Somerset Maughm's
limitations (I could not suggest whether or not your representation of Somerset
Maughm is sound...I have not read him).
spinoza1111:
But, as Dylan Thomas wrote of Wales, "Wales my country, Wales my sow",
and as a South African friend has said of his Antipodal city, "it's a
dump, but it's home."
"Each time I roam, Chicago is calling me home."
I saw the man here, after all, who danced with his wife.
>You guys in northern america have a strange idea of art!
Young fellows like Mani have, I believe, been corrupted by the notion
that the market place is the only arbiter of quality and the astonishing
vulgarity of the very titles in RAF ("people who call themselves artists
are assholes": "succeeding artistically") puts this on display.
é«qually vulgar (and horrifiying) is the notion that criticism and theory (from
whatever direction they obtain) are the arbiters of quality and the art
experience. If you are bothering to 'discourse' with the above mentioned
individual, you are even more of a imbecile than they. There is nothing to be
learned there, least of all about the 'positions' being defended. If those
positions depended upon individuals such as those to defend them, they would be
in truely sad shape indeed...which is mostly where they unilaterlay are these
days. Reason cannot support such an enterprise...only demagogues have a shot,
unfortunately their target is the ignorant and/or the wounded.
spinoza1111:
Man does not live by bread alone, but thanks to rampantly ideological
Capiitalism Americans have been significantly coarsened and debased in
recent years. The patina of religious fundamentalism covers-up a
conviction that one is saved only if one owns a sport utility vehicle.
As such, anyone who aspires to be an artist is either accounted a
lunatic, or else makes obeisance to the Golden Calf.
Which is not to say that the arts aren't flourishing thanks to the money
rolling about the shop: the museums are thronged (accepting in an almost
Buddhist spirit the fact that they are thronged with neo-Visigoths),
artistic entrepreneurs like the Boitsov dance company have the energy of
despair, and divorced, middle-aged men (like me), pushed beyond limit by
the corporate money game, return to the arts as an assertion of the
dignity denied them by society. As Satan concluded in Paradise Lost,
"what resolution through despair."
Anyway, 'twon't last: as H. G. Wells said when he saw New York City,
"what a beautiful ruin it will make!" I love Chicago and America, not
for what they think themselves to be, but for what they are, the origin
of mystery, and the mother of harlots. For as the father of the current
mayor of Chicago said in 1968,
"The police are not here to maintain order, the police are here to
maintain dis order."
As you can see, we don't need Foucault or Derrida here in Chicago, we
live and breathe deconstruction, and lecturing us about undecidability is
speaking to fish about the water.
>Greetings from the old world!
>Michael Sciam
漂ou will excuse me and refrain from taking offense if I respectfully state
that your psuedo political/critical efforts appear to me as inconsistant,
empty, and inchoat bombast [actually, maybe you COULD use Foucault or Derrida
in CHicago...and some time to digest your critical sources as well so you can
CLEARLY communicate your own position(s)]...at least there is SOME beef to J.D.
and M.F..
-N.
Bryan Ayers
In article <19980106235...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
NSWEISS <nsw...@aol.com> wrote:
>spinoza1111 wrote:
>>> All artist make kitch even if it is by accident or for money.
>Michele, I suggest that the original poster's spelling mistake ("kitch"
>in place of "kitsch") was not a mere typo, but evidence that they don't
>know what they are talking about.
No, no, you said this about my post. I mispelled kitsch first
I am theirfore avant gard, this rambling is my poetry. Lack of spelling
convention is proof that I am mature and advanced as a writer that I
am perhaphs superior to all before me(dare I say genius).
I had previously made the claim that modern artist's leaave
their work unfinished because they don't care. I mispell because I
don't care too much about the craft of writing. As long as I
communicate. Kitsch might as well be spelled kich or cich. After
all that is a closer approximation of kitsch than most paintings of
human forms done this century are to human forms. I think this
position (that those who act without craft are lacking artistic
knowledge) is exactly parallel to those in art criticism who notice
correctly that I know little about artspeak by mispelling a common
artspeak word. If this is an artspeak-critic forum debate I humbly
remove myself from it I only paint and I'm sure an art critic would
not offend me by trying to paint.
I'm sure this debate is useless, since all avenues of perfection
are ultimately filled with duldrum and mud. If deli! wins his cause
he will have succeded only in showing us that even this is not the answer.
Artist who care more and who can should become the best craftsmen that
they can but this is a starting point not an end. What will they
communicate or reveal is the question... And should this be communicated
in exclusion of other Ideas?
My definition of a Modern art critic is one who writes far
better than a child, and most adults too. The less a work of art
says the more room it leaves for the art critic to fill in alors this
is the natural course of things.
slye
Bryan Ayers said:
> After
> all that is a closer approximation of kitsch than most paintings of
> human forms done this century are to human forms.
To you what painting is close to human form -
A smooth photographic style?
Something more like Lucien Freud, where pieces of flesh are woven
together?
I am trying to learn to paint figuratively, without benefit of
instruction, and this question remains puzzling.
spino...@msn.com
Subject: Re: Job of the modern art critic
From: slye <sctucke...@sprintmail.com>
This is one of the most intelligent things I've seen in RAF. For it is a
naturalistic fallacy to view a smooth photographic (pornographic) style
as closer to "reality" than the style of Lucien Freud.
It is true that given two-to-three dimensional projection, the smooth
photographic style is "a closer approximation". But to what? To...(drum
roll)...a two-to-three D projection!
That is, photographic "realism" is merely a set of rules ultimately based
on mathematics. For example, a circle seen from above and in perspective
is intuitively mapped by the painter, and accurately mapped by a computer
vision system, into a definite ovoid shape.
What about color? Perhaps the fact that a photographic (pornographic)
realist painter has "matched" a blue sky lends credence to the
superstition that his system (say, that of Norman Rockwell or Andrew
Wyeth) is privileged as being closer to "reality."
Unfortunately, we have to ask, what blue sky: the Impressionists are an
object lesson in how variegated and multi-colored sky can be. Is the
naturalistic art critic asking Norman Rockwell to paint such and such a
blue sky at a definite location in space-time? Say, in Rockwell's case,
the blue sky in Stockbridge MA at 4:00 in the afternoon on November 15th
1948?
Of course, we could only expect a camera to do this: Rockwell and Wyeth
may indeed sketch from life, but to create the finish that delights Mani,
they must needs return to their atelier and create a "representative"
blue sky, a "representative" solid New Englander. In so doing, they
engage in abstraction and apply culture to nature.
The Masters explicitly knew that they were applying Art to Nature, and
only modern-day Philistinos pretend to stand outside, or above, culture.
Their rejection of culture may be in part autoimmune: like the Unabomber
and the militia, they behave as antibodies to a culture and the fact that
the culture produces them is indicative of its decadence.
Only such as the late Monet could have claimed to be as close to the
facts at an instance in space and time as the naturalist critic demands
of all artists, and claims as his preference. But Monet did not reject
culture.
But even if we grant the artist the role of a glorified color
matcher-upper (I ask you, really), there is no special privilege in this
blue being identical to the blue sky over a haystack in France circa
1900. The epistemological problem, first of all, is that we have to
accept Monet's word, or perhaps the word of his dealer, his heirs and
assigns. Perhaps he was just kidding about that haystack.
And it is perfectly conceivable that there be a culture that does not
privilege mimesis as ours does, that may find it the opposite of art to
merely duplicate: fancy a society in ecological crisis, in which it is
thought unethical and therefore graceless to make Yet Another thing, and
a mere copy to boot. Oh, gee, that's ours, ind't it, and indeed there
are artists who reject further manufacture of potential white elephants
in a landfill society.
The point is without irony confirmed both by the later Wittgenstein and
modern philosophy of mathematics. Wittgenstein toyed with the idea of
changing discourse rules ("language games"), asking, why not use a
mathematics with radically different rules. David Hilbert's mathematical
formalism characterises modern mathematics as a mere game with symbols
having no special clout with The Truth: the arithmetical truths that the
"back to basics" (actually, back to child abuse) crowd want to drill into
the heads of the children are merely, on this account, uninteresting
games with restricted classes of more challenging structures, among them
groups, rings, semilattices and other inhabitants of the higher
mathematical Zoo.
Nowadays, because of the fact that our society is based on the
privileging of information without knowledge and knowledge without
wisdom, mathematicians have in a schizophrenic fashion "justify their
love" and their budgets with claims of Truth, and at the same time are
secret Hilbertians who would like to play games on the public or
corporate dime, while dogsbodies pick up after them or write their
computer programs. But on this account, to the extent that Western art
is based on a self-justifying realism, any exclusion or elitism is
unjustified.
The fear is that this leads to nihilism, conflated with the loss of
personal status. But if G. E. Moore was at all correct, there is a
self-justifying system. This is common or garden-variety ethics and
morality, not to be confused extensionally with lists of prohibitions or
sexual morality (cf. Peter Singer's Practical Ethics.) Moore's insight
(Principia Ethica) was that atomic statements of morality (such as
"friendship is good") do not stand in need of complicated justification.
To the best of my recollection, Moore thought this applied *pari passu*
to aesthetics, and there are fascinating connections between him and
Anthony Blunt...Blunt was a junior member of the "Cambridge Apostles", of
which a senior maven was Moore. Their overall *weltanschaung*, referred
to by impious Cantabrigian wags as "the higher sodomy", accepted it as
unquestionable that a certain classicism such as found in Poussin,
coupled with restraint, was The Beautiful. One can, however, reject this
especially insofar as it logically contradicts an ethical truth such as
"egalitarianism is good." Australians and Americans have less a problem
with accepting this last as near-tautological (right, mates?), but there
are strong centers of resistance to it in Britain and elsewhere. My
considered view is that it is near-tautologically true as societies
evolve and demonstrate its benefits, from the American civil rights
movement to South Africa.
My considered view is that certain persons evolve and retain the old
elite classic purity of form and being while developing egalitarian
traits: an example would be the late Princess of Wales. Such evolution
puts on display the need for a new, Moorean logic in dealing with
statements about the good, for one is uncomfortable with the thought that
Diana Spencer's personal traits, as preferable to those of Nancy Reagan,
is either an empirical observation or a statement about taste (me like
dat is logically different from that be good.)
All this is highly conditional and I welcome further discussion. To
those one or two people in the entire world that have stayed with me to
the bitter end of this short trot through Princess Di, the higher sodomy,
formalism in mathematics, and western art, I salute you. All points are
meant without irony unless immediately followed by an emoticon (and I
can't show you what an emoticon looks like here because that would make
this statement ironic in the manner of Empedocles' paradox.) All facts
are true to the best of my knowledge and belief, and checkable. If I at
a later date, or another poster, find an error of fact in these posts, a
short post with a title in the form "spinoza1111 (Edward G. Nilges) is
wrong about xxx" shall be posted by yours truly.
This series of RAF posts is meant as an on-the-level experiment in
carrying out the constructive programme, as best I understand it as an
ordinary worker, of the Frankfurt School: knowledge without domination,
and its inspiration is taken in part from the sadly triumphant last words
(reminiscent of the best of Jewish mysticism, or the last quartets of
Dmitri Shostakovich) of Theodore Adorno's Minima Moralia:
"The only philosophy which can be practiced in the face of despair is
the attempt to contemplate all things as they would present themselves
from the standpoint of redemption."
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Bryan Ayers
In article <884390994....@dejanews.com>, <spino...@msn.com> wrote:
>Subject: Re: Job of the modern art critic
>From: slye <sctucke...@sprintmail.com>
>> Something more like Lucien Freud, where pieces of flesh are woven
>together?
>>I am trying to learn to paint figuratively, without benefit of
>>instruction, and this question remains puzzling.
>
>This is one of the most intelligent things I've seen in RAF. For it is a
>naturalistic fallacy to view a smooth photographic (pornographic) style
>as closer to "reality" than the style of Lucien Freud.
represents the high-point in human figuer representation. The naturalism
will of course depend on what kind of perception is being explored.
Carravagism didn't entail movement like that shown by the Futurists.
-snip-
>What about color? Perhaps the fact that a photographic (pornographic)
>realist painter has "matched" a blue sky lends credence to the
>superstition that his system (say, that of Norman Rockwell or Andrew
>Wyeth) is privileged as being closer to "reality."
Can we say that there is something about intense realism that is
nearly (or perhaphs beyond) sexual.
>Unfortunately, we have to ask, what blue sky: the Impressionists are an
>object lesson in how variegated and multi-colored sky can be. Is the
>naturalistic art critic asking Norman Rockwell to paint such and such a
>blue sky at a definite location in space-time? Say, in Rockwell's case,
>the blue sky in Stockbridge MA at 4:00 in the afternoon on November 15th
>1948?
Apples and oranges, Dali should paint the sky at such and such
a time if it varies in shades of blue, Wyeth if it is made up of warm
and cold grays, and Rockwell if the sky is filled with 1950's coke
drinking nude boys.
>
>Of course, we could only expect a camera to do this: Rockwell and Wyeth
A camera is not conscience, nor are printed colors exact.
>may indeed sketch from life, but to create the finish that delights Mani,
>they must needs return to their atelier and create a "representative"
>blue sky, a "representative" solid New Englander. In so doing, they
>engage in abstraction and apply culture to nature.
And vice versa! >
-snip-
Bryn Ayers
Jerry
I would like to make a request of you and other writers on this ng. As
an educated person and someone involved in the arts rather directly and
someone who has lived a long time, I would like to understand what it is
that you and others are trying to say. May I make a suggestion.
There are rules for writing an article in a newspaper or magazine. I do
not remember all of them at the moment but I think the first one is did
the writer pose or answer the question in the first so many words. They
proceed logically from that point on so that within a certain amount of
space the reader comes to an understanding of some kind as determined by
the type of article he or she is reading.
There seem to be a hand full of people who appear to be more knowlegable
than others on this group but there is also a kind of in house rivalry
going on. If you are just talking to, or "one upping" each other would
you please do so via a personal reply. If you think you have something
to say that will interest others on this ng, please do so in a manner
where a certain percentage at least understand what you are saying.
A good place to start would be to limit your posts to one thought or
topic and to at least clarify that topic and provide some direction in
the first 100 words.
My guess is that most people simply skip past what you and others are
saying because it takes to much work to figure out what you are trying
to say.
Another thing to consider is that if the subject says "Job of the Modern
Art Critic" that your post has something to do with the subject.
Thank you
Charles Eicher
> I would like to make a request of you and other writers on this ng. As
> an educated person and someone involved in the arts rather directly and
> someone who has lived a long time, I would like to understand what it is
> that you and others are trying to say. May I make a suggestion.
How magnanimous of you to grace us with your educated opinion. We await the
enlightenment that your wisdom will bring us.
> There are rules for writing an article in a newspaper or magazine. I do
> not remember all of them at the moment but I think the first one is did
> the writer pose or answer the question in the first so many words. They
> proceed logically from that point on so that within a certain amount of
> space the reader comes to an understanding of some kind as determined by
> the type of article he or she is reading.
Usenet is not a newspaper or magazine. People write messages, and post them
publicly to Usenet for a wide variety of reasons. You seem clueless about
this issue. Usenet has its own loose set of anarchistic "rules"...
Rec.arts.fine is not a moderated newsgroup. If you want rules, start your
own listserv or moderated newsgroup and see if you can locate people who
will conform to your demands.
> There seem to be a hand full of people who appear to be more knowlegable
> than others on this group but there is also a kind of in house rivalry
> going on.
I can only presume that you are not an artist, and have never before
witnessed verbal interaction between artists; otherwise these interactions
would not surprise you. These discussions do not differ that much from
actual face-to-face conversations between artists. These messages ARE
actual conversations between artists.
> ..If you are just talking to, or "one upping" each other would
> you please do so via a personal reply.
There will always be provocateurs on Usenet. How we choose to respond to
provocation is our OWN personal decision, not yours.
> ..If you think you have something
> to say that will interest others on this ng, please do so in a manner
> where a certain percentage at least understand what you are saying.
I don't have much trouble understanding what people write. People don't
seem to have much trouble understanding what I write. Allow me to quote a
painter friend of mine, who said that "No matter how obscure your
symbolism, how incomprehensible your subject matter, no matter how you
might be afraid that your message might never be understood by a single
person besides yourself, trust that there are ALWAYS people who will
understand your work."
> A good place to start would be to limit your posts to one thought or
> topic and to at least clarify that topic and provide some direction in
> the first 100 words.
I will be more than happy to comply with your editorial demands, as soon as
I enter a contract where you pay me to write to your exact specifications.
In the meantime, the authors of Usenet will treat your clueless newbie
suggestion with the contempt it deserves.
> My guess is that most people simply skip past what you and others are
> saying because it takes to much work to figure out what you are trying
> to say.
There are many of us in r.a.f who have been discussing topics for years. We
have our own reasons for posting, and we find our own satisfaction in these
interactions. We do not hesitate to say in public what we would say in
private. There may be some merit in this concept, there may not ALWAYS be
merit. If you don't like it, just hit the DELETE key, and go on to the next
message or newsgroup. Nobody is forcing you to read what we write.
> Another thing to consider is that if the subject says "Job of the Modern
> Art Critic" that your post has something to do with the subject.
Many fruitful exchanges have occurred, with major "topic drift" in a
wide-ranging free association of ideas. How DARE you attempt to tell ME how
I should interact with my fellow r.a.f authors. Of ALL the nerve!
I suggest you lurk for a while and attempt to learn the pattern of
interaction in r.a.f.. And in the meantime, your ideas will be met with the
usual response to those who seek to impose autocratic structure on our free
exchange of ideas; your requests will be met with scorn and derision, and
they will be ignored.
| Charles Eicher |
| -=- |
| cei...@inav.net |
Jerry
Charles Eicher wrote:
> How magnanimous of you to grace us with your educated opinion. We await the
> enlightenment that your wisdom will bring us.
I said a simple request and a suggestion. I did not say an enlightened
or wise request. I also said I was an educated person and made no claim
that my opinions were educated. From the other responses that I got
from people about this post you seem to stand alone in not being
understood or open to suggestion.
> Usenet is not a newspaper or magazine. People write messages, and post them
> publicly to Usenet for a wide variety of reasons. You seem clueless about
> this issue. Usenet has its own loose set of anarchistic "rules"...
> Rec.arts.fine is not a moderated newsgroup. If you want rules, start your
> own listserv or moderated newsgroup and see if you can locate people who
> will conform to your demands.
Why must you attack? A simple I agree, I will think about, I don't
agree...would suffice. What has clueless or anarchistic rules or other
loaded words have to do with anything except emotionally challenge the
other person. I did not say I wanted rules or wanted people to conform
to my demands, I am not a terrorist. I would like to understand what
you are trying to say and my guess is that I am not alone in this. I
purposely choose words which made clear what I was asking without
offending or attacking the writer.
>
> I can only presume that you are not an artist, and have never before
> witnessed verbal interaction between artists; otherwise these interactions
> would not surprise you. These discussions do not differ that much from
> actual face-to-face conversations between artists. These messages ARE
> actual conversations between artists.
If you would like to know if I am an artist, why don't you ask? As it
turns out I am an artist, I also taught art for 32 years. I have been
reading these and other newsgroups for four years. I have had many
conversations about art so I am familiar with what takes place in a
conversation. I have just never had a conversation about art with
someone like yourself before.
> There will always be provocateurs on Usenet. How we choose to respond to
> provocation is our OWN personal decision, not yours.
Are you telling me the reason for your posts on this newsgroup is to
challenge the readers? Being provocative implies that you want
something in return. From my experience your posts are very confusing,
hard to follow, and intended to alienate rather than coax. Again you
say "we choose to respond" as if your way is typical of most of the
posts on this ng. As I told you earlier, you seem to be more informed
than the average but it makes no difference if I do not understand your
message.
> I don't have much trouble understanding what people write. People don't
> seem to have much trouble understanding what I write.
If you want to know whether people understand what you write, why don't
you ask them.
> I will be more than happy to comply with your editorial demands, as soon as
> I enter a contract where you pay me to write to your exact specifications.
> In the meantime, the authors of Usenet will treat your clueless newbie
> suggestion with the contempt it deserves.
Wow, did you give yourself a promotion...now you are speaking on behalf
of the "authors of Usenet." A simple request is hardly an editorial
demand.
If I were in a position to hire writers, I do not think your name would
be on the list. Thank you for calling me a clueless newbie, I've always
thought that name was kind of funny because there had to be a self
rightousness about the person who made up those words as if there were
some reward for being ahead of one person in a line. Unfortunately we
are all clueless newbies, it just depends on which line we are standing
in. If you rise to the level of contempt in response to a simple
request, where is there to go when you are really challenged?
> There are many of us in r.a.f who have been discussing topics for years. We
> have our own reasons for posting, and we find our own satisfaction in these
> interactions. We do not hesitate to say in public what we would say in
> private. There may be some merit in this concept, there may not ALWAYS be
> merit. If you don't like it, just hit the DELETE key, and go on to the next
> message or newsgroup. Nobody is forcing you to read what we write.
Again, the "we" stuff. Do you really think that you are writing as a
representative of a much larger group? You better not turn around too
fast or you might be suprised to find that no one is there. I did not
challenge your private image or your public image and yet you felt
compelled the defend them both. You spend way too much energy defending
yourself and the community that you think you represent.
Jerry
Andrew Werby
[While I don't really disagree with what "jdeasy" has to say, I'd like to
request him or her to favor us with an example of the on-target writing
referred to, instead of the lecture on style. Show us, don't just tell us.
I too would like to see the tone of this newsgroup raised a bit- so post
an article dealing with some aspect of fine art, and if it is at all
interesting I will respond. But posts on the subject of writing should be
directed to alt.english.usage or another appropriate group.]
In article <34B93A...@interaccess.com>, jde...@interaccess.com wrote:
> I would like to make a request of you and other writers on this ng. As
an educated person and someone involved in the arts rather directly and
someone who has lived a long time, I would like to understand what it is
that you and others are trying to say. May I make a suggestion.
> There are rules for writing an article in a newspaper or magazine. I do
not remember all of them at the moment but I think the first one is did
the writer pose or answer the question in the first so many words. They
proceed logically from that point on so that within a certain amount of
space the reader comes to an understanding of some kind as determined by
the type of article he or she is reading.
>
> There seem to be a hand full of people who appear to be more knowlegable
than others on this group but there is also a kind of in house rivalry
going on. If you are just talking to, or "one upping" each other would
you please do so via a personal reply. If you think you have something
to say that will interest others on this ng, please do so in a manner
where a certain percentage at least understand what you are saying.
>
A good place to start would be to limit your posts to one thought or
topic and to at least clarify that topic and provide some direction in
the first 100 words.
>
My guess is that most people simply skip past what you and others are
saying because it takes to much work to figure out what you are trying
to say.
>
> Another thing to consider is that if the subject says "Job of the Modern
Art Critic" that your post has something to do with the subject.
> Thank you
UNITED ARTWORKS- SCULPTURE AND MORE
http://users.lanminds.com/~drewid
Useful Resources, Technical Tips
and Custom Art in Many Media
Marilyn
Jerry wrote:
>
snipped
> There are rules for writing an article in a newspaper or magazine. I do
> not remember all of them at the moment but I think the first one is did
> the writer pose or answer the question in the first so many words. They
> proceed logically from that point on so that within a certain amount of
> space the reader comes to an understanding of some kind as determined by
> the type of article he or she is reading.
>
> There seem to be a hand full of people who appear to be more knowlegable
> than others on this group but there is also a kind of in house rivalry
> going on. If you are just talking to, or "one upping" each other would
> you please do so via a personal reply. If you think you have something
> to say that will interest others on this ng, please do so in a manner
> where a certain percentage at least understand what you are saying.
>
> A good place to start would be to limit your posts to one thought or
> topic and to at least clarify that topic and provide some direction in
> the first 100 words.
>
snipped for Netscape
Well said. Would you like the job of moderator of this newsgroup?
This ng could evolve into a really good source of infromation and
communication among fine artists if it had a moderator.
I consider the ng to be like a rummage sale, you have to look hard
to find the good things in among all the rags of selling, spamming,
self-promotion etc. But I have gleaned some good information when
I do have time to scan the posts.
Thanks
Marilyn
a.bucsay
The postings on this group are informative in ways that the authors may not
even intend.
Yes, Charles Eicher seems knowledgeable, and I enjoy reading his generous
bits of advise. Yes, Jerry brings up an interesting idea in considering
the readers and not just the writers wants.
Sometimes it can be entertaining to watch the lively interaction and
exchange of ideas. It gives insight into the artist as a mortal, which is
important. The personal attacks are however, uncivilized. Perhaps the
writers use this newsgroup as a place to go wild when it is not possible to
do so in their work. If one does not appreciate being part of such a
vervacious conversation, perhaps not becoming engaged would help. That
kind of response only perpetuates the seemingly distasteful activity.
Both gentlemen bring up valid points, and I personally appreciate being
able to read the postings. Thank you.:-)
--
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
///////
Anita Bucsay
a.bu...@ix.netcom.com
1st Water Fine Art
The Original MICROGALLERY TO GO
http://www.netcom.com/~a.bucsay/1stWaterFineArt.html
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//////
a.bucsay
Well said. A mediated newsgroup would be great to read. I would not like
to sacrifice this ng in the process.
JKearman
In article <01bd1f8e$bb4c5180$3749bacd@violet>, "a.bucsay"
<a.bu...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>Well said. A mediated newsgroup would be great to read. I would not like
to
>sacrifice this ng in the process.
Yeah, that's what we need: A mediator. Maybe we can get Jesse Helms to
moderate, or someone from the NEA?
Get a decent newsreader and skip over postings from people whose words you
don't care to read, but spare us a moderator.
Jim Kearman
jkea...@aol.com
a.bucsay
Perhaps I was not clear. A SEPARATE mediated group would be great. Let
us leave this group the way it is. :-)
Mark Vinsel
> I would like to make a request...If you are just talking to, or "one
upping" > > each other would you please do so via a personal reply. A good
place to start > would be to limit your posts to one thought or topic and
to at least clarify
> that topic and provide some direction in the first 100 words...that your
post > has something to do with the subject.
>
> Thank you
I appreciate your intent Jerry, but the saying goes: to those that
understand, no explanation is necessary; to those that do not, none is
possible. If they didn't learn to "do onto others as you would have them
do onto you " young they are not likely to learn it here.
Many people aren't capable of writing clearly or applying good sense in
titles. Many have a need to poke at others. Still they may have something
worthwhile to say, and if we have time to filter out the garbage we may
glean some information of value, such as "X is an idiot so I should ignore
his posts".
Your email will help, but this remains Usenet.
Mark Vinsel
www.vinsel.com
Griffin
I would like to make a quick comment on this....
> In article <34B93A...@interaccess.com>, jde...@interaccess.com wrote:
>
> > I would like to make a request of you and other writers on this ng. As
> > an educated person and someone involved in the arts rather directly and
> > someone who has lived a long time, I would like to understand what it
is
> > that you and others are trying to say. May I make a suggestion.
> > There are rules for writing an article in a newspaper or magazine. I
do
> > not remember all of them at the moment but I think the first one is did
> > the writer pose or answer the question in the first so many words.
Did the original author of THIS message pose or answer the question in the
first so many words... or did he rattle on for a few hundred words...
This is not a newspaper. People are not paying money to buy it each week,
people stop by ask a question make a comment or .... well rattle on for a
bit. Thats the good thing about the internet, freedom of speach and all
that.
A few valid points though.... but nobody has to, and I doubt ever will
listen to them. You cant stop people for making a comment on the guerrilla
girls with a subject heading of banana. Annoying...yes. Anything we can do
about it..... nope!
wanax
Charles Eicher wrote:
>
> In article <34B93A...@interaccess.com>, jde...@interaccess.com wrote:
>
> > I would like to make a request of you and other writers on this ng. As
> > an educated person and someone involved in the arts rather directly and
> > someone who has lived a long time, I would like to understand what it is
> > that you and others are trying to say. May I make a suggestion.
>
> enlightenment that your wisdom will bring us.
>
As another educated artist who unfortunately makes money and is
therefore preceived as evil on this newsgroup, I would like to point out
that the first person's post was pompus. However, the jist was a legit
query. This second person, is obviously young.
I find it difficult to communicate with fellow artist via this newsgroup
because of the Bohemians' lust for verbage and flames (much like all
newsgroups). Either a poster has some political/power agenda rationale
for his/her post, or the responders are young, loud and snotty. In both
cases the discussion of art rapidly devolves into a penis measuring
contest of insugnificate and indeterminant length.
I'd love it if posts were lucid, but I'm a realist. I'd be happy if
people would simply respond to ideas instead of individuals.
Wanax Andron
<merciful defication of thread>
Brother Alphabet
On Sun, 11 Jan 1998, Jerry wrote:
> There are rules for writing an article in a newspaper or magazine.
Point A: This is an open forum in which ideas/replies come from multiple
perspectives at once, not a newspaper or magazine.
> I do
> not remember all of them at the moment but I think the first one is did
> the writer pose or answer the question in the first so many words.
Point A.2: While this is a valid point, in this forum it really only
applies in terms of the original posting of a topic. Once a topic (thread)
has enjoyed a long life it is improbable that its content will relate to
the original topic as solidly as it did in its first appearance. The usual
protocol for such changes of subject is to make notation of the change in
the subject header. This frequently occurs, but then there is the "thread
rears its ugly head yet again" circumstance wherein a reader has either
been away from the group or is new to the group and replies to one of the
original posts, and it starts again.
> They
> proceed logically from that point on so that within a certain amount of
> space the reader comes to an understanding of some kind as determined by
> the type of article he or she is reading.
Point B: This would be great if I was reading a magazine and was in a
hurry. More often than not, sitting down to peruse a newsgroup is not
something one does in a couple of minutes, especially if the reader is
also a contributor. Logic is generally linear in nature, whereas internet
communications are non-linear. Due to server limitations, it is frequently
improbable to read an entire thread from beginning to end, so it is best
to read more than one items in the thread to get the full picture of what
is being said. This NG in particular has had threads that have run for
literally years (Because people like me don't shut up about things even
when they're getting old and good judgement would incline us to forego
posting to save the world more boredom).
> There seem to be a hand full of people who appear to be more knowlegable
> than others on this group but there is also a kind of in house rivalry
> going on.
Point C:
There are both a lot of people here who know what they're talking about,
and also people Like Mani de Li who seem like they might but only wish
they did.
Which brings me to Point C.2:
'In house rivalry' is the best thing about this forum. There are, sadly,
very few places I can go in my locality in which I can find people to
actually call my work 'crappy'. It is also hard to find a large group of
people who actually want to hear a load of art-nonsense. Debates and
'flame' wars are why I come here because on the whole I am somewhat
deprived of discourse in my day to day life.
> If you are just talking to, or "one upping" each other would
> you please do so via a personal reply.
Point C.3:
I don't agree unless it gets blatantly silly. An argument in a public
forum leaves itself open for yet another non-linear possibility: The
ability for someone OUTSIDE the 'fray' to just step in and join the
debate. The more perspectives, the better.
> If you think you have something
> to say that will interest others on this ng, please do so in a manner
> where a certain percentage at least understand what you are saying.
Point D:
If someone does not understand what I am saying due to poor verbal skills
on MY part, I'd expect them to point that out.
If someone does not understand what I am saying because I'm not making any
sense, I'd expect myself to get some sleep soon.
If someone does not understand what I am saying due to poor verbal skills
on THEIR part, that really isn't my problem.
This is not a place I'd like to see 'dumbed down'. It is offensive to me
to read an article in a magazine that either talks down to me or is
written on a grade-school level.
If a 'certain percentage' is variable, whats the problem?
> A good place to start would be to limit your posts to one thought or
> topic and to at least clarify that topic and provide some direction in
> the first 100 words.
I think your post exceeded 100 words. If your post had been only 100
words, it would have been just a whine, which is why you've fleshed it out
a bit.
> My guess is that most people simply skip past what you and others are
> saying because it takes to much work to figure out what you are trying
> to say.
If people skip past what I say, that's their perrogative. I read
newspapers all the time, for the comics. Most news-writing is bland and
uninteresting. There are many reasons to skip over writings...
If it takes a lot of work to figure out what someone is saying, it is most
likely due to one of the aforementioned problems...Poor verbal skills on
the part of the author, or of the reader, or the general effect of sleep
deprivation. :)
> Another thing to consider is that if the subject says "Job of the Modern
> Art Critic" that your post has something to do with the subject.
This is related to the previous point about a thread's history.
Sometimes a post titled "Bug Spray and You" will have deleoped into a
discussion on fingernail polish for men...You have to read more than one
post to know what has been said and where the thread is heading.
I have seen about a million posts that said: "What does any of this have
to do with....." - These are less valid as complaints than they are as
proofs of newbie status.
I'd suggest relaxing a bit, and watching the group a while so that you can
get into the usenet process...
Or, a nice subscription to 'American Artist' magazine (Eeek, hideous)
Hutto
-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-
"I paint what I think, not what I see..." - Pablo Picasso
"You're not the boss of me!..." - J. A. Hutto (Pre age 3)
http://www2.msstate.edu/~jah10 + ja...@ra.msstate.edu