Italian Painting and Bernard Berenson
mark webber
I've just returned from a trip to Italy and thought I might entice
some of you into a discussion about Bernard Berenson's "Italian
Painters of the Renaissance". I took the book with me for evening reading,
and found it a good companion while seeing Tuscany.
I have to say, though, that while there are plenty of general ideas
and remarks of his which seem right on target to me, and several passages
that could serve as an introduction to esthetics for some of the more
narrow-minded contributors to this group (in both extremes), I also found
him a little unclear and even unfair at times.
I've visited Italy before, but concentrated on the larger towns of Rome,
Florence and Venice. This time I explored smaller localities as well, like
San Sepulcro and the Arezzo/Piero circuit, Siena, Assisi, etc.
So with the paintings he actually writes about and not just tiny
reproductions, one can really begin to question some of his more personal
sounding statements.
Although I'd be interested in hearing what anyone else thinks about some
of these more personal assessments (such as "...drapery is a hinderance,
and, at the best, only a way out of a difficulty, for we feel it masking
the really significant, which is the form underneath." or "Rapheal Sanzio
... was the greatest master of Composition ... that Europe down to the end
of the 19th century had ever produced.") perhaps it might be more
interesting to toss out something a bit more general like this:
"It is true, politeness forbids pushing too far a discussion on
matters of taste; but if such questions were of enough consequence to
compel attention, and if we could communicate our views without fear of
offending, is it certain that we should arrive at no conclusions? I think
not."
He goes on to say that, fortunately, this isn't what he's here to talk
about so he won't ask us to agree with him. And the Victorian/Edwardian
prose style is a constant reminder that he is of a very different context
and point of view - but it's sure to delight the Romantics like Iian. I
wonder - have you read him Iian? I actually thought of you and some of the
more conservative folks when I read this:
"Some may prefer Guido Reni to Botticelli, the Caracci to
Giorgione, and Bouguereau to Puvis de Chavannes, but let them not fancy
that their preference rests on artistic grounds. The truth is that the
elements essential to a painting as a work of art are beyond their
perception...."
And he does list those elements, and basically the essays are a defense of
the list. And overall I find it hard to disagree with him. Except in the
individual cases of some artists. How can he find Velazquez to be so
powerful, and care so little for Velazquez's master, Caravaggio?
Which leads me to another question - has anyone read his essay on
Caravaggio? I haven't ever been able to find a copy.
At any rate, I'm up for some discussion on this father of esthetics.
Anyone biting?
Mark
mark webber
On Wed, 26 Aug 1998 if...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <Pine.PMDF.3.95.9808250...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>,
> mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
> >
> > [.............................................................]
> [.............................................................]
> > Although I'd be interested in hearing what anyone else thinks about some
> > of these more personal assessments (such as "...drapery is a hinderance,
> > and, at the best, only a way out of a difficulty, for we feel it masking
> > the really significant, which is the form underneath." or "Rapheal Sanzio
> > ... was the greatest master of Composition ... that Europe down to the end
> > of the 19th century had ever produced.")
>
> I'm not familiar with this book, so far what you're quoting us is right on.
> Of course stupid drapery is a hindrance, what does it have to do with art?
> As a study for students maybe...
Well, not to put too fine a point on it, and of course it's all taste, but
I think what Piero della Francesca, for example, does with robes is pretty
inventive and compelling. Michelangelo, in his Holy Family tondo, seems to
get important rhythms. In fact a lot of what I was looking at the last two
and a half weeks had drapery that didn't seem stupid.
But that's just a small deal of his. Doesn't get me too worked up really.
>
> > perhaps it might be more
> > interesting to toss out something a bit more general like this:
> >
> > "It is true, politeness forbids pushing too far a discussion on
> > matters of taste; but if such questions were of enough consequence to
> > compel attention, and if we could communicate our views without fear of
> > offending, is it certain that we should arrive at no conclusions? I think
> > not."
>
> right on
Yeah, I liked that a lot, too! It sounds like it ought to be in the
charter for this group!
> > "Some may prefer Guido Reni to Botticelli, the Caracci to
> > Giorgione, and Bouguereau to Puvis de Chavannes, but let them not fancy
> > that their preference rests on artistic grounds. The truth is that the
> > elements essential to a painting as a work of art are beyond their
> > perception...."
>
> This is exactly what I'm pointing out to our arrogant, ignorant
> anti-Cezannists here -
> HEAR THIS: the elements essential to a painting as a work of art
> are beyond your perception!
I believe we have a rally here! Boogie!
>
>
> > And he does list those elements, and basically the essays are a defense of
> > the list. And overall I find it hard to disagree with him. Except in the
> > individual cases of some artists. How can he find Velazquez to be so
> > powerful, and care so little for Velazquez's master, Caravaggio?
>
> Again I would agree with this 'father of aesthetics' ;-)
> TMHO Velazquez is a giant but I can live without Caravaggio.
Pity. And you were doing so well....
(I don't like using emoticons, but I'm smiling back at you.)
>
> > Which leads me to another question - has anyone read his essay on
> > Caravaggio? I haven't ever been able to find a copy.
>
> > At any rate, I'm up for some discussion on this father of esthetics.
> > Anyone biting?
>
> Not really.
Whoops - sorry then!
> What are you looking for in art, Mark?
>
> ifree
Me? I like good stuff. How about you?
Mark
if...@my-dejanews.com
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
>
> [.............................................................]
[.............................................................]
> Although I'd be interested in hearing what anyone else thinks about some
> of these more personal assessments (such as "...drapery is a hinderance,
> and, at the best, only a way out of a difficulty, for we feel it masking
> the really significant, which is the form underneath." or "Rapheal Sanzio
> ... was the greatest master of Composition ... that Europe down to the end
> of the 19th century had ever produced.")
I'm not familiar with this book, so far what you're quoting us is right on.
Of course stupid drapery is a hindrance, what does it have to do with art?
As a study for students maybe...
> perhaps it might be more
> interesting to toss out something a bit more general like this:
>
> "It is true, politeness forbids pushing too far a discussion on
> matters of taste; but if such questions were of enough consequence to
> compel attention, and if we could communicate our views without fear of
> offending, is it certain that we should arrive at no conclusions? I think
> not."
right on
[.....................................................................]
> "Some may prefer Guido Reni to Botticelli, the Caracci to
> Giorgione, and Bouguereau to Puvis de Chavannes, but let them not fancy
> that their preference rests on artistic grounds. The truth is that the
> elements essential to a painting as a work of art are beyond their
> perception...."
This is exactly what I'm pointing out to our arrogant, ignorant
anti-Cezannists here -
HEAR THIS: the elements essential to a painting as a work of art
are beyond your perception!
> And he does list those elements, and basically the essays are a defense of
> the list. And overall I find it hard to disagree with him. Except in the
> individual cases of some artists. How can he find Velazquez to be so
> powerful, and care so little for Velazquez's master, Caravaggio?
Again I would agree with this 'father of aesthetics' ;-)
TMHO Velazquez is a giant but I can live without Caravaggio.
> Which leads me to another question - has anyone read his essay on
> Caravaggio? I haven't ever been able to find a copy.
> At any rate, I'm up for some discussion on this father of esthetics.
> Anyone biting?
Not really.
What are you looking for in art, Mark?
> Mark
ifree
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Andrew Werby
> In article <Pine.PMDF.3.95.9808250...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>,
> mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
> >
> > [.............................................................]
> [.............................................................]
> > Although I'd be interested in hearing what anyone else thinks about some
> > of these more personal assessments (such as "...drapery is a hinderance,
> > and, at the best, only a way out of a difficulty, for we feel it masking
> > the really significant, which is the form underneath." or "Rapheal Sanzio
> > ... was the greatest master of Composition ... that Europe down to the end
> > of the 19th century had ever produced.")
>
> I'm not familiar with this book, so far what you're quoting us is right on.
> Of course stupid drapery is a hindrance, what does it have to do with art?
> As a study for students maybe...
[Why is the representation of the figure more "significant" than the
representation of drapery over a figure? I must confess I haven't
read the book in question, but dogmatic assertions like this put me
off. For a counter-opinion, check Aldous Huxley's "The Doors of
Perception", where he has an ecstatic realization that Western art
is mostly about drapery, and loses himself in the sensuality of its
foldings. Admittedly, he was stoned out of his gourd on mescaline
at the time, but it always seemed like a valid point in spite of this.
There is something about the unpredictability of the cloth that
really is fascinating, and it is a relief from the rather standard
representation of the Madonna or whomever. This is often where the
artist's individuality got to shine- the faces were to be done in a
certain manner, but the drapery was up to the artist.]
Andrew Werby
UNITED ARTWORKS- Sculpture, Jewelry, and other art stuff
http://unitedartworks.com
New- Artworks Computer Tools for 3d Design and Realization
mark webber
On 26 Aug 1998, Andrew Werby wrote:
> In article <6rvlcp$iqf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, if...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > In article <Pine.PMDF.3.95.9808250...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>,
> > mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
> > >
> > > Although I'd be interested in hearing what anyone else thinks about some
> > > of these more personal assessments (such as "...drapery is a hinderance,
> > > and, at the best, only a way out of a difficulty, for we feel it masking
> > > the really significant, which is the form underneath." or "Rapheal Sanzio
> > > ... was the greatest master of Composition ... that Europe down to the end
> > > of the 19th century had ever produced.")
> >
> > I'm not familiar with this book, so far what you're quoting us is right on.
> > Of course stupid drapery is a hindrance, what does it have to do with art?
> > As a study for students maybe...
>
> [Why is the representation of the figure more "significant" than the
> representation of drapery over a figure? I must confess I haven't
> read the book in question, but dogmatic assertions like this put me
> off.
Well, that's how I feel too. I was actually a little embarrased for him
when I read it.( I should confess I want to agree with him - just
don't always.)
> For a counter-opinion, check Aldous Huxley's "The Doors of
> Perception", where he has an ecstatic realization that Western art
> is mostly about drapery, and loses himself in the sensuality of its
> foldings.
Yes - having toted the book around Tuscany to try making first hand
observations with his notes, I have to say some of the most beautiful
moments - and best resolutions of a variety of visual problems - come
in the drapery. Signorelli and Filippo Lippi are great examples of this.
> Admittedly, he was stoned out of his gourd on mescaline
> at the time, but it always seemed like a valid point in spite of this.
> There is something about the unpredictability of the cloth that
> really is fascinating, and it is a relief from the rather standard
> representation of the Madonna or whomever.
Well, I can't think of many nude Madonnas (uh oh - feel free to take the
copyright on this one - anybody!) But I'm embarrassed to admit that
Duccio has always meant very little to me until I saw what he does with
the drape up close. There is really very little variety in the many
Madonnas' faces he made, but the drape is always inventive and has a
marvelous presence.
> This is often where the
> artist's individuality got to shine- the faces were to be done in a
> certain manner, but the drapery was up to the artist.]
>
Yes, especially in the Sienese work like Duccio's. (I replied before I
read on - sorry.)
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts....
Mark
if...@my-dejanews.com
dre...@lanminds.com (Andrew Werby) wrote:
> In article <6rvlcp$iqf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, if...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > In article <Pine.PMDF.3.95.9808250...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>,
> > mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
> > >
> > [.............................................................]
> > > Although I'd be interested in hearing what anyone else thinks about some
> > > of these more personal assessments (such as "...drapery is a hinderance,
> > > and, at the best, only a way out of a difficulty, for we feel it masking
> > > the really significant, which is the form underneath." or "Rapheal Sanzio
> > > ... was the greatest master of Composition ... that Europe down to the end
> > > of the 19th century had ever produced.")
> >
> > I'm not familiar with this book, so far what you're quoting us is right
on.
> > Of course stupid drapery is a hindrance, what does it have to do with art?
> > As a study for students maybe...
>
> [Why is the representation of the figure more "significant" than the
> representation of drapery over a figure?
where did you see me saying that the representation of the figure is more
significant than the drapery??!!
I said, read my lips: the drapery has nothing to do with art.
Anyway, that quote was presented to us out of context, one can interpret
that qoute in many different ways, I've just responded to it the way i feel
about art. Of course drapery is not important - if it is so important to
the artist he would go to the drapery-shop, order, buy it, hang it and be
done with it. The drapery is important to the drapery-maker, a carpet is
important to the carpet-maker and to the one who's looking for a good
carpet. But, I think that's not what a true artist would be concerned with
while in the creative process. If he's commissioned, and follows precise
orders regarding that stupid drapery, then OK, we can understand. But if
he's in the process of trying to capture that subtle truthful moment, what
he's seen in his mind and felt in his heart before starting to paint, then
drapery can be a hindrance. If the artist is stuck, and the painting isn't
happening, then the drapery can be a way out of that difficulty. I think
that's what the author of that book wanted to say. A drapery is a drapery,
after all it's meant to be in the background! What's all this fuzz, I don't
understand.
>I must confess I haven't
> read the book in question,
No problem, I haven't read it either, nothing to be so ashamed of
>but dogmatic assertions like this put me
> off.
what puts me off is the unawareness of the fact that often those who are
against 'dogmatic assertions' retort with a dogma when their views are
threaten.
>For a counter-opinion, check Aldous Huxley's "The Doors of
> Perception", where he has an ecstatic realization that Western art
> is mostly about drapery,
No, thank you. I don't need to go at least 25 years back to Huxley's books,
I enjoyed his books then, he was good for that era, but now it's a silly
stuff.
But it's true that Western art is mostly about drapery, mostly :-)
> and loses himself in the sensuality of its
> foldings. Admittedly, he was stoned out of his gourd on mescaline
> at the time, but it always seemed like a valid point in spite of this.
> There is something about the unpredictability of the cloth that
> really is fascinating, and it is a relief from the rather standard
> representation of the Madonna or whomever.
<<This is often where the
> artist's individuality got to shine- the faces were to be done in a
> certain manner, but the drapery was up to the artist.]
That was then. Anyway, I'm not an art historian.
I'm here because I love art, the divine spark and freedom -
any kindred spirits out there?
> Andrew Werby
Bob C
>
> In article <drewid-2608...@coatppp47.lanminds.com>,
> dre...@lanminds.com (Andrew Werby) wrote:
> > In article <6rvlcp$iqf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, if...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > > In article <Pine.PMDF.3.95.9808250...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>,
> > > mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [.............................................................]
> > > [.............................................................]
> > > > Although I'd be interested in hearing what anyone else thinks about some
> > > > of these more personal assessments (such as "...drapery is a hinderance,
> > > > and, at the best, only a way out of a difficulty, for we feel it masking
> > > > the really significant, which is the form underneath." or "Rapheal Sanzio
> > > > ... was the greatest master of Composition ... that Europe down to the end
> > > > of the 19th century had ever produced.")
> > >
> > > I'm not familiar with this book, so far what you're quoting us is right
> on.
> > > Of course stupid drapery is a hindrance, what does it have to do with art?
> > > As a study for students maybe...
> >
> > [Why is the representation of the figure more "significant" than the
> > representation of drapery over a figure?
>
> where did you see me saying that the representation of the figure is more
> significant than the drapery??!!
> I said, read my lips: the drapery has nothing to do with art.
>
> after all it's meant to be in the background! What's all this fuzz, I don't
> understand.
>
I'm a bit confused by your statements and wondering if its possibly a
difference in our definitions of the word "drapery". Looking in my
dictionary, for reference, I would go with the definition "hangings or
clothing arranged in loose folds". There is nothing here to suggest that
drapery is meant to be in the background nor that it need have nothing
to do with art. The only way your statements seem to make sense to me if
you are using a definition of drapery such that when these hangings or
clothings become an integral part of the image then they have also
become something other than drapery.
I doubt, however, that the original referenced quote was using such a
definition. I would think rather that it was referring to the fact that
one can quite easily pick up a few tricks in order to learn to depict
convincing and dramatic drapery, much more easily than they can learn to
depict the figure. Thus many inferior artists may include drapery as a
way to hide their lack of other rendering skills. But to make such a
sweeping generalization ignores the fact that drapery needn't be used in
this manner. Properly depicting the human form under drapery or
selecting for maximimum effect which small part of the body emerges from
that drapery can be much more challenging than depicting the human
figure undraped if the artist chooses to make it so.
- Bob C.
mark webber
On Thu, 27 Aug 1998, Bob C wrote:
(snip much of debate/clarification)
> > I said, read my lips: the drapery has nothing to do with art.
> >
> > <snip>...A drapery is a drapery,
> > after all it's meant to be in the background! What's all this fuzz, I don't
> > understand.
> >
>
> I'm a bit confused by your statements and wondering if its possibly a
> difference in our definitions of the word "drapery".
I'm feeling the same way, Bob - I think Berenson is definately speaking
specifically about the drapery concealing the figure (as in clothing or
robes), and I think he (Berenson)is making this (what seems to me to be)
over-simplified statement about drapery in response to Michelangelo's
nudes.
My reading of the essay is that Berenson feels Michelangelo's nudes are
some of the fullest expression of the Renaissance - (which I certainly
don't disagree with) - unfortunately, he seems to need to support this
with the previously quoted passage about drapery.
But to say drapery has nothing to do with art sounds just as extreme to
me, if not more.
Mark
if...@my-dejanews.com
bob...@erols.com wrote:
> if...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <drewid-2608...@coatppp47.lanminds.com>,
> > dre...@lanminds.com (Andrew Werby) wrote:
> > > In article <6rvlcp$iqf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, if...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > >
100...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>,
> > > > mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > [.............................................................]
> > > > [.............................................................]
> > > > > Although I'd be interested in hearing what anyone else thinks about
some
> > > > > of these more personal assessments (such as "...drapery is a
hinderance,
> > > > > and, at the best, only a way out of a difficulty, for we feel it
masking
> > > > > the really significant, which is the form underneath." or "Rapheal
Sanzio
> > > > > ... was the greatest master of Composition ... that Europe down to
the end
> > > > > of the 19th century had ever produced.")
> > > >
> > > > I'm not familiar with this book, so far what you're quoting us is
right
> > on.
> > > > Of course stupid drapery is a hindrance, what does it have to do with
art?
> > > > As a study for students maybe...
> > >
> > > [Why is the representation of the figure more "significant" than the
> > > representation of drapery over a figure?
> >
> > where did you see me saying that the representation of the figure is more
> > significant than the drapery??!!
> >
> > <snip>...A drapery is a drapery,
> > after all it's meant to be in the background! What's all this fuzz, I don't
> > understand.
> >
>
> I'm a bit confused by your statements and wondering if its possibly a
> dictionary, for reference, I would go with the definition "hangings or
> clothing arranged in loose folds". There is nothing here to suggest that
> to do with art.
OK, lets' start a new thread: "The art of Drapery", or maybe "Drapery as
Art" or "Drapery is definitely art!", or "Drapery could be art" or somehting
like that
> The only way your statements seem to make sense to me if
> you are using a definition of drapery such that when these hangings or
> clothings become an integral part of the image then they have also
> become something other than drapery.
that's correct
> I doubt, however, that the original referenced quote was using such a
> definition. I would think rather that it was referring to the fact that
> one can quite easily pick up a few tricks in order to learn to depict
> convincing and dramatic drapery, much more easily than they can learn to
> depict the figure.
> Thus many inferior artists may include drapery as a
> way to hide their lack of other rendering skills.
What other rendering skills? Do you mean the inability to draw a proper
and convincing figure? Well, that's strange, in my experience to learn to
draw human body is not that difficult, this is what every beginner on the
path of art starts from, at least that certainly is the case in a country
where I come from - you can't graduate from any art school, college not to
mention art academy without first mastering the skill of drawing the human
figure. All those Renaissance guys could draw human figure with their eyes
closed, so I don't see the difficulty there.
My point is: all that has nothing to do with Art. In order to produce a
lasting image the artist has to be equipped with an arsenal of techniques
and skills and knowledge but that alone is not enough, possessing all
these skills is not yet a guarantee that he'll join that line of immortals
in the human history of Art.
There's a lot of talk about techniques and skills in this forum which is
absolutely fine, nothing wrong with it, artists can use this forum to their
advantage, that's what the net is all about - communication, cooperation and
information. But I think it's also important to talk about some moral issues,
spiritual values in art, the state of art today, commercialism in art,
objective and subjective in art - these are just some that I would be
willing to discuss here. Instead we're arguing about the importance of
drapery in art.
> But to make such a
> sweeping generalization ignores the fact that drapery needn't be used in
> this manner.
it can be used in any suitable to artist manner
> Properly depicting the human form under drapery or
> selecting for maximimum effect which small part of the body emerges from
> that drapery can be much more challenging than depicting the human
> figure undraped if the artist chooses to make it so.
Again, that's maybe a challenge for a student, a beginner but for a mature
artist that's not the challenge.
For example, a professional violinist first needs to practice and learn a
challenging piece, say some violin concerto, then after mastering all the
passages and whatever difficulties he encounters he goes on to the stage
where he's expected to come up with some Music - and that's the real
challenge.
When a work of art becomes Art? Why some art survives the time and lives
forever? What's in it that's so different from the other art? Is there a goal
in art? How to teach someone to see Cezanne? Rothko? Malevich,
Matisse...Ben Nicholson...it's easy for us (at least today it is) to see and
understand Dali,but most people, it seems, stil have difficulty with
Mondrian.
Well, enougn is enough.
> - Bob C.
if...@my-dejanews.com
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 27 Aug 1998, Bob C wrote:
>
> (snip much of debate/clarification)
>
> > >
> > > <snip>...A drapery is a drapery,
> > > after all it's meant to be in the background! What's all this fuzz, I
don't
> > > understand.
> > >
> >
> > I'm a bit confused by your statements and wondering if its possibly a
> > difference in our definitions of the word "drapery".
>
> specifically about the drapery concealing the figure (as in clothing or
> robes), and I think he (Berenson)is making this (what seems to me to be)
> over-simplified statement about drapery in response to Michelangelo's
> nudes.
>
> My reading of the essay is that Berenson feels Michelangelo's nudes are
> some of the fullest expression of the Renaissance - (which I certainly
> don't disagree with) - unfortunately, he seems to need to support this
> with the previously quoted passage about drapery.
so what?
> But to say drapery has nothing to do with art sounds just as extreme to
> me, if not more.
I repeat: drapery has nothing to do with art.
> Mark
mark webber
On Fri, 28 Aug 1998 if...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> OK, lets' start a new thread: "The art of Drapery", or maybe "Drapery as
> Art" or "Drapery is definitely art!", or "Drapery could be art" or somehting
> like that
One drapery thread seems to be working pretty well. It seems the next
thread should be "Hysterics in the usenet".
Are you going to be o.k?
>
>
> > The only way your statements seem to make sense to me if
> > you are using a definition of drapery such that when these hangings or
> > clothings become an integral part of the image then they have also
> > become something other than drapery.
>
> that's correct
>
> > I doubt, however, that the original referenced quote was using such a
> > definition. I would think rather that it was referring to the fact that
> > one can quite easily pick up a few tricks in order to learn to depict
> > convincing and dramatic drapery, much more easily than they can learn to
> > depict the figure.
>
> > Thus many inferior artists may include drapery as a
> > way to hide their lack of other rendering skills.
>
> What other rendering skills? Do you mean the inability to draw a proper
> and convincing figure? Well, that's strange, in my experience to learn
> to draw human body is not that difficult, this is what every beginner on
> the path of art starts from, at least that certainly is the case in a country
> where I come from - you can't graduate from any art school, college not to
> mention art academy without first mastering the skill of drawing the human
> figure. All those Renaissance guys could draw human figure with their eyes
> closed, so I don't see the difficulty there.
Well, that's a relief! I was getting the impression from this newsgroup
that art school wasn't teaching anyone to draw anymore!
> There's a lot of talk about techniques and skills in this forum which is
> absolutely fine, nothing wrong with it, artists can use this forum to their
> advantage, that's what the net is all about - communication, cooperation and
> information. But I think it's also important to talk about some moral issues,
> spiritual values in art, the state of art today, commercialism in art,
> objective and subjective in art - these are just some that I would be
> willing to discuss here. Instead we're arguing about the importance of
> drapery in art.
Yes, this drapery thread has been going on much to long, and we haven't
discussed moral issues (like faking it) spiritual values (like
transcendent experiences), the state of art today (structuralism and pomo)
and commercialism (repeated pleas to visit a particular anti-modern web
page so advertisers will support it) in much too long a time.
But perhaps you can redirect us.
> > But to make such a
> > sweeping generalization ignores the fact that drapery needn't be used in
> > this manner.
>
> it can be used in any suitable to artist manner
>
> > Properly depicting the human form under drapery or
> > selecting for maximimum effect which small part of the body emerges from
> > that drapery can be much more challenging than depicting the human
> > figure undraped if the artist chooses to make it so.
>
> Again, that's maybe a challenge for a student, a beginner but for a mature
> artist that's not the challenge.
> For example, a professional violinist first needs to practice and learn a
> challenging piece, say some violin concerto, then after mastering all the
> passages and whatever difficulties he encounters he goes on to the stage
> where he's expected to come up with some Music - and that's the real
> challenge.
I'm always intrigued by mature artists who ignor the difference between
composition and performance.
>
> When a work of art becomes Art? Why some art survives the time and lives
> forever? What's in it that's so different from the other art? Is there a goal
> in art? How to teach someone to see Cezanne? Rothko? Malevich,
> Matisse...Ben Nicholson...it's easy for us (at least today it is) to see and
> understand Dali,but most people, it seems, stil have difficulty with
> Mondrian.
>
>
> ifree
>
Excellent point. Now, why all the screeching? I think there are some
interesting ideas in Berenson and in an effort to bring something besides
name-calling to the table, the discussion of drapery and its ability to
both conceal the figure and resolve compositional problems has arisen.
If you don't want to discuss this stuff, there are still plenty of whining
anti-moderns to tustle with, and they crave anyone's attention. But in the
words of one of this centuries great estheticians, Bartholomew Simpson,
"Don't have a cow man!"
Warm regards,
Mark
mark webber
On Fri, 28 Aug 1998 if...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <Pine.PMDF.3.95.9808271...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>,
> mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 27 Aug 1998, Bob C wrote:
> >
> > (snip much of debate/clarification)
> >
> > > > I said, read my lips: the drapery has nothing to do with art.
> > > >
> > > > <snip>...A drapery is a drapery,
> > > > after all it's meant to be in the background! What's all this fuzz, I
> don't
> > > > understand.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm a bit confused by your statements and wondering if its possibly a
> > > difference in our definitions of the word "drapery".
> >
> > I'm feeling the same way, Bob - I think Berenson is definately speaking
> > specifically about the drapery concealing the figure (as in clothing or
> > robes), and I think he (Berenson)is making this (what seems to me to be)
> > over-simplified statement about drapery in response to Michelangelo's
> > nudes.
> >
> > My reading of the essay is that Berenson feels Michelangelo's nudes are
> > some of the fullest expression of the Renaissance - (which I certainly
> > don't disagree with) - unfortunately, he seems to need to support this
> > with the previously quoted passage about drapery.
>
> so what?
>
Um, sorry? Problem?
> > But to say drapery has nothing to do with art sounds just as extreme to
> > me, if not more.
>
> I repeat: drapery has nothing to do with art.
> ifree
Ok, well that settles it then! Next topic?
mdeli
<webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
>I've just returned from a trip to Italy and thought I might entice
>some of you into a discussion about Bernard Berenson's "Italian
>Painters of the Renaissance". I took the book with me for evening reading,
>and found it a good companion while seeing Tuscany.
>
>I have to say, though, that while there are plenty of general ideas
>and remarks of his which seem right on target to me, and several passages
>that could serve as an introduction to esthetics for some of the more
>narrow-minded contributors to this group (in both extremes), I also found
>him a little unclear and even unfair at times.
>
B. is a good example of Artspeak drivel favoring classical painting.
He had little tolerance for modern academic art but that doesn't raise
my opinion of him. Hardly anyone reads B. today and even the book you
mention published by Phydon is I believe out of print. His artspeak
unlike yours is antiquated like that of Ruskin.
The major rule he followed was write 200 word where 20 would do and
never write clearly. He would say what amounted "I like it" in
permutations of 200 words once every 2 pages.
snip
B. quote
> "Some may prefer Guido Reni to Botticelli, the Caracci to
>Giorgione, and Bouguereau to Puvis de Chavannes, but let them not fancy
>that their preference rests on artistic grounds. The truth is that the
>elements essential to a painting as a work of art are beyond their
>perception...."
In other words B. says "if you don't agree with me it can't be on
artistic grounds." ( "Artistic grounds? ") Its the old "I'm more
sensitive then you are crap.
When I attended school B. was still the cat's ass. Today few can get
through a full bout of his inflated babble. I agree with some of what
B. says. But he could have said it all clearly in some short articles.
B. also wrote a lot of newspaper articles which amounted to saying I
like so-and-so in thousands of words, His art theories which are
really little more than disguised opinions, are totally passe'.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
Marilyn
> Italian Painting and Bernard Berenson
>
> From: mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>
> Reply to: [1]mark webber
> Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 06:54:49 EDT
> Organization: University of Scranton, Scranton, PA
> Newsgroups:
> [2]rec.arts.fine
> Followup to: [3]newsgroup(s)
>
>
>I've just returned from a trip to Italy and thought I might entice
>some of you into a discussion about Bernard Berenson's "Italian
>Painters of the Renaissance". I took the book with me for evening reading,
>and found it a good companion while seeing Tuscany.
It must have been a synchronistic experience for you to be in the
geographical context of the paintings.
While living in a small city, surrounded by concrete, ashphalt,
with many valiant attempts to re-introduce the green, it would be out
of context for me right now to get into Italian painting.
>
>I have to say, though, that while there are plenty of general ideas
>and remarks of his which seem right on target to me, and several passages
>that could serve as an introduction to esthetics for some of the more
>narrow-minded contributors to this group (in both extremes), I also found
>him a little unclear and even unfair at times.
>
>I've visited Italy before, but concentrated on the larger towns of Rome,
>Florence and Venice. This time I explored smaller localities as well, like
>San Sepulcro and the Arezzo/Piero circuit, Siena, Assisi, etc.
>
>So with the paintings he actually writes about and not just tiny
>reproductions, one can really begin to question some of his more personal
>sounding statements.
>
>Although I'd be interested in hearing what anyone else thinks about some
>of these more personal assessments (such as "...drapery is a hinderance,
>and, at the best, only a way out of a difficulty, for we feel it masking
>the really significant, which is the form underneath." or "Rapheal Sanzio
>... was the greatest master of Composition ... that Europe down to the end
>of the 19th century had ever produced.") perhaps it might be more
>interesting to toss out something a bit more general like this:
I was taught that drapery in painting was the area
where painters actually got into
abstraction. And my mother told me the story (an urban myth?)
of the painter (was it Leonardo?) who submitted a painting to
a contest. When the time came to view the painting, they were
unable to lift its curtain, because the drapery was not real, but
painted.> Naturally he won first prize. Trompe d'oeil was quite
valued in the past.
> "It is true, politeness forbids pushing too far a discussion on
>matters of taste; but if such questions were of enough consequence to
>compel attention, and if we could communicate our views without fear of
>offending, is it certain that we should arrive at no conclusions? I think
>not."
>
>He goes on to say that, fortunately, this isn't what he's here to talk
>about so he won't ask us to agree with him. And the Victorian/Edwardian
>prose style is a constant reminder that he is of a very different context
>and point of view - but it's sure to delight the Romantics like Iian. I
>wonder - have you read him Iian? I actually thought of you and some of the
>more conservative folks when I read this:
>
> "Some may prefer Guido Reni to Botticelli, the Caracci to
>Giorgione, and Bouguereau to Puvis de Chavannes, but let them not fancy
>that their preference rests on artistic grounds. The truth is that the
>elements essential to a painting as a work of art are beyond their
>perception...."
>
>And he does list those elements, and basically the essays are a defense of
>the list. And overall I find it hard to disagree with him. Except in the
>individual cases of some artists. How can he find Velazquez to be so
>powerful, and care so little for Velazquez's master, Caravaggio?
What are these elements that our beyond our perception? By "some" does
he mean the general public, other artists, critics?
>Which leads me to another question - has anyone read his essay on
>Caravaggio? I haven't ever been able to find a copy.
>At any rate, I'm up for some discussion on this father of esthetics.
>Anyone biting?
>Mark
Not exactly, I just responded to your invitation to read this post.
The hook is perhaps too sharp for my "provincial" appetite.
: ) a bien tot...
Marilyn
mark webber
On 31 Aug 1998, Marilyn wrote:
(after I wrote:)
> >I've just returned from a trip to Italy and thought I might entice
> >some of you into a discussion about Bernard Berenson's "Italian
> >Painters of the Renaissance". I took the book with me for evening reading,
> >and found it a good companion while seeing Tuscany.
>
> It must have been a synchronistic experience for you to be in the
> geographical context of the paintings.
It was very different for me - I've never tried reading esthetics in the
presence of the actual art before. I think it does matter some.
I have to admit, though, it didn't always work so idealy - I often put
the book back in my pack and just looked. I'd wind up reading later in the
evening, after a bottle of Brunello. Then I wasn't retaining much either.
But in general I learned from it. And it didn't get in the way of the
paintings at all. I highly recommend the little town of San Gimignano, to
the Northeast of Siena. Not just a tourist town - wonderful frescos!
>
> While living in a small city, surrounded by concrete, ashphalt,
> with many valiant attempts to re-introduce the green, it would be out
> of context for me right now to get into Italian painting.
Or...it could be a tonic! But you know best.
> >
> >Although I'd be interested in hearing what anyone else thinks about some
> >of these more personal assessments (such as "...drapery is a hinderance,
> >and, at the best, only a way out of a difficulty, for we feel it masking
> >the really significant, which is the form underneath." or "Rapheal Sanzio
> >... was the greatest master of Composition ... that Europe down to the end
> >of the 19th century had ever produced.") perhaps it might be more
> >interesting to toss out something a bit more general like this:
>
>
> I was taught that drapery in painting was the area
> where painters actually got into
> abstraction.
There is nothing but evidence for this throughout Tuscany. It's clear to
me that drapery was used to resolve compositional problems as well as show
evidence of inventiveness, etc.
> And my mother told me the story (an urban myth?)
> of the painter (was it Leonardo?) who submitted a painting to
> a contest. When the time came to view the painting, they were
> unable to lift its curtain, because the drapery was not real, but
> painted.> Naturally he won first prize. Trompe d'oeil was quite
> valued in the past.
>
Yes, I think I heard a variant on that with a Greek painter - Zeuxis.
> > "Some may prefer Guido Reni to Botticelli, the Caracci to
> >Giorgione, and Bouguereau to Puvis de Chavannes, but let them not fancy
> >that their preference rests on artistic grounds. The truth is that the
> >elements essential to a painting as a work of art are beyond their
> >perception...."
> >
> >And he does list those elements, and basically the essays are a defense of
> >the list. And overall I find it hard to disagree with him. Except in the
> >individual cases of some artists. How can he find Velazquez to be so
> >powerful, and care so little for Velazquez's master, Caravaggio?
>
> What are these elements that our beyond our perception? By "some" does
> he mean the general public, other artists, critics?
Specifically, he lists them like this:
- Tactile values (which I think my best interpretation would be
the control of contrasts to convey texture, weight, etc.)
- Movement (by which I take him to mean some degree of dynamic
composition.)
- Space Composition (for me his most intriguing thesis - that of
composing *into* the illusion of three dimensions, not just two
dimensionally.
- Colour (its compositional qualities, expressive uses, etc. - he
admits, in this volume, to not going deeply enough into it.)
- and finally, the engaged synthesis of the above. He stresses
that to ignor how these elements are combined is to fail.
By "some" I take him to mean those illustrators only interested in
rendering. He has a chapter on illustration and its frequent narrowness.
>
> Not exactly, I just responded to your invitation to read this post.
> The hook is perhaps too sharp for my "provincial" appetite.
Somehow you don't strike me as the person most in need of humility around
here.
> : ) a bien tot...
et a vous aussi,
Mark
mark webber
On Tue, 1 Sep 1998 if...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <Pine.PMDF.3.95.9808280...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>,
> mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 28 Aug 1998 if...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > > OK, lets' start a new thread: "The art of Drapery", or maybe "Drapery as
> > > Art" or "Drapery is definitely art!", or "Drapery could be art" or
> somehting
> > > like that
> >
> > One drapery thread seems to be working pretty well. It seems the next
> > thread should be "Hysterics in the usenet".
> >
> > Are you going to be o.k?
>
> probably not, but what the hell..
>
> Mark, I can only be true to myself, I enjoy stiring up things.
> I didn't come here to play the politeness game,what's the point?
Ok, no problem.
> And if I'm off the rails ( and that's quite possible), well, I'm sure you,
> gentlemen, will be fast to point that out to me. I'm a good learner.
>
No no - you're doing fine. not that you need to hear it from me, but you
seem on top of it.
> > > There's a lot of talk about techniques and skills in this forum which is
> > > absolutely fine, nothing wrong with it, artists can use this forum to their
> > > advantage, that's what the net is all about - communication, cooperation
> and
> > > information. But I think it's also important to talk about some moral
> issues,
> > > spiritual values in art, the state of art today, commercialism in art,
> > > objective and subjective in art - these are just some that I would be
> > > willing to discuss here. Instead we're arguing about the importance of
> > > drapery in art.
> >
> > Yes, this drapery thread has been going on much to long, and we haven't
> > discussed moral issues (like faking it) spiritual values (like
> > transcendent experiences), the state of art today (structuralism and pomo)
> > and commercialism (repeated pleas to visit a particular anti-modern web
> > page so advertisers will support it) in much too long a time.
> >
> > But perhaps you can redirect us.
>
> I'm trying, man, I'm trying!
Well, to be honest, I wasn't playing politeness there, either. I was
being a little sarcastic: those are all recent topics here, and I actually
think there is a pretty good balance of the things you list. You may have
to hang out a little while before you see your pet topic come up, or you
can do it the anti-modern/hysteric way and dredge up any old post from
months ago to use it as a vehicle for foaming. But that doesn't seem like
your style.
> > Now, why all the screeching?
>
> Who's screeching? I'm ready to roar.
Ok, your on!
>
> I'm a sucker for good art and I've been in this art business for too long
> now. I'm not an aesthetician, art critic or art historian. Back in my
> twenties, I used to read masses of those books about art, and i knew all
> there was to know about the styles, the trends and art movements but then I
> was lucky to meet some real artists. Those guys lived and breathed art,
> (some of them are still alive) everything was sacrificed on the sacred altar
> of art. I used to hang out with them day and quite often night, I watched
> them work, I began to collect their paintngs and I tried to understand their
> criteria - we used to go around artists studios and visit exhibitions
> together and for a long time I couldn't understand - they always seem to be
> in agreement which painting was the best and often it would be the one I
> hadn't even noticed!
They sound like great people to be around. Anyone we might know? You might
be surprised, it's a small world.
> It took many years for me to come to that point of
> seeing.
I know what you mean....
> The only acceptable form of art in my country then was realism, and
> realism with a socialist message. There were many good artists who had to
> sacrifice their experiments of the twenties and who, in order to survive,
> were forced to paint in realist or semi-impressionist manner. They were
> excellent craftsmen and brilliant painters, they painted well, the system
> was happy with them, but until their final day they remained miserable -
> they died long before their physical death, because they died as artists.
>
> The artists I met were a brave bunch who defied the system, they were
> seeking the way out of the imposed realism, they had a good school of art
> and some excellent training behind them. They could've joined the army of
> conformist painters, who were making pretty good living by painting realist
> monsters, but they refused to do that. They chose a modest living and freedom
>
> I don't know why I'm telling you this, maybe just to make it a bit clear
> where we stand in our attitude towards art and life in general.
>
I'm glad you did tell us.
> > I think there are some
> > interesting ideas in Berenson and in an effort to bring something besides
> > name-calling to the table, the discussion of drapery and its ability to
> > both conceal the figure and resolve compositional problems has arisen.
> >
> > If you don't want to discuss this stuff, there are still plenty of whining
> > anti-moderns to tustle with, and they crave anyone's attention.
>
> I just use those funny whining anti-moderns to make my points here.
Fair enough. That can be a little too easy with some....
>
> "Do not seek any rules or method or worship.
> Say whatever your pained heart chooses"
>
> Rumi
>
> Best,
>
> ifree
That's an apt epigram for this group. Thanks for your input.
regards,
Mark
if...@my-dejanews.com
> > Art" or "Drapery is definitely art!", or "Drapery could be art" or
somehting
> > like that
>
> thread should be "Hysterics in the usenet".
>
> Are you going to be o.k?
probably not, but what the hell..
Mark, I can only be true to myself, I enjoy stiring up things.
I didn't come here to play the politeness game,what's the point?
And if I'm off the rails ( and that's quite possible), well, I'm sure you,
gentlemen, will be fast to point that out to me. I'm a good learner.
> > > The only way your statements seem to make sense to me if
> > > you are using a definition of drapery such that when these hangings or
> > > clothings become an integral part of the image then they have also
> > > become something other than drapery.
> >
> > that's correct
> >
> > > I doubt, however, that the original referenced quote was using such a
> > > definition. I would think rather that it was referring to the fact that
> > > one can quite easily pick up a few tricks in order to learn to depict
> > > convincing and dramatic drapery, much more easily than they can learn to
> > > depict the figure.
> >
> > > Thus many inferior artists may include drapery as a
> > > way to hide their lack of other rendering skills.
> >
> > What other rendering skills? Do you mean the inability to draw a proper
> > and convincing figure? Well, that's strange, in my experience to learn
> > to draw human body is not that difficult, this is what every beginner on
> > the path of art starts from, at least that certainly is the case in a
country
> > where I come from - you can't graduate from any art school, college not to
> > mention art academy without first mastering the skill of drawing the human
> > figure. All those Renaissance guys could draw human figure with their eyes
> > closed, so I don't see the difficulty there.
>
> Well, that's a relief! I was getting the impression from this newsgroup
> that art school wasn't teaching anyone to draw anymore!
>
> > There's a lot of talk about techniques and skills in this forum which is
> > absolutely fine, nothing wrong with it, artists can use this forum to their
> > advantage, that's what the net is all about - communication, cooperation
and
> > information. But I think it's also important to talk about some moral
issues,
> > spiritual values in art, the state of art today, commercialism in art,
> > objective and subjective in art - these are just some that I would be
> > willing to discuss here. Instead we're arguing about the importance of
> > drapery in art.
>
> Yes, this drapery thread has been going on much to long, and we haven't
> discussed moral issues (like faking it) spiritual values (like
> transcendent experiences), the state of art today (structuralism and pomo)
> and commercialism (repeated pleas to visit a particular anti-modern web
> page so advertisers will support it) in much too long a time.
>
> But perhaps you can redirect us.
I'm trying, man, I'm trying!
>
> > > But to make such a
> > > sweeping generalization ignores the fact that drapery needn't be used in
> > > this manner.
> >
> > it can be used in any suitable to artist manner
> >
> > > Properly depicting the human form under drapery or
> > > selecting for maximimum effect which small part of the body emerges from
> > > that drapery can be much more challenging than depicting the human
> > > figure undraped if the artist chooses to make it so.
> >
> > Again, that's maybe a challenge for a student, a beginner but for a mature
> > artist that's not the challenge.
> > For example, a professional violinist first needs to practice and learn a
> > challenging piece, say some violin concerto, then after mastering all the
> > passages and whatever difficulties he encounters he goes on to the stage
> > where he's expected to come up with some Music - and that's the real
> > challenge.
>
> I'm always intrigued by mature artists who ignor the difference between
> composition and performance.
me too
> >
> > When a work of art becomes Art? Why some art survives the time and lives
> > forever? What's in it that's so different from the other art? Is there a
goal
> > in art? How to teach someone to see Cezanne? Rothko? Malevich,
> > Matisse...Ben Nicholson...it's easy for us (at least today it is) to see
and
> > understand Dali,but most people, it seems, stil have difficulty with
> > Mondrian.
> >
> >
> > ifree
> >
>
> Excellent point.
> Now, why all the screeching?
Who's screeching? I'm ready to roar.
I'm a sucker for good art and I've been in this art business for too long
now. I'm not an aesthetician, art critic or art historian. Back in my
twenties, I used to read masses of those books about art, and i knew all
there was to know about the styles, the trends and art movements but then I
was lucky to meet some real artists. Those guys lived and breathed art,
(some of them are still alive) everything was sacrificed on the sacred altar
of art. I used to hang out with them day and quite often night, I watched
them work, I began to collect their paintngs and I tried to understand their
criteria - we used to go around artists studios and visit exhibitions
together and for a long time I couldn't understand - they always seem to be
in agreement which painting was the best and often it would be the one I
hadn't even noticed! It took many years for me to come to that point of
seeing. The only acceptable form of art in my country then was realism, and
realism with a socialist message. There were many good artists who had to
sacrifice their experiments of the twenties and who, in order to survive,
were forced to paint in realist or semi-impressionist manner. They were
excellent craftsmen and brilliant painters, they painted well, the system
was happy with them, but until their final day they remained miserable -
they died long before their physical death, because they died as artists.
The artists I met were a brave bunch who defied the system, they were
seeking the way out of the imposed realism, they had a good school of art
and some excellent training behind them. They could've joined the army of
conformist painters, who were making pretty good living by painting realist
monsters, but they refused to do that. They chose a modest living and freedom
I don't know why I'm telling you this, maybe just to make it a bit clear
where we stand in our attitude towards art and life in general.
> I think there are some
> interesting ideas in Berenson and in an effort to bring something besides
> name-calling to the table, the discussion of drapery and its ability to
> both conceal the figure and resolve compositional problems has arisen.
>
> If you don't want to discuss this stuff, there are still plenty of whining
> anti-moderns to tustle with, and they crave anyone's attention.
I just use those funny whining anti-moderns to make my points here.
> But in the
> words of one of this centuries great estheticians, Bartholomew Simpson,
> "Don't have a cow man!"
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Mark
"Do not seek any rules or method or worship.
Say whatever your pained heart chooses"
Rumi
Best,
ifree
LARSPAINTR
Such light humor is usually reserved
for the British.
After 200 or so years Yanks have caught on?
Cheers.
L.
itsalar...@aol.com Delete 'itsa' if sending E mail.
Philip Ayers
(mdeli) wrote:
: > The major rule he followed was write 200 word where 20 would do and
: > never write clearly. He would say what amounted "I like it" in
: > permutations of 200 words once every 2 pages.
Why not write two hundred words if writing is your first love. I love good
long "winded" writing. I'm missing those old New Yorker articles prior to
Tina Brown's arrival...I guess that would be Shawn's tenure?...anyway I
wish there were more great poets around to discuss painting in free
verse. Wallace Stevens' poetry was always very close to painting. The
spirit of painting reside in his poetry.
Philip (never Phil) Ayers
http://www.mindspring.com/~p.ayers/
p.a...@mindspring.com.
mark webber
On Tue, 8 Sep 1998, Philip Ayers wrote:
Agreed. Especially the bit about Stevens.
Obviously, Berenson enjoyed writing about painting, and I can't begin to
imagine what's wrong with that, since many of us are doing it (some not
very convincingly at all, and only with vituperative hysterics.)
He made an effort to say what it was in painting he loved. He wasn't
continuously railing against what or who he hated.
The fact that he may appear long-winded to someone with a short attention
span is negligable.
Mark
mdeli
wrote:
Webby brain might give me some credit for what I wrote. I guess
mentioning my name inflames his hemorrhoids.
>
>
>On Tue, 8 Sep 1998, Philip Ayers wrote:
>
>> ... wrote:
>>
>> : > The major rule he followed was write 200 word where 20 would do and
>> : > never write clearly. He would say what amounted "I like it" in
>> : > permutations of 200 words once every 2 pages.
I wrote the above
>> Why not write two hundred words if writing is your first love. I love good
>> long "winded" writing. I'm missing those old New Yorker articles prior to
>> Tina Brown's arrival...I guess that would be Shawn's tenure?...anyway I
>> wish there were more great poets around to discuss painting in free
>> verse. Wallace Stevens' poetry was always very close to painting. The
>> spirit of painting reside in his poetry.
>Agreed. Especially the bit about Stevens.
>
>Obviously, Berenson enjoyed writing about painting, and I can't begin to
>imagine what's wrong with that,
Nothing unless its a long-wided vacuum.
>] since many of us are doing it (some not
>very convincingly at all, and only with vituperative hysterics.)
hint hint. This snob imagines that those who don't like what he likes
don't like anything and can only express this dislike in "vituperative
hysterics." He has of course he never addressed any of my points.
Because he can't.
He is too busy worrying about any taint on the respect which he
imagines he gets from his captive students who have little choice but
to put up with his vacuous inflated babble.
>He made an effort to say what it was in painting he loved. He wasn't
>continuously railing against what or who he hated.
The fact is that Berenson is out. Few, except blow-bags of your ilk
read his dated inflated loving schmalz.
If you want real baroque schmaltz read Ruskin. He was a craftsman at
it. However nobody reads him except constipated scholars. With good
reason