Oh, for crying out loud
Ted Shoemaker
Let's try this again. This time without the name-calling and
mudslinging.
Can someone please explain to me what 20th and 21st century artists are
trying to communicate by their art?
I asked that question a short time ago. I got maybe one or two genuine
answers, -- then a lot of caustic waste. (The waste was flying in
*both*
directions.)
I don't care whether you love or hate modern art. I don't care if
people
think you're a hippie, or a Nazi.
I hope to hear from someone who can discuss the issue without wetting
his pants.
Ted Shoemaker
shoema...@yahoo.com
Registered User
>
>
>Let's try this again. This time without the name-calling and
>mudslinging.
>
>Can someone please explain to me what 20th and 21st century artists are
>trying to communicate by their art?
You are making a gross overgeneralization with your question. There have been
hundreds, if not hundreds of thousands, of artistic movements and styles in the
20th century, most of them with dissimilar asthetic or philosophic principles.
There is no unified "thing" that artists are trying to say.
Your question is as illogical as asking "Can someone explain to me what those
journalists are trying to communicate with their newspaper and magazine
articles?" The simple answer is "ideas." Of course, the answer is never so
simple. What KIND of ideas? There is no simple answer. The simplest answer is
"Artists are trying to communicate whatever it is they want to communicate."
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Ted Shoemaker" <shoema...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> Let's try this again. This time without the name-calling and
> mudslinging.
>
> Can someone please explain to me what 20th and 21st century artists
are
> trying to communicate by their art?
>
The secret is that 20th century artists are all trying to communicate
the joy of futons and 21st century artists the joy of boxed spring
mattresses.
So, now you know - there is no need for you to look at any art until the
22nd century!
--
That, if I then had waked after long sleep,
Will make me sleep again; and then, in dreaming,
The clouds methought would open, and show riches
Ready to drop upon me, that when I waked
I cried to dream again.
- Caliban, The Tempest.
Nik Maack
Ted Shoemaker wrote:
> Can someone please explain to me what 20th and 21st century artists are
> trying to communicate by their art?
I expect there are many different things that the many artists of this
great big whack of time are trying to communicate. I think you're
referring to abstract and modern art that sometimes looks like a great
big mess of colour and line signifying nothing. So I'll try to work
from that assumption.
My take on what the modern artists that I personally like are trying to
do -- they're attempting to capture an intangible feeling that cannot be
described in words.
Have you ever had an emotional experience that you want to describe to
someone, but can't? "It was joy, mixed with sadness, mixed with equal
portions of hope and despair and..." You can't do it, so you turn to
metaphor. "Sort of like a birthday, where it's nice to celebrate, but
you're older and... Buying a new car, but it's used and not the
greatest car and...? It's..."
Aw, hell. There are no words to describe that feeling. There isn't
even an adequate metaphor. But you might be able to capture the
emotional attitude in a balance of paint and line and abstract noodling.
This is what some poets try to do, by the way. Instead of saying, "I
felt apathetic and bored," they talk AROUND the experience, circling it,
trying to show some symbolic representation of the feeling. Saying "I
felt apathetic," is barely descriptive.
So when someone asked me to write a haiku about apathy, I wrote:
The chess pieces look
much better to me in their
starting positions.
Does this describe apathy? Sort of, in a comical way. It's up to the
reader to figure out what the greater context is. They have to do some
work to understand the poem.
I'm getting a little side-tracked, but maybe what I'm about to say
regarding haiku applies to modern art as well -- the reader of a haiku
is expected to "complete" the work in their head. Many haiku writers
describe this -- half the poem is on the page, the other half is in the
reader's head. And what some haiku writers aim for is that moment of
"satori" -- a flash of insight that startles and amazes -- where
something greater is suddenly and mysteriously understood.
I think good expressive modern art works the same way. Here is a
complicated assembly of line, colour, and symbols. Here is an attempt
to capture a feeling. (Or an abstract idea, or a complete intangible
that goes beyond labels like "thought" and "emotion" -- something that
cannot be vocalized, reduced to words.) The viewer approaches the work
and, hopefully, has some kind of interaction with it, and sees and feels
the GREATER THING the artist was aiming for.
Or, think of it this way... A fortune-teller stares into her crystal
ball and tries to have a "vision". That's the modern artist. They
stare into the emptiness and try to find something worth talking about.
They then sit down and paint what they saw, what they thought was
interesting -- some intangible THING from the void. The viewer comes
along, and looks at the painting. The art is as an arrow that points to
the "real intangible" that exists in the void. It serves as a sort of
road sign.
Often modern art fails -- instead of pointing to the greater
abstraction, it points at a pile of dog shit. Or only a few people
"get" which way the arrow is pointing; most can't figure it out. It's
rare that a single abstract painting POINTS towards a feeling and almost
everyone who looks at it can see and feel that intangible -- but that,
to me, would be the ultimate goal of abstract modern art. Everyone who
looks at it sees and feels and experiences an intangible, inexpressible
emotion that is both significant and profound.
Now, to make things slightly more complex -- often the abstract modern
artist has no idea what intangible they are trying to express, or why
it's important for them to express it. It just "feels right", and they
spend their lives chasing it, creating their own personal language to
hunt down a personal obsession, a personal abstraction, hoping that the
viewers can help figure out what this INTANGIBLE is.
Please let me know if any of this makes sense to you. I think this is
as close as I can come to making sense on this topic. And I'm sure many
will disagree with me -- this is my personal understanding of the stuff.
I'm sure there are other valid approaches and theories.
> I hope to hear from someone who can discuss the issue without wetting
> his pants.
No pants were wet during the creation of this posting.
Nik
Chillie Benes
>Now, to make things slightly more complex -- often the abstract modern
>artist has no idea what intangible they are trying to express, or why
>it's important for them to express it. It just "feels right", and they
>spend their lives chasing it, creating their own personal language to
>hunt down a personal obsession, a personal abstraction, hoping that the
>viewers can help figure out what this INTANGIBLE is.
I know A/E artists who insist that their
work is ALL about "process." If you try
to pin down when they begin worrying about
aesthetics, they begin getting defensive.
Chillie Benes
>I know A/E artists who insist that their
>work is ALL about "process." If you try
>to pin down when they begin worrying about
>aesthetics, they begin getting defensive.
And dare to ask where their titles come from...
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Chillie Benes" <who...@noemailever.com> wrote in message
> I know A/E artists who insist that their
> work is ALL about "process." If you try
> to pin down when they begin worrying about
> aesthetics, they begin getting defensive.
>
newgroup for the discussion of aesthetics again - I proposed
uk.philosophy.aesthetics some time ago and I still think it would be a
good idea.
Ted Shoemaker
Responses to two people are below:
Ted Shoemaker wrote:
> > Can someone please explain to me what 20th and 21st century artists are
> > trying to communicate by their art?
Registered User wrote:
>
> You are making a gross overgeneralization with your question.
> There have been hundreds, if not hundreds of thousands, of
> artistic movements and styles in the 20th century, most of
> them with dissimilar asthetic or philosophic principles.
> There is no unified "thing" that artists are trying to say.
That is a fair criticism of my question.
Perhaps I should rephrase the question:
How are 20th & 21st century artists expressing their messages?
A journalist uses words in a language that the reader is expected
to understand. What is the language (if not the message) of
modern (and other recent) art?
Or are there hundreds of ways of communicating? That seems like
what you meant by "hundreds of styles". How, then, can I
understand hundreds of styles? I might as well try to learn
hundreds of languages!
Would it be fair to say that most modern art is meant to be
experienced, but not understood? Personally, I doubt it. Plenty
of artists complain that they are not understood. (Or is that a
boast?)
Nik Maack wrote:
>
> I think you're
> referring to abstract and modern art that sometimes looks like a great
> big mess of colour and line signifying nothing.
Correct.
> My take on what the modern artists that I personally like are trying to
> do -- they're attempting to capture an intangible feeling that cannot be
> described in words.
Expressing the ineffable, like some haiku does. Okay.
My *limited* experience with haiku leads me to think that
a reader with average intelligence and sensitivity can feel
some of what the poet is saying. But with modern art ...
> only a few people
> "get" which way the arrow is pointing; most can't figure it out.
Yeah, that's the problem. If I can't figure it out, how can I
appreciate it?
> Please let me know if any of this makes sense to you.
Very good sense, as far as it goes. Unfortunately it's not a Rosetta
Stone to unlock the secret meanings ...
> No pants were wet during the creation of this posting.
Thanks. It's nice to discuss with someone who can behave like a
grownup.
Ted Shoemaker
shoema...@yahoo.com
Nik Maack
Chillie Benes wrote:
> I know A/E artists who insist that their
> work is ALL about "process." If you try
> to pin down when they begin worrying about
> aesthetics, they begin getting defensive.
I think some people don't want to analyze their creative process,
because they are reluctant to admit that -- when they start to paint --
they are no longer the one painting. It's as if they are taken over by
something inside of them. I know I feel this way quite often, when
writing or painting.
So ask me where my title came from, or how I chose my colours, and I
honestly might not be able to tell you. It feels like I wasn't involved
in the choice. Or, to put it another way, the part of my brain in
charge of communicating in words probably doesn't have access to the
part of my brain that chooses colours.
Nik
Chillie Benes
>Or, to put it another way, the part of my brain in
>charge of communicating in words probably doesn't have access to the
>part of my brain that chooses colours.
Geeze! And I thought it was my old age that
was the cause! You surely can't be as old
as me and Methusela. At least age affords me
yet another excuse for my actions.
As for choosing colors, I'm happy when I can
dream in B&W these days. You know, all those
white clouds and harping angels...
Registered User
>
>
>Responses to two people are below:
>
>Ted Shoemaker wrote:
>> > Can someone please explain to me what 20th and 21st century artists are
>> > trying to communicate by their art?
>
>Registered User wrote:
>>
>> You are making a gross overgeneralization with your question.
>> There have been hundreds, if not hundreds of thousands, of
>> artistic movements and styles in the 20th century, most of
>> them with dissimilar asthetic or philosophic principles.
>> There is no unified "thing" that artists are trying to say.
>
>That is a fair criticism of my question.
>
>Perhaps I should rephrase the question:
>How are 20th & 21st century artists expressing their messages?
>A journalist uses words in a language that the reader is expected
>to understand. What is the language (if not the message) of
>modern (and other recent) art?
Your question is still too vague and I can answer it exactly the same as before.
A journalist uses words in a language, that language is known to the writer and
the reader. But within that channel, you can incorporate works such as Joyce's
"Ulysses," the Bible, scientific journals, etc. Can the same set of interpretive
"rules" be applied to a science paper and Ulysses?
It's the same with art. Just to pick my medium, painting, the "language" of
painting is the same as it has been since paleolithic times, it is putting marks
on a surface. But the language of the IDEAS expressed in those same paintings
has evolved.
To pick the literary analogy again, nobody understands Ulyssees when they first
read it, it requires you to adapt to the writer's style. You must pay attention
and try to discern the ideas the writer is trying to express.
>Or are there hundreds of ways of communicating? That seems like
>what you meant by "hundreds of styles".
No, I meant hundreds of relatively well-defined genres, such as "dada"
"modernism" "expressionism" etc. There are probably an infinite number of
individual "styles" within any particular genre It is as individual as one's own
personal expression.
>How, then, can I
>understand hundreds of styles? I might as well try to learn
>hundreds of languages!
You already do. The difference between, say, French and Italian languages on the
whole is perhaps far LESS than the difference in the speaking manner of any two
random individuals that share a language. For example:
"Lately my CPU has been crufty, I found a few apps with infinite hair."
"Ontogeny recapitulates philogeny."
"People keep misunderestimating me."
"Gnarly, dude."
etc..
>Would it be fair to say that most modern art is meant to be
>experienced, but not understood? Personally, I doubt it. Plenty
>of artists complain that they are not understood. (Or is that a
>boast?)
Some arworks do not speak to the rational mind, they are not intended to be
interpreted on a rational, conscious level. Some are. There is no firm rule.
Some artists (like me) attempt to produce artworks that defy ANY interpretation,
but there is a system behind it that has its own rationale and is interpretable
nonetheless.
I do not have any generic answers for you because there aren't any. Art is
produced by artists, usually working alone, sometimes working with (or in
relation to) other artists. We don't all communicate similarly, we don't have a
club where we all get together and decide what subjects we're going to paint.
There is no Unified Field Theory of Art, only local interpretations.
I'll leave you with a final puzzle. I got this trick from a local art history
professor. He has two images that from these same artists that are almost
precisely identical.
But anyway.. here are two images from two different artists. The images are
superficially similar in technique (leaving aside issues of color, composition,
etc) and were painted within 2 years of each other. One of these artists is a
Modernist, one is a Postmodernist. Can you tell which is which? (no peeking at
the names!) Why?
http://www.uni-kiel.de/kunsthalle/grafik/richter.jpg
http://www.dubuffetfondation.com/img/oeuvresbio/12184.jpg
Todd Strickland
>
> Let's try this again. This time without the name-calling and
> mudslinging.
>
> Can someone please explain to me what 20th and 21st century artists are
> trying to communicate by their art?
>
It would be helpful if you could give us a specific artist, or at least a
specific style of art. Your question is too broad.
Todd Strickland
Martin Skidmore
mdeli
other. However that century is polarized into Modern Academic Art,
(Caps) the stuff allowed into museums and the rest of modern art
(small letters).
In spite of all the babble about isms, Modern Academic art can be
clearly described as a spectrum between non-objective abstraction and
no-skill realism. The rest of modern art in my opinion follows from
the traditional art using modern variations on the classical elements
of the last 600 years.
Let me point out that there is lots of fine non-representational
abstract modern art. Art Deco and Nouveau are the best examples along
the abstraction in fine illustration down to comic books ad massive
amounts of painting not yet allowed into museums.
Modern Academic Art on the other hand is a financial and social
phenomenon and a name game which requires a huge tolerance for
nebulous Artspeak in order to appreciate it. The main reason for any
attention it receives is PR and a false claim that it's all new.
However By 1923 with the demise of dada, the final touch of anything
that might still pretend to be original in the eyes of theoretical
Modern Art Theologians had already been created.
While the rest of modern art gets almost no PR at least under an art
label and its academic detractors pretend it doesn't exist, it is
vastly popular for the artists who make a name.
Before the usual detractors here complain that this explanation is
superficial I'd like to point out that I go into detail in my book and
my web site.
...no skill no art
"The Emperor's New Clothes aren't clothing you stupid little girl. They are body installations containing invisible Color Fields."
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page
New address- http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli
Ted Shoemaker
>
> Your question is still too vague and I can answer it exactly the same as
> before.
> A journalist uses words in a language, that language is known to the writer
> and
> the reader. But within that channel, you can incorporate works such as Joyce's
> "Ulysses," the Bible, scientific journals, etc. Can the same set of
> interpretive
> "rules" be applied to a science paper and Ulysses?
Partly, yes. The styles are different, and that's your point, of
course. But once I learned to read in some language, I became able
to understand *PART* of what is written -- whether in a science journal,
James Joyce, etc.
> But the language of the IDEAS expressed in those same paintings
> has evolved.
> To pick the literary analogy again, nobody understands Ulyssees when they
> first
> read it, it requires you to adapt to the writer's style. You must pay
> attention
> and try to discern the ideas the writer is trying to express.
Yes! I have been paying attention! I have been trying to discern the
ideas the painter (sculptor, playwright, musician, whatever) is trying to
communicate. But it's harder. To continue the analogy: It is as if
an author wrote in code, rather than in an ordinary language. And every
artist uses his own code. (See? I got that.) In order to appreciate
the works in even one museum (gallery, book, website), I'd have to unravel
maybe hundreds of different codes.
> There is no firm rule.
That seems to be one of the few constants in 20th & 21st Century art.
But don't the *rules* determine the meaning? To change the metaphor:
An American-style wrestler (call him "A") and a judo wrestler (call
him "J") competed. They had agreed that each would compete in his own
style. As it turned out, the "A" soon had "J" pinned to the mat. By
the rules of American-style wrestling, he had won. But "J" had "A" in
a potentially lethal headlock, and could easily have killed him, even
while being pinned. Who won? Answer: It depends on the rules.
> Some artists (like me) attempt to produce artworks that defy ANY
> interpretation,
Does "defy any interpretation" equate to "have no meaning"? i.e., absurdism.
> but there is a system behind it that has its own rationale and is
> interpretable nonetheless.
Are there not rules that describe the interpretation?
At this point, someone may say to me, "Aha! Your problem is that you
are a Platonist! You insist on the existence of meaning!" Okay. I've
had that accusation before. If someone chooses to say it this time,
please offer an alternative approach.
> We don't all communicate similarly, we don't have a
> club where we all get together and decide what subjects we're going to paint.
> There is no Unified Field Theory of Art
Of course not.
> But anyway.. here are two images from two different artists. The images are
> superficially similar in technique (leaving aside issues of color,
> composition,
> etc) and were painted within 2 years of each other. One of these artists is a
> Modernist, one is a Postmodernist. Can you tell which is which? (no peeking at
> the names!) Why?
>
> http://www.uni-kiel.de/kunsthalle/grafik/richter.jpg
> http://www.dubuffetfondation.com/img/oeuvresbio/12184.jpg
I cannot tell the styles apart. If I could, that would mean that
I understood more about them.
Ted Shoemaker
Registered User
shoema...@yahoo.com says...
>
>Registered User <regis...@user.com> wrote in message
>news:<a4ngk...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>>
>> Your question is still too vague and I can answer it exactly the same as
>> before.
>> A journalist uses words in a language, that language is known to the writer
>> and
>>the reader. But within that channel, you can incorporate works such as Joyce's
>> "Ulysses," the Bible, scientific journals, etc. Can the same set of
>> interpretive
>> "rules" be applied to a science paper and Ulysses?
>
>Partly, yes. The styles are different, and that's your point, of
>course. But once I learned to read in some language, I became able
>to understand *PART* of what is written -- whether in a science journal,
>James Joyce, etc.
Right. What language you know, is a bootstrap to learning what you need to know.
Same with art. The basic language of painting, sculpture, performance, etc, is
the same as it always has been. Use what you know to grab ahold of the rest.
>
>> But the language of the IDEAS expressed in those same paintings
>> has evolved.
>> To pick the literary analogy again, nobody understands Ulyssees when they
>> first
>> read it, it requires you to adapt to the writer's style. You must pay
>> attention
>> and try to discern the ideas the writer is trying to express.
>
>Yes! I have been paying attention! I have been trying to discern the
>ideas the painter (sculptor, playwright, musician, whatever) is trying to
>communicate. But it's harder. To continue the analogy: It is as if
>an author wrote in code, rather than in an ordinary language. And every
>artist uses his own code. (See? I got that.) In order to appreciate
>the works in even one museum (gallery, book, website), I'd have to unravel
>maybe hundreds of different codes.
Not really. Even the best educated artists can only learn a few codes. Artists
sometimes speak of "The Canon" which is a relatively large list of artworks that
are sort of the baseline knowledge that all artists are presumed to know, and
presumed to be working from. But nobody, even art historians, can really get a
comprehensive knowledge of all of these artworks. You have to pick what
interests you, and what you think you can work with. Same thing for viewers. You
can't really hold yourself, as a viewer, to a higher standard than the artists.
For example, I've studied and have a basic familiarity with Renaissance art, but
it bores me to death, so I don't use it as source material in my work. But I do
particularly enjoy German expressionism, futurism, etc, so I use studied those
areas and can "speak the language." Same thing as for the audience. Go look at a
few types of artwork that interest you, learn what there is to learn from them,
and use that knowledge to get a grasp of other related artists. Nobody has to
deal with the WHOLE art world.
>
>> There is no firm rule.
>
>That seems to be one of the few constants in 20th & 21st Century art.
>
>But don't the *rules* determine the meaning? To change the metaphor:
>An American-style wrestler (call him "A") and a judo wrestler (call
>him "J") competed. They had agreed that each would compete in his own
>style. As it turned out, the "A" soon had "J" pinned to the mat. By
>the rules of American-style wrestling, he had won. But "J" had "A" in
>a potentially lethal headlock, and could easily have killed him, even
>while being pinned. Who won? Answer: It depends on the rules.
>
>> Some artists (like me) attempt to produce artworks that defy ANY
>> interpretation,
>
>Does "defy any interpretation" equate to "have no meaning"? i.e., absurdism.
Perhaps I chose my words badly. Some of my artworks are specifically intended to
be difficult to view, and give confusing sensory impressions which confound any
attempt to even view them.
>> but there is a system behind it that has its own rationale and is
>> interpretable nonetheless.
>
>Are there not rules that describe the interpretation?
I guess, I never thought about it this way. But let's get more specific. One of
my most successful artworks is a "magic mirror." It is a specialized optical
arrangement that when you look at it, you see nothing. I mean, really nothing.
It's like looking into a black hole. Since the device gives basically no sense
impression, it's hard to interpret. But everyone who looks at it says "oooh!"
They don't know what it means, but they know it's unlike anything they've ever
seen. There are many ways this artwork might be interpreted. But that's
post-interpretation. I just read about how to make one, cobbled one together
because I thought it would look cool.
>At this point, someone may say to me, "Aha! Your problem is that you
>are a Platonist! You insist on the existence of meaning!" Okay. I've
>had that accusation before. If someone chooses to say it this time,
>please offer an alternative approach.
I don't have much use for that sort of theory anyway.
>
>> But anyway.. here are two images from two different artists. The images are
>> superficially similar in technique (leaving aside issues of color,
>> composition,
>> etc) and were painted within 2 years of each other. One of these artists is a
>>Modernist, one is a Postmodernist. Can you tell which is which? (no peeking at
>> the names!) Why?
>>
>> http://www.uni-kiel.de/kunsthalle/grafik/richter.jpg
>> http://www.dubuffetfondation.com/img/oeuvresbio/12184.jpg
>
>I cannot tell the styles apart. If I could, that would mean that
>I understood more about them.
Yes, you would have to know a bit about what makes Modernism different from
Postmodernism. The difference between these two paintings is subtle, but
distinct and fairly obvious to artists who know about those two genres.
This is kind of a good tool, to compare two artworks with similarities but vast
differences. I'll give you another interesting pairing:
Marcel Duchamp, Nude Descending a Staircase
http://www.imagearts.ryerson.ca/arthistory/modernism/images/duchamp_nude-staircase.jpg
Gerhard Richter, "Ema - Nude Descending a Staircase"
http://res.ipc.kit.ac.jp/~artmedia/ema-rp.html
Martin Skidmore
> >> superficially similar in technique (leaving aside issues of color,
> >> composition,
> >> etc) and were painted within 2 years of each other. One of these artists is a
> >>Modernist, one is a Postmodernist. Can you tell which is which? (no peeking at
> >> the names!) Why?
> >>
> >> http://www.uni-kiel.de/kunsthalle/grafik/richter.jpg
> >> http://www.dubuffetfondation.com/img/oeuvresbio/12184.jpg
> >
> >I cannot tell the styles apart. If I could, that would mean that
> >I understood more about them.
>
> Yes, you would have to know a bit about what makes Modernism different from
> Postmodernism. The difference between these two paintings is subtle, but
> distinct and fairly obvious to artists who know about those two genres.
I do know a fair bit about the distinctions here, but I can't see what
makes the former a Postmodernist painting. I would have said they were
both Modernist, though I know Gerard Richter is a Postmodernist - but
not because of painting like this, I'd have thought. I'd love to here
an explanation of what makes one of these Postmodernist.
- Martin Skidmore
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
keith
Registered User <regis...@user.com> wrote in message
news:a4ngk...@drn.newsguy.com...
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
"So when someone asked me to write a haiku about apathy, I wrote:
The chess pieces look
much better to me in their
starting positions.
Does this describe apathy? Sort of, in a comical way. It's up to the
reader to figure out what the greater context is. They have to do some
work to understand the poem."
I like the image contained in the three lines. It seems to say that I don't
want the conflict and confusion that will occur when the pieces begin to
move. Another way of saying "I am tired of war and want peace"
Being an x chess player and not an x poet - I don't read it as apathy - to
me the image is very deep - reflecting current civilised desires.
keith
Nik Maack <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3C6E5CF5...@sympatico.ca...
Chillie Benes
>
>I'll quote you
>"So when someone asked me to write a haiku about apathy, I wrote:
>
>The chess pieces look
>much better to me in their
>starting positions.
I read that when you first posted it but
didn't comment because "chess" per se
wasn't the context. I would wager to
say that for an artist, having the men
neatly arranged in a starting pattern
is the most satisfying design-wise. As
a chess player, I'd have to argue that
the most beautiful arrangement is one
move just before certain check-mate,
from my viewing point! My opponent might
argue for going back to the starting
position!!
mdeli
Skidmore) wrote:
>I do know a fair bit about the distinctions here, but I can't see what
>makes the former a Postmodernist painting. I would have said they were
>both Modernist, though I know Gerard Richter is a Postmodernist - but
>not because of painting like this, I'd have thought. I'd love to here
>an explanation of what makes one of these Postmodernist.
>
Modernism: long-winded excuses (Artspeak) for producing incompetent
artwork.
Postmodernism: longer-winded excuses (Artspeak) for producing
incompetent artwork.
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
the thrill of the kill - brings back memories - especially when your
opponent realises the move you are about to make and knows he has no way
out - but I am a kinder gentler person now.
keith
Chillie Benes <who...@noemailever.com> wrote in message
news:3c718...@oracle.zianet.com...
Chillie Benes
>but I am a kinder gentler person now.
What does that mean? You don't play to win?
Play to a draw each time, or withdraw before
finishing the game? You're no fun!
Registered User
martin.s...@btinternet.com says...
The quickest (and simplest, therefore least accurate) answer is "la patte."
Dubuffet wrote often about "la patte," which is literally "the hand." It is a
term used to refer to the hand of the artist being visible in the brushwork of
the painting. Richter eliminates la patte. Dubuffet revels in it. Richter's work
uses mechanical methods to eliminate the touch of the artist's hand, a pomo
trick alluding to mechanical reproduction (like his photo-paintings). Richter
uses boards and sheets of plastic to wipe paint on the canvas, in a deliberate
attempt to remove himself one step from the act of painting itself. Dubuffet was
the last great Modernist, his brushwork is distinctively recognizable, and
connects him with the "great stream" of Modernist predecessors.
RBrac53660
>artwork.
>
>Postmodernism: longer-winded excuses (Artspeak) for producing
>incompetent artwork.
>
>...no skill no art
>"The Emperor's New Clothes aren't clothing you stupid little girl. They are
>body installations containing invisible Color Fields."
>
>Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page
>
Jess Mr. Deli I thought you were commenting about your self
www.geocities.com/winston53660/wbphotog.html
Martin Skidmore
I'm not entirely happy with this. Obviously Dubuffet is a Modernist,
and I do of course completely acknowledge Richter's photo-paintings as
Postmodernist. However, how can I tell, looking at the Richter
(especially in a small web image), that there is no brushwork? Are you
saying we need to have knowledge beyond what we see in the work to
describe the work? And I don't see that simply using a different
implement removes the touch of the artist. If the artist removes
himself as much as in Duchamp's readymades or Donald Judd's minimalist
metallic pieces, which are manufactured to his specifications without
his subsequent physical involvement, I'll happily accept that as PoMo,
but I don't think merely using something other than a brush (what
about a palette knife?) is sufficient.
I hope you don't mind my arguing with you about this. I'm just trying
to improve my understanding of this stuff.
- Martin Skidmore
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
of starting again.
take care: keith
Chillie Benes <who...@noemailever.com> wrote in message
news:3c719...@oracle.zianet.com...
Chillie Benes
>I'm not entirely happy with this.
Nor am I. In a recent interview in the magazine
Art in America, Jan 2002,
When asked, "Do you ever see yourself as a modernist?"
Richter replies, "No, never. I mean I am here today,
yes. But I never had a feeling that I was a modern
artist."
He goes on to say, "Modern art has always shown itself
to me in trends and blowhards, so I couldn't be a
modern artist [laughter]."
Richter acknowledges that in his figurative works
his blurring is a result of failing to achieve
the virtuosity he believes necessary to declare
art "fine art" in the pre-modernist sense. Since
he is unable to paint like Vermeer, he chooses
to disguise his inability behind the veil of
blurring or by painting over. Nowhere in that
interview does he use the term "distancing
himself from the work" or anything akin to it.
He does revel in the pure joy of the painting
process, however it's achieved.
Registered User
martin.s...@btinternet.com says...
>
>Registered User <regis...@user.com> wrote in message
>news:<a4s67...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>> The quickest (and simplest, therefore least accurate) answer is "la patte."
>> Dubuffet wrote often about "la patte," which is literally "the hand." It is a
>>term used to refer to the hand of the artist being visible in the brushwork of
>>the painting. Richter eliminates la patte. Dubuffet revels in it. Richter's work
>> uses mechanical methods to eliminate the touch of the artist's hand, a pomo
>> trick alluding to mechanical reproduction (like his photo-paintings). Richter
>>uses boards and sheets of plastic to wipe paint on the canvas, in a deliberate
>>attempt to remove himself one step from the act of painting itself. Dubuffet was
>> the last great Modernist, his brushwork is distinctively recognizable, and
>> connects him with the "great stream" of Modernist predecessors.
>
>I'm not entirely happy with this. Obviously Dubuffet is a Modernist,
>and I do of course completely acknowledge Richter's photo-paintings as
>Postmodernist. However, how can I tell, looking at the Richter
>(especially in a small web image), that there is no brushwork? Are you
>saying we need to have knowledge beyond what we see in the work to
>describe the work? And I don't see that simply using a different
>implement removes the touch of the artist. If the artist removes
>himself as much as in Duchamp's readymades or Donald Judd's minimalist
>metallic pieces, which are manufactured to his specifications without
>his subsequent physical involvement, I'll happily accept that as PoMo,
>but I don't think merely using something other than a brush (what
>about a palette knife?) is sufficient.
>
>I hope you don't mind my arguing with you about this. I'm just trying
>to improve my understanding of this stuff.
These questions are fair enough. And in fact, these are the key interesting
questions I posed with those 2 paintings. I've pondered them for a long time and
I still don't have any firm conclusions.
Perhaps you do have to know more of the background on these works. I remember
going to see the Richter "Baader-Meinhof" show at the Lannan foundation in LA,
they had a reading library and videotapes of background material, much of which
was lost on the US audience since it was all in German. But I digress..
Dubuffet once wrote that the goal of painting is merely "to cover a surface in
an interesting manner." That was back when he was doing Texturologies, and he
evolved a long way from there. Dubuffet ended his life with a flurry of intense
Modernist work, at the same time pomo painters like Richter were also doing
their most important works. But no matter what Dubuffet was trying to say, he
was trying to say SOMETHING with nonobjective painting. When I look at a Richter
smeared paint canvas, it's obvious it's not trying to say something, it just IS
something.
Registered User
>
>In article <8c06756e.02021...@posting.google.com>,
>martin.s...@btinternet.com says...
>
>>I'm not entirely happy with this.
>
>Nor am I. In a recent interview in the magazine
>Art in America, Jan 2002,
I looked all over for this issue, my subscription to Art in America ran out on
that very month, I never got it. Didn't realize until it was too late to get
another copy.
But all these statements support my hypothesis. Richter doesn't see himself as a
Modernist, he's beyond all that. He obliterates what he paints, as he paints it.
Very pomo.
>When asked, "Do you ever see yourself as a modernist?"
>
>Richter replies, "No, never. I mean I am here today,
>yes. But I never had a feeling that I was a modern
>artist."
>
>He goes on to say, "Modern art has always shown itself
>to me in trends and blowhards, so I couldn't be a
>modern artist [laughter]."
>
>Richter acknowledges that in his figurative works
>his blurring is a result of failing to achieve
>the virtuosity he believes necessary to declare
>art "fine art" in the pre-modernist sense. Since
>he is unable to paint like Vermeer, he chooses
>to disguise his inability behind the veil of
>blurring or by painting over. Nowhere in that
>interview does he use the term "distancing
>himself from the work" or anything akin to it.
>He does revel in the pure joy of the painting
>process, however it's achieved.
Richter seems dispassionate, not distanced. You can be detached from any
particular objectives or images in the painting, and still revel in the act of
moving paint across the surface. It is merely self-irony that Richter smears out
his own painting, as if in contempt of even his own abstracted expression.
Martin Skidmore
>But no matter what Dubuffet was trying to say, he
> was trying to say SOMETHING with nonobjective painting. When I look at a Richter
> smeared paint canvas, it's obvious it's not trying to say something, it just IS
> something.
I don't know that I can see that. And I'm not sure that "trying to say
something" is a useful guide to anything. We're getting into
externals, including the artist's intention, as a necessity of
criticism, and I'm not happy with that. I mean, if Richter stands
there saying "Yes there's meaning - ooh, no there's not - and now
there is again" do we have to keep changing our view of the work? I
would think someone could make as good a case, based only on the two
paintings, for either carrying significant or no meaning. I do wonder
if we'd be calling the Richter painting Postmodern if he hadn't shown
himself to be clearly Postmodernist in other work.
- Martin Skidmore
Martin Skidmore
> When asked, "Do you ever see yourself as a modernist?"
>
> Richter replies, "No, never. I mean I am here today,
> yes. But I never had a feeling that I was a modern
> artist."
>
> He goes on to say, "Modern art has always shown itself
> to me in trends and blowhards, so I couldn't be a
> modern artist [laughter]."
This is a flippant comment, and may merely show the major distinction
between Modernism and Postmodernism. Anyway, he can say what he likes
- we don't have to take that as revealing the truth about his work.
- Martin Skidmore
Chillie Benes
>Richter seems dispassionate, not distanced.
Oh I don't think so. But what do I know based on
a magazine interview? If anything I got the idea
he is VERY passionate about what he does, and
revels in the act of painting in spite of his
inability to achieve the kind of realism he
envies the masters for.
Chillie Benes
martin.s...@btinternet.com says...
>This is a flippant comment, and may merely show the major distinction
>between Modernism and Postmodernism. Anyway, he can say what he likes
>- we don't have to take that as revealing the truth about his work.
>
>- Martin Skidmore
Yeah. At least I could enjoy his interview
as opposed to one with Jasper Johns.
Ridama
reasons I suspect,always tried to identify movements or schools of thought.I
think most worthwhile efforts have always been highly individual.After one or
two does something new or inovative,the flood gates open for the masses to
follow, some good some bad.Trying to label an entire century as modern or
unique is using a wide brush indeed.For in every century masters of many
disciplines within disciplines achieve new levels in different
ways.Dali,Picasso,monet,Sargent,Whistler,
all unique breathed the same air,saw the same things in different ways.
I could be wrongggggggggggggg