Hockney and students.
mdeli
is modern art school student average get their orgasms over patzers
like Hockney. The reason is simple. If you know practically nothing
and then compare yourself to the worst you at least have a chance to
arrive at that level. Its vanity and wishful thinking.
Hockney schmiers over projected Photos and has a lot of nonsense to
say. Anyone who looks at a society of Illustrators Annual will see
that Hockney is on a level of a fifth rate illustrator. He is a
continuation of the worst of this century's no-skill realism started
by Cezanne and Matisse. Museum curators love this guy because he
presents no threat to the crap that they have chosen over the years.
He is the present rock star for those students who are content to
learn a creed instead of a craft. Hockney is destined for the
avant-gone like so many other cooled off hot shots of the past.
Aspiring to his lack of skill will spell the usual disaster for most
art students
...no skill no art
Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
John Mashler
work. And I have never hidden that, especially from him.
John
gladiatorqueen
RBrac53660
learning he had something to say about the worth of the common man. Then again
he is not these days. But i really do like the photo things he did from the
one hour lab. Tjere value far excedes there worth but there kinda cool.
Let them eat cake,
Winston
John Mashler
>
>When is *liking* someone's work relevant criticism?
Please. Next you will be saying that all art criticism is objective!
John
gladiatorqueen
John Mashler wrote:
Not even close. It's both subjective and objective. BUT, good work
doesn't have to be liked. It's important for any good viewer to push
past their dislikes simply for those reasons of subjectivity. Our
projections don't always define what a good work of art is. Sometimes
our projections even get in our way.
lissa
William Engell
between between claims of personal taste and assertions of value of a work
as art. You may dislike okra, but that doesn't make it bad food. It's not
a value judgement about okra per se, but a judgement in terms of its
suitability for to you personally. You may not like red....
WE
John Mashler wrote in message
<20010313031952...@ng-mc1.aol.com>...
Peter H.M. Brooks
gladiatorqueen <gladiat...@hotnet.com> wrote in message
news:3AAE3DF0...@hotnet.com...
picture that is horrible, of an execution, say, like those many
crucifixions, that you like as a piece of art, but don't like as a
subject, or as something to have at home on the wall.
--
Madness is rare in individuals-but in groups, parties, nations and ages
it rules.
- Fredrich Nietzsche
Winnie Pugh
>I think that part of the problem is the word 'like'. You can have a
>picture that is horrible, of an execution, say
And what would YOU say about "Execution of Lady Jane Grey"
in the National Gallery, London? Painted by Paul Delaroche
in 1894, I think it was. Not necessarily a well-known
work, by any means, but one of MY all-time favorites.
Would I have it in my living room? Maybe in my bedroom!
John Mashler
good old term *I know what I like* constantly pops up. But knowing good art is
a learned, and skilled profession. Which is why most of us here are just
artists and not art critics. Having said that, I wouldn't trust the judegement
of a an art critic who was not an artist. What a dilemma!
John
Marilyn Welch
On 15 Mar 2001, John Mashler wrote:
> Some very good points being raised. Particularly in how we look at art. That
> good old term *I know what I like* constantly pops up.
"I know what I like" doesn't pop up with my colleagues and art
professionals. More likely "I know a lot about art, but I DON'T know what
I like."
But knowing good art is
> a learned, and skilled profession. Which is why most of us here are just
> artists and not art critics. Having said that, I wouldn't trust the judegement
> of a an art critic who was not an artist. What a dilemma!
> John
>
Speak for yourself John. If an artist doesn't learn how to critique her
own work, she will be uncertain and vulnerable to ignorant remarks.
Learning to critique is an important part of being an artist.
I agree that a professional visual arts critic should have an art
background and experience. You don't often see music critics who are not
themselves musicians. The new profession of Art Consultant provides people
who will come to your studio for an hour (from $40 - $100/hr) to look at
your work. They are really in demand from what I hear. Could you handle
it?
Marilyn
John Mashler
yourself and not follow what you are told, is even more essential. For
instance, why do you think Pollock is *great*. He couldn't draw, he couldn't
think, and he was drunk for the rest of the time.
By the way, I've been doing those studio visits for housewife painters for 20
years. Even in Yorkshire there is a demand ...... but there is more demand
inside the schools where the visits are FREE.
>Speak for yourself John. If an artist doesn't learn how to critique her
>own work, she will be uncertain and vulnerable to ignorant remarks.
>Learning to critique is an important part of being an artist.
>
>I agree that a professional visual arts critic should have an art
>background and experience. You don't often see music critics who are not
>themselves musicians. The new profession of Art Consultant provides people
>who will come to your studio for an hour (from $40 - $100/hr) to look at
>your work. They are really in demand from what I hear. Could you handle
>it?
>
>Marilyn
John
Marilyn Welch
On 18 Mar 2001, John Mashler wrote:
> Learning to critique is vital, I agree with you. But learning to think for
> yourself and not follow what you are told, is even more essential. For
> instance, why do you think Pollock is *great*. He couldn't draw, he couldn't
> think, and he was drunk for the rest of the time.
By your conservative conventional standards you think Pollock couldn't
draw?
I guess Master Painter in her own right, Lee Krasner was wrong but what
did she know? And Peggy Guggenheim, you know a lot more than she did,
right?
>
> By the way, I've been doing those studio visits for housewife painters for 20
> years. Even in Yorkshire there is a demand ...... but there is more demand
> inside the schools where the visits are FREE.
>
"Housewife painters" ? From your record here I interpret that in the
perjorative and wonder if the people you refer to would enjoy the
reference. My question was whether you could handle a studio visit from a
professional critic yourself. But don't answer, I don't really want to
know.
Jonathan Clift
>Learning to critique is vital, I agree with you. But learning to think for
>yourself and not follow what you are told, is even more essential. For
>instance, why do you think Pollock is *great*. He couldn't draw, he couldn't
>think, and he was drunk for the rest of the time.
I don't know a great deal about Pollock other than looking at some of
his paintings. Could you expand a bit on what you've written here?
You say he couldn't think. What's this based on? Did you know him or are
you relying on secondary sources of information? Why does that affect
the way we look at his art? Are you saying that for someone to produce
great art they must necessarily also be a great thinker? I would have
thought that the opposite might be true, that the more academic someone
is the less likely they are to produce good art - it certainly seems to
be the case with some artists I know.
You say he couldn't draw. What is the evidence for this? Is this in your
judgement or is this on the authority of others? Do you believe that
it's not possible to create great paintings without also being able to
draw well?
As to being drunk most of the time, I completely fail to see how this
relates to whether or not he is a great artist. If you stripped out all
the artists in the Western canon who were partial to a drink I think it
would start to look very threadbare, don't you?
--
Jonathan Clift
Scarlett
their art history background and hasn't seen his work from his
teen years. Already a master at academic drawing and painting....
Scarlett
http://ScarlettDecker.homestead.com
John Mashler
>his paintings. Could you expand a bit on what you've written here?
Sure
>
>You say he couldn't think. What's this based on? Did you know him or are
>you relying on secondary sources of information? Why does that affect
>the way we look at his art? Are you saying that for someone to produce
>great art they must necessarily also be a great thinker? I would have
>thought that the opposite might be true, that the more academic someone
>is the less likely they are to produce good art - it certainly seems to
>be the case with some artists I know.
His anguishes are well documented, particularly his lack of drawing skills,
which he alwasy felt held him back.
>
>You say he couldn't draw. What is the evidence for this? Is this in your
>judgement or is this on the authority of others? Do you believe that
>it's not possible to create great paintings without also being able to
>draw well?
>
I do. Drawing teaches you how to compose, how to focus, how to deal with line
and form. If you don't have those rudiments ingrained into your system then
painting can't possibly succeed.
>As to being drunk most of the time, I completely fail to see how this
>relates to whether or not he is a great artist. If you stripped out all
>the artists in the Western canon who were partial to a drink I think it
>would start to look very threadbare, don't you?
No. being drunk all the time prevents consistent thought process. Pollock had
no thought system. he played. And then someone told the art world that he was
a *genius*. being as gullible as they are, people started to believe it and
only then started to buy his work. it's called marketing. Great, genius,
cutting edge and all those other words that are used to try and convince. In
this case it succeeded.
Read some biographies and articles by him and on him - then you will find out.
John
John Mashler
response. if not, then people like me will tell you. that silly little Toni,
and her nasty spamming system, couldn't take it. I told her I wouldn't climb
over a pile of garnage to get to her *art* and that if she didn't have a basic
sense of space then what hope does she have as an artist. She insisted I went
to look. I did. The work was, as expected, crap. No other word for it. True
artist! Most people are trying to convince themselves. She fails, but if your
work is good, then show it. But show it for the right reasons, not to stand up
and shout *look at me* like the *True Artist*. what a joke!
John
cuděc' (x)
when he left the academical tradition to begin his revolution, he was
not yet at the level of the great masters of the past. Those works
seem the ordinary (for those times) academical exercises of
a talented student.
To be plain, he could not paint "as Raphael", as he mentioned later,
when he was feverishly building his own mythology.
This fact changes nothing in the overall judgement about a great
artist. But being prone to certain "vulgata" is not the best way to
homage him.
Jiri Borsky
Re: Do you believe that
> >it's not possible to create great paintings without also being able to
> >draw well?
> >
> I do. Drawing teaches you how to compose, how to focus, how to deal with line
> and form. If you don't have those rudiments ingrained into your system then
> painting can't possibly succeed.
I wholeheartedly agree.
(And so would the vast majority of Old and Modern Masters.)
Drawing is a foundation. Skip it at your peril - you'd be building on sand, and kidding nobody but
yourself.
Jiri Borsky
--
remove all zzz from address
http://www.borsky.dial.pipex.com/
mdeli
<junk...@ipsart.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>John Mashler wrote in reply to a post by Marilyn
>
>>Learning to critique is vital, I agree with you. But learning to think for
>>yourself and not follow what you are told, is even more essential. For
>>instance, why do you think Pollock is *great*. He couldn't draw, he couldn't
>>think, and he was drunk for the rest of the time.
>You say he couldn't think. What's this based on? Did you know him or are
>you relying on secondary sources of information? Why does that affect
>the way we look at his art? Are you saying that for someone to produce
>great art they must necessarily also be a great thinker?
>I would have
>thought that the opposite might be true, that the more academic someone
>is the less likely they are to produce good art - it certainly seems to
>be the case with some artists I know.
How can you tell when an artist, is the less likely to produce good
art? What is the evidence for this.
>You say he couldn't draw. What is the evidence for this?
His drawings.
>Is this in your judgement or is this on the authority of others? Do you believe that
>it's not possible to create great paintings without also being able to
>draw well?
Pollock doesn't paint well either.
>As to being drunk most of the time, I completely fail to see how this
>relates to whether or not he is a great artist.
It seems to relate somewhat to his being a lousy artist.
>If you stripped out all
>the artists in the Western canon who were partial to a drink I think it
>would start to look very threadbare, don't you?
Name fifteen great western artists who where drunks.
Scarlett
"cuděc' (x)" <tir...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:c2bkbtsuu9p0bng25...@4ax.com...
: I know those works. Surely Picasso could draw. But
: when he left the academical tradition to begin his revolution,
he was
: not yet at the level of the great masters of the past.
(snip)
A thorough study of art history will show the exact same trends
in many "Masters" such as Michelangelo. Are you familiar with his
later work? Very elongated and distorted. Did he get stupid? No,
I believe he just became bored and wanted to explore the
expressive aspects of sculpture which reflects the general move
away from Renaissance into Mannerism. This is a common
occurrence. If you had sculpted a "Pieta" (btw, there is one in
the High Renaissance style and also another in the Mannerist
style - very different!) or a "David" isn't it possible that you
might want to move beyond that and explore different approaches
or stylistic tendencies?
Scarlett
: when he left the academical tradition to begin his revolution,
he was
: not yet at the level of the great masters of the past.
(snip)
mdeli
<scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
Picasso is certainly unlike a third rare patzer like Matisse or
Cezanne who really couldn't draw. He was academically trained and
could draw better than most Modern Academicians. That is precisely why
people say Picasso could draw well. The problem is that compared to
someone who mastered drawing he is little more than a third rate
cartoonist.
I'm amused by Scarlett's statement "serious lack in
their art history background." As usual these people never really
criticize and compare actual drawings. They blindly believe what they
have been taught.
Average modern academics rarely look at fine 20th century drawing and
idolize poor draftsmanship because it is reminiscent of their work.
Check out Scarlett's painting and you will see how poor drawing fails
to allow any expression of ideas and necessitates the usual list of
lame excuses.
mdeli
<scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
)
>A thorough study of art history
Which is prcisely what you lack.
>will show the exact same trends
>in many "Masters" such as Michelangelo.
>Are you familiar with his
>later work? Very elongated and distorted. Did he get stupid? No,
>I believe he just became bored and wanted to explore the
>expressive aspects of sculpture which reflects the general move
>away from Renaissance into Mannerism. This is a common
>occurrence.
Picasso didn't distort in any way like a mannerist. His average
drawings aren't complex are flat looking and lack detail. The closest
Picasso came to Michelangelo's drawing is when he stood near one.
>If you had sculpted a "Pieta" (btw, there is one in
>the High Renaissance style and also another in the Mannerist
>style - very different!) or a "David" isn't it possible that you
>might want to move beyond that and explore different approaches
>or stylistic tendencies?
Scarlett who hasn't the skill to copy a fingernail of David's has
moved very far away indeed. She can't explore any tendencies because
she hasn't the drawing skill.
RBrac53660
painter person on that chapel thing some where in Italy. I would suggest that
you you learn draw better if thats going to be your bitch. Then I would also
learn about the context of your drawing. Then learn about the Snoopy effect.
Good luck w/ ur badly designed web site
Scarlett
The big windbag:"mdeli" <hug...@interlog.com> wrote in message
news:3abbdbf6...@news.psi.ca...
:
: )
: >A thorough study of art history
:
: Which is prcisely what you lack.
Your stupidity never ceases to amaze me!!! I've had 33 credit
hours of art history, 27 of them upper division and 12 hours of
graduate level art history. But then again, you've hung out in a
NY bar with REAL artists :-P
:
: >will show the exact same trends
: >in many "Masters" such as Michelangelo.
:
: >Are you familiar with his
: >later work? Very elongated and distorted. Did he get stupid?
No,
: >I believe he just became bored and wanted to explore the
: >expressive aspects of sculpture which reflects the general
move
: >away from Renaissance into Mannerism. This is a common
: >occurrence.
:
: Picasso didn't distort in any way like a mannerist.
Excuse me? Look at his blue period works, specifically the one of
a man with a guitar or mandolin - this work is totally mannerist!
His average
: drawings aren't complex are flat looking and lack detail. The
closest
: Picasso came to Michelangelo's drawing is when he stood near
one.
You entirely miss the point (but shame on me for expecting it) of
the stylistic change of Michelangelo and that of Picasso. How do
you explain Micelangelo's later work?
: >If you had sculpted a "Pieta" (btw, there is one in
: >the High Renaissance style and also another in the Mannerist
: >style - very different!) or a "David" isn't it possible that
you
: >might want to move beyond that and explore different
approaches
: >or stylistic tendencies?
The above statement left you speechless (how amazing....)
Scarlett
http://ScarlettDecker.homestead.com
: ...no skill no art
Jonathan Clift
>>
>>You say he couldn't draw. What is the evidence for this? Is this in your
>>judgement or is this on the authority of others? Do you believe that
>>it's not possible to create great paintings without also being able to
>>draw well?
>>
>I do. Drawing teaches you how to compose, how to focus, how to deal with line
>and form. If you don't have those rudiments ingrained into your system then
>painting can't possibly succeed.
>
Yet I look at the later work of Pollock and see successful paintings, so
how do I reconcile what you write with what I can see with my own eyes?
As far as I can tell, you have a model for creating art that is based on
an art teacher, such as yourself, teaching through drawing what you
would consider the rudiments before the student then progresses to
creating successful painting. Looked at like that, what you write above
seems self-serving, and you have to reject otherwise successful art that
falls outside the model.
I think some of the problem in thinking about this revolves around the
way artists were trained in the UK during the first half of the 20th
century. If you pick out a British artist from that period who does
successfully create painting then, inevitably, they went to art school
and were trained through drawing. There is obviously the temptation just
to say that the successful painting comes from the form of training
(particularly if you are an art teacher!). Indeed, it's even worse than
this because the criteria for being accepted into art school was
primarily talent at drawing (so you never get to find out if talent at
painting can exist separately). This doesn't mean what you say isn't
true, but if I'm open-minded I need to look further. Where will I find
some evidence? The obvious place is with paintings.
If I look at British art from the 40s and 50s and compare it with art
being produced in other countries what do I see. I immediately see in
most of the British art an art based heavily on drawing. Line is
incredibly important, even with abstract work. Even an artist like
Patrick Heron, with his 'Space in Colour', didn't escape this. If we
look at the major artists of the 'New York school' we see something
quite different, we see an art that's not constrained in anything like
the same way.
Don't imagine from this that I'm knocking British art from that period.
Quite the contrary, I like much of it and currently find it very
interesting. But, I can also see that the artists were in certain ways
limited by their training and weren't going to produce art that was
significant in the way that those American artists did.
--
Jonathan Clift
mdeli
I always enjoy schmuky retorts like yours. Please send more so I can
add to my small collection. The best one I ever got simply said, "Fuck
you." That was more creative concise and to the point then your
sputter. Try again and put some brains into your effort.
Notice that this brand of net-loon never addresses any serious points
I make.
mdeli
>: )
>: >A thorough study of art history
>:
>
>Your stupidity never ceases to amaze me!!! I've had 33 credit
>hours of art history, 27 of them upper division and 12 hours of
>graduate level art history. But then again, you've hung out in a
>NY bar with REAL artists :-P
Glad to note your pedigree. I'm not impressed.
As I said many times before art history as taught today is slanted and
leaves no incentive to look at the many artists it glaringly fails to
mention. I certainly have a low opinion of art historians most of whom
I believe are into a fashionable mantra. It certainly hasn't helped
your pathetic written excuses for the lack of craftsmanship so obvious
on your website.
>:
>: >will show the exact same trends
>: >in many "Masters" such as Michelangelo.
>:
>: >Are you familiar with his
>: >later work? Very elongated and distorted. Did he get stupid?
>No,
>: >I believe he just became bored and wanted to explore the
>: >expressive aspects of sculpture which reflects the general
>move
>: >away from Renaissance into Mannerism. This is a common
>: >occurrence.
>:
>: Picasso didn't distort in any way like a mannerist.
>
>Excuse me? Look at his blue period works, specifically the one of
>a man with a guitar or mandolin - this work is totally mannerist!
I'm sure you think that elongating a figure is mannerist no matter how
badly executed. Depending on how you define mannerist you could be
right. By that reasoning many comic book characters, fashion
illustration and Medieval sculptures and paintings are mannerist.
Indeed some subjects in Picasso's Blue period are elongated but as to
execution the are very average which was my point. Picasso's early
works act as a relief for the modern art fundamentalist who glorifies
ugliness and incompetence. They think that it represents excellence
because they are unfamiliar with what is left out of their idea of art
history. Anyone who knows more than the art history taught in schools
and is familiar with the art magazines of the period will see that
Picasso is not particularly original at this.
>His average
>: drawings aren't complex are flat looking and lack detail. The
>closest
>: Picasso came to Michelangelo's drawing is when he stood near
>one.
>
>You entirely miss the point (but shame on me for expecting it) of
>the stylistic change of Michelangelo and that of Picasso. How do
>you explain Micelangelo's later work?
I wasn't addressing that subject.
Lissa Robinson
<snip>
mdeli wrote:
> Try again and put some brains into your effort.
>
You ought to follow your own advice here.
lissa
Lissa Robinson
> "Scarlett" wrote:>
> >The big windbag:"mdeli" <hug...@interlog.com> wrote in message
> :
> >: )
> >: >A thorough study of art history
> >:
> >: Which is precisely what you lack.
> >
> >Your stupidity never ceases to amaze me!!! I've had 33 credit
> >hours of art history, 27 of them upper division and 12 hours of
> >graduate level art history. But then again, you've hung out in a
> >NY bar with REAL artists :-P
>
> Glad to note your pedigree. I'm not impressed.
As we are not impressed with you.
>
>
> As I said many times before art history as taught today is slanted and
> leaves no incentive to look at the many artists it glaringly fails to
> mention. I certainly have a low opinion of art historians most of whom
> I believe are into a fashionable mantra. It certainly hasn't helped
> your pathetic written excuses for the lack of craftsmanship so obvious
> on your website.
Histories of all kinds have been and always will be slanted. But you are
wrong about one thing: art history DOES leave incentive to look at many
artists outside of what is being taught, but it is up to the individual
artists to learn. My god, they can't be babysat by these teachers. Art
students learn about the history of art beginning with pre-historic art
and then move progressively through all the ages up to contemporary art.
Art teachers cannot be expected to give every minute detail of every age
and artist. The history of art is long and it would be ludicrous to only
spend time on Classical Art. It is NOT the only valid period of art
making. Art historians and art instructors cannot be expected to teach it
all and those artists who want to explore a period in more depth need to
take the initiative and seek out the artists or periods which suit their
sensibilities. Art school is not a place for artists to be babied or
lulled into submission. It is a place where they should be bold enough to
explore the technical aspects of their craft and explore their ideas.
Classical art is one way of producing art but it is not the the only way.
Frankly, given the whole history of art from prehistoric times, I find it
ridiculous to assume or even expect that every artist should be trained
classically or even be expected to pursue that line of art making. I am
not a classical artist (nor will I ever be, and not because I can't do
it, but because I am not interested) but my work does not lack
craftsmanship, integrity or interest. It is sophisticated both visually
and conceptually, and can tantalize the eyes and mind just as much as any
classically made painting (I am talking style of painting not comparing
myself to Old Masters. I am not so arrogant as that!).
Even if every artist coming out of an art institution was trained ONLY
classically you would still have only a handful of *masters*.
Hockney is making a mockery of the idea of the "classical master" with
his theory regarding the use of the Camera Lucida in 18th and 19th
century painting. Of course he recognizes that these painters (like
Ingres) were skilled but he is showing that their extreme precision was
due to the use of a mechanical device rather than just the eye and hand.
You mock Hockney for his so-called mediocre painting yet I would bet his
research has made him a much more knowledgeable art historian than most
of the people here!!
RBrac53660
>way artists were trained
artist are not "trained" the only thing we do is create.
Winston
Millie Nary
Lissa, a word of advice, if I may be permitted.
Save your long dissertations for someone who
you can impress. You are wasting time and effort
replying to anything Mani says as those of us
who have been around this forum for a long time
have come to understand. I no longer either read
or reply to anything with his name on it. I'd
advise you to take heed too.
Tracy Miller
> "Scarlett" wrote:>
>>The big windbag:"mdeli" <hug...@interlog.com> wrote in message
>:
>>: )
>>: >A thorough study of art history
>>:
>>: Which is precisely what you lack.
>>
>>Your stupidity never ceases to amaze me!!! I've had 33 credit
>>hours of art history, 27 of them upper division and 12 hours of
>>graduate level art history. But then again, you've hung out in a
>>NY bar with REAL artists :-P
>
>Glad to note your pedigree. I'm not impressed.
>
>As I said many times before art history as taught today is slanted and
>leaves no incentive to look at the many artists it glaringly fails to
>mention. I certainly have a low opinion of art historians most of whom
>I believe are into a fashionable mantra. It certainly hasn't helped
>your pathetic written excuses for the lack of craftsmanship so obvious
>on your website.
Art History mentions quite a bit more than your puny cache of
late 19th century French Academic (government supported!)
artists.
Ricardo Pontes
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/free_video/
"Millie Nary" <mil...@noemailever.com> wrote in message
news:3abe0...@oracle.zianet.com...
Wow Millie. All of that for the sake of open mindedness.
Ricardo Pontes
Ricardo Pontes
> >
> > As I said many times before art history as taught today is slanted and
> > leaves no incentive to look at the many artists it glaringly fails to
> > mention. I certainly have a low opinion of art historians most of whom
> > I believe are into a fashionable mantra. It certainly hasn't helped
> > your pathetic written excuses for the lack of craftsmanship so obvious
> > on your website.
>
> Histories of all kinds have been and always will be slanted. But you are
> wrong about one thing: art history DOES leave incentive to look at many
> artists outside of what is being taught, but it is up to the individual
> artists to learn. My god, they can't be babysat by these teachers. Art
> students learn about the history of art beginning with pre-historic art
> and then move progressively through all the ages up to contemporary art.
> Art teachers cannot be expected to give every minute detail of every age
> and artist. The history of art is long and it would be ludicrous to only
> spend time on Classical Art. It is NOT the only valid period of art
> making. Art historians and art instructors cannot be expected to teach it
> all and those artists who want to explore a period in more depth need to
> take the initiative and seek out the artists or periods which suit their
> sensibilities. Art school is not a place for artists to be babied or
> lulled into submission. It is a place where they should be bold enough to
> explore the technical aspects of their craft and explore their ideas.
> Classical art is one way of producing art but it is not the the only way.
Art history has left out a very important period of art. The 19th century
artists, who were some of the best. Cabanel, Bouguereau etc... They instead
pass them and go right into the impressionists who were just a very small
group. If they do mention them, they usually show a black and white photo or
say that they didnt want the impressionists to show at the saloon. The
preliminary studies of these artists like Bouguereau were basically awesome
impressionist paintings that would make Monet, Manet, Renoir look like
little beanies.
When i was a art student, i was basically force fed modernist dogma. You
could not look at real art. If you attempted to do anything that looked like
it had skill, you were docked a grade. Anything showing independent thinking
was considered passe and often prohibited. Their curriculum involved doing
things like closing your eyes and drawing, and feeling some crap and going
with the flow. Art students are lemmings, mindless lemmings who want to
please their teachers.
>
> Frankly, given the whole history of art from prehistoric times, I find it
> ridiculous to assume or even expect that every artist should be trained
> classically or even be expected to pursue that line of art making. I am
> not a classical artist (nor will I ever be, and not because I can't do
> it, but because I am not interested) but my work does not lack
> craftsmanship, integrity or interest. It is sophisticated both visually
> and conceptually, and can tantalize the eyes and mind just as much as any
> classically made painting (I am talking style of painting not comparing
> myself to Old Masters. I am not so arrogant as that!).
>
I disagree, all artists need a solid foundation such as a classical art
training. Not all artists that you would probably consider classical were
classical. There are many schools of realism, it seems modernists label
everything as classical. A good foundation in art consists in drawing from
casts, sculpting casts, copying old master, sculpting from life, drawing
from life, paintings from casts, imaginative drawing etc... Everyone needs
these skills. I wouldnt consider anyone an artist who cannot demonstrate
these skills, and demonstrate them very well.
You mentioned that you were able to do it? How do you know this, have you
tried? Do you have a website where i can look at your work? I think that if
you could actually do it, you would. I remember a kid in art school, he kept
telling me how his drawings looked like Ingres drawings, one day i asked him
to show me some drawings because i was curious. He showed me a couple of
them,and they were horrible, far from ingres. But he taught he was good. You
get my point!!
Can you show me some of your work that can "Tantalize the eyes and mind"?
> Even if every artist coming out of an art institution was trained ONLY
> classically you would still have only a handful of *masters*.
>
Of course, the masters are the cream of the crop. But at least you could
have higher standards if institutions were turning out trained artists
instead of charlatans.
> Hockney is making a mockery of the idea of the "classical master" with
> his theory regarding the use of the Camera Lucida in 18th and 19th
> century painting. Of course he recognizes that these painters (like
> Ingres) were skilled but he is showing that their extreme precision was
> due to the use of a mechanical device rather than just the eye and hand.
> You mock Hockney for his so-called mediocre painting yet I would bet his
> research has made him a much more knowledgeable art historian than most
> of the people here!!
>
People who have no skill often think artists have a trick up their sleeves
that make them do great work.
> >
> > >:
> > >: >will show the exact same trends
> > >: >in many "Masters" such as Michelangelo.
> > >:
> > >: >Are you familiar with his
> > >: >later work? Very elongated and distorted. Did he get stupid?
> > >No,
> > >: >I believe he just became bored and wanted to explore the
> > >: >expressive aspects of sculpture which reflects the general
> > >move
> > >: >away from Renaissance into Mannerism. This is a common
> > >: >occurrence.
> > >
I think most Renaissance artists were making their own canon of proportions.
Michelangelo was one of them. The elongated figure is his own proportional
canon. Which I think is something like 8 heads or something. Then there is
the elongation of body parts and exaggerating parts to emphasize certain
express qualities in the works.
:
> > >: Picasso didn't distort in any way like a mannerist.
> > >
> > >Excuse me? Look at his blue period works, specifically the one of
> > >a man with a guitar or mandolin - this work is totally mannerist!
> >
> > I'm sure you think that elongating a figure is mannerist no matter how
> > badly executed. Depending on how you define mannerist you could be
> > right. By that reasoning many comic book characters, fashion
> > illustration and Medieval sculptures and paintings are mannerist.
> >
Regardless of it being mannerism, picassos paintings were badly painted,
involved bad ideas, didnt express anything powerfully etc.. That goes to
show you that a technique wont always help.
Ricardo Pontes
Ricardo Pontes
> >>: )
> >>: >A thorough study of art history
> >>:
> >>: Which is precisely what you lack.
> >>
> >>Your stupidity never ceases to amaze me!!! I've had 33 credit
> >>hours of art history, 27 of them upper division and 12 hours of
> >>graduate level art history. But then again, you've hung out in a
> >>NY bar with REAL artists :-P
> >
> >Glad to note your pedigree. I'm not impressed.
> >
> >As I said many times before art history as taught today is slanted and
> >leaves no incentive to look at the many artists it glaringly fails to
> >mention. I certainly have a low opinion of art historians most of whom
> >I believe are into a fashionable mantra. It certainly hasn't helped
> >your pathetic written excuses for the lack of craftsmanship so obvious
> >on your website.
>
> Art History mentions quite a bit more than your puny cache of
> late 19th century French Academic (government supported!)
> artists.
>
Tracy,
What is wrong with Goverment supported art? ALl artists need support dont
they? Arent Modern artists getting support? What is wrong witht he goverment
wanting to improve the society with art?
Ricardo Pontes
Lissa Robinson
Ricardo Pontes wrote:
> When i was a art student, i was basically force fed modernist dogma. You
> could not look at real art. If you attempted to do anything that looked like
> it had skill, you were docked a grade. Anything showing independent thinking
> was considered passe and often prohibited. Their curriculum involved doing
> things like closing your eyes and drawing, and feeling some crap and going
> with the flow. Art students are lemmings, mindless lemmings who want to
> please their teachers.
Well, I wonder where you went to school then because I was taught much more
than modernist dogma.
What is *real* art by your definition?????? Surely not only one period of
art???????
I was encouraged to think and produce independently. You sound quite bitter
frankly. If art students are lemmings then that is because they have chosen to
be that way. My school encouraged independent students not lemmings.
>
>
> >
> > Frankly, given the whole history of art from prehistoric times, I find it
> > ridiculous to assume or even expect that every artist should be trained
> > classically or even be expected to pursue that line of art making. I am
> > not a classical artist (nor will I ever be, and not because I can't do
> > it, but because I am not interested) but my work does not lack
> > craftsmanship, integrity or interest. It is sophisticated both visually
> > and conceptually, and can tantalize the eyes and mind just as much as any
> > classically made painting (I am talking style of painting not comparing
> > myself to Old Masters. I am not so arrogant as that!).
> >
>
> I disagree, all artists need a solid foundation such as a classical art
> training.
You are the one labeling things classical not I. Realism IS NOT THE ONLY form
of valid art making. By classical I am referring to the western ideal of
perspective, space, shadow, line as it refers to realist paintings when I speak
of classical art. A good foundation in art *includes* these but is not
exclusive to them. Not in my opinion anyway.
> Not all artists that you would probably consider classical were
> classical. There are many schools of realism, it seems modernists label
> everything as classical. A good foundation in art consists in drawing from
> casts, sculpting casts, copying old master, sculpting from life, drawing
> from life, paintings from casts, imaginative drawing etc... Everyone needs
> these skills. I wouldnt consider anyone an artist who cannot demonstrate
> these skills, and demonstrate them very well.
It is unfortunate that you have such a limited idea of what an artist is.
>
>
> You mentioned that you were able to do it? How do you know this, have you
> tried? Do you have a website where i can look at your work? I think that if
> you could actually do it, you would. I remember a kid in art school, he kept
> telling me how his drawings looked like Ingres drawings, one day i asked him
> to show me some drawings because i was curious. He showed me a couple of
> them,and they were horrible, far from ingres. But he taught he was good. You
> get my point!!
I understand space, perspective, shadow, line but my sensibilities are drawn to
more expressive approaches to art not classical realism. Why do I have to prove
anything to you? Are you the art God????? It makes little difference to me
whether you think I am an artist or not. I am and I don't require your
validation.
> Can you show me some of your work that can "Tantalize the eyes and mind"?
I could. But why would I?
>
>
> > Even if every artist coming out of an art institution was trained ONLY
> > classically you would still have only a handful of *masters*.
> >
>
> Of course, the masters are the cream of the crop. But at least you could
> have higher standards if institutions were turning out trained artists
> instead of charlatans.
This is your opinion. Where I come from artists are trained. But art where I
come from doesn't fit into the tiny compartment you are obviously placing it
in. You think your sensibilities are superior and I think there is room for
more. The Modernist ideal you bitch at is far less elitist than the classical
dogma you appear to be spewing.
>
>
> > Hockney is making a mockery of the idea of the "classical master" with
> > his theory regarding the use of the Camera Lucida in 18th and 19th
> > century painting. Of course he recognizes that these painters (like
> > Ingres) were skilled but he is showing that their extreme precision was
> > due to the use of a mechanical device rather than just the eye and hand.
> > You mock Hockney for his so-called mediocre painting yet I would bet his
> > research has made him a much more knowledgeable art historian than most
> > of the people here!!
> >
>
> People who have no skill often think artists have a trick up their sleeves
> that make them do great work.
It is called fact. No trickery. It is quite impossible for the human eye to
capture the precision of a device like the camera lucida. Proof is in the
pudding. Read his research first before making such arrogant assumptions. Why
did such precision suddenly disappear? One clue is that many artists
(impressionists) abandoned the traditional use of mechanical devices (camera)
to find a much looser more expressive style. It is a MYTH that classically
trained artists were precise on their own without device. Accept it. It is not
a lost hand-eye art otherwise those who are so determined to recapture it would
be there already. Most high-realists artists use some type of device to begin
working so the precision is there.
There are some who would disagree with you. And according to you that makes
them stupid. So you are the all knowing expert then?
>
>
> Ricardo Pontes
Tracy Miller
<ljro...@cadvision.com> wrote:
>
>
>Ricardo Pontes wrote:
>
>> When i was a art student, i was basically force fed modernist dogma. You
>> could not look at real art. If you attempted to do anything that looked like
>> it had skill, you were docked a grade. Anything showing independent thinking
>> was considered passe and often prohibited. Their curriculum involved doing
>> things like closing your eyes and drawing, and feeling some crap and going
>> with the flow. Art students are lemmings, mindless lemmings who want to
>> please their teachers.
>
>Well, I wonder where you went to school then because I was taught much more
>than modernist dogma.
>
>What is *real* art by your definition?????? Surely not only one period of
>art???????
>
>I was encouraged to think and produce independently. You sound quite bitter
>frankly. If art students are lemmings then that is because they have chosen to
>be that way. My school encouraged independent students not lemmings.
Lissa, all the GoodArt Listers are really really bitter. Insanely
bitter. And they are lemmings in their own right. Ricardo is
obviously another one of them.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Frankly, given the whole history of art from prehistoric times, I find it
>> > ridiculous to assume or even expect that every artist should be trained
>> > classically or even be expected to pursue that line of art making. I am
>> > not a classical artist (nor will I ever be, and not because I can't do
>> > it, but because I am not interested) but my work does not lack
>> > craftsmanship, integrity or interest. It is sophisticated both visually
>> > and conceptually, and can tantalize the eyes and mind just as much as any
>> > classically made painting (I am talking style of painting not comparing
>> > myself to Old Masters. I am not so arrogant as that!).
>> >
>>
>> I disagree, all artists need a solid foundation such as a classical art
>> training.
>
>You are the one labeling things classical not I. Realism IS NOT THE ONLY form
>of valid art making. By classical I am referring to the western ideal of
>perspective, space, shadow, line as it refers to realist paintings when I speak
>of classical art. A good foundation in art *includes* these but is not
>exclusive to them. Not in my opinion anyway.
GoodArt Listers only value maybe three artists, tops. Bougeureau is
their absoloute GOD.
The artists they value have to be French Academic artists of the late
19th Century, who by the way, were government supported. They are
blind to the fact that this goes violently against the
Randian/Objectivist leanings of the "Good Art" List.
>
>> Not all artists that you would probably consider classical were
>> classical. There are many schools of realism, it seems modernists label
>> everything as classical. A good foundation in art consists in drawing from
>> casts, sculpting casts, copying old master, sculpting from life, drawing
>> from life, paintings from casts, imaginative drawing etc... Everyone needs
>> these skills. I wouldnt consider anyone an artist who cannot demonstrate
>> these skills, and demonstrate them very well.
>
>It is unfortunate that you have such a limited idea of what an artist is.
They have an exteeeeemely limited idea of what an artist is.
>
>>
>>
>> You mentioned that you were able to do it? How do you know this, have you
>> tried? Do you have a website where i can look at your work? I think that if
>> you could actually do it, you would. I remember a kid in art school, he kept
>> telling me how his drawings looked like Ingres drawings, one day i asked him
>> to show me some drawings because i was curious. He showed me a couple of
>> them,and they were horrible, far from ingres. But he taught he was good. You
>> get my point!!
>
>I understand space, perspective, shadow, line but my sensibilities are drawn to
>more expressive approaches to art not classical realism. Why do I have to prove
>anything to you? Are you the art God????? It makes little difference to me
>whether you think I am an artist or not. I am and I don't require your
>validation.
>
>> Can you show me some of your work that can "Tantalize the eyes and mind"?
>
>I could. But why would I?
Don't even!
>
>>
>>
>> > Even if every artist coming out of an art institution was trained ONLY
>> > classically you would still have only a handful of *masters*.
>> >
>>
>> Of course, the masters are the cream of the crop. But at least you could
>> have higher standards if institutions were turning out trained artists
>> instead of charlatans.
>
>This is your opinion. Where I come from artists are trained. But art where I
>come from doesn't fit into the tiny compartment you are obviously placing it
>in. You think your sensibilities are superior and I think there is room for
>more. The Modernist ideal you bitch at is far less elitist than the classical
>dogma you appear to be spewing.
Also, the GoodArt Listers have a particular thing against WOMEN with
opinions. They do not attack men with quite such vehemence.
He is, and if you disagree, he will threatend you with the KKK!
Tracy
mdeli
I wrote:
>> As I said many times before art history as taught today is slanted and
>> leaves no incentive to look at the many artists it glaringly fails to
>> mention. I certainly have a low opinion of art historians most of whom
>> I believe are into a fashionable mantra. It certainly hasn't helped
>> your pathetic written excuses for the lack of craftsmanship so obvious
>> on your website.
>
>Histories of all kinds have been and always will be slanted. But you are
>wrong about one thing: art history DOES leave incentive to look at many
>artists outside of what is being taught, but it is up to the individual
>artists to learn.
Which they don't.
> My god, they can't be babysat by these teachers. Art
>students learn about the history of art beginning with pre-historic art
>and then move progressively through all the ages up to contemporary art.
They don't learn about contemporary art. They learn about certified
Modern Academic Art.
>Art teachers cannot be expected to give every minute detail of every age
>and artist. The history of art is long and it would be ludicrous to only
>spend time on Classical Art. It is NOT the only valid period of art
>making.
Never said it was.
>Art historians and art instructors cannot be expected to teach it
>all and those artists who want to explore a period in more depth need to
>take the initiative and seek out the artists or periods which suit their
>sensibilities. Art school is not a place for artists to be babied or
>lulled into submission. It is a place where they should be bold enough to
>explore the technical aspects of their craft and explore their ideas.
Its a place where one should be taught the "technical aspects of their
craft." Most art schools are a complete failure at this.
>Classical art is one way of producing art but it is not the the only way.
>Frankly, given the whole history of art from prehistoric times, I find it
>ridiculous to assume or even expect that every artist should be trained
>classically or even be expected to pursue that line of art making.
There is no "that line of art making." Learning the craft and how to
draw is like learning the scales in music. Its rote, its the knowledge
accumulated through the centuries. It has nothing to do with ones
subject matter, classical (whatever you mean by that) or any style one
uses.
>I am not a classical artist
Neither am I in the sense you mean.
> (nor will I ever be, and not because I can't do
>it, but because I am not interested) but my work does not lack
>craftsmanship, integrity or interest. It is sophisticated both visually
>and conceptually, and can tantalize the eyes and mind just as much as any
>classically made painting (I am talking style of painting not comparing
>myself to Old Masters. I am not so arrogant as that!).
Fine, lets see it.
>Even if every artist coming out of an art institution was trained ONLY
>classically you would still have only a handful of *masters*.
>
>Hockney is making a mockery of the idea of the "classical master" with
>his theory regarding the use of the Camera Lucida in 18th and 19th
>century painting.
Hockney is full of crap and has nothing original to say on the matter
and his conclusions are wrong. Picasso constantly used projectors just
like Hockney. It did neither much good.
>Of course he recognizes that these painters (like
>Ingres) were skilled but he is showing that their extreme precision was
>due to the use of a mechanical device rather than just the eye and hand.
Which is pure baloney.
>You mock Hockney for his so-called mediocre painting yet I would bet his
>research has made him a much more knowledgeable art historian than most
>of the people here!!
...for people like you who aren't well versed in anything that doesn't
follow the fashion. We are well aware of who used mechanical devices,
which ones, and how. What counts is what's on the wall, not how it was
done.
Try tracing an Ingres and getting it to look like the original. See
how far you get.
Hockney I believe has to claim that master painters had some sort of
mechanical crutch in order to justify his pathetic output to himself.
I suspect that Hockney knows what a looser he really is.
Of course Hockney impresses contemporary failures and teachers who
know practically nothing. They can look at his brand of crap and tell
themselves they can do as well. And they can! What they can't do is
get as far with it as Hockney.
mdeli
>Art History mentions quite a bit more than your puny cache of
>late 19th century French Academic (government supported!)
>artists.
Sure! Now just name five art history books that mention five French
academic painters and reproduces their work and says anything much
about them.
I might add that I mention the French academic painters because they
rank among the best. Most nations in Europe had marvelous painters who
worked in that tradition. I remember seeing some works by a Hungarian
whose name I don't even know who deserves top honors. Spain also had a
lot of rarely mentioned winners.
mdeli
Right.
Artists who a not trained in their craft only "create,"... loads of
crap.
mdeli
Ideally speaking it addresses no particular style. It is rote. It is a
collection of information on, how to draw any form, painting
technique, craft and the scientific basis of art from drawing to
color. Classical technique is nothing more than a foundation.
mdeli
That is really an unanswerable question which pedantic academics
continually masturbate about. It is an ideal subject for inflated
Artspeak. However unbeknownst to average artzy-fartzy there is a
continual ever-changing 24-hour conceptual art exhibition taking place
in your neighborhood junk yard. But is it art?
No one need argue the point if we admit that even if it is art it can
often also be a load of crap.
mdeli
>Lissa, all the GoodArt Listers are really really bitter. Insanely
>bitter. And they are lemmings in their own right. Ricardo is
>obviously another one of them.
"Really really bitter." Are they also commie pinkos? Nazis?
>
>GoodArt Listers only value maybe three artists, tops. Bougeureau is
>their absoloute GOD.
I guess that's the kind of BS you learned in art school. Which one did
you attend?
>The artists they value have to be French Academic artists of the late
>19th Century, who by the way, were government supported. They are
>blind to the fact that this goes violently against the
>Randian/Objectivist leanings of the "Good Art" List.
>
"Randian/Objectivist leanings of the "Good Art" List." Do tell us more
about this list. Am I on it?
>They have an exteeeeemely limited idea of what an artist is.
Please tell us something of you vast ideas about what an artist is.
>>> Can you show me some of your work that can "Tantalize the eyes and mind"?
>>
>>I could. But why would I?
I guess with that attitude its best to keep your work totally it out
of site.
>Also, the GoodArt Listers have a particular thing against WOMEN with
>opinions. They do not attack men with quite such vehemence.
Woops, your paranoia is showing.
>He is, and if you disagree, he will threatend you with the KKK!
Totally off the wall!
>Maybe you want to brainwash me into thinking Bouguereau's Kitsch is
>good! Just try it, baby, come a little closer.............yeah
>that's it..........
>Mani, why don't you come over here too and try to brainwash me..........yeah that's it, just a little closer, baby.......come on,
>now.........
The fuse blows.
John Mashler
>Yet I look at the later work of Pollock and see successful paintings, so
>how do I reconcile what you write with what I can see with my own eyes?
Might you consider that your eye is influenced by what you have been told is
good? If the hype and so called greatness was taken away from the image of
Pollock would you still see a great painting? With your own eyes? I'm not
really knocking Pollock here - just the image that evolved around him. If there
had been greatness in him, he would not have needed this much acclaimed
promotion by his wife. It would have been evident from day one. But there was
no evidence. Pollock couldn't draw and he couldn't pain particularly well.
What he did was take an idea that had been floating around for a long time and
promote himself as the first. Pissed off a lot of people too. But marketing
works. But you try a drip painting and find out how easy it is. I have and so
have my students.
I'm with you on the British art of that period. But think about it some more.
Britain was war torn. Bankrupt too. Making art was very low on the priorities.
The impetus on art was overseas where they were celebrating massive war profits
from manufacturing. So the Americans made it bigger and better. And that was
impressive. But was it really as good as we like to think? Some of it, yes, but
some of it was pure marketing. Just look at how people buy Nike today. That's
what the Americans did with post war art. Promoted an image and drew on some
amazing talent that happened to find its way into NYC. And that, is what most
of modern art is about.
As for art and teaching. Yes, art is without a doubt, taught. Even indigenous
art comes with training. Art, as we know it, is not a natural activity by any
means. Many artists are tenacious enough, and have a natural ability to learn,
to be able to take on board what they are exposed to and to have the sense to
see how important learning from the great masters is. Thus many *self taught*
are as successful as institution taught. It's pretty easy to spot them in the
system and consequently to accomodate them. In fact, it is a sheer delight to
work with them, knowing that they will make something of what they are
discovering through us. Others are clear from the start that they will plod
through life, never really developing or progressing. But this is general
throughout education and not reserved simply to the arts.
Enough! I must go practise what I preach.
John
RBrac53660
And did you do your foundation year?
That would consist of drawing, light color and design and three deminsional
study. And you have to be tech. pro. in all three before you move on to the
big stuff. Ohh by the way this form of study came from the Bauhaus do know
them that great family from Germany? I think they were related to the Weimirs
(sp?)
RBrac53660
I've had shows in NYC and been written about pffft I like the art I wanna make
know.
This little mani guy is a person with a ego the size of a good velvet bugs
bunny painter. He wants to lead but he will never follow.
RBrac53660
have your little own world and go ahead and create your universe around your
god like crap. All you want to have is yourself as something special and you
stink worse then my cats farts. pfffft your such a joke go w/ the martin
jacobs gallery or mark kastobi.
Ricardo Pontes
the goodart listers? Are those the listers that are trying to keep strong
women down? Are they an anti-ladies group? Tell us why they are bitter?
Bouguereau is used as an example so often because his art has been used as
an example of what modern artists should not do. I don't blame you
Tracy,Lisa etc. You have been duped into thinking high quality art and the
pursuit of high human standards is nothing but kitsch.
Tracy, mind if I ask how old you are and perhaps a little background? What
art school did you attend?
I am not familiar with randian/obtsctivist leanings in relation to the good
list. Care to explain?
Tracy, you mentioned the good list has something against women, what is that
exactly?Are you on good? If so, do you post there? What did they say
against women that ha offended? Seems like there are more Women than men
involved in art. There are usually 10 women and 4 men per art class, all of
the art teachers are usually women. There are plenty of chicks in art, is
that what good art listers think is bad?
Lisa,
did you really learn more than dogma? I think main has described what is
real art already you don't need me repeating. I think a good description of
art should include drawing, color, form, harmony, atmosphere etc.-using
knowledge that was acquired throughout history
and took some of the best minds to do it. Modernists have erased most of the
things from their repertoire like skill, color, drawing, talent, etc...
Lisa, it would be good of you to stop acting like an art hippie. Not
everything is qood, not everything is groovy , ya dig. There is certainly
bad realism out there. And there are some abstract, installation,
performance pieces that are superb. Actually im lying, there are no good
modernist works out there or anywhere.
Lisa, I hear that all the time. You create ''art'' but feel that you are
beyond what average people think. why cant you prove it to me. You wont or
you cant? do you make ''art'' for yourself? The public? Your family? Your
pets?
If you cant/wont show me your work that can ''tantalize the eyes and mind''
can you perhaps show me some work that you admire that has these qualities?
realism and abstract.
please tell me a bit about yourself?
you said ''artists are trained where I come from'', where is that?
Classical art is not about being elite, it provides expression and that can
be easily understood by the average Joe, but it does not pander to low brow
sensibilities as you have been lead to believe. You have the average
philosophy for a modern artist, you feel as if you are above standards that
apply to regular people. And need something to stand out in the crowd. So
you came up with art for the untalented. How convenient ;) now that is
elite, regular people cannot understand it, you and a select few of
untalented ''artists'' can actually comprehend what the ''art'' means. If
someone does not understand it then they are stupid and fail to see the
wonderful powerful work that yall create.
I have no doubt when main came to this group everyone that opposed him
actually respected his well articulated ideas' points , and his knowledge
of art history Most people here felt threatened after a while because he
basically questioned your motives. After all that goes against the art
school nice to each other, lie in your face, no balls philosophy you were
taught to accept blindly. That hippie attitude. So most people here started
to actually wonder if they were truly artists. I know I questioned myself,
and I came to the conclusion that I am not an artist. To call myself an
artist would be an insult to all the great artists that had real skill.
I don't consider anyone stupid for disagreeing with me, im sorry you think
that. I merely think you are gullible. And like whatever they tell you to
like.
I bet you believe bigfoot exists.
how about loch ness? (jk)
one thing is for sure, ail of the modernists who work at post offices, motor
vehicles administration, etcc.. Will have plenty of work in the near future
as art handlers. Plenty of money involved in the collection and disposal of
all the modernist garbage around.
Ricardo Pontes( REAL BITTER GUY)
mdeli
Bauhaus is outhouse. It has ruined many generations of students. I
have a lot to say about it in my book having attended a Bauhaus
monastery as a student.
mdeli
some of our more rabid Artzy Fartzies here.
&
>This little mani guy is a person with a ego the size of a good velvet bugs
>bunny painter. He wants to lead but he will never follow.
BTW check out the bunnys on my web site.
Tracy Miller
just out of arm's reach. Sure, try to cry out for mommy.
Try to cry out to anyone else on the ng to help you, They won't.
Just come a little, closer, just see............POW!
Tracy Miller
RBrac53660
your 50's that means at the most you were born just after the war. If I did
the math right. What you are Mr hubad is a snake oil salesman and I for one
think you should take your pugilist attitude away from here.
Because you are not the champion of art all you are is a embaressment to free
and open discussion of ideas.
I sometimes wish the usenet was still in UNIX code.
Winston
Tracy Miller
Tracy
lauri levanto
There are several people here I avoid reading
and especially answering to, but all of them
have equal right to expression.
let us keep it that way.
-lauri
--
> And given the world, I don't consider 'misfit' to be an insult.
(Judith Conrad )
* * *
"RBrac53660" <rbrac...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010327015549...@ng-mr1.aol.com...
Ricardo Pontes
Why dont you try to actually defend your views for a change instead of
complaining about Mani's. You dont agree with what he sais, tell him why he
is wrong and you are right etc.. god man, you can defend modern art cant
you? If modern art is so good, it has to be easy to defend it right. Tell
him that "Art is everything" "You are wrong" "You are close minded" "how
dare you" bla bla bla
ricardo pontes
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/free_video/
"RBrac53660" <rbrac...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010327015549...@ng-mr1.aol.com...
Damnans
art is not everything. Art is a term whose meaning has changed
in the course of history, but that had to do with technical abilities
and representation of "reality".
Freedom (not only in art but in life) should not be mistaken for
licentiousness, since freedom is governed by rules, and the latter
is not. The idea that everything goes is a fascist one, intended to
justify anything.
Today's art has little to do with ART, because it is much like
fashion: a succession of movements that lead to an excessive
fragmentation that decreases the impontance of what is being
told through it. However, this not only happens to today's art,
but to today's world, from which art is a reflection.
Greetings,
Damnans
Tracy Miller
from the KKK? It's your fault, you know, as soon as you mentioned
them, they sat up and took notice.
Ricardo Pontes
--
> What, Ricardo, you managed to take a break from running away
> from the KKK? It's your fault, you know, as soon as you mentioned
> them, they sat up and took notice.
>
Tracy, dont be silly. I was taught as a child to be tolerant of other people
and listen to what they have to say. Tracy,do you have anything in
particular that you want to say besides attacking Mani?? What is your point?
Many people try to make their lifes meaningful, and they turn to art. I dont
blame you to try to make your life meaningful tracy, but you really should
speak up why you DISAGREE. Well tracy??
Ricardo Pontes
Jonathan Clift
wrote
Don't trains run on rails?
--
Jonathan Clift
Tracy Miller
talk like a reasonable person. Sorry, Mr. "I wish the KKK would go
after all the modern artists"! It's too late for you now, they are
after you, and they won't stop til they get their man!
Posse's a coming, Posse's a comin, giddiup, giddiup, Roberto's
a-runnin, ooops they're catching up.........POW!
RBrac53660
Roll over spot
Beg Spot
Pfft
Damnans
GABLIK, Suzi. Has Modernism Failed?. London: Thames & Hudson, 1995.
Greetings,
Damnans
PhD in Fine Arts at the
University of Barcelona
Ricardo Pontes
If you read back my post i mentioned the KKK as related to the weak minded
modernists that will blindly follow anything . YOu are one, if a pursuasive
kkk person decided to make you join, im sure you would. Because you are
basically a lemming :) . That also will include any group that preys on
people who need to be regarded as special in some way. That is what
modernism is all about, its about feeling special when all you really are is
an average john joe, in your case jane doe.
Cheers
Ricardo Pontes
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/free_video/
"Tracy Miller" <tra...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:3ac13c08...@news.pipeline.com...
Millie Nary
>If you read back my post i mentioned the KKK as related to the weak minded
>modernists that will blindly follow anything . YOu are one, if a pursuasive
>kkk person decided to make you join, im sure you would. Because you are
>basically a lemming :) . That also will include any group that preys on
>people who need to be regarded as special in some way. That is what
>modernism is all about, its about feeling special when all you really are is
>an average john joe, in your case jane doe.
And I think you are sir, a "classical" BOOR!
RBrac53660
>>modernists that will blindly follow anything . YOu are one, if a pursuasive
>>kkk person decided to make you join, im sure you would. Because you are
>>basically a lemming :) . That also will include any group that preys on
>>people who need to be regarded as special in some way. That is what
>>modernism is all about, its about feeling special when all you really are is
>>an average john joe, in your case jane doe.
>
>And I think you are sir, a "classical" BOOR!
>
>
Yawn, and I think people like this have awfully big egos about there
greatness.
Jonathan Clift
>jonathan wrote:
>
>>Yet I look at the later work of Pollock and see successful paintings, so
>>how do I reconcile what you write with what I can see with my own eyes?
>
>Might you consider that your eye is influenced by what you have been told is
>good? If the hype and so called greatness was taken away from the image of
>Pollock would you still see a great painting? With your own eyes?
Of course I'm influenced, just as you are. One of the influences that
I'm resisting at the moment is an art teacher telling me what the One
True Art is. Doesn't mean that you're not right, though you're maybe
right for an art teacher of a certain age, existing in a particular
culture and society, and trained in a certain manner. As to "great"
painting, I shy away from that word. We could have a whole long
meaningless debate about what great is. 'Successful' and 'interesting'
will do me for the moment. "Great" (implicitly) rests on what your
criteria are.
Curiously, my initial reaction to Pollock was anti. I think it was
mainly that film documentary of him. I saw it on television as a child
and it just seemed phoney. Of course, it wasn't till much later that I
learned about how such films are made and the way things are set up.
> I'm not
>really knocking Pollock here - just the image that evolved around him. If there
>had been greatness in him, he would not have needed this much acclaimed
>promotion by his wife. It would have been evident from day one. But there was
>no evidence. Pollock couldn't draw and he couldn't pain particularly well.
>What he did was take an idea that had been floating around for a long time and
>promote himself as the first. Pissed off a lot of people too. But marketing
>works. But you try a drip painting and find out how easy it is. I have and so
>have my students.
>
Do you also do the work of today's equivalent of Jackson Pollock? Beat
them to it and you'll make the history books. Perhaps that isn't so
easy.
The pastiche 'drip' paintings that I've seen haven't looked much like
Pollock's, but I'm sure those done by you and your students are very
good. The ones done by Art and Language were hilarious.
>I'm with you on the British art of that period. But think about it some more.
>Britain was war torn. Bankrupt too. Making art was very low on the priorities.
There was a lot of interest in culture during the war. The End of
Civilisation and all that. Lots of artists were paid to record the war
effort.
>The impetus on art was overseas where they were celebrating massive war profits
>from manufacturing. So the Americans made it bigger and better. And that was
>impressive.
So why was it mainly limited geographically to New York? Money was a
factor later (and the CIA if you're into those kind of theories), but I
doubt it was in the early stages. The impetus for it was in part the
influx of refugees from Europe just before the war and during its early
stages.
More of a factor, I'd have thought, was artists like Pollock and Krasner
working on public art murals as part of Roosevelt's New Deal programme.
> But was it really as good as we like to think? Some of it, yes, but
>some of it was pure marketing. Just look at how people buy Nike today. That's
>what the Americans did with post war art. Promoted an image and drew on some
>amazing talent that happened to find its way into NYC. And that, is what most
>of modern art is about.
>
That's what art is about, yes. So it was during the 19th century too.
Bougereau was the highest grossing artist of all time if you adjust for
inflation (I think I've got that right). He must have gone to the right
parties and been good at the promotion. Same for Rembrandt. But one of
the lessons of advertising is that people get wise to something that's a
total turkey however good the promotion. Ford Edsel anyone?
>As for art and teaching. Yes, art is without a doubt, taught. Even indigenous
>art comes with training. Art, as we know it, is not a natural activity by any
>means. Many artists are tenacious enough, and have a natural ability to learn,
>to be able to take on board what they are exposed to and to have the sense to
>see how important learning from the great masters is. Thus many *self taught*
>are as successful as institution taught. It's pretty easy to spot them in the
>system and consequently to accomodate them. In fact, it is a sheer delight to
>work with them, knowing that they will make something of what they are
>discovering through us. Others are clear from the start that they will plod
>through life, never really developing or progressing. But this is general
>throughout education and not reserved simply to the arts.
>
>Enough! I must go practise what I preach.
>
What's that? Being teetotal so your art doesn't suffer?
>John
Just out of curiosity, and I'm very curious, where do you stand in
relation to people who pour paint onto canvas?
--
Jonathan Clift
Marilyn
Pollock was the first American modern artist, that is what is essential about his
story. He didn't need his wife to promote him. He knew John Graham and many others
of what would become "The New York School." He needed his wife to keep him off the
booze. You can discuss his merits but you can't ignore his peer review, and it was
good.
Marilyn
cuděc'
>good.
I think that "peer review" is a serious tool in science, where there
exist established and well accepted criteria. In other fields it's
only mime.
RBrac53660
>Pollock was the first American modern artist,
I would say that it was Alfred Stieglietz at the 291 gallery
Tracy Miller
I read about it in the biography of Duchamp.....
Marilyn Welch
With due respect to the husband of Georgia O'Keeffe,
Pollock was the first American BORN modern artist.
Marilyn
Marilyn Welch
In my opinion there do exist "established and well-accepted criteria" in
painting. Pollock however, smashed them all and came up with his own well
after he had learned them. It's called innovation, whereas in science it
would be called "important discovery" (?)
Marilyn
John Mashler
>
>Of course I'm influenced, just as you are. One of the influences that
>I'm resisting at the moment is an art teacher telling me what the One
>True Art is.
Who is doing that to you? Definitely resist. If you read what I have written
you will find that is excatly what I say. Don't allow others to determine your
judgement.
>Doesn't mean that you're not right, though you're maybe
>right for an art teacher of a certain age, existing in a particular
>culture and society, and trained in a certain manner. As to "great"
>painting, I shy away from that word. We could have a whole long
>meaningless debate about what great is. 'Successful' and 'interesting'
>will do me for the moment. "Great" (implicitly) rests on what your
>criteria are.
absolutely
>
>Curiously, my initial reaction to Pollock was anti. I think it was
>mainly that film documentary of him. I saw it on television as a child
>and it just seemed phoney. Of course, it wasn't till much later that I
>learned about how such films are made and the way things are set up.
yes? but why can you not accept your initial reaction?
>
>Do you also do the work of today's equivalent of Jackson Pollock? Beat
>them to it and you'll make the history books. Perhaps that isn't so
>easy.
only the insecure worry about their place in the history books.
>The pastiche 'drip' paintings that I've seen haven't looked much like
>Pollock's, but I'm sure those done by you and your students are very
>good. The ones done by Art and Language were hilarious.
yes? I don't know them. I've seen good (even better) imitation pollocks and
I've seen bad ones
>
>There was a lot of interest in culture during the war. The End of
>Civilisation and all that. Lots of artists were paid to record the war
>effort.
>Just out of curiosity, and I'm very curious, where do you stand in
>relation to people who pour paint onto canvas?
I always stand behind them :-) But seriously, what a strange question. Why
would you be so curious about such a thing? do you pour paint? If so i am
flattered that you require my comments but can't really take a stance on
something that I don't have much knowledge of apart from pollock and olitiski.
Taking a stance is an odd one. So excluding. I mean, would you ask someone to
take a stance about impasto painting, use of acrylics or watercolour painting?
My answer would have to be the same for all. In the right hands it can serve
the purpose of intent. I've seen good and bad *poured* paintings just as 've
seen good and bad watercolours. does that help at all?.
John
Marilyn Welch
> The key, I think, is what we mean by being 'first.'
>
> Stieglietz was the first to *show* modern artists
> at 291; he displayed his own work as well as Americans like Marin,
> Marsden Hartley, Max Weber, Arthur Dove, and of course
> O'Keefe. This was in the period around 1909 - 1917. You could argue
> perhaps that Stieglietz was a gallerist and photographer more than a
> modernist artist - or maintain that his photo work was modernism.
> Certainly, however, he was showing American modernists long before Pollock
> painted.
>
> In terms of impact and influence, however, Pollock's work influenced
> everything that came after it, in the same sense the Cubism influenced
> modern art from its inception forward, and Joyce's Ulysses influenced all
> subsequent literature.
>
> For an exhaustive look at the roots of modernism in general, I recommend
> 'The First Moderns' by William Everdell (Univ. of Chicago, 1977).
>
Thanks for the reference.
It would also depend on the definition of "modern."
Pollock was the first American BORN abstract expressionist (?).
Marilyn
John Mashler wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >There was a lot of interest in culture during the war. The End of
> >Civilisation and all that. Lots of artists were paid to record the war
> >effort.
>
> >Just out of curiosity, and I'm very curious, where do you stand in
> >relation to people who pour paint onto canvas?
>
> I always stand behind them :-) But seriously, what a strange question. Why
> would you be so curious about such a thing? do you pour paint? If so i am
> flattered that you require my comments but can't really take a stance on
> something that I don't have much knowledge of apart from pollock and olitiski.
> Taking a stance is an odd one. So excluding. I mean, would you ask someone to
> take a stance about impasto painting, use of acrylics or watercolour painting?
> My answer would have to be the same for all. In the right hands it can serve
> the purpose of intent. I've seen good and bad *poured* paintings just as 've
> seen good and bad watercolours. does that help at all?
>
> John
Pouring paint: Pollock (more spatter and dropping from glass syringes), also Helen
Frankenthaler, Morris Louis, etc. Surely as an art teacher, you would have an
opinion of these renown painters?
cuděc'
<wq...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
I cordially disagree, in the sense that I view far more differences
than similarities in the dynamics of the respective fields. There is a
very different level of "objectivity" involved, thus also the games of
"power and resistance" follow different paths and patterns. Pollock
was surely not the first painter involved in smashing criteria, and I
think that the explanation of the degree of his success is purely
historical, nothing to do with an abstract concept of innovation in
art, for which there is a lack of any meaningful foundation.
Regards
Cuděc'
John Mashler
<mwe...@islandnet.com> writes
>Pouring paint: Pollock (more spatter and dropping from glass syringes), also
>Helen
>Frankenthaler, Morris Louis, etc. Surely as an art teacher, you would have an
>opinion of these renown painters?
And if you concentrated more on what people write and less on worrying about
things like grammar you would notice that I was asked for how I "stood" on
pouring paint - not for an opinion on individual artists. Why are you such a
patronising old hag?
John
lauri levanto
"John Mashler" <arts84...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20010330095850...@ng-fe1.aol.com...
> >>jonathan wrote:
> >
> >Of course I'm influenced, just as you are. One of the influences that
> >I'm resisting at the moment is an art teacher telling me what the One
> >True Art is.
>
> Who is doing that to you? Definitely resist. If you read what I have
written
> you will find that is excatly what I say. Don't allow others to determine
your
> judgement.
>
than we could do without. At some point my view grew different.
That was the best learning period. I did what I saw right, but he forced me
to do it so well, he had to accept.
Use your resistance for your benefit!
> >Doesn't mean that you're not right, though you're maybe
> >right for an art teacher of a certain age, existing in a particular
> >culture and society, and trained in a certain (...etc)
This postmodern relativism has some ground to build,
though many edifices look shaky to me.
If you claim something has limited validity,
tell where and why it is not valid.
-lauri
may I use the quote below as a sig?
Ricardo Pontes
> >
> >Of course I'm influenced, just as you are. One of the influences that
> >I'm resisting at the moment is an art teacher telling me what the One
> >True Art is.
>
> Who is doing that to you? Definitely resist. If you read what I have
written
> you will find that is excatly what I say. Don't allow others to determine
your
> judgement.
>
In other words, resist the teacher and let Kathyrin fill your head with
ideas.
> >Doesn't mean that you're not right, though you're maybe
> >right for an art teacher of a certain age, existing in a particular
> >culture and society, and trained in a certain manner. As to "great"
> >painting, I shy away from that word. We could have a whole long
> >meaningless debate about what great is. 'Successful' and 'interesting'
> >will do me for the moment. "Great" (implicitly) rests on what your
> >criteria are.
>
> absolutely
> >
> >Curiously, my initial reaction to Pollock was anti. I think it was
> >mainly that film documentary of him. I saw it on television as a child
> >and it just seemed phoney. Of course, it wasn't till much later that I
> >learned about how such films are made and the way things are set up.
>
> yes? but why can you not accept your initial reaction?
>
Your first reaction is always right. Im sure everyones reaction was the same
here. But now they have been taught to love things that have no skill and
low standards, so they can be compared to that. It beats spending years
learning to draw,paint and sculpt. You can have instant skill by finding
objects, abstracting, and playing with your crap.
You should think for yourself.
> >
> >Do you also do the work of today's equivalent of Jackson Pollock? Beat
> >them to it and you'll make the history books. Perhaps that isn't so
> >easy.
>
> only the insecure worry about their place in the history books.
>
>
There are tons of jackson pollocks running around. And i bet they have alot
more character than he.
> >The pastiche 'drip' paintings that I've seen haven't looked much like
> >Pollock's, but I'm sure those done by you and your students are very
> >good. The ones done by Art and Language were hilarious.
>
> yes? I don't know them. I've seen good (even better) imitation pollocks
and
> I've seen bad ones
> >
IT takes abosuletly no skill to paint a pollock. A untalented 5 year old
girl can do it.
> >There was a lot of interest in culture during the war. The End of
> >Civilisation and all that. Lots of artists were paid to record the war
> >effort.
>
>
> >Just out of curiosity, and I'm very curious, where do you stand in
> >relation to people who pour paint onto canvas?
>
> I always stand behind them :-) But seriously, what a strange question.
Why
> would you be so curious about such a thing? do you pour paint? If so i am
> flattered that you require my comments but can't really take a stance on
> something that I don't have much knowledge of apart from pollock and
olitiski.
> Taking a stance is an odd one. So excluding. I mean, would you ask someone
to
> take a stance about impasto painting, use of acrylics or watercolour
painting?
> My answer would have to be the same for all. In the right hands it can
serve
> the purpose of intent. I've seen good and bad *poured* paintings just as
've
> seen good and bad watercolours. does that help at all?.
> John
No.
RIcardo Pontes
William Engell
RAF seems to have the effect of degenerating rhetorical style. Does anyone
have an idea why we are compelled to speak in this fashion to one another?
Outside the cyber domain, very few would....they would usually just walk
away from a discussion in which they felt, rightly or wrongly, they were
being abused. Or if they felt misunderstood, they would restate their
position, or take more care with responses. Inflammatory speech, at least
in this forum, is common, but never, ever constructive. Just from a
practical point of view it should be avoided.
we
RBrac53660
fact that ManRay was born in Brooklyn and worked in New York pre WW II. I
forget Man Ray's chirstian name.
RBrac53660
now.>From: "Ricardo Pontes" Ricard...@yahoo.com
>Date: 3/31/01 8:33 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <ebZWSbeuAHA.301@cpmsnbbsa09>
John Mashler
>So I mentioned two well-known artists who poured paint.
>Instead of responding you prove that you are more interested in bringing
>the discussion to a new low in nastiness. Discussion with you is over, so
>get a life.
>
>Marilyn
I am not interested in discussing anything with a paranoid shizophrenic witch,
who sees her demons in anyone who isn't sweetness to her. So thank you for
ceasing further contact. At least maybe I can find someone whose observational
skills reflect their ability as an artist. It certainly ain't you little lady.
John
Peter H.M. Brooks
John Mashler <arts84...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
>
>
> I am not interested in discussing anything with a paranoid
shizophrenic witch,
> who sees her demons in anyone who isn't sweetness to her. So thank you
for
> ceasing further contact. At least maybe I can find someone whose
observational
> skills reflect their ability as an artist. It certainly ain't you
little lady.
>
--
Madness is rare in individuals-but in groups, parties, nations and ages
it rules.
- Fredrich Nietzsche
mdeli
Mashler) wrote:
Hey John don't get upset.
Marilyn has been with us for years. She is the best representative of
a Picassoholic Artzy Fartzy here. She is real fun and its easy to
irritate her cranky feminist chauvinist hang-ups.
Besides she's stupid.
mdeli
some of our more rabid Artzy Fartzies here.
(RBrac53660) wrote:
>You your such a shit your not even worth it
>have your little own world and go ahead and create your universe around your
>god like crap. All you want to have is yourself as something special and you
>stink worse then my cats farts. pfffft your such a joke go w/ the martin
>jacobs gallery or mark kastobi.
&
>This little mani guy is a person with a ego the size of a good velvet bugs
>bunny painter. He wants to lead but he will never follow.
&
>What, Ricardo, you managed to take a break from running away
>from the KKK? It's your fault, you know, as soon as you mentioned
>them, they sat up and took notice.BTW check out the bunnys on my web site.
I doubt that even modern art schools generally produce specimens this
idiotic
Marilyn
For educated opinions,
rational discourse
invaluable experience
along with great artwork
a successful career
May I recommend:
lauri levanto
Cyber has not changed human nature.
Start of quote
"Kirnberger: This B minor fugue from WTC 1, shown here, is a masterpiece
that shows Bach in total command of harmony. Not just this but all of
Bach's stuff kicks major butt. Critics who would say otherwise are idiots
and morons. And Rameau is a wanker. His theories about harmony are full
of nonsense, and they're even misleading our best German musicians who
should know better. Some are even so sure Rameau can do no wrong that
they'd say Bach by comparison didn't know his stuff. Horse hockey.
Marpurg: Rameau kicks butt. There's no way he could be teaching stuff that
goes against what any reasonable practical musician knows to be true. Duh.
Kirnberger: And what is all this crap that Rameau loads in with added
sixths? Bach knew all there is to know about harmony, far better than this
wanker who "discovered" it later. And he did great things with it. By the
way, Rameau's own compositions suck. There were at least a dozen guys in
the last century and all over Europe who knew their stuff better than
Rameau. Since Rameau can't do good stuff himself, he falls back on
teaching and theory. Bach just knew everything and could do whatever he
wanted with it, he didn't have to write stupid treatises making up
garbage. Bach was The Man.
Marpurg: Oh come on, John Boy. Rameau and his theory of harmony and his
equal temperament and all that stuff together, they rule. Look. There's
no way that any decent musician with even half an ear can stand Pythagorean
major thirds (81:80 sharp), no way, no how. But don't take it from me,
take it from your own teacher, you jackass. You told me yourself he gave
you a lesson in tuning and told you to make all the thirds sharp. Do the
math. Anybody with the sense to figure it out knows that if all the thirds
are made sharp, Pythagorean thirds don't come up. Bach MUST have felt that
Pythagorean thirds suck, and he wasn't confused by bad math either. If
you're not gonna accept Rameau, or even your own teacher's wisdom, there's
no hope for you. If Bach were still alive today and not spinning in his
grave, he'd think our whole discussion here is stupid. But get this: your
own teacher taught different things to different people according to what
he thought they could handle. If he thought their heads were made of wood
he didn't bother with the best stuff. Bach knew a lot better than you
do. Even if he had written some great manuscript about his knowledge of
harmony, and if we went over it carefully, we wouldn't find the things that
you are putting forth as his teaching principles. You're the one who's
full of it, John Boy. You're the one who can't do, so you're trying to
teach and claim Bach's authority. You're the wanker. Heck, let's go ask
Emanuel, the big boy himself.
Kirnberger: I did ask Manny. And I showed him your stuff. He says you are
being an Arschloch. He also says the whole Rameau line of aesthetic
principles is horse hockey. And he's sure that his late father would have
felt the same way. He says tell everybody."
end of quote
That flame war took place 1770 between musicians.
-lauri
"William Engell" <wen...@erie.net> wrote in message
news:tccrtii...@corp.supernews.com...
John Mashler
>For educated opinions,
>rational discourse
>invaluable experience
>along with great artwork
>a successful career
>
>May I recommend:
>
>www.danfoxart.com
Thanks for the recommendation - it filled ina couple of minutes this morning.
I really liked the kids painting page. Couldn't find anything else to support
what you wrote, but then again you never seem to be able to support what you
write, do you?
Adios little bluebottle.
John
John Mashler
>From: "Peter H.M. Brooks" pe...@new.co.za
>Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
>Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 20:00:23 +0200
>>
>My the claws on that feline...
>
Thanks old boy, she does seem to have forgotten to clip them, doesn't she? But
I apologise for even lowering myself to reacting back to her. One more whisky
last lunchtime and I would have called her a fucking bitch. Lucky I stopped eh?
Seems to me that Marilyn and her premenstrual friends have some sort of sgenda
that has nothing to do with me and I am just taking the brunt end. Nothing new
for me! Women always do that. It also seems that there are a lot of very
dissatisfied people claiming to be artists around here. I don't know whether
Mani is right or not about Marilyn being stupid, but she seems to be part of
the team that need to lean on their friends for association with *success*. I
guess people do that a lot, which is where my orginal attmept at a sensible
debate started here. That is what the world does - creates heros to satisfy
their own failings. Modern Art is full of bullshit like that. hang out with the
right people if you want to be seen as successful. Don't rely on your own
*success*. Anyway, i won't be playing with the cat anymore. There are more
interesting things to do in life.
John
William Engell
could engage in dialectic without invective. Honestly, I'd rather hear
someone say that work has little to say for it than to have them say it's
utter shit. What's more, I'd rather have them be specific and demonstrate,
instead of just wielding epithets as though that meant anything beyond
rudeness. I speak with dozens of people daily and none of them are ever
reduced to the levels personal assault one reads here nightly.
It's entirely possible I've misunderstood what folks here want to do.
Apparently many are unable to discuss art without flaming those who don't
agree with their positions on issues. There are always folks whose
rhetorical style bristles, or seems to. Often they are, or appear to be
(because of their style of writing), aggressive in a negative fashion. To
immediately launch a full retaliation, ignoring the issues and relying on
the ad hominem approach to response, makes no practical sense. It
effectively kills pursuit of the (supposed) topic.
This doesn't have much to do with Luddism. It has everything to do with
wanting to discuss, and read discussions about, art, as opposed to pouring
over the ordure of interpersonal dysfunction.
Do you have an unbowdlerized version of that flame, by the way? Not
that I doubt that, for their day, your correspondents were any less
inflammatory than what passes these days, but ocassionally the old rhetoric
was interesting in that it was somewhat subtler and multilayered than
today's street vernacular. Ocassionally, I know, it was not. Anyway, how
much of those two would you want to put up with if you were interested in
listening to insightful discussions about music? The stuff reminds one more
of professional wrestling....
we
lauri levanto wrote in message <7IVx6.6179$m17.1...@news2.nokia.com>...
Tracy Miller
wrote:
> Not a luddite, I think. Perhaps it's my (human) nature to wish that we
>could engage in dialectic without invective. Honestly, I'd rather hear
>someone say that work has little to say for it than to have them say it's
>utter shit. What's more, I'd rather have them be specific and demonstrate,
>instead of just wielding epithets as though that meant anything beyond
>rudeness. I speak with dozens of people daily and none of them are ever
>reduced to the levels personal assault one reads here nightly.
Very true.
> It's entirely possible I've misunderstood what folks here want to do.
>Apparently many are unable to discuss art without flaming those who don't
>agree with their positions on issues.
For me, it's not issues, it's manners. With some people, one learns
from experience, it does no good at all to try to discuss. Just so
ya know that about me......
There are always folks whose
>rhetorical style bristles, or seems to. Often they are, or appear to be
>(because of their style of writing), aggressive in a negative fashion. To
>immediately launch a full retaliation, ignoring the issues and relying on
>the ad hominem approach to response, makes no practical sense. It
>effectively kills pursuit of the (supposed) topic.
> This doesn't have much to do with Luddism. It has everything to do with
>wanting to discuss, and read discussions about, art, as opposed to pouring
>over the ordure of interpersonal dysfunction.
> Do you have an unbowdlerized version of that flame, by the way? Not
>that I doubt that, for their day, your correspondents were any less
>inflammatory than what passes these days, but ocassionally the old rhetoric
>was interesting in that it was somewhat subtler and multilayered than
>today's street vernacular. Ocassionally, I know, it was not. Anyway, how
>much of those two would you want to put up with if you were interested in
>listening to insightful discussions about music? The stuff reminds one more
>of professional wrestling....
Indeed.
zoo
NG in the first place (several years ago) was the opportunity to learn from
the discussions and the advice from artists who are more learned and
experienced than myself. However, the playground-level infighting and the
wearisome tediousness of the negativity of some of the posters has driven me
away on several ocassions. Reading post after post of the same old, same
old gets awfully dull very quickly. Unfortunately, there are several new
posters who seem to be fitting into this category all too neatly.
Hopefully, now that spring has finally arrived to this part of the world,
we'll begin to see some more interesting posts. If not, I think I'll go
looking for a more interesting NG.
Louise Marleau
Tracy Miller
related to the same old, same old?
It takes more than lurking and waiting for somebody else to be
interesting to make a newsgroup.
Tracy
Peter H.M. Brooks
Tracy Miller <tra...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:3ac94193...@news.pipeline.com...
> Then why not start some discussion yourself, Louise, on some Topic not
> related to the same old, same old?
>
> It takes more than lurking and waiting for somebody else to be
> interesting to make a newsgroup.
>
Tracy Miller
On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 03:22:10 GMT, tra...@pipeline.com (Tracy Miller)
wrote: