a few opinions
mdeli
Escher is very interesting. He was long ignored by Modern Academics.
However his popularity made the MOMA exhibit more than one print after
ignoring him for years. There is no Hype in Eschers work. He rarely
fails to attract the viewer whether or not he understands anything
about the underlying mathematics. His abstractions and realism is
unique.
Monet though a good artist is over-rated. There were far better
landscape painters during this period who are also well liked. Hudson
River School is one example. When these artists are shown the don’t
get the hype reserved for impressionism. The are carefully kept away
from where impressionist painting is hung, lest people compare.
Impressionism involves big money. Public criticism is somewhat
suppressed. Impressionism according to art historical myth supposedly
changed the world even more than electricity.
I find Monet’s Haystacks a bore. The only really interesting about the
"Pond" at the MOMA is its size and its power as an example for
comparison, as a rather competent version of Abstract Impressionism.
Van Gogh gets my higher marks. On the negative side I believe his
life story influenced modern artistic asceticism and the historical
myth that great artists were unrecognized paupers. His biography gives
lame solace to an army of failures who lost in their bid to win Modern
Academic Art lottery. Few realize that Van Gogh was a sick neurotic
who at the end of his life was invited to show his work. Had he done
so and lived, he would have eclipsed Monet.
At he end of the line ther's Mondrian a total phony. All hype. And
Matisse, the world’s worst when it comes to drawing. Few great
no-skill-realists can equal his incompetence no matter how hard they
try. In my book Matisse is a prize winner for incompetence. If Modern
Academic art were a contest he would outflank all for the booby-prize.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
Paul Mesken
>My opinion:
>
>Escher is very interesting. He was long ignored by Modern Academics.
>However his popularity made the MOMA exhibit more than one print after
>ignoring him for years. There is no Hype in Eschers work. He rarely
>fails to attract the viewer whether or not he understands anything
>about the underlying mathematics. His abstractions and realism is
>unique.
>
Probably his work didn't fit the ideas about art of the academics.
Yet, he's more popular than van Gogh. Although a lot of people will
name van Gogh as a great artist (because critics say he is, if only
they said it while he was still alive :-) there are more people with
reproductions of Escher (posters and such) than there are people with
reproductions of van Gogh.
This phenomenon is very consistent with what Erik said: namely that
art is made into Art by museums. They dictate what is good art and
people actually buy it (just like in fashion shows). Ofcourse the
museum is run by a number of people whose personal taste and ideas
about art select what is exhibited.
Art of Europe
Not to like Matisse
is to be not in love with her that is Woman! (in the nude preferably!)
O Udders of Woman, all that stuff
Do you not like girls Mr Deli?
mdeli wrote:
>
> My opinion:
>
> Escher is very interesting. He was long ignored by Modern Academics.
> However his popularity made the MOMA exhibit more than one print after
> ignoring him for years. There is no Hype in Eschers work. He rarely
> fails to attract the viewer whether or not he understands anything
> about the underlying mathematics. His abstractions and realism is
> unique.
>
--
the pictures, the poetry...
Amanda Amante
Always,
Amanda
Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
news:37fd31d4...@news.euronet.nl...
> On Wed, 06 Oct 1999 22:25:20 GMT, hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>
> >My opinion:
> >
> >Escher is very interesting. He was long ignored by Modern Academics.
> >However his popularity made the MOMA exhibit more than one print after
> >ignoring him for years. There is no Hype in Eschers work. He rarely
> >fails to attract the viewer whether or not he understands anything
> >about the underlying mathematics. His abstractions and realism is
> >unique.
> >
mdeli
wrote:
snip
>art is made into Art by museums. They dictate what is good art and
>people actually buy it (just like in fashion shows). Ofcourse the
>museum is run by a number of people whose personal taste and ideas
>about art select what is exhibited.
>
My suggestion:
What can be done about musuems and critics?
I do not advocate that museums cease exhibiting Modern Academic Art.
However, I do suggest that in fairness to today's polarized extremes
in taste, museums should have two different curators. One for each
side of the art debate. They could then compete by means of the
artwork they each choose to hang and engage in lively debates. People
will then have an opportunity to see the work of both sides of the art
debate and decide what they prefer for themselves. If this were to
happen the censored approach of the last 60 years would end.
Museums could then hang examples of the finest works which are
popular with a large facet of the public. What critics dismiss as
illustration, kitsch and commercial will then reappear in museums.
Only then will our finest illustrators, nature and scientific artists,
cartoonists, animators, comic book artists etc. have an opportunity to
have their original work shown to that audience.
I would also like art reviews to feature the opinions of two critics
who are known to take opposite sides. This would certainly create more
interest than the usual dose of ecstatic Artspeak praise reserved for
any work exhibiting modern academic conformity.
If you wish to see something other than Modern Academic Art in our
major museums, speak out and don't support these institutions.
mark webber
Mark Webber's "sort of stuff" can be seen at the Prince Street Gallery,
121 Wooster St, NY, NY.
Opening Friday, October 15, with reception from 5:00 to 8:00pm.
I'm sure my biggest fan, Mani, will be there.
Thanks for the plug,
Mark
mdeli
rare one, short to the point. Read it carefully. I will point out how
silly writing can be if you peruse it carefully and ask yourself what
it really means..
Webber writes:
>I think the "how" is the work of the artist - but the viewer needs
>experience looking to appreciate it.
Now comes the art school blather.
>But it isn't so hard to see, in
>Raphael, a concern for an asymetrical balance, a restful rhythm, a harmony
>of shapes and colors, that one can also see in Picasso.
Sound OK unless you ask yourself what it means "asymetrical balance, a
restful rhythm, a harmony of shapes and colors" The fact is that these
terms can be applied to any artwork and you can argue until you drop
as to what they really means.
Of course if you ask Webber he will accuse you of being an insensitive
but you'll never get an explaination.
I believe these terms are aesthetic double talk. When Webber likes
something his vanity tempts him to spout gaseous phrases in order to
make himself feel that he understands. His artwork shows how little he
really understands.
If you don't happen to like what Webber likes he'll shoot lots of
similar terms at you. That's really the strategy of Modern Academic
Art. Intimidate the skeptical viewer with a barrage of Artspeak
baffelgab and mutter something about the "language of modern art."
Art students are real suckers for this sort of drivel.
I remember well how some Art teachers answered doubts by drawing a
bunch of lines over a painting and then using similar meaningless
terms too justify their scribbles. I recall a whole series of art
books with lines drawn over them each with an erudite sounding
accompaniment.
Once when I was told this sort of bunk about a scribble over a
Raphael, I drew a different set of lines and pointed out that it
didn't help learning anything about the work. If it really meant
anything everyone would draw the same lines.
>
>And the sort of ambling shapes in Piero can be seen in Arp, too.
Spend an afternoon with "ambling shapes."
>
>I see Veronese in Gorky. An enormous amount.
"Enormous," wonder what he sees in Norman Rockwell?
Webber can really talk himself into anything and then spout reams of
baloney about it. That's about as much as most art teachers really do
these days. Wonder if Webber also spots UFOs.
My favorite Webber passage from the past:
>Back to Pollock for just one moment. Have you or anyone else here
>encountered the relatively recent theory/discovery that there are figures
>beneath the drips in Pollocks paintings?
Note that this important theory is only recent.
...and how to answer that sort of stuff:
Yes indeed Webber!!!
I definitely noticed two very large blue ass holes in a Pollock.
Anyone can obviously see these if he squints hard enough and squeezes
his imagination.
In fact I'm sure anyone with your vast sensitivity and scholarly
superiority could even manage see the figures that these anatomical
parts were attached to. I have to admit I tried, but an insensitive
clod like me could get no deeper.
John Haber
In fact I'm sure anyone with your vast sensitivity and scholarly
superiority could even manage see the figures that these anatomical
parts were attached to. I have to admit I tried, but an insensitive
clod like me could get no deeper.
Keeping that one in my archives, Mani ;-)
just out of curiosity - have you ever seen Mark Webber's work - other
than across the Net ? ' Insenstiive clod' that you are, you surely, by
now, must realise that reproductions of work can never give the true
experience of seeing a work.
Why don't you come along on Thursday ? John and I will treat you to
dinner afterwards ;-)
Dan Fox
> On Fri, 8 Oct 1999 22:06:30 EDT, mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>
> wrote:
<snip of a lot of the usual envious nonsense>
> >Thanks for the plug.
Hey, Mark - I won't get to NYC until the end of the month - when does your
show come down? I'll tell my daughter to go.
Please come and see my solo show in Boston, in January. I'll send dates
later.
We do seem to get Mani's blood pressure up there, don't we! Good luck with
the show - hope you sell everything and get reviewed in all the art mags.
Regards,
--
Dan
'The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom.' - Blake
http://www.danfoxart.com
mdeli
wrote:
>
>Mark Webber's "sort of stuff" can be seen at the Prince Street Gallery,
>121 Wooster St, NY, NY.
>
>Opening Friday, October 15, with reception from 5:00 to 8:00pm.
>
>I'm sure my biggest fan, Mani, will be there.
>
>Thanks for the plug,
Hope the work is up to your high standard and the potatoe chips at
your opening are of equal quality. Say hi to Resika. I used to know
him when I lived in the Village.
Review of Webber's last set of masterpieces on the web.
To summarize it in one sentence, Webber's work is furniture store
no-skill-realism presented in larger sizes. He is a tenth rate Raphael
Soyer.
Soyer's drawing is a bit schmiery but contains detail while Webber is
incapable of defining much of anything. I don't know where Webber got
his copy from but it looks like little more than done over
photographs.
In these pictures Webber shows no ability at drawing other than to
fudge any detail with fuzzy schmier. I'm sure his excuse is that he
wanted it that way. However, I doubt that viewers will care.
On the positive side Webber is better than most net artists. He knows
how to cover up his incompetence by fashionably blowing up what
amounts to a 4X6 inch sketch into something around 3X5 feet. He
intergrates his composition by conventionally putting timid
transparent geometric overlays on parts of the painting. I guess this
is to assure us that he is being modern.
Webber conforms to modern academic standards with his lack of craft
(this even shows in the web reproductions) detail, solid form and
complexity. Well, at least his work doesn't look like the usual "no
sight for sore eyes ultra modern put-on." This of course may not bode
well for him. It seems that Webber doesn't realize that if one must
be conventional one must at least have the skill to do it well.
Webber is among one of millions of examples of the I-can-do-that
School of Modern Academic art. Members of this ill informed lot look
at the likes of Cezanne and Matisse etc. and are motivated by the idea
"I like this stuff because hey, I can do that ."
Little does Webber realize that he is actually better than Cezanne, in
color, drawing and composition and all without schmiering around to
excess. However he doesn't realize that Cezanne is mainly admired not
for what is really there but rather for what artzy fartzies have been
led to imagine is there. All the critical gas generated about
Cezanne's genius has fired their imaginations to such a degree that
they rarely look closely enough at Cezanne to see what a conventional
dithering fumble-klotz he really was.
Webber's exhibition of conventional incompetence is just about 90
years too late to really fire any ones imagination. It seems that
Cezanne beat him to it.
mark webber
> Why don't you come along on Thursday ? John and I will treat you to
> dinner afterwards ;-)
I appreciate your comments, Alison. One litle thing though - the reception
is Friday, not Thursday.
I'll be hanging the show wednesday evening. Drop in if you like!
best,
Mark
mark webber
> <snip of a lot of the usual envious nonsense>
> >
> > >
> > >Mark Webber's "sort of stuff" can be seen at the Prince Street Gallery,
> > >121 Wooster St, NY, NY.
> > >
> > >Opening Friday, October 15, with reception from 5:00 to 8:00pm.
> > >
> > >I'm sure my biggest fan, Mani, will be there.
> > >
> > >Thanks for the plug.
>
> Hey, Mark - I won't get to NYC until the end of the month - when does your
> show come down? I'll tell my daughter to go.
Comes down November 3. Does that mean you might see it? If so, please keep
in touch - maybe we can meet there.
>
> Please come and see my solo show in Boston, in January. I'll send dates
> later.
I would love to!
>
> We do seem to get Mani's blood pressure up there, don't we!
Who cares, though, really. He makes such a fool of himself, is so
predictable, that it takes no effort. It doesn't really matter to me what
he thinks of my work - if he says I'm better than Cezanne, how can anyone
take him seriously - but I am interested in the opinions of just about
everyone else in this group.
> Good luck with
> the show - hope you sell everything and get reviewed in all the art mags.
Thanks very much. Although I really have no such expectations. One review
would be terrific, but sales really aren't a concern right now. (I don't
mean to brag, but I sold quite a bit at a show in January and I don't have
as much around as I'd like.)
Thanks again!
Mark
mark webber
Hi Marilyn,
On Sat, 9 Oct 1999, Marilyn Welch wrote:
> You are the new Cezanne?! What an honour.
You know, this may not surprise you, but mani is wrong about that too.
But thanks!
Mark
Amanda Amante
It's interesting to hear what's going on with that show. Thanks for posting
it...
Amanda
John Haber <jha...@haberarts.com> wrote in message
news:380140ba...@news.onepine.com...
>
> Now you blew it, Mark ..... naturally WE will be there on Friday !!
> Actually, we took a walk down that way on Saturday after going to
> Pearl ... (isn't that an awful store compared to most of them). Today
> we did Sensation - two hour queues;Catholic protestors with their
> plastic Virgin Mary's; cops everywhere and then the paintting in
> question under armed guard with a bullet proof glass panel in front of
> it. Bizarre ! what New Yorkers will do to see shit ;-) .... looking
> forward to seeing some decent paintings on Friday.
>
> Warmest.
> Alison.
>
>
John Haber
Erik A. Mattila
Got your card -- it is a nice reproduction. Are the colors relatively true?
Have you ever heard of the Japanese color tradition 'shibui?'
Have a nice show,
Erik
mark webber
evidently gagged and strapped helplessly to a chair without a hope of
ever adding material to his delightful web page ever again, inspite of
the fact that he is clearly a generous host and would surely let
Alison use said computer without need of bondage, wrote:
> Now you blew it, Mark ..... naturally WE will be there on Friday !!
Sorry.
> Actually, we took a walk down that way on Saturday after going to
> Pearl ... (isn't that an awful store compared to most of them).
I don't really care for Pearl. Since you were in the neighborhood, did you
see the Basquat show at Shafrazi (downstairs from the Prince Street
Gallery for those unfamiliar with the establishment owned by the notorious
defacer of "Guernica")?
If so, I'd be interested in hearing what you guys thought.
> Today
> we did Sensation - two hour queues;Catholic protestors with their
> plastic Virgin Mary's; cops everywhere and then the paintting in
> question under armed guard with a bullet proof glass panel in front of
> it.
They needn't worry that much. Shafazi is a respectable dealer now, and he
doesn't know where Brooklyn is.
Alison, did you see the show in London? Aside from the controversy, is it
interesting?
I hope you won't forget to visit the Frick Collection while you are in
town.
> Bizarre ! what New Yorkers will do to see shit ;-) .... looking
> forward to seeing some decent paintings on Friday.
Thanks very much!
best,
Mark
mark webber
> Brag on, McDuff,
I was thinking perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned that bit about sales,
but I don't think it's such a bad thing to express the view that exhibits
don't have to be about selling. I'm most interested in the opinions of
painters I respect. That's where most of my announcements were directed.
>
> Got your card -- it is a nice reproduction. Are the colors relatively true?
Thanks. To be honest, they are pretty close, but a tiny bit bleached out.
There is a bit more contrast between the wall and the light on the table
cloth. Now, however, I am prefering the color in the card.
> Have you ever heard of the Japanese color tradition 'shibui?'
I have heard of it, but I'm largely ignorant of it, as with most art from
the East. (Eurocentric to the core, I'm afraid - but not without respect
for that which I'm unfamiliar.)
I will say that the painting on the card comes largely from looking at the
garments in Piero. Those beautiful green robes. Also a Greek pot I saw
once.
>
> Have a nice show,
Thanks very much. I'm sorry, I don't know who McDuff is. Your references
are so remarkably varied that I wouldn't know whether to look to Scottish
hunting tales or Japanese Whiskey importers for a clue!
best,
Mark
John Haber
when she's hijacked my computer. She's already signed my name to keep
you entertained.
I'd love to drag her to the Frick. Then again, I may not. I might
wait till she's gone, when there's an opening of a show of Watteau
drawings, and I think I can get into the press opening if I behave
myself. On the other hand, if they hear her reputation, they might
not let her near something as nice as the Vermeers or Bellini without
me.
john
John Haber
computer while he was evidently gagged and strapped helplessly to a
web page ever again, inspite of the fact that he is clearly a generous
host and would surely let Alison use said computer without need of
>I don't really care for Pearl. Since you were in the neighborhood, did you
>see the Basquat show at Shafrazi (downstairs from the Prince Street
>Gallery for those unfamiliar with the establishment owned by the notorious
>defacer of "Guernica")?
Too bad we missed that one - we went to several smaller shows and to
the British painter, Jenny Saville's new work at the Gagosian. I'll
put Shafrazi on our list of things to do.
>Alison, did you see the show in London? Aside from the controversy, is it
>interesting?
I saw it four times in London, Mark. It stunned me. But at the
Brooklyn it was pure show business - no one was interested in the art,
just in being there. The work was badly hung and the crowds were on
top of the stuff so it was hard to even get a view. I got fed up very
quickly,
>I hope you won't forget to visit the Frick Collection while you are in
>town.
Don't worry, I will be going there either tomorrow or Wednesday when
John is at work.
Must dash ........ best regards, John or Alison.
Erik A. Mattila
> On Mon, 11 Oct 1999, Erik A. Mattila wrote:
>
> > Brag on, McDuff,
>
> I was thinking perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned that bit about sales,
> but I don't think it's such a bad thing to express the view that exhibits
> don't have to be about selling. I'm most interested in the opinions of
> painters I respect. That's where most of my announcements were directed.
Personally I've always found the experience of selling a painting sublime. Not so
much for the money, but the validation. But on the other hand, when J. Johns sold
one for 6 or 8 million (maybe it was 2?) he was asked if such a figure valdidated
him as a painter, to which he answered 'no' and went on to say it had nothing to
do with his standing as a painter, but everything to do with biggie business.
> >
> > Got your card -- it is a nice reproduction. Are the colors relatively true?
>
> Thanks. To be honest, they are pretty close, but a tiny bit bleached out.
> There is a bit more contrast between the wall and the light on the table
> cloth. Now, however, I am prefering the color in the card.
Ha, ha. You can always go back and change it, then the next print will give you
other ideas. It's like the time paradox theme in SciFi.
> > Have you ever heard of the Japanese color tradition 'shibui?'
>
> I have heard of it, but I'm largely ignorant of it, as with most art from
> the East. (Eurocentric to the core, I'm afraid - but not without respect
> for that which I'm unfamiliar.)
I don't know too much about it either. I read an article about it in Sunset
maqazine years ago. But I've always admired the Japanese color sense, at least as
it's expressed in the arts. But you're painting reminded of this -- I think your
colors are very right-on.
> I will say that the painting on the card comes largely from looking at the
> garments in Piero. Those beautiful green robes. Also a Greek pot I saw
> once.
Good enough to eat, right? But that's all a function of the surrounding colors
(the Itanian earths?) But that's what's interesting to me about the Japanese -
how a color is showcased by a bunch of greys, low choma browns etc. Then some
smart ass comes along and showcases a grey, very ingeniously, by its color field.
But you me, always in the 'how to' mode (thus theory). I did a very anal
retentive colored pencil drawing of a sprig of nasturtiums once, and came to the
problem of replicating the sense of the translucency of the petals, as my model
showed the petals glowing - it was all a matter of droping the chroma of the
field, and it was quite successful. I have a hunch that your painting, in the
flesh, emphasizes the Piero green more than the postcard.
> > Have a nice show,
>
> Thanks very much. I'm sorry, I don't know who McDuff is. Your references
> are so remarkably varied that I wouldn't know whether to look to Scottish
> hunting tales or Japanese Whiskey importers for a clue!
Try Shakespere -- McBeth. Now I can't remember the original quote -- "_____on,
McDuff." Don't let my references fool you -- I'm a trivia magnet, the bane of my
existance. Well -- back to the deadlines, I'm looking at a job I really hate
doing. Ugga Bugga.
Erik
>
John Haber
>Now I can't remember the original quote -- "_____on,
>McDuff."
... On, on Macduff,
And damn be he who first cries hold, enough.
mark webber
Hi John (or is it Alison?)
> Mark, you're right: you're not going to have a prayer of figuring out
> when she's hijacked my computer. She's already signed my name to keep
> you entertained.
There is somewhat of a difference in your writing styles....
>
> I'd love to drag her to the Frick. Then again, I may not. I might
> wait till she's gone, when there's an opening of a show of Watteau
> drawings, and I think I can get into the press opening if I behave
> myself.
I love those drawings. Every few years the Frick pulls those out, but I'm
glad they do. Watteau deserves to be seen as not just another Rococo
painter.
> On the other hand, if they hear her reputation, they might
> not let her near something as nice as the Vermeers or Bellini without
> me.
Then take her to Shafrazi! He's used to that!
On a more serious note, the Frick has a really remarkable little
collection. Not just representations from different periods, but really
excellent ones. I'm pretty sure I've mentioned the two Veroneses in this
group before; they really amaze me. It's too bad they aren't in the same
room as the Bellini, because I think it would be pretty instructive to see
how much they differ, the former being one of the last great Venetians and
the latter the first great one. One thing that really strikes me is the
way Veronese stacks his figures into such shallow space - the Bellini has
the deeper, northern space.
I guess that difference allows Veronese to play more with pattern somehow.
I'm thinking of the way drapery and limbs cascade through the composition.
I love those shapes.
Anyway, maybe you can sneak her in. The fountain is very romantic....
best,
Mark
mark webber
On Mon, 11 Oct 1999, the symbiotic personas of John and Alison wrote:
> Mark intuitively wrote: On Mon, 11 Oct 1999, Alison, using John's
> computer while he was evidently gagged and strapped helplessly to a
> chair [bed]...
Don't tell us too much, now.
> I saw it four times in London, Mark. It stunned me. But at the
> Brooklyn it was pure show business - no one was interested in the art,
> just in being there. The work was badly hung and the crowds were on
> top of the stuff so it was hard to even get a view. I got fed up very
> quickly,
While I've encountered this sort of congested hoopla at Manhattan's
museums too many times, I've never seen the Brooklyn this way.
I think we may be getting close to a need to identify two distinct types
of art viewing experiences. Or maybe to be more accurate, one a viewing
experience and another that is more a celebration of trend. Can anyone
honestly say that a great deal of what is shown today consists more of a
sort of self assurance with one's ability to interpret via readings and
hype while another is more based in traditional means?
And this is not to say that one is superior to the other. I know I come
across that way, but I'm really expressing personal opinions, of course.
Nor is it to say that the distinction involves a temporal shift. I look at
Dekooning and Matisse the same way I look at Veronese. But I look at Judd
(who John recently wrote about) or Salle or in a very different way.
I suppose that's pretty obvious, though.
Anyway....
> Don't worry, I will be going there either tomorrow or Wednesday when
> John is at work.
But it's the one museum in NYC most suited to hand-holding!
Best,
Mark
mark webber
> Personally I've always found the experience of selling a painting sublime.
Too often a work that I feel is maybe a little stronger than others is
bought for the wrong reasons.
And one guy ecently said to me, after buying something that I felt was a
kind of turning point, that he wan't sure where it would go because he had
so much art, and that it might sit in a closet for a while.
I almost offered to buy it back, or swap a couple of less successful
things for it. He was just buying, not really looking.
> Not so
> much for the money, but the validation.
Really, I only get validation from people whom I know to be serious
lookers.
> But on the other hand, when J. Johns sold
> one for 6 or 8 million (maybe it was 2?) he was asked if such a figure valdidated
> him as a painter, to which he answered 'no' and went on to say it had nothing to
> do with his standing as a painter, but everything to do with biggie business.
No comment.
>
> Ha, ha. You can always go back and change it, then the next print will give you
> other ideas. It's like the time paradox theme in SciFi.
The last time it happened, I didn't change the original picture but I did
paint a second using the new colors in the card. The repainted version
sold. The original is still in my studio.
>
> > > Have you ever heard of the Japanese color tradition 'shibui?'
> >
> > I have heard of it, but I'm largely ignorant of it, as with most art from
> > the East. (Eurocentric to the core, I'm afraid - but not without respect
> > for that which I'm unfamiliar.)
>
> I don't know too much about it either. I read an article about it in Sunset
> maqazine years ago. But I've always admired the Japanese color sense, at least as
> it's expressed in the arts. But you're painting reminded of this -- I think your
> colors are very right-on.
Thanks very much. Still, I have difficulty understanding a very kind
remark like that in light of your previous statements about your dislike
of the evaluative process as we were previously discussing it. I smile.
>
> > I will say that the painting on the card comes largely from looking at the
> > garments in Piero. Those beautiful green robes. Also a Greek pot I saw
> > once.
>
> Good enough to eat, right? But that's all a function of the surrounding colors
> (the Itanian earths?)
Really very true! It always is a relational sort of thing. My
understanding is that, in fact, Piero was working with a color system
based at least in part on the ideas expressed in Leo Alberti's "Della
Pintura". (I'm reading it these days, but I haven't gotten to the color
section yet.)
> But you me, always in the 'how to' mode (thus theory).
I suppose, yes.
> I did a very anal
> retentive colored pencil drawing of a sprig of nasturtiums once, and came to the
> problem of replicating the sense of the translucency of the petals, as my model
> showed the petals glowing - it was all a matter of droping the chroma of the
> field, and it was quite successful. I have a hunch that your painting, in the
> flesh, emphasizes the Piero green more than the postcard.
Alittl, yeah, but not nearly as successfully.
> > Thanks very much. I'm sorry, I don't know who McDuff is. Your references
> > are so remarkably varied that I wouldn't know whether to look to Scottish
> > hunting tales or Japanese Whiskey importers for a clue!
>
> Try Shakespere -- McBeth. Now I can't remember the original quote -- "_____on,
> McDuff."
Ahhhhhh, MACBeth. Ok.
> Don't let my references fool you -- I'm a trivia magnet, the bane of my
> existance. Well -- back to the deadlines, I'm looking at a job I really hate
> doing. Ugga Bugga.
Boogie on, MacGuffin!
best,
Mark
mark webber
> Erik:
> >Now I can't remember the original quote -- "_____on,
> >McDuff."
>
> ... On, on Macduff,
> And damn be he who first cries hold, enough.
>
> John
> jha...@haberarts.com
> http://www.haberarts.com/
>
>
Naturally my dog doesn't get the joke, but I enjoy telling it to go "out
out, damn Spot" when it needs to avail itself of the yard.
Philip Ayers
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
> On a more serious note, the Frick has a really remarkable little
> collection. Not just representations from different periods, but really
> excellent ones. I'm pretty sure I've mentioned the two Veroneses in this
> group before; they really amaze me. It's too bad they aren't in the same
> room as the Bellini, because I think it would be pretty instructive to see
> how much they differ, the former being one of the last great Venetians and
> the latter the first great one.
...Jacopo? He kinda was first and a really great painter. & Mantegna was
exactly Giovann's contemporary, and he was married to Jacopo's daughter
making him G&Gs brother. No let down with Mantagna even though he had to
go elsewhere to get work, actually his work was indemand in other places
and he wasn't born in Venice. Also Carpaccio was only 30 years younger
than Giovanni.
> Mark
John Haber
>....Jacopo?
No, the Bellini in the Frick Collection is Giovanni Bellini's
landscape with St. Francis, his back to a rock, arms outstretched.
It's precise subject has been debated.
John
John Haber
MACDUFF
Then yield thee, coward,
And live to be the show and gaze o' the time:
We'll have thee, as our rarer monsters are,
Painted on a pole, and underwrit,
'Here may you see the tyrant.'
MACBETH
I will not yield,
To kiss the ground before young Malcolm's feet,
And to be baited with the rabble's curse.
Though Birnam wood be come to Dunsinane,
And thou opposed, being of no woman born,
Yet I will try the last. Before my body
I throw my warlike shield. Lay on, Macduff,
And damn'd be him that first cries, 'Hold, enough!'
Erik A. Mattila
'bragging' about selling paintings. The full (correct) quote is even
better.
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
> On Tue, 12 Oct 1999, John Haber wrote:
>
> > Erik:
> > >Now I can't remember the original quote -- "_____on,
> > >McDuff."
> >
> > ... On, on Macduff,
> > And damn be he who first cries hold, enough.
> >
> > John
> > jha...@haberarts.com
> > http://www.haberarts.com/
> >
> >
>
> Naturally my dog doesn't get the joke, but I enjoy telling it to go "out
> out, damn Spot" when it needs to avail itself of the yard.
That's not a very original name for an artiste's dog, Mark. How about
this? A mutt and a French Poodle met, and the French Poodle said, down its
nose "My name is FiFi - F-I-F-I!" The mutt said, "well, my name if Fido,
P-H-I-D-A-U-X!"
Or is it Spaught? Rouvre? Rign Tign Tign?
Erik
Philip Ayers
> Philip:
> >....Jacopo?
>
> No, the Bellini in the Frick Collection is Giovanni Bellini's
> landscape with St. Francis, his back to a rock, arms outstretched.
> It's precise subject has been debated.
>
> John
>
> John
> jha...@haberarts.com
> http://www.haberarts.com/
I know the painting well, and my comment had nothing to do with the St.
Francis painting in the frick. Please read more carefully Johnny boy.
Go back and read again.....cause I don't follow.
John Haber
>While I've encountered this sort of congested hoopla at Manhattan's
>museums too many times, I've never seen the Brooklyn this way.
At the Royal Academy in London, it certainly shook things up.
Notorious as the stuffy arts museum where everyone says *shhhhh* and
the ladies meet for afternoon tea, it suddenly was full of young,
nosiy people who were having fun. Although it looked like the Academy
were about to finally come into the twentieth century just as its
ending, it seems this is not to be. The show was followed by the usual
boring closed shop Summer Exhibition and Monet.
>I think we may be getting close to a need to identify two distinct types
>of art viewing experiences. Or maybe to be more accurate, one a viewing
>experience and another that is more a celebration of trend. Can anyone
>honestly say that a great deal of what is shown today consists more of a
>sort of self assurance with one's ability to interpret via readings and
>hype while another is more based in traditional means?
You are absolutely right about the two viewing experiences, Mark. But
now lets consider if this has not always been the case. Could it be
that the age of the viewer is so different now ? that we are
traditionally used to an audience that can find exquisite delight in
Bellini, just as they do in Bach and Mozart, and that the younger
audience who delight in thrill, just as they do in rock and roll - or
hip hop today - have never been considered part of the *art
experience*? If this is so then surely it is a positive move forward
to get younger people into the museums ? after all, hasn't it been
the modernist agenda to break down the barriers ?
>And this is not to say that one is superior to the other. I know I come
>across that way, but I'm really expressing personal opinions, of course.
I remember an art professor telling me that at a certain time in your
life you suddenl;y start to really *hear* Mozart. I wonder how this
relates to the art experience.
>Nor is it to say that the distinction involves a temporal shift. I look at
>Dekooning and Matisse the same way I look at Veronese. But I look at Judd
>(who John recently wrote about) or Salle or in a very different way.
And I also find I am getting excited about art that used to leaving me
shrugging my shoulders. Perhaps it is a matter of training the eye in
order to be able to appreciate ? I spent a couple of hours in the Met
today, most of the time looking at the Bellini's and the two Lippi's,
which were extraordinary. There is a late Boticelli which kept my
attention for some time - the *Three Miracles of Saint Zenobius* - I
have a feeling you would be very attracted to it, Mark. I enjoyed the
simplicity of it and of course, the abstraction that accompanied that.
It felt like Botticelli was saying that as death approaches eveything
becomes more simple - less cluttered. Beautiful !
>But it's the one museum in NYC most suited to hand-holding!
I never date a man who doesn't clean his bathroom and goes to work
looking like he slept in the clothes he is wearing ;-)
best back, Alison.
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http;//www.raimes.demon.co.uk
John Haber
>Francis painting in the frick. Please read more carefully Johnny boy.
So you were just snidely ranking out Mark for the mistake of calling
the son a great originator? I'm sure he'll be deeply chastened.
John
mark webber
> ...Jacopo? He kinda was first and a really great painter. & Mantegna was
> exactly Giovann's contemporary, and he was married to Jacopo's daughter
> making him G&Gs brother. No let down with Mantagna even though he had to
> go elsewhere to get work, actually his work was indemand in other places
> and he wasn't born in Venice. Also Carpaccio was only 30 years younger
> than Giovanni.
> > Mark
>
>
You are right, Philip - Both father and son were important contributors,
and Mantegna was excellent. I'm most embarrased about forgetting
Carpaccio.
Thanks for the correction... I'm abit off today.
Mark
mark webber
> That's not a very original name for an artiste's dog, Mark. How about
> this? A mutt and a French Poodle met, and the French Poodle said, down its
> nose "My name is FiFi - F-I-F-I!" The mutt said, "well, my name if Fido,
> P-H-I-D-A-U-X!"
>
> Or is it Spaught? Rouvre? Rign Tign Tign?
This is a bit off topic, but since you ask, her name is actually Ada,
after the Nabokov heroine, who lives long and has great affection.
Mark
mark webber
I do stand by my feeling that Giovanni breaks away from the earlier
painters. I think his dad was wonderful, but the son was truly great.
Carpaccio was a pretty egregious omission, though.
While Philip may come across as snide sometimes, he also has an eye and
when not too threatened by "junior painters" (his term) such as myself,
can make good points. He doesn't need my defense, and you, John, know that
I'm not trying to correct you either, but this may just be Philip's style.
I'd rather read his snide, but accurate observations than the empty ones
some people send here.
Mark
Erik A. Mattila
> John
>
> John
> jha...@haberarts.com
> http://www.haberarts.com/
And from the "Lost Act of MacBeth" (I have the sole surviving
manuscript)...
MACWEBBER
Then yield thee thy purse, coward,
And live to be the show and gaze o' the schimers:
We'll have thee, as our rarer monsters are,
Painted on a pole, and underwrit,
'Here may you see the Art.'
MACPATRON
I will not yield my purse,
To kiss the ground before young MacWebber's feet,
And to be baited with the rabble's curse.
Though Grant Wood be come to Castilli's,
And thou opposed, being of no worldly bargain,
Yet I will try the last. Before my Visa
I throw my warlike shield. Lay on, MacWebber,
And damn'd be him that first cries, 'Cheap enough?'
MACHABER (on art buyers from Houston w/ 10 gallon Stetsons)
Oh, what manner of men are these
who wear their balls in parenthesis? (..)
Erik
mark webber
We have John and Erik stirring the cauldron - now the third witch?
I'll be off-line for a couple of days, so you guys will have to stir it up
without me, but thanks for the fun!
"... O no, it is an ever fixed mark, that looks on storms and is never
shaken..."
best,
Mark
mark webber
> You are absolutely right about the two viewing experiences, Mark. But
> now lets consider if this has not always been the case.
If you mean that there has always been a dilletante viewer and a more
experienced looker, yes - but that describes the viewer (a distinct entity
from the work itself; a sort of "viewer itself")
But you may be right - I'm sure its very possible that there were, in the
long lines to see Caravaggio's newly unvailed chapel in San Luigi Dei
Francesci, both art lovers and *art scene lovers*.
> Could it be
> that the age of the viewer is so different now ? that we are
> traditionally used to an audience that can find exquisite delight in
> Bellini, just as they do in Bach and Mozart, and that the younger
> audience who delight in thrill, just as they do in rock and roll - or
> hip hop today - have never been considered part of the *art
> experience*?
There is great pop music and lame pop, just as there is great orchestral
music and unimpressive or unresolved orchestral music.
Concerts of both genres are attended by young and old, some of whom
appreciate the great music and some of whom are clueless but want to be
part of the scene.
> If this is so then surely it is a positive move forward
> to get younger people into the museums ?
The young have always been in the museums - some are dragged kicking their
feet and others are delighted to go. The only new ground I see being
broken in Brooklyn is that political protesters and fundamentalist
Christians are there, maybe for the first time, and they aren't there to
delight in the wonders.
> after all, hasn't it been
> the modernist agenda to break down the barriers ?
I don't think so. I think it is a mistake to think there is any modernist
agenda other than perhaps to explore new ways of "recapitulating the
successes of the masters." (Bt's term, but he would disagree with how I
use it.)
>
> I remember an art professor telling me that at a certain time in your
> life you suddenl;y start to really *hear* Mozart. I wonder how this
> relates to the art experience.
I doubt he meant that anyone emerges from a musical void to appreciate
Mozart. I didn't "get" Tintoretto until after I saw the rhythm in Pollock.
He had been a marvelous renderer before that, and that isn't what is
spectacular about Tintoretto.
>
> And I also find I am getting excited about art that used to leaving me
> shrugging my shoulders. Perhaps it is a matter of training the eye in
> order to be able to appreciate ?
Fight as you may, an intelligent fellow/gal (? who am I corresponding with
now? John or Alison?) like you is going to wind up loving form if you keep
looking seriously.
> I spent a couple of hours in the Met
> today, most of the time looking at the Bellini's and the two Lippi's,
> which were extraordinary. There is a late Boticelli which kept my
> attention for some time - the *Three Miracles of Saint Zenobius* - I
> have a feeling you would be very attracted to it, Mark.
I do know that picture and it is remarkable. But we don't have nearly the
best of that sort of sensibility in this country. You can find even more
remarkable panels of that sort in little chapels in Tuscany. I'm sure you
know that though. I'm just saying that I find that Botticelli a bit of a
tease.
> I enjoyed the
> simplicity of it and of course, the abstraction that accompanied that.
> It felt like Botticelli was saying that as death approaches eveything
> becomes more simple - less cluttered. Beautiful !
It is also saying "this salmon pink. this bruised green." That too, is
expression....
>
>
> >But it's the one museum in NYC most suited to hand-holding!
>
> I never date a man who doesn't clean his bathroom and goes to work
> looking like he slept in the clothes he is wearing ;-)
Now I think you may be Alison. You don't have to date him. I mean, you've
offered very special services to others in this group without dating them
- go ahead, hold his hand.
looking forward to meeting you and seeing john and hopefully others this
Friday,
Mark
John Haber
mani spouted from his anal passage:
>You quoted me out of context so I included the whole thing. I hope you
>reread it often.
I keep all our letters sweet pea .... I guess i caught the *quoting
out of context* bit from spending so much time with you .....
>>just out of curiosity - have you ever seen Mark Webber's work - other
>>than across the Net ? '
>No.
I thought not - but still an expert of course.
>The web is an excellent medium to save you from a long unpleasant true
>experience. Web reproductions easily expose crap.
Like your website ?
>Lack of drawing
>skill comes through especially well. Your's and Webber's are no
>exception.
Glad to be placed next to mark - thank you !
>"Bad art is far worse than no art at all." O. Wilde
after a trip to mani's website and a couple of glasses of vino calapso
>Mani DeLi no skil
I wouldn't go that far ... mani has perfect skill in bowel motions.
Philip Ayers
Haber) wrote:
> >I know the painting well, and my comment had nothing to do with the St.
> >Francis painting in the frick. Please read more carefully Johnny boy.
>
> So you were just snidely ranking out Mark for the mistake of calling
> the son a great originator? I'm sure he'll be deeply chastened.
>
> John
No John, I was merely pointing out that -You- mistook my meaning.
...as for Mark, I was simply pointing out that while Giovanna Belleni was
a great painter (and one of my favorite painters, and I've made many trips
to the Frick just to see the Saint Francis painting mentioned) but the
period he lived in was more complex than represented. The tradition he
followed in was just as great as he and many of his contemporaries
including Mantegna, Gentile, Carpaccio where his equal Lesser Crivelis
were more indicative of the darker side of living under the Dogges, the
down side.. Now, if the "naturalism" of Giovanni is what you are most
delighted with, then I guess he would be the best, and possibly the
innovator. I personally like the processional pictures of Jocapo,
Gentile, and later Carpaccio who continued in this rather stiff and
abstract mode and I see it as being more important to our century than was
Giovanni's work( sticking my neck out here). Most of Balthus' work would
owe more to Jocabo, Gentile, and Carpaccio than to Giovanni. The
compositions of Jocapo, Gentile, and Carpaccio were just as important and
maybe more inventive than was the "naturalism" of Giovanni. My work has
been transformed by one small Govanni painting in the National Gallery in
London. Just a small section of a small painting! Foliage as a universe.
I'll say no more.
Philip Ayers
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Oct 1999, John Haber wrote:
>
> > >I know the painting well, and my comment had nothing to do with the St.
> > >Francis painting in the frick. Please read more carefully Johnny boy.
> >
> > So you were just snidely ranking out Mark for the mistake of calling
> > the son a great originator? I'm sure he'll be deeply chastened.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
>
> I do stand by my feeling that Giovanni breaks away from the earlier
> painters. I think his dad was wonderful, but the son was truly great.
>
> Carpaccio was a pretty egregious omission, though.
>
> While Philip may come across as snide sometimes, he also has an eye and
> when not too threatened by "junior painters" (his term) such as myself,
> Mark
Mark -not to be insulting but I can assure you that "threatened" isn't a
feeling I've had here.
Evenually you will see some of my work in the flesh, not digital, which
can be rationalized and I think you will understand.
Cheers
John Haber
I just had wished to keep in perspective what Mark was doing, which
was reporting on the contents of the Frick Collection so as to
encourage Alison to visit. (They're also opening a show of
Watteau-period drawings after she leaves.) It's indeed my dream
corner of the world.
You might say that he was writing art history in terms of what they
held, to point to the greatness of what they hold. But even that's
taking what were just compliments too seriously. So it's wasn't
really fair to interject that there were other Venetian painters. It
wouldn't be fair to interject that there are other, even earlier or
just differently great Northern Renaissance artists than van Eyck (and
Petrus, who completed the last figure in that magnificent panel),
other self-portraits by Rembrandt, and so on.
That said, I guess digressions and minor misunderstandings is the name
of the game in news groups, and if they give intelligent posts on
Venice, I'll take 'em. Perhaps I don't that much approach studying
art history, I'll add, as quite so much a ratings game as a matter of
historical understanding. Still, in that vein for a long time my
faves were Mantegnas, perhaps because the linearity and
intellectualism appealed to my nature back then (as a math/physics
major). Now I'm happiest with Bellini, in his growth from the early,
so tactile figures, like the Madonnas with hardened draperies, to the
kind of experience of a corner of landscape you mentioned. You can
probably see it in my Web site's piece on the Bellini St. Francis.
(I'd enjoy seeing if you like it.)
mdeli
I wrote:
My favorite Webber passage from the past:
>>Back to Pollock for just one moment. Have you or anyone else here
>>encountered the relatively recent theory/discovery that there are figures
>>beneath the drips in Pollocks paintings?
Note that this important theory is only recent.
...and how to answer that sort of stuff:
Yes indeed Webber!!!
I definitely noticed two very large blue ass holes in a Pollock.
Anyone can obviously see these if he squints hard enough and squeezes
his imagination.
In fact I'm sure anyone with your vast sensitivity and scholarly
superiority could even manage see the figures that these anatomical
parts were attached to. I have to admit I tried, but an insensitive
clod like me could get no deeper.
>
>Keeping that one in my archives, Mani ;-)
You quoted me out of context so I included the whole thing. I hope you
reread it often.
>just out of curiosity - have you ever seen Mark Webber's work - other
>than across the Net ? '
No.
> Insenstiive clod' that you are, you surely, by
>now, must realise that reproductions of work can never give the true
>experience of seeing a work.
The web is an excellent medium to save you from a long unpleasant true
experience. Web reproductions easily expose crap. Lack of drawing
skill comes through especially well. Your's and Webber's are no
exception.
"Bad art is far worse than no art at all." O. Wilde
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
John Haber
Mark wrote:
>If you mean that there has always been a dilletante viewer and a more
>experienced looker, yes - but that describes the viewer (a distinct entity
>from the work itself; a sort of "viewer itself")
>But you may be right - I'm sure its very possible that there were, in the
>long lines to see Caravaggio's newly unvailed chapel in San Luigi Dei
>Francesci, both art lovers and *art scene lovers*.
You know, I want to fly back into the thread we had a few months ago
about Baudrillard which ended up in a discussion on the Sublime
Experience as per Kant's original meaning and our contemporary ability
of interpretation. Its the times and our ability to view - how our
attention to focus has altered by our exposure to technology and
science that is more what I am trying to lead you towards, Mark. Lets
wait until the pressure of your show is over and I am back in London
next week. By that time I will have re-read one of my favourite books
which John got for me - Turner and the Sublime, by Andrew Wilton, one
of the best book on the Kantian sublime experience. On alt.philosophy
we had a very interesting and expansive debate on the subject - I
would like to throw some ideas your way from that if you are game.
Incidentally, the three Turners in the Met really are not
representational of that great painter - they didn't move me at all.
Still, Turner never wanted his work to leave the British Isles so
quite right the best should be at London's Tate gallery.
>Fight as you may, an intelligent fellow/gal (? who am I corresponding with
>now? John or Alison?) like you is going to wind up loving form if you keep
>looking seriously.
Well I never know who I am, but I think I am Alison .... John is way
more articulate and scholarly than I ... and blind as a bat.
>Now I think you may be Alison. You don't have to date him. I mean, you've
>offered very special services to others in this group without dating them
>- go ahead, hold his hand.
Hee hee ... it does seem awfully mean not to even though my heart
really belongs to dear little Mani !!
>looking forward to meeting you and seeing john and hopefully others this
>Friday,
All the very best, Mark - I am sure it will be a great success and we
are both looking forward to seeing you.
Alison
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
mark webber
> > I do stand by my feeling that Giovanni breaks away from the earlier
> > painters. I think his dad was wonderful, but the son was truly great.
> >
> > Carpaccio was a pretty egregious omission, though.
> >
> > While Philip may come across as snide sometimes, he also has an eye and
> > when not too threatened by "junior painters" (his term) such as myself,
>
> > Mark
> Mark -not to be insulting but I can assure you that "threatened" isn't a
> feeling I've had here.
Hi Philip,
I didn't really think so - I was just kidding with you.
> Evenually you will see some of my work in the flesh, not digital, which
> can be rationalized and I think you will understand.
> Cheers
>
>
I'm really looking forward to it!
Mark
mark webber
> You know, I want to fly back into the thread we had a few months ago
> about Baudrillard which ended up in a discussion on the Sublime
> Experience as per Kant's original meaning and our contemporary ability
> of interpretation.
By all means! That was a good one!
> Its the times and our ability to view - how our
> attention to focus has altered by our exposure to technology and
> science that is more what I am trying to lead you towards, Mark.
Interesting. I'm all eyes.
>Lets
> wait until the pressure of your show is over and I am back in London
> next week. By that time I will have re-read one of my favourite books
> which John got for me - Turner and the Sublime, by Andrew Wilton, one
> of the best book on the Kantian sublime experience. On alt.philosophy
> we had a very interesting and expansive debate on the subject - I
> would like to throw some ideas your way from that if you are game.
Absolutely.
> >Fight as you may, an intelligent fellow/gal (? who am I corresponding with
> >now? John or Alison?) like you is going to wind up loving form if you keep
> >looking seriously.
>
> Well I never know who I am, but I think I am Alison .... John is way
> more articulate and scholarly than I ... and blind as a bat.
I suspected as much... but so are most critics. (I smile)
best,
Mark
John Haber
the Frick, but she always did look at the Turners immediately on
nearing them, just like a Brit. <grin> I joked that the van Dykes
were the only great English paintings in the museum, presumably
because he's not English. (But that one of Snyder is awfully good!)
I missed the press opening of the Watteau drawings today, but I'll get
there soon, I hope. It'll be interesting to write about along with
other innovations there, like the temporary show just of two
Constables (final, full-size oil sketch and final version of Salisbury
Cathedral) or the free hand-held audio with random-access to items.
I'm also dying to talk more about the permanent collection. I look
at the great trecento works, with intricate detail, expensive (gold)
materials, representations of figures as delicate beings, a throne
that is concerned not with perspective but with attaining its
prominence in filling the image, and a panel crowded with musical
angels no doubt playing the Magnificat. And then I can imagine them
seeing the great Lippi and complaining about these new artists just as
so many do about Sensation -- for indignity, immorality, the whole
thing.
I hear them saying that a good painter cares about "realism": he
doesn't cut corners. God is in the details. Look at the sweeping
cloaks covering a simple human form.
A good painter won't smear the Madonna with cow dung (or just tempera,
for that matter). A good painter won't show the Madonna as Aunt
Jemima (or so unfeminine a human form). A good painter gives her
royalty and the musics of the heavens the magnificence it deserves.
And just look at that barren chamber, the dark colors, and that
horrible shadow the Virgin casts -- an immense, figure-high black
smear behind her, one step above cow dung, for that matter.
This is just a thought experiment, but I've no doubt that they did
find the Renaissance discomforting. Everyone praises it in the
history books, and I don't think they were exactly shocked, but our
accounts derive from Vasari and other cheerleaders for the new.
We know that the old couldn't have changed styles in midcareer like
us, because they didn't think in terms of style. They built workshops
around certain techniques and depended on a commitment to the students
coming out of it for income. They would have lost commissions and
just been stranded.
That helps explain the reaction after Giotto's death. Meiss famously
attributes it so societal pessimism, the Black Death, but I can
imagine the old guard waiting to get rid of this crap. It took a
second shot, with Masaccio to pull it off. Lippi is a great chance ot
see the new dignity of human and divine form, with a full, adequate
stage set for cosmic events like annunciations to take place and a
human, tragic cost for them in childbirth and Jesus's early death.
As Masaccio's pupil and teach of his son, Fillipinio Lippi, and of
Boticelli, he's really present at the creation. He takes the vast,
tragic scale out of the first and comes before the intricate mysteries
built by the latter: he just puts the new drama in human terms.
Of course, I'm not putting down either the old or the new. I love
Domenico Veneziano and Gentile de Frabiano. In fact, I like the first
more than Jacopo Bellini, guys. (Giovanni is a different matter.
He's the best!)
I'm just reminding myself that "realism," "art," "morality," and so on
are tough concepts, and if it's an elitist suggestion to think about
what something means before being shocked by it, then heck, I'm an
elitist. But then that standard would apply to the rest of life, too.
John