Picasso
Mani Deli
> ``Angel Fernandez de Soto,'' a 1903
>portrait of a friend of Picasso's, had been estimated by
>Sotheby's at $10 to $15 million, sold for $29.1 million.
>Who will be the first to pay this price for a Dali?
>Or a Duchamp for that matter?
I judge a painting by quality not by price.
I think the day will come when fashionable critics, if only for something new
to say, will pan Picasso, Matisse etc. Their price will plummet and the guys
stuck with these masterpieces will be embarrassed.
Picasso's early work was done fast and for fast cash. Picasso started as a
schlock painter as did many artists. He painted in the latest styles imitating
Puvis, Leutrec, Moticelli, etc. and so to speak made it.
I think this particular painting is mediocre. If it turned out to be a fake
signed Franz Poop it would be judged on the basis of quality and worth little.
The signature is the basis of its value.
The same fuss was made by Sotheby's some years ago about a similar Picasso,
another mediocrity. I recall the big TV shtick they did about the sale and the
interviews with some of America's top idiot richy collectors trying to out-
profound each other's orgasmic praise. The best part was when a Harvard
accented critic expostulated in Nasal Effeminate "Its probably the most
important painting of the 20th Century." Strange but I don't recall it even
being mentioned by any holy critic of note or reproduced in standard Picasso
tomes. It was even duller than the above mentioned masterpiece. I think it now
hangs in the Metropolitan in a wing dedicated to the one collector. ( can't
recall his name, I could be wrong)
At the turn of this century prices for Bouguereau and Puvis were like Picasso's
are now, in the stratosphere. By 1935 Bouguereau was totally out and by 1950
you could get a B. for under $1,000. Puvis prices are lame today while B's are
constantly on the rise. The reason is that B. can paint and Puvis was
mediorcre. I won't go into long explanations and bore our Modern brethren.
The reason for B's decline is simple. Bouguereau was a bogeyman of the Moderns
much like Rockwell is today. Picasso and Matisse had nothing but scorn for B.
as the king of aesthetic evil and everything academic. The evil specter of B.
has faded as has the public's ecstasy for P. Rarely does the average art
student hear of either. Today people judge these artists on the basis of
quality alone not fashion. When B. has a show it is well attended while the
critics fume. When P. has a show the critics get excited and the public for the
most part yawns.
I have a theory why the early Picasso's sells for so much. It is because our
Modern Academic Art fans have grown accustomed to ugliness, lousy draftsmanship
and practically-nothing content in pictures. Its a case of what I call "Picasso
Eye." It results from over-attending the Modern sections of museums to the
exclusion of other sections and going to too many glittery gallery openings.
Now, when a certified modern master like Picasso comes along and exhibits a
touch of pleasantness together with a hint at draftsmanship the result in these
collectors is ecstasy. Here at last is some relief from the ugliness these
people have grown accustomed to. That is why Picasso's early work fetches so
much more than his later excrusiations.
Mani DeLi
... No skill no art.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
Wray Kephart
X
X > ``Angel Fernandez de Soto,'' a 1903
X >portrait of a friend of Picasso's, had been estimated by
X >Sotheby's at $10 to $15 million, sold for $29.1 million.
X
X >Who will be the first to pay this price for a Dali?
X >Or a Duchamp for that matter?
X I judge a painting by quality not by price.
My assembly line painted gorilla faces will then astonish you for the
price including the entire stuffed product; four limbs swing free extra
plush.
X I think the day will come when fashionable critics, if only for
X something new to say, will pan Picasso, Matisse etc.
Yep they are beating the sidewalks for new news, no new pigeon communities
sprung up to write about and wayward supermarket shopper carts are old
news.
You mean 'tabloid'critics, or those fashionably dressed in international
style? Who *is* actually writing for the Enquirer these days--Robert
Hughes has an undercover name new publication aka Stylus Pens-Speak.
<Robert Pincus-Written has dropped his last hyphen>.
X Their price will plummet and the guys stuck with these masterpieces
X will be embarrassed.
Masterpiece = a potencially embarrassing investment. Someone been knocking
Michelangelo lately?-fess up. You set the betting rules, I take the wager,
but time restricted to say 1 month from now; at what odds?
X Picasso's early work was done fast and for fast cash. Picasso started
X as a schlock painter as did many artists. He painted in the latest
X styles imitating Puvis, Leutrec, Moticelli, etc. and so to speak made it.
Yes, unlike DeGrazia who started backwards; a fine expressionist of rooster
flesh he became the infant terrible of portraying dwarf native american big
eyed children offering palm leaves to???to the heavens, or top of the
windchime they were painted on. Does it matter if you work backwards to
mediocrity or forwards to the sublime? Or like Jimenez, you start in the
middle and stay there; provided you are working with resin mold products
ala Vargas airbrush nude pictography <made that word up for you; as Ive
determined you area histrionic artology researchologist.
Left fielding for all of the husbands
chagrin at yet another $$$$$ Degrazia windchime on the patio.
Slight elevation: <koons owes much homage to vargas and jiminez
before Staffordshire>
X I think this particular painting is mediocre. If it turned out to be a
X fake signed Franz Poop it would be judged on the basis of quality and
X worth little. The signature is the basis of its value.
Poop value, let me document this new nomenclature; not same cat. Crumb,
Urinal or free standing goat sig?
How many times does it need to be said, money amount equals exchange value.
Are you a licensed expert to judge quality and value based in
non-denominational systems?
X The same fuss was made by Sotheby's some years ago about a similar
X Picasso, another mediocrity.
Where can I find your published revelations on mediocre Picassos? Those were
the ones done when he was half asleep or preoccupied with dinner guests
right? De-bunking the myth; how many millimeters have you gained?
X I recall the big TV shtick they did about the sale and the interviews
X with some of America's top idiot richy collectors trying to out-
X profound each other's orgasmic praise.
How did such idiots obtain such fortune to collect art; if they were
collecting idiot art or if the artists themselves were 'richy' from
TV generated profits it would make so much more sense.
X The best part was when a Harvard accented critic expostulated in Nasal
X Effeminate "Its probably the most important painting of the 20th Century.
Had that big "H" carved across his forehead, emblasoned on his chest.
Where can I find your published revelations on nasal effeminate Harvard
graduates, as Im not familiar with this type of thorough and biased
generalizing theory about critics; thesis work?
X At the turn of this century prices for Bouguereau and Puvis were like
X Picasso's are now, in the stratosphere. By 1935 Bouguereau was totally
X out and by 1950 you could get a B. for under $1,000. Puvis prices are
X lame today while B's are constantly on the rise. The reason is that B.
X can paint and Puvis was mediorcre. I won't go into long explanations and
X bore our Modern brethren.
Out gunned here actually, Bouguereau *can paint* whalla turner style if hed
had the vision; but you probably are not aware of the secret Puvis
methodology, known only to those who "get it". Get it factor is a biggy
in "M.A." <requiring an lucid semi elastic mind>.
X The reason for B's decline is simple. Bouguereau was a bogeyman of the
X Moderns much like Rockwell is today. Picasso and Matisse had nothing but
X scorn for B.
They scorned each other so youre describing two large sets dog jaws
open tongue panting; both looking wistfully at the same chicken bone femur
wedged in the corner. <When will Jansen include Rockwell in his pages>
X as the king of aesthetic evil and everything academic. The evil
X specter of B. has faded as has the public's ecstasy for P.
This sounds like a papal concern, do you have the right cape/hat on and how
is your eyesight and troop availablily for 'ready' conquering naval status.
X Rarely does the average art student hear of either. Today people judge
X these artists on the basis of quality alone not fashion. When B. has a
X show it is well attended while the critics fume. When P. has a show the
X critics get excited and the public for the most part yawns.
These gyrations are incomprehensible, even more so that they are your focus.
Students are being denied information you say?! grow those wings and
save them; and tell them when they describe public perseption as
yawning, to keep in mind the existance of small flying insect species.
X I have a theory why the early Picasso's sells for so much. It is
X because our Modern Academic Art fans have grown accustomed to ugliness,
X lousy draftsmanship and practically-nothing content in pictures. Its a
X case of what I call "Picasso Eye."
Picasso eye? Is it diagnosable has it been isolated; cure ratios?
Maybe just maybe, he wasnt interested in academic representation at the time.
Maybe he was working a process other than standard rubber stamp vase
portrayal. Maybe he had a different idea, working on drawing it with 3
different perspectives in a single dimension..naaaahh.
X It results from over-attending the Modern sections of museums to the
X exclusion of other sections and going to too many glittery gallery
X openings.
Someone needs to tell the World Health Organization about this glitter
factor danger in 1st world counties re: optic nerve incapacitation; and
warn gallery owners of the substancial risks of exposing themselves to
potencial lawsuits.
Ive told those people at the Art Institute of Chicago over and over again
how I thought the Morton Wing should be brought down in flames; they just
smile and say "ticket please". I see a wheel chair bound patron, fling the
contraption over and yell "a miracle is about to occur-he can walk-just
prefers to ride!"
X Now, when a certified modern master like Picasso comes along and
X exhibits a touch of pleasantness together with a hint at draftsmanship
X the result in these collectors is ecstasy.
You mean Matisse or Renoir here; they not interested in depicting the
sometimes misanthropic mind of mankind.
X Here at last is some relief from the ugliness these people have grown
X accustomed to. That is why Picasso's early work fetches so much more
X than his later excrusiations.
I almost thought you said 'extrusions' <and a fine field plastics are>.
Its simpler, those works are more representational as he was inexperienced.
His visual shorthand for complex human situation isnt seen until 1930
therebouts.
X ... No skill no art.
No vision no art.
Kephart
JanneSiren
Picasso." On an actual read, I don't find your comments silly at all. I
particularly enjoy your sarcasm in the line, "De-bunking the myth; how
many millimeters have you gained?" (as but one example).
Didn't mean to be writing to (and offending) you. This I reserve for
Mani.Deli.
My humble apologies. As you can see, it's rather late. One might even
say I'm confused with my own e-mail. Apologies again.
J. Martin Hill
Institute of Fine Arts, NYC
JanneSiren
(begin part II to Mani Deli)
Regarding your Creationism and Genesis analogy: I can tell that if you
were
a conservative Christian, you would be one to follow the Bible word for
word
rather than actually seeking its message. Again, your problem is an
historical one. To argue that the Bible (an assimilation of various texts
put together over hundreds, nea thousands of years) is wholly invalid
because
Genesis is fantastical is akin to dismissing the golden rule on the basis
that it, too, was written by a Jew. Really, the two have little to do
with
each other. Again, the point is not to find an air-tight "solution" (as
you
put it above), but rather to separate fact from fiction, the worthwhile
from
the foolish. I think you're a bit too much of a purist. The result is a
narrow-minded arrogance blustering as a defense for a lack of intellectual
rigor. This, I think, is what's behind your statement, "This is why I
don't
delve into these matters beyond a certain degree of
detail."
I think your potential publishers might be hostile not so much to your
opinions (both the good and the bad are published these days and with
275pgs.
there's got to be something worth reading), but to your tone and your
surprising lack of linguistic specificity. I scarcely think you'll do
better
on the net.
You are right in that I did not go back to your previous postings. I do
think, though, that my interpretation of what you wrote was not so far off
the mark as you suggest. As for Dali, I'm not particularly interested
myself
(either in Dali or what Greenberg had to say about him--incidentally, I
think
G was wrong, at least about the early Dali). Again, I try to separate the
good from the bad.
I have already implicity with the issues broached in your last paragraph.
1.) art history is not a bunch of personal opionions; 2.) "perusal" of
the
"'scholarly' literature" isn't quite rigorous enough; 3.) "permanent
relevance" is hardly the point (though one might say that even someone
like
Walter Pater, not to mention Meyer Schapiro, Baudelaire, etc, have
enduring
value); 4.) as for who reads the journals and why, see number 2; 5.) and
again, as to whether what is written is of interest (much of it isn't), it
is
not worth my time to disagree with you (though I do on general grounds).
(end part II)
Wray Kephart
X Yet another apology. I thought I was sending to "Picasso" not to "Re:
X Picasso." On an actual read, I don't find your comments silly at all. I
X particularly enjoy your sarcasm in the line, "De-bunking the myth; how
X many millimeters have you gained?" (as but one example).
X Didn't mean to be writing to (and offending) you. This I reserve for
X Mani.Deli.
X My humble apologies. As you can see, it's rather late. One might even
X say I'm confused with my own e-mail. Apologies again.
Trying to think of a time when Ive ever been offended;
<once when I told the lawn to stop growing and it was 4 inches
taller the following weekend-but then it was "tall fescue" planted>.
General rule; dont take arguement to email unless off topic-some
of us are starving for good information.
Kephart
JanneSiren
(And glad I didn't offend you).
JMartinHil
alias
Wray Kephart
X on Thu, 8 Jun 95 20:33:00 -0500 Mani Deli (mani...@canrem.com) posted:
X X
X X > ``Angel Fernandez de Soto,'' a 1903
X X >Sotheby's at $10 to $15 million, sold for $29.1 million.
X X
X X >Who will be the first to pay this price for a Dali?
X X I judge a painting by quality not by price.
X My assembly line painted gorilla faces will then astonish you for the
X price including the entire stuffed product; four limbs swing free extra
X plush.
X X I think the day will come when fashionable critics, if only for
X X something new to say, will pan Picasso, Matisse etc.
X Yep they are beating the sidewalks for new news, no new pigeon communities
X sprung up to write about and wayward supermarket shopper carts are old
X news.
X You mean 'tabloid'critics, or those fashionably dressed in international
X style? Who *is* actually writing for the Enquirer these days--Robert
X Hughes has an undercover name new publication aka Stylus Pens-Speak.
X <Robert Pincus-Written has dropped his last hyphen>.
X X Their price will plummet and the guys stuck with these masterpieces
X X will be embarrassed.
X Masterpiece = a potencially embarrassing investment. Someone been knocking
X Michelangelo lately?-fess up. You set the betting rules, I take the wager,
X but time restricted to say 1 month from now; at what odds?
X X Picasso's early work was done fast and for fast cash. Picasso started
X X as a schlock painter as did many artists. He painted in the latest
X X styles imitating Puvis, Leutrec, Moticelli, etc. and so to speak made it.
X Yes, unlike DeGrazia who started backwards; a fine expressionist of rooster
X flesh he became the infant terrible of portraying dwarf native american big
X eyed children offering palm leaves to???to the heavens, or top of the
X windchime they were painted on. Does it matter if you work backwards to
X mediocrity or forwards to the sublime? Or like Jimenez, you start in the
X middle and stay there; provided you are working with resin mold products
X ala Vargas airbrush nude pictography <made that word up for you; as Ive
X determined you area histrionic artology researchologist.
X Left fielding for all of the husbands
X chagrin at yet another $$$$$ Degrazia windchime on the patio.
X Slight elevation: <koons owes much homage to vargas and jiminez
X before Staffordshire>
X X I think this particular painting is mediocre. If it turned out to be a
X X fake signed Franz Poop it would be judged on the basis of quality and
X X worth little. The signature is the basis of its value.
X Poop value, let me document this new nomenclature; not same cat. Crumb,
X Urinal or free standing goat sig?
X How many times does it need to be said, money amount equals exchange value.
X Are you a licensed expert to judge quality and value based in
X non-denominational systems?
X X The same fuss was made by Sotheby's some years ago about a similar
X X Picasso, another mediocrity.
X Where can I find your published revelations on mediocre Picassos? Those were
X the ones done when he was half asleep or preoccupied with dinner guests
X right? De-bunking the myth; how many millimeters have you gained?
X X I recall the big TV shtick they did about the sale and the interviews
X X with some of America's top idiot richy collectors trying to out-
X X profound each other's orgasmic praise.
X How did such idiots obtain such fortune to collect art; if they were
X collecting idiot art or if the artists themselves were 'richy' from
X TV generated profits it would make so much more sense.
X X The best part was when a Harvard accented critic expostulated in Nasal
X X Effeminate "Its probably the most important painting of the 20th Century.
X Had that big "H" carved across his forehead, emblasoned on his chest.
X Where can I find your published revelations on nasal effeminate Harvard
X graduates, as Im not familiar with this type of thorough and biased
X generalizing theory about critics; thesis work?
X X At the turn of this century prices for Bouguereau and Puvis were like
X X Picasso's are now, in the stratosphere. By 1935 Bouguereau was totally
X X out and by 1950 you could get a B. for under $1,000. Puvis prices are
X X lame today while B's are constantly on the rise. The reason is that B.
X X can paint and Puvis was mediorcre. I won't go into long explanations and
X X bore our Modern brethren.
X Out gunned here actually, Bouguereau *can paint* whalla turner style if hed
X had the vision; but you probably are not aware of the secret Puvis
X methodology, known only to those who "get it". Get it factor is a biggy
X in "M.A." <requiring an lucid semi elastic mind>.
X X The reason for B's decline is simple. Bouguereau was a bogeyman of the
X X Moderns much like Rockwell is today. Picasso and Matisse had nothing but
X X scorn for B.
X They scorned each other so youre describing two large sets dog jaws
X open tongue panting; both looking wistfully at the same chicken bone femur
X wedged in the corner. <When will Jansen include Rockwell in his pages>
X X as the king of aesthetic evil and everything academic. The evil
X X specter of B. has faded as has the public's ecstasy for P.
X This sounds like a papal concern, do you have the right cape/hat on and how
X is your eyesight and troop availablily for 'ready' conquering naval status.
X X Rarely does the average art student hear of either. Today people judge
X X these artists on the basis of quality alone not fashion. When B. has a
X X show it is well attended while the critics fume. When P. has a show the
X X critics get excited and the public for the most part yawns.
X These gyrations are incomprehensible, even more so that they are your focus.
X Students are being denied information you say?! grow those wings and
X save them; and tell them when they describe public perseption as
X yawning, to keep in mind the existance of small flying insect species.
X X I have a theory why the early Picasso's sells for so much. It is
X X because our Modern Academic Art fans have grown accustomed to ugliness,
X X lousy draftsmanship and practically-nothing content in pictures. Its a
X X case of what I call "Picasso Eye."
X Picasso eye? Is it diagnosable has it been isolated; cure ratios?
X Maybe just maybe, he wasnt interested in academic representation at the time.
X Maybe he was working a process other than standard rubber stamp vase
X portrayal. Maybe he had a different idea, working on drawing it with 3
X different perspectives in a single dimension..naaaahh.
X X It results from over-attending the Modern sections of museums to the
X X exclusion of other sections and going to too many glittery gallery
X X openings.
X Someone needs to tell the World Health Organization about this glitter
X factor danger in 1st world counties re: optic nerve incapacitation; and
X warn gallery owners of the substancial risks of exposing themselves to
X potencial lawsuits.
X Ive told those people at the Art Institute of Chicago over and over again
X how I thought the Morton Wing should be brought down in flames; they just
X smile and say "ticket please". I see a wheel chair bound patron, fling the
X contraption over and yell "a miracle is about to occur-he can walk-just
X prefers to ride!"
X X Now, when a certified modern master like Picasso comes along and
X X exhibits a touch of pleasantness together with a hint at draftsmanship
X X the result in these collectors is ecstasy.
X You mean Matisse or Renoir here; they not interested in depicting the
X sometimes misanthropic mind of mankind.
X X Here at last is some relief from the ugliness these people have grown
X X accustomed to. That is why Picasso's early work fetches so much more
X X than his later excrusiations.
X I almost thought you said 'extrusions' <and a fine field plastics are>.
X Its simpler, those works are more representational as he was inexperienced.
X His visual shorthand for complex human situation isnt seen until 1930
X therebouts.
X X ... No skill no art.
X No vision no art.
X Kephart
Apologies all around for reposting this and for those not having
'kill file' privileges: This is a public forum; the orig
thread generator writes a thread because he expects to generate
reply, and so should be prepared to answer <animosity factor un-assumed>.
Chicken factors set aside; be careful what you post as some of us
may be listening.
Kephart
Jason A. Hutto
>to say, will pan Picasso, Matisse etc. Their price will plummet and the guys
>stuck with these masterpieces will be embarrassed.
Where do you keep getting this stuff?
It has been done already.
Picasso has been one of the mopst examined 20th century artists. From
both the praise and scorn corners.
The fact that Mani Deli is incapable of recognizing genius steadily grows
more and more bizarre.
>Picasso's early work was done fast and for fast cash. Picasso started as a
>schlock painter as did many artists. He painted in the latest styles imitating
>Puvis, Leutrec, Moticelli, etc. and so to speak made it.
You know absolutely nothing? Is that what you are admitting here?
If he did his work for quick cash, how come he never had any money for
the first almost decade of his career? He had to get money from family
and friends to even eat! He was not successful until he was 26 when he
painted 'The Girls of Avignon'...and then only moderately successful
until he started designing ballet sets and costumes and rubbing elbows
with the money makers. He also did not paint in the latest styles, but in
the styles of the old masters, primarily, like El Greco etc...and as well
he copied Lautrec and other impressionists and post impressionists to
learn what they knew. Never once have you criticized Duchamp for
stealing from Davinci, or for somehow obtaining a public bathroom fixture
to display.
>I think this particular painting is mediocre. If it turned out to be a fake
>signed Franz Poop it would be judged on the basis of quality and worth little.
>The signature is the basis of its value.
And so what if it is?
The same could be applied to ANY major artist.
Buy your clothes at Wal Mart for $5
or buy them from Ralpg lauren for $50.
What is the real difference?
In other respects, while Lauren's clothes are pricey because he makes
them so, Picasso has historical significance. I would pay good money for
any item he even owned and used. Simply because it was his. On the same
other hand, I would never buy anything that used to be Ralph Lauren's.
> The same fuss was made by Sotheby's some years ago about a similar Picasso,
>another mediocrity.
We all create mediocre works.
I would hate to think that anything bad that I made would ever make it to
any gallery. The critics put those pieces there. The historians and
buyers. You slam Picasso for that. That is where you are wrong. An
artist, even if the artist is a genius, cannot make masterpieces
everytime the brush is held. Nevertheless, the genius is not diminished
by any sort of mistake or bad work. Just because the commercial side of
art says Picasso is worth money and we will price him high even if the
particular work stinks has nothing to do with whether or not Picasso, the
genuis/artist, is valuable or valid or significant. He is because of
what he did, at some point, and that is a fact that cannot be rationally
disputed. Would you expect a Michelagelo to be priced at $3,000.00 just
because is was one of the many unfinished ones? Because it had a chip in it?
>I recall the big TV shtick they did about the sale and the
>interviews with some of America's top idiot richy collectors trying to out-
>profound each other's orgasmic praise. The best part was when a Harvard
>accented critic expostulated in Nasal Effeminate "Its probably the most
>important painting of the 20th Century." Strange but I don't recall it even
>being mentioned by any holy critic of note or reproduced in standard Picasso
>tomes. It was even duller than the above mentioned masterpiece. I think it now
>hangs in the Metropolitan in a wing dedicated to the one collector. ( can't
>recall his name, I could be wrong)
You probably are. I will restate that it was not Picasso, but the
collectors and whatnots who made things this way. You should not malign
Picasso for these idiots schemes.
>At the turn of this century prices for Bouguereau and Puvis were like Picasso's
>are now, in the stratosphere. By 1935 Bouguereau was totally out and by 1950
>you could get a B. for under $1,000. Puvis prices are lame today while B's are
>constantly on the rise. The reason is that B. can paint and Puvis was
>mediorcre. I won't go into long explanations and bore our Modern brethren.
Plus the fact that you would continue to be speaking in total irrelevancies.
>The reason for B's decline is simple. Bouguereau was a bogeyman of the Moderns
>much like Rockwell is today. Picasso and Matisse had nothing but scorn for B.
>as the king of aesthetic evil and everything academic. The evil specter of B.
>has faded as has the public's ecstasy for P. Rarely does the average art
>student hear of either.
Why should we if these two have done nothing significant?
>Today people judge these artists on the basis of
>quality alone not fashion. When B. has a show it is well attended while the
>critics fume. When P. has a show the critics get excited and the public for the
>most part yawns.
Did over a milion people visit 'B''s retrospective?
>I have a theory why the early Picasso's sells for so much. It is because our
>Modern Academic Art fans have grown accustomed to ugliness, lousy draftsmanship
>and practically-nothing content in pictures.
Which 'early' Picassos are you talking about?
>Its a case of what I call "Picasso
>Eye."
You obviously suffer from what I call 'Mani Deli Brain'
>It results from over-attending the Modern sections of museums to the
>exclusion of other sections and going to too many glittery gallery openings.
>Now, when a certified modern master like Picasso comes along and exhibits a
>touch of pleasantness together with a hint at draftsmanship the result in these
>collectors is ecstasy. Here at last is some relief from the ugliness these
>people have grown accustomed to. That is why Picasso's early work fetches so
>much more than his later excrusiations.
Please learn how to spell. Please?
You are the only person I have ever met, seen, heard from, or read who
consistently has no idea what theyt are talking about.
>Mani DeLi...Who has No skill and produces no art.
Jason
--
This has been a message from : Jason A. Hutto (Brother Alphabet)
----------------------------------------------------------------
ja...@ra.msstate.edu | http://www2.msstate.edu/~jah10
Wray Kephart
X on Fri, 9 Jun 1995 19:48:22 GMT Wray Kephart (kep...@crash.cts.com) posted:
X X on Thu, 8 Jun 95 20:33:00 -0500 Mani Deli (mani...@canrem.com) posted:
X X X
X X X > ``Angel Fernandez de Soto,'' a 1903
X X X >Sotheby's at $10 to $15 million, sold for $29.1 million.
Still waiting mani-what happened; you found your feet, or realised
your arguement was a ridiculus as the reply you recieved..so wont
respond?
and getting tired of waiting;
Kephart
TexMexTamale
>The fact that Mani Deli is incapable of recognizing genius steadily grows
>more and more bizarre.
>You are the only person I have ever met, seen, heard from, or read who
>consistently has no idea what theyt are talking about.
>Jason
So why do you continue debating this cerebrally deprived
individual. It isn't worth the two lines I am typing here, IMHO.
--
****** TexMexTamale ******
*** Fiery going In. ***
** Flames coming out. **
*********************************
Jason A. Hutto
>individual. It isn't worth the two lines I am typing here, IMHO.
So that ignorant or incorrect statements regarding Picasso do not remain
unchallenged. Not that the man (Picasso) was flawless...
I am not AGAINST Mani Deli. In fact, Mani Deli has made many statements
in common with my own beliefs. I only open my mouth (keyboard) when I
feel that someone has misstated what I know to be the actual truth, as do
we all, usually. Well, I guess that would be a lie. i run my mouth for
more reasons than that. :)
I am not, however, here to slam Mani Deli.
Plus the fact that disagreement and discourse are quite interesting. They
help one thing and reason. I might be completely wrong. I won't know this
until Mani Deli, or someone else proves this to me by stating the facts
or opinions on 'the other side' of the point in question. It is a
learning process. I definitely feel that it is worth it to write back and
forth. Much more than two mere lines as well.
The two lines you quoted were what I would call bombs. Or verbal
incendiary devices used to spice the argument up a bit and to
'encourage' the other party to issue a similarly heated response.
Keeps the humdrum gone. At least to me.
Has anyone else noticed how I have dragged this response out MUCH further
than I should have? I certainly did.
That was what is known as a semi-comic relief.
A sort of funny statement of the obvious designed to show the readers
that I do not take myself too seriously, and that I do indeed have a
sense of humor, and it also allows me the priveledge of laughing at
myself long before anyone else does. It is my right as author to do so. :)
Without any other annoying rambling, I conclude, being fully confident I
have made my point as clear as is humanly possible.
Mani Deli
>The fact that Mani Deli is incapable of recognizing genius steadily grows
>more and more bizarre.
>You are the only person I have ever met, seen, heard from, or read who
>consistently has no idea what theyt are talking about.
>Jason
Ho> So why do you continue debating this cerebrally deprived
Ho> individual. It isn't worth the two lines I am typing here, IMHO.
Delighted to hear all this. Interesting that these people do nothing but flame.
They never deem to answer my points. I suspect they can't.
Well keep on cooking and to raise the temperature I will include another quote
from my book, this one about Picasso of course. I hope this will invoke some
more enthusiastic pledges not to buy my book. Perhaps it might even inspire a
few Rip Van Winkels here to present an argument rather then their usual short
incendiary farts.
From Chapter-
PICASSO PRINCE OF UGLINESS & MATISSE PAUPER OF SKILL
Picasso's styles and Dumping
Most references on Picasso will divide his work into many stylistic periods;
the rose, Blue, Rose & Blue Cubist, Neo-Classical, etc. but I maintain that
there are only two really major Picasso styles, the utterly ugly and the just
about bearable. This vacillation between the excruciating and the bearable is a
Picasso characteristic which anyone, even the artistically insensitive, can
easily distinguish. After painting something bearable, Picasso always seems to
test his audience to see what degree of ugliness, carelessness or lazy
simplicity he can dump on them next. Perhaps this is why Picasso was constantly
plagued by doubts about his audience.
Working to purposefully achieve little more than the outrageous usually has as
strong an effect on the artist as on his doting clientele. Such an artist
rarely avoids becoming jaded about what he is doing and often feels compelled
to test the love of his adoring audience. He does this by giving them something
even more minimal and less carefully done then usual to probe their limits of
tolerance. Dumping as practiced by most Modern Artists is an expression of
insecurity. It is the artist subconsciously saying, "I will do my worst not
only in order to once again irritate my enemies but to see whether my audience
still loves me." It is the emperor's tailors expressing momentary doubt.
Many artist's are possessed by urges to satirize their patrons about whom they
may well have justified nagging doubts. The Modern Artist is in part a
professional satirist. Certainly Picasso was little else. M.A. evolved around
satire. The minimal, the ugly, the outrageous, all have satirical origins.
Cubism and the extremes of Malevich's and Matisse's paintings of schmiery green
heads are all examples of works which were originally dumpings.
Mani DeLi
... No skill no art.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
Jason A. Hutto
I'm sorry, but any publisher who would let that fly DESERVES to go
bankrupt. You can't spell, punctuate, or even get your facts straight.
Besides the fact that I thought I disputed your ignorant claims quite
thouroughly. The absent reply is yours.
James Rowell
Preface - Some Common Argument Fallacies
The "Ad Hominem" fallacy occurs when an arguer's post appeals to
feelings or prejudices as opposed to logic. It also occurs when an
arguer moves a discussion to a personal level through character
assassination or personal attacks.
"Circular Reasoning" occurs when stating in one's proof that which
one is supposed to be proving.
The "False Cause" fallacy occurs whenever the link between premises
and conclusion depends on some imagined casual connection that probably
does not exist.
The "Composition" fallacy is committed when the conclusion of an
argument depends on the erroneous transference of characteristic from
the parts of something into the whole. In other words, the fallacy
occurs when it is argued that because the parts have a certain
characteristic, it follows that the whole has that characteristic too.
However, the situation is such that the characteristic in question
cannot be legitimately transferred from parts to the whole.
The "Suppressed Evidence" fallacy is committed when an arguer ignores
evidence that would tend to undermine the premises of an otherwise
good argument, causing it to be unsound or uncogent.
In article <60.958.494...@canrem.com> mani...@canrem.com (Mani Deli) writes:
> From Chapter-
> PICASSO PRINCE OF UGLINESS & MATISSE PAUPER OF SKILL
-*-*- OR -*-*-
A STUDY IN COMMON ARGUMENT FALLACIES
>
> Picasso's styles and Dumping
>
> Most references on Picasso will divide his work into many
> stylistic periods; the rose, Blue, Rose & Blue Cubist, Neo-
> Classical, etc. but I maintain that there are only two really
> major Picasso styles, the utterly ugly and the just about
> bearable. ...
Introduction with the "Ad Hominem" argument (with an attempt at humor).
> ... This vacillation between the excruciating and the
> bearable is a Picasso characteristic which anyone, even the
> artistically insensitive, can easily distinguish. ...
More strongly worded "Ad Hominem" attacks. Note the writer is even
attacking the audience as well as Picasso with his comment about
"artistically insensitive". Are we to assume that the "artistically
sensitive" should, by definition, agree with the views of the writer?
> ... After painting
> something bearable, Picasso always seems to test his audience to
> see what degree of ugliness, carelessness or lazy simplicity he
> can dump on them next.
This claim doesn't even fall into the categories listed above.
It is not backed up by any references or examples. It is simply
an unfounded claim.
Note that this paragraph contains the only reference to "dumping"
("...can dump on them next.") in the entire piece. Are we supposed
to try to deduce the definition of "dumping" from this context?
> ... Perhaps this is why Picasso was constantly
> plagued by doubts about his audience.
Definitely the "False Cause" fallacy.
> Working to purposefully achieve little more than the outrageous
> usually has as strong an effect on the artist as on his doting
> clientele. Such an artist rarely avoids becoming jaded about what
> he is doing and often feels compelled to test the love of his
> adoring audience. He does this by giving them something even more
> minimal and less carefully done then usual to probe their limits
> of tolerance. ...
The writer throws out "Ad Hominem" comments like these, and then complains
that nobody addresses his points. One problem is that there is nothing
to address. No facts are presented, no examples, no reference to
anything that the artist in question has said or done. Nothing is
presented from which we can provide a counter argument. The quoted
lines above are empty and not worthy of rebuttal.
> Dumping as practiced by most Modern Artists is an
> expression of insecurity. It is the artist subconsciously
> saying, "I will do my worst not only in order to once again
> irritate my enemies but to see whether my audience still loves
> me." It is the emperor's tailors expressing momentary doubt.
Huh?
Dumping?
Emperor's tailors?
It's not even clear what the writer is talking about here, however,
it is clear that it is some kind of in depth conversation going in
in his head. Unfortunately it hasn't been communicated to us.
I think we may even be witnessing a "Circular Reasoning" argument
here, but I'm not sure we can decipher the claims enough to draw
that conclusion.
> Many artist's are possessed by urges to satirize their patrons
> about whom they may well have justified nagging doubts. The
> Modern Artist is in part a professional satirist. Certainly
> Picasso was little else. M.A. evolved around satire. The minimal,
> the ugly, the outrageous, all have satirical origins. Cubism and
> the extremes of Malevich's and Matisse's paintings of schmiery
> green heads are all examples of works which were originally
> dumpings.
Not that we can begin to understand what "dumpings" are, but this
is obviously a "Composition" Fallacy. Just because parts of M.A.
contain satire, doesn't mean that is the sum total of M.A.
Mr. Mani Deli, I think you should consider taking a good long hard
look at yourself and why you hate M.A. so much. Perhaps you'll find
that the things you detest in M.A. so much are mearly reflections
of yourself. I don't expect that your foray into M.A. is going to
be pleasurable. But then again, who said it was supposed to be?!
James.
Mani Deli
-=> Quoting Ja...@ra.msstate.edu to All <=-
Ja> I'm sorry, but any publisher who would let that fly DESERVES to go
Ja> bankrupt. You can't spell, punctuate, or even get your facts
Ja> straight.
Ja> Besides the fact that I thought I disputed your ignorant claims quite
Ja> thouroughly. The absent reply is yours.
In what message?
Why don't you quote my "facts" which you dipute and present a counter
argument.
Ross Green
sensible and eloquent!
This subject area (informal logic/critical thinking) has interested me
for some time now - And this newsgroup has been a fertile source
for examples of fallacious arguments - (Just a few offenders really,
but they're VERY good at what they do.)
The ad hominem attack is the weapon of choice in rec.arts.fine.
I agree with Jason Hutto when he says that "verbal incendiary devices"
are useful for stirring things up and relieving boredom. The occasional
outrageous comment should be welcomed. However, there are some
confused individuals out there who think that the various types of ad
hominem attacks are what *constitutes* argument.
Another very popular fallacy here is the Argumentum ad Numeram:
That's when, for example, several people start posting messages
supporting the silly idea that Norman Rockwell is a great painter. If
ten people say it loud enough and often, and only one or two others
take the time to object, then the weight of the majority "decides" the
issue - real substantiation being unnecessary.
>jam...@autodesk.com (James Rowell) wrote:
>No facts are presented, no examples, no reference to anything that
>the artist in question has said or done. Nothing is presented from
>which we can provide a counter argument.
Well, I disagree - You can point out the fallacies committed, and then
very carefully spell out your own position, with examples and
references, etc., etc.
BUT THEN the usual response to that is the Argumentum ad
Nauseam: The original unfounded claims are just repeated, often
in louder and more abusive tones. Others join in, and you begin
to wonder if it's worth the trouble to respond...
Here's a simple unfounded claim that's come up several times: "It's
perfectly sound practice to paint oils over acrylics." The experts
(Ralph Mayer, etc.) are unanimous in condemning it! But artists who
use this technique know lots of other artists who do the same, so it's
the Argumentum ad Numeram again. Then someone says: "But my
oil-over-acrylic paintings have lasted twenty years!" -as if that had the
slightest relevance.
What do you think about the question of "informed opinion" versus
"simple opinion" - There's a sort of crude democratic leveling that
goes on sometimes - People seem to think that "all opinions are
equal," and equally deserving of respect. But when you're debating
with someone, and it becomes painfully apparent that they have a
weak grasp of art issues, little knowledge of art history, ignorance of
basic art terms and art criticism, AND ON TOP OF THAT they're
using a full repertoire of fallacies... well, it's hard not to become
sarcastic. (Don't misconstrue this paragraph; I believe in democratic
processes.)
By the way, if you "win" too many debates with Mani Deli, he'll stop
responding to your postings.
-Ross
PS- Do you know any Usenet groups that discuss informal logic?
(Besides r.a.f.!) I've been to sci.logic, but that's just mathematical
logic.
CAT
>(this is where Mani accuses me of "artspeak"... his favorite word)
ArtSpeak is a wonderful thing. You can do anything and everything and
explain away it with ArtSpeak. Even if you screw up and make a mess, some
clever ArtSpeak cover it by saying it is experimental and a new eccentric
style. Folks will ooo and ahh and finally see your genius!
I heartily recommend teaching it to all children. Forget Barney! They
will be occupied for hours discovering art in their surroundings.
"Mommie! Fido just juxtaposed some whimsical canine sculpture on the
carpet in a previous superficially vacant area." Dada! Good boy Timmy!
Does little Suzie smears her baked beans and mashed potatoes around
during supper? Don't stop her, encourage her because she could be a
budding Karen Finley.
Adults should learn it too, so they can entertain and amaze their
friends with their new found understanding and sensivity. Hooked on
ArtSpeak tapes are on sale now at all stores and galleries.
>Mani Deli wrote,
>Dumping as practiced by most Modern Artists is an expression of
>insecurity. It is the artist subconsciously saying, "I will do my worst
not
>only in order to once again irritate my enemies but to see whether my
audience
>still loves me." It is the emperor's tailors expressing momentary doubt.
Speaking of dumping. I saw on TV last year where a great artist took a
dump in some cans and called it art. (Mixed media!) It was in a gallery.
Miniture Henry Moores in a can. He could easily dump it on a canvas smear
it around with some house paint and crayons and then scribble something
from the classics. Viola, Twombly! The Emperor's toilet. Maybe sketch a
Rothenberg horsey in it.
CAT
Wray Kephart
X -=> Quoting H...@aol.com to All <=-
X >The fact that Mani Deli is incapable of recognizing genius steadily grows
X >more and more bizarre.
X
X >You are the only person I have ever met, seen, heard from, or read who
X >consistently has no idea what theyt are talking about.
X Delighted to hear all this. Interesting that these people do nothing but flame.
X They never deem to answer my points. I suspect they can't.
Im still waiting; I have answered but got no reply from you.
X Well keep on cooking and to raise the temperature I will include another quote
X from my book, this one about Picasso of course. I hope this will invoke some
X more enthusiastic pledges not to buy my book. Perhaps it might even inspire a
X few Rip Van Winkels here to present an argument rather then their usual short
X incendiary farts.
My arguement so far has not been rebutted. You arent proposing debate
formal as much as just stirring "poop value" <your terms>. Im a licensed
history and studio major of MFA degree <finer institution> and offer to
you a challenge of wits.
X From Chapter-
X PICASSO PRINCE OF UGLINESS & MATISSE PAUPER OF SKILL
X Most references on Picasso will divide his work into many stylistic periods;
X the rose, Blue, Rose & Blue Cubist, Neo-Classical, etc. but I maintain that
X there are only two really major Picasso styles, the utterly ugly and the just
X about bearable. This vacillation between the excruciating and the bearable is a
X Picasso characteristic which anyone, even the artistically insensitive, can
X easily distinguish. After painting something bearable, Picasso always seems to
X test his audience to see what degree of ugliness, carelessness or lazy
X simplicity he can dump on them next. Perhaps this is why Picasso was constantly
X plagued by doubts about his audience.
Ah, I can tell right now youve never put pen or brush to paper. Youve never
tryed distinguishing thought process = image event. Picasso never tested his
audience; he was without will to create a universe of his own making. You
cant participate; what else is new? The fact youve been unable to find
an audience does not reflect on Picassos lifestyle or works in fact he
never met you. <very personal self admission by you>
X Working to purposefully achieve little more than the outrageous usually has as
X strong an effect on the artist as on his doting clientele. Such an artist
X rarely avoids becoming jaded about what he is doing and often feels compelled
X to test the love of his adoring audience. He does this by giving them something
X even more minimal and less carefully done then usual to probe their limits of
X tolerance.
Well Ive never sought to destroy modern myth of your scale, its more
a personal journey. Perhaps your thinking of Alexander the Great here.
Your still twined in some conspiracy theory unbenoansed by the rest of us.
That or he forgot to leave you an inheiretency. Minimal equals secrecy then
betrayed!!!the man changed to a more developed volume....strife now.
X Dumping as practiced by most Modern Artists is an expression of
X insecurity.
Similar to your Poop value theory? Dumping by Japan; of painted products
Picassos where bought up in kamakazi swoops in the 40s.
You mean >gulp< he was insecure????!
X It is the artist subconsciously saying, "I will do my worst not
X only in order to once again irritate my enemies but to see whether my audience
X still loves me." It is the emperor's tailors expressing momentary doubt.
What are you clothed in at this moment and what shape takes your hat.
X Many artist's are possessed by urges to satirize their patrons about whom they
X may well have justified nagging doubts. The Modern Artist is in part a
X professional satirist. Certainly Picasso was little else. M.A. evolved around
X satire. The minimal, the ugly, the outrageous, all have satirical origins.
Not at all disagreeing here the modern comic or graphic artist owes much
to his lirical line style--my question is do you see any relation?
Kephart
Wray Kephart
X Mr. Tay wrote,
X >(this is where Mani accuses me of "artspeak"... his favorite word)
X ArtSpeak is a wonderful thing. You can do anything and everything and
X explain away it with ArtSpeak. Even if you screw up and make a mess, some
X clever ArtSpeak cover it by saying it is experimental and a new eccentric
X style. Folks will ooo and ahh and finally see your genius!
Its a style of pedanitics is all. <necessary stess on minor or trivial
points of learning, displaying a scholarship; found otherwise lacking in
scholarship or learning imagined>.
Im not sure what the Artspeak monogram says except "Im without knowlege
about this subject".
X I heartily recommend teaching it to all children. Forget Barney! They
X will be occupied for hours discovering art in their surroundings.
X "Mommie! Fido just juxtaposed some whimsical canine sculpture on the
X carpet in a previous superficially vacant area." Dada! Good boy Timmy!
X Does little Suzie smears her baked beans and mashed potatoes around
X during supper? Don't stop her, encourage her because she could be a
X budding Karen Finley.
Personally Id be more concerned about telling the difference between
a moral or value based lie/or emotion vs rational response.. Karen
Finley has her moments with canned sweet potatoes I suppose.
X Adults should learn it too, so they can entertain and amaze their
X friends with their new found understanding and sensivity. Hooked on
X ArtSpeak tapes are on sale now at all stores and galleries.
Not sure the ugly area there you speak of must be of an entirely personal
derivation.
Kephart
Mani Deli
Ja> Preface - Some Common Argument Fallacies
Ja> The "Ad Hominem" fallacy occurs when an arguer's post appeals to
Ja> feelings or prejudices as opposed to logic. It also occurs when an
Ja> arguer moves a discussion to a personal level through character
Ja> assassination or personal attacks.
There are several points here which you fail to notice.
I am not making a formal inductive argument.
When discussing art one makes an appeal to feelings. How can one avoid that?
Liking or disliking a work claiming to be art is at base a matter of feeling.
Ja> "Circular Reasoning" occurs when stating in one's proof that which
Ja> one is supposed to be proving.
Ja> The "False Cause" fallacy occurs whenever the link between premises
Ja> and conclusion depends on some imagined casual connection that
Ja> probably does not exist.
Ja> The "Composition" fallacy is committed when the conclusion of an
Ja> argument depends on the erroneous transference of characteristic from
Ja> the parts of something into the whole.
Ja> The "Suppressed Evidence" fallacy is committed when an arguer ignores
Ja> evidence that would tend to undermine the premises of an otherwise
Ja> good argument, causing it to be unsound or uncogent.
What evidence did I suppress? Tell us.
Ja> (Mani Deli) writes:
> From Chapter-
> PICASSO PRINCE OF UGLINESS & MATISSE PAUPER OF SKILL
Ja> -*-*- OR -*-*-
Ja> A STUDY IN COMMON ARGUMENT FALLACIES
By Ja. who has poor reading comprehension and lacks a background in a phase of
art history>
> Picasso's styles and Dumping
>
> Most references on Picasso will divide his work into many
> stylistic periods; the rose, Blue, Rose & Blue Cubist, Neo-
> Classical, etc. but I maintain that there are only two really
> major Picasso styles, the utterly ugly and the just about
> bearable. ...
Ja> Introduction with the "Ad Hominem" argument (with an attempt at
Ja> humor).
By your reasoning the historians who divide P's work into a different set of
periods are also engaged in Ad hominem arguments.
> ... This vacillation between the excruciating and the
> bearable is a Picasso characteristic which anyone, even the
> artistically insensitive, can easily distinguish. ...
Ja> More strongly worded "Ad Hominem" attacks. Note the writer is even
Ja> attacking the audience as well as Picasso with his comment about
Ja> "artistically insensitive". Are we to assume that the "artistically
Ja> sensitive" should, by definition, agree with the views of the writer?
You are free to assume what you like.
> ... After painting
> something bearable, Picasso always seems to test his audience to
> see what degree of ugliness, carelessness or lazy simplicity he
> can dump on them next.
Ja> This claim doesn't even fall into the categories listed above.
Ja> It is not backed up by any references or examples. It is simply
Ja> an unfounded claim.
I'm not writing a scholarly thesis here and assume that those I address are
familiar with Picasso's work. I'm am writing in the art conference.
If you thumb thru a P. book you will see the difference. Picasso's African
period as opposed to individual paintings like i.e."mother and child" which
makes the middle class livingroom grade. If you think P's African period isn't
dominated by excrucating examples just say so.
Ja> Note that this paragraph contains the only reference to "dumping"
Ja> ("...can dump on them next.") in the entire piece. Are we supposed
Ja> to try to deduce the definition of "dumping" from this context?
I think if you read what followed you can well deduce the what "dumping"
means.
> ... Perhaps this is why Picasso was constantly
> plagued by doubts about his audience.
Ja> Definitely the "False Cause" fallacy.
False? Read a biography about Picasso and some of his own statements.
> Working to purposefully achieve little more than the outrageous
> usually has as strong an effect on the artist as on his doting
> clientele. Such an artist rarely avoids becoming jaded about what
> he is doing and often feels compelled to test the love of his
> adoring audience. He does this by giving them something even more
> minimal and less carefully done then usual to probe their limits
> of tolerance. ...
Ja> The writer throws out "Ad Hominem" comments like these, and then
Ja> complains that nobody addresses his points. One problem is that there
Ja> is nothing to address.
What does this mean?
I made the idea of what "dump" means quite clear and its effect it has on
artist and a certain audience. Anyone can disagree with me and say why. Do
artists dump or don't they. What's your opinion? I've given mine. That is what
can be addressed.
No facts are presented, no examples, no
Ja> reference to anything that the artist in question has said or done.
I'm making a general statement. I didn't choose to name artists.
You can only say this if you are unfamiliar with the facts. I do assume one
knows something of the situation to which I refer.
Ja> Nothing is presented from which we can provide a counter argument. The
Ja> quoted lines above are empty and not worthy of rebuttal.
Absurd, you can agree or disagree with my points and you can state why.
>Dumping as practiced by most Modern Artists is an
> expression of insecurity. It is the artist subconsciously
> saying, "I will do my worst not only in order to once again
> irritate my enemies but to see whether my audience still loves
> me." It is the emperor's tailors expressing momentary doubt.
Ja> Huh?
Ja> Dumping?
Ja> Emperor's tailors?
Refers to the "Emperor's new clothes." If you haven't heard of it forget it.
Ja> It's not even clear what the writer is talking about here, however,
Ja> it is clear that it is some kind of in depth conversation going in
Ja> in his head. Unfortunately it hasn't been communicated to us.
You not us.
Ja> I think we may even be witnessing a "Circular Reasoning" argument
Ja> here, but I'm not sure we can decipher the claims enough to draw
Ja> that conclusion.
You claim to not know what I am talking about and then you infer circular
reasoning. The fact is you are not familiar with what I am referring to and
then deem to criticize it as beyond your comprehension (fallicy of ignorance of
facts)
> Many artist's are possessed by urges to satirize their patrons
> about whom they may well have justified nagging doubts. The
> Modern Artist is in part a professional satirist. Certainly
> Picasso was little else. M.A. evolved around satire. The minimal,
> the ugly, the outrageous, all have satirical origins. Cubism and
> the extremes of Malevich's and Matisse's paintings of schmiery
> green heads are all examples of works which were originally
> dumpings.
Ja> Not that we can begin to understand what "dumpings" are, but this
Ja> is obviously a "Composition" Fallacy. Just because parts of M.A.
Ja> contain satire, doesn't mean that is the sum total of M.A.
Sure "obviously."
I didn't say that satire is the "sum total of M.A." I said that there are
satirical origins. (poor reading comprehansion)
Ja> Mr. Mani Deli, I think you should consider taking a good long hard
Ja> look at yourself and why you hate M.A. so much.
I don't hate MODERN ART (ad hominem fallacy), it has given me and many artists
who have learned technique and craft the great advantage of having a minimum of
competition. It is a source of great amusement and conversation. I even like
Modern Art Museums; good coffee and surroundings. I love openings; wine potato
chips and neat ladies.
Perhaps you'll find
Ja> that the things you detest in M.A. so much are mearly reflections
Ja> of yourself.
So you conclude that I detest myself. Now here's a fallacy you haven't
mentioned Psychobabble.
I don't expect that your foray into M.A. is going to
Ja> be pleasurable. But then again, who said it was supposed to be?!
I'm having a great time. Even in school (wine women and women) I did well thru
Modern Art. Speak for yourself. I
CAT
>Kephart
Wray,
You show great promise in ArtSpeak, grasshopper. ;-)
CAT
Mani Deli
Ke> on Mon, 19 Jun 95 18:09:00 -0500 Mani Deli (mani...@canrem.com)
Ke> posted: X -=> Quoting H...@aol.com to All <=-
X >The fact that Mani Deli is incapable of recognizing genius steadily grows
X >more and more bizarre.
Ke> X
X >You are the only person I have ever met, seen, heard from, or read who
X >consistently has no idea what theyt are talking about.
Ke> X Delighted to hear all this. Interesting that these people do nothing
Ke> but flame.
Ke> X They never deem to answer my points. I suspect they can't.
Ke> Im still waiting; I have answered but got no reply from you.
Ke> X Well keep on cooking and to raise the temperature I will include
Ke> another quote
Ke> X from my book, this one about Picasso of course. I hope this will
Ke> invoke some X more enthusiastic pledges not to buy my book. Perhaps it
Ke> might even inspire a X few Rip Van Winkels here to present an argument
Ke> rather then their usual short X incendiary farts.
Ke> My arguement so far has not been rebutted. You arent proposing debate
Ke> formal as much as just stirring "poop value" <your terms>. Im a
Ke> licensed history and studio major of MFA degree <finer institution> and
Ke> offer to you a challenge of wits.
Well k. I can only say that either I never saw your message or I couldn't
understand it after a reading.
Please be so kind as to repost it and I will give it my undivided attention.
thanks
Mani DeLi
Ke> X From Chapter-
Ke> X PICASSO PRINCE OF UGLINESS & MATISSE PAUPER OF SKILL
Ke> X Most references on Picasso will divide his work into many stylistic
Ke> periods; X the rose, Blue, Rose & Blue Cubist, Neo-Classical, etc. but
Ke> I maintain that X there are only two really major Picasso styles, the
Ke> utterly ugly and the just X about bearable. This vacillation between
Ke> the excruciating and the bearable is a
Ke> X Picasso characteristic which anyone, even the artistically
Ke> insensitive, can X easily distinguish. After painting something
Ke> bearable, Picasso always seems to
Ke> X test his audience to see what degree of ugliness, carelessness or
Ke> lazy X simplicity he can dump on them next. Perhaps this is why Picasso
Ke> was constantly
Ke> X plagued by doubts about his audience.
Ke> Ah, I can tell right now youve never put pen or brush to paper.
Another psychic.
Youve
Ke> never tryed distinguishing thought process = image event.
Another clear statement. Perhaps our reading expert Ross can explain this.
Picasso never
Ke> tested his audience; he was without will to create a universe of his
Ke> own making. You cant participate; what else is new? The fact youve been
Ke> unable to find an audience does not reflect on Picassos lifestyle or
Ke> works in fact he never met you. <very personal self admission by you>
And what does this mean, "You cant participate; what else is new??"
Ke> X Working to purposefully achieve little more than the outrageous
Ke> usually has as
Ke> X strong an effect on the artist as on his doting clientele. Such an
Ke> artist X rarely avoids becoming jaded about what he is doing and often
Ke> feels compelled X to test the love of his adoring audience. He does
Ke> this by giving them something
Ke> X even more minimal and less carefully done then usual to probe their
Ke> limits of X tolerance.
Ke> Well Ive never sought to destroy modern myth of your scale, its more
Ke> a personal journey.
So why not just give up?
Perhaps your thinking of Alexander the Great here.
No. Abstract Expressionism.
Ke> Your still twined in some conspiracy theory unbenoansed by the rest of
Ke> us. That or he forgot to leave you an inheiretency. Minimal equals
Ke> secrecy then betrayed!!!the man changed to a more developed
Ke> volume....strife now.
Look, your imitation of Joyce stinks. Why not write in clear English.
Ke> X Dumping as practiced by most Modern Artists is an expression of
Ke> X insecurity.
Ke> Similar to your Poop value theory? Dumping by Japan; of painted
Ke> products Picassos where bought up in kamakazi swoops in the 40s.
Ke> You mean >gulp< he was insecure????!
Picasso's goof paintings on he admired classical masters are a good set of
examples of dumps. They are a bunch of cartoony schmiers. He tried to imitate
Rembrandt, Cranach, Spanish masters, Manet. His ultimate in stupidity was Las
Manias after Velazquez. He even tried Dore'. Sure he sold it he was Picasso.
They bought his dinner napkins if he would add his signature. Strange, when he
died he left a load of 19th century academic painting in his estate. He also
admired some comic books. All this bugged him like Bouguereau.
Ke> X It is the artist subconsciously saying, "I will do my worst not
Ke> X only in order to once again irritate my enemies but to see whether
Ke> my audience
Ke> X still loves me." It is the emperor's tailors expressing momentary
Ke> doubt.
Ke> What are you clothed in at this moment and what shape takes your hat.
If this is the sort of question you want answered you can sit there and play
"switch."
Ke> X Many artist's are possessed by urges to satirize their patrons about
Ke> whom they
Ke> X may well have justified nagging doubts. The Modern Artist is in part
Ke> a X professional satirist. Certainly Picasso was little else. M.A.
Ke> evolved around X satire. The minimal, the ugly, the outrageous, all
Ke> have satirical origins.
Ke> Not at all disagreeing here the modern comic or graphic artist owes
Ke> much to his lirical line style--my question is do you see any relation?
Don't understand the question. What relation?
Please note in future I won't bother to annotate as I did here. I'll just
ignore your convoluted prattle.
Wray Kephart
X Quoting Kep...@crash.cts.com to All
You need a new newsreader <editor> *or* give some serious thought to
learning how to quote accurately.
X> My arguement so far has not been rebutted. You arent proposing debate
X> formal as much as just stirring "poop value" <your terms>.
X Well k. I can only say that either I never saw your message or I couldn't
X understand it after a reading.
<That says it all>.
X Please be so kind as to repost it and I will give it my undivided attention.
Did you know that there is a problem with your address;
the domaine separator nomenclature is not valid re: Mani.deli.
X> Ah, I can tell right now youve never put pen or brush to paper.
X Another psychic.
No; another curator/critic/painter with an MFA in studio art/history.
X> Youve never tryed distinguishing thought process = image event.
X Another clear statement. Perhaps our reading expert Ross can explain this.
What do you think a painting is; its a process of thought and action.
Not everyone is interested in recovering old ground <rubberstamp realism>.
X> Picasso never
X> tested his audience; he was without will to create a universe of his
X> own making. You cant participate; what else is new? The fact youve been
X> unable to find an audience does not reflect on Picassos lifestyle or
X> works in fact he never met you. <very personal self admission by you>
X And what does this mean, "You cant participate; what else is new??"
You cant participate because you dont have the necessary skills for
this level of scholarship.
X> Well Ive never sought to destroy modern myth [Picasso] of your scale, its
X> more a personal journey.
X So why not just give up?
??? Eh?
X> Your still twined in some conspiracy theory unbenoansed by the rest of
X> us. That or he forgot to leave you an inheiretency. Minimal equals
X> secrecy then betrayed!!!the man changed to a more developed
X> volume....strife now.
X Look, your imitation of Joyce stinks. Why not write in clear English.
Id write in your first language if you think that would help.
Ill send some Dick and Jane primers over to you immediately <thats
formula subject verb and nouns>.
X Dumping as practiced by most Modern Artists is an expression of
X insecurity.
X> Similar to your Poop value theory? Dumping by Japan; of painted
X> products Picassos where bought up in kamakazi swoops in the 40s.
X> You mean >gulp< he was insecure????!
X Picasso's goof paintings on he admired classical masters are a good set of
X examples of dumps. They are a bunch of cartoony schmiers. He tried to imitate
X Rembrandt, Cranach, Spanish masters, Manet. His ultimate in stupidity was Las
X Manias after Velazquez. He even tried Dore'. Sure he sold it he was Picasso.
X They bought his dinner napkins if he would add his signature. Strange, when he
X died he left a load of 19th century academic painting in his estate. He also
X admired some comic books. All this bugged him like Bouguereau.
X>> The Modern Artist is in part
X>> professional satirist. Certainly Picasso was little else. M.A.
X>> evolved around satire. The minimal, the ugly, the outrageous, all
X>> have satirical origins.
X> Not at all disagreeing here the modern comic or graphic artist owes
X> much to his lirical line style--my question is do you see any relation?
X Don't understand the question. What relation?
Have you looked much at graphic arts history, ie: have you looked at many
drawings done by humans.
<Mebe I should have said Picasso was a performance artist at heart, and
his painting was his theater...>
X Please note in future I won't bother to annotate as I did here. I'll just
X ignore your convoluted prattle.
You promote yourself as an expert in half wit theories as the
truth; and you blanketly disregard/discredit those half wits disagreeing
with you.
If you cant or refuse answer your critics it generally means your outgunned.
Kephart
Ross Green
You're developing into a real minimalist - Pretty soon you'll be
posting blank pages, which will be an excellent contribution to the
group's dynamics.
-Ross
Wray Kephart
X I think you are referring to me, if not ignore this message.
X -=> Quoting Ja...@ra.msstate.edu to All <=-
X Ja> I'm sorry, but any publisher who would let that fly DESERVES to go
X Ja> bankrupt. You can't spell, punctuate, or even get your facts
X Ja> straight.
X Ja> Besides the fact that I thought I disputed your ignorant claims quite
X Ja> thouroughly. The absent reply is yours.
X In what message?
X Why don't you quote my "facts" which you dipute and present a counter
X argument.
You dont present anything but half baked theories; where are the published
rebutts to any notable thesis written on Picasso <there are hundreds>.
We all personal opinions; that is all they will remain unless youve
successfully defended against those whom disagree. Once again you claim
"FOUL! I never read it!" or --your other favorite hedge <I'm not gonna
answer this one>. Ive got a rule for you: Dont post public SOMEONE MIGHT
BE LISTENING.
Do you really think its possible to debate a subjective subject when
you have no basic understanding of its premise? [MA]
Kephart
Itza Joqual
>HA! It will be like Rothco's blank next to nothingness canvases. I will
>be known as the poster's poster like Rothco is known as a painters
>painter in some artsie circles. ArtSpeak will follow to back it up!
>
>CAT
What you will be known for is being as un-intelligent of art speak
as Many deLies, Wary Ketsup, and some other dweebs who try
to sound cerebral while choking on their own gurgitations.
If you want to know who REALLY created blank canvases,
all-white canvases, and canvases without definable content, why
don't you do a little research--if you know the meaning of that word.
--
********************* 1845 - 1995 ****************************
*** From Deep in the Heart of Texas where we're celebrating ***
*** 150 Years of Mexicanization. Itza Joqual. ***
**************************************************************************
CAT
>What you will be known for is being as un-intelligent of art speak
>as Many deLies, Wary Ketsup, and some other dweebs who try
>to sound cerebral while choking on their own gurgitations.
Almighty crtitcs and quack experts do all the time.
>If you want to know who REALLY created blank canvases,
>all-white canvases, and canvases without definable content, why
>don't you do a little research--if you know the meaning of that word.
>--
>********************* 1845 - 1995
****************************
>*** From Deep in the Heart of Texas where we're celebrating ***
>*** 150 Years of Mexicanization. Itza Joqual. ***
>**********************************************************************
***
You clowns eat that kind of talk up all the time tequilla boy in your
art journals and MA classes. Got to illustrate absurdity by being absurd.
I don't give a hoot about who created those blank masterpieces.
Rothko's might as well be blank anyway. House painters create blank
masterpieces everyday.
CAT (Remember the Alamo!)
CAT
>You're developing into a real minimalist - Pretty soon you'll be
>posting blank pages, which will be an excellent contribution to the
>group's dynamics.
>
>-Ross
HA! It will be like Rothco's blank next to nothingness canvases. I will
CAT
Wray Kephart
X -=> Quoting Jam...@autodesk.com to All <=-
X Ja> The "Ad Hominem" fallacy occurs when an arguer's post appeals to
X Ja> feelings or prejudices as opposed to logic. It also occurs when an
X Ja> arguer moves a discussion to a personal level through character
X Ja> assassination or personal attacks.
X There are several points here which you fail to notice.
X I am not making a formal inductive argument.
X When discussing art one makes an appeal to feelings. How can one avoid that?
X Liking or disliking a work claiming to be art is at base a matter of feeling.
You can argue feelings on only two basis: moral or value. You never
discuss either basis; so you fail to formalize your reasoning.
Its commonly understood that rational/logical arguement cant be
applied to anything other than those theories able to be proven
scientifically.
snip
Regards arguement:
X >Dumping as practiced by most Modern Artists is an
X > expression of insecurity. It is the artist subconsciously
X > saying, "I will do my worst not only in order to once again
X > irritate my enemies but to see whether my audience still loves
X > me." It is the emperor's tailors expressing momentary doubt.
X Ja> Huh?
Yep said the same.
X Ja> Dumping? Emperor's tailors?
X Ja> It's not even clear what the writer is talking about here, however,
X Ja> it is clear that it is some kind of in depth conversation going in
X Ja> in his head. Unfortunately it hasn't been communicated to us.
X You not us.
BUZZER noise <whos your audience>.
X Ja> I think we may even be witnessing a "Circular Reasoning" argument
X Ja> here, but I'm not sure we can decipher the claims enough to draw
X Ja> that conclusion.
Thats typical of someone backpeddling on an ill-thought statement.
X You claim to not know what I am talking about and then you infer circular
X reasoning. The fact is you are not familiar with what I am referring to and
X then deem to criticize it as beyond your comprehension (fallicy of ignorance of
X facts)
Thats his style; he sees a worthy opponant and if caught without a
can of Raid he scuttles away.
X Ja> Not that we can begin to understand what "dumpings" are, but this
X Ja> is obviously a "Composition" Fallacy. Just because parts of M.A.
X Ja> contain satire, doesn't mean that is the sum total of M.A.
X Sure "obviously."
X I didn't say that satire is the "sum total of M.A." I said that there are
X satirical origins. (poor reading comprehansion)
Nope; just a comment on your elevation of a minor/trivial point
regarding modern art.
X Ja> Mr. Mani Deli, I think you should consider taking a good long hard
X Ja> look at yourself and why you hate M.A. so much.
James he doesnt hate it just doesnt know what it all means; why instead
he attacks rather than embracing it is a question for his Mother or
his psychiatrist.
X I don't hate MODERN ART (ad hominem fallacy), it has given me and many artists
X who have learned technique and craft the great advantage of having a minimum of
X competition. It is a source of great amusement and conversation. I even like
X Modern Art Museums; good coffee and surroundings. I love openings; wine potato
X chips and neat ladies.
Should start all of your discussions with the subject header "CRAFT".
Pigeon hole yourself better that way and save many of us some time.
Kephart
Ross Green
>
>
> [blank]
>
>
Another brilliant koan from Cat, exemplifying the principle that
form follows function.
-rg
CAT
>Another brilliant koan from Cat, exemplifying the principle that
>form follows function.
>
>-rg
Not bad. I would have added another paragraph of ArtSpeak though.
CAT (Now a poster's poster)
Wray Kephart
X In article <3smspa$e...@lucy.infi.net>, cat...@nc5.infi.net says...
X >HA! It will be like Rothco's blank next to nothingness canvases. I will
X >be known as the poster's poster like Rothco is known as a painters
X >painter in some artsie circles. ArtSpeak will follow to back it up!
X What you will be known for is being as un-intelligent of art speak
X as Many deLies, Wary Ketsup, and some other dweebs who try
X to sound cerebral while choking on their own gurgitations.
Namecalling? <so soon>; always akinned that to yarbled
synapse response <mechanism "ON" switches and pathways burned>.
All thinking stops but words like RetchMex or TexarkanaErBust!
blink across the eyelids.
X If you want to know who REALLY created blank canvases,
X all-white canvases, and canvases without definable content, why
X don't you do a little research--if you know the meaning of that word.
Hum.....had to be a scientist working with hazardous "Hi Hide" whites..
working on "yellow factoring", sun/moonbeam/UV damage and toxicity ratio
to lead laced paint chips. A capable fellow who sincerely bases all
of his trust in that wavelength but who likes rectangles almost as
much. Wasnt Albers as he started with total spectrum <white> dont tell
me, its right there...<whered I put that Jansen Vol.>
Kephart
Wray Kephart
X CAT <cat...@nc5.infi.net> wrote:
X >
X >
X > [blank]
X >
X >
X Another brilliant koan from Cat, exemplifying the principle that
X form follows function.
I dont know; I would have done an Ed Rusha, mebe one word....but
that would be cheating.
Kephart
Wray Kephart
X Tequila boy writes,
X >What you will be known for is being as un-intelligent of art speak
X >as Many deLies, Wary Ketsup, and some other dweebs who try
X >to sound cerebral while choking on their own gurgitations.
X Almighty crtitcs and quack experts do all the time.
X >If you want to know who REALLY created blank canvases,
X >all-white canvases, and canvases without definable content, why
X >don't you do a little research--if you know the meaning of that word.
X You clowns eat that kind of talk up all the time tequilla boy in your
X art journals and MA classes. Got to illustrate absurdity by being absurd.
Double triple that remark.
X I don't give a hoot about who created those blank masterpieces.
X Rothko's might as well be blank anyway. House painters create blank
X masterpieces everyday.
This is true; trouble is they dont see "it"; <textures, color changes,
mold patterns in old plaster based paints>. Yep; a mighty field it
could be installation "interior paint/large room". Takes a genious
to spell it out *or* fly in the wet paint to create a statement.
Kephart
Mani Deli
Ke> X Please be so kind as to repost it and I will give it my undivided
Ke> attention.
Ke> Did you know that there is a problem with your address;
Ke> the domaine separator nomenclature is not valid re: Mani.deli.
No one else seems to have trouble.
X> Ah, I can tell right now youve never put pen or brush to paper.
Ke> X Another psychic.
Ke> No; another curator/critic/painter with an MFA in studio art/history.
An MFA, impressive. Curator. Does that mean you can determine which abstract
schmier is the work of genius as opposed to the product of a mere plebeian
failure? Now that I know that I'm conversing with a GENUINE PEDIGREED MFA I
guess I'll have to approach your convoluted flames with greater reverence. I'm
sure that when you are not busy dusting the storage units you speak to your
brethren in the same convoluted Postmodern babble. Did the MFA help?
Ke> If you cant or refuse answer your critics it generally means your
Ke> outgunned.
Bang.
Most of what you say is a lot of flame and the rest is convoluted twaddle. You
never, as far as I can determine answered the question, " What is the
difference between art and illustration in a rational manner."
Why don't you repeat the statement you claim to have made and add some clear
English.