Tour El Dorado...
Hans Down
Open studio art tours are a big hit in the part of the country I live in, and
maybe where you live too.
Take a tour of some uniquely New Mexican artist's work on this web site. What
struck me, as I clicked through the slide show of the artist's works, is the
strong regional influence on each artist. Click on the 'artist index' then on
any artist in the list to bring up a slide show with representative examples of
each artist's work.
http://www.eldoradoarts.org/index.html
And note in particular this artist's paintings:
http://gallery.passion4art.com/members/higgiart/index.html
He was featured in the news story about the El Dorado tour. I single him out
for the simple reason he uses acrylics to create landscapes that look more like
oil paintings than something done in acrylics - demonstrating once again my
belief that it is the METHOD the artist uses to create the painting that makes
it look as it does, not the choice of medium (watercolors excepted).
And if you'd like to read the article that clued me to this art group:
http://www.sfnewmexican.com/main.asp?SectionID=9&SubSectionID=42&ArticleID=2699
Mike Stengl
> Open studio art tours are a big hit in the part of the country I live in, and
> maybe where you live too.
>
> Take a tour of some uniquely New Mexican artist's work on this web site. What
> struck me, as I clicked through the slide show of the artist's works, is the
> strong regional influence on each artist. Click on the 'artist index' then on
> any artist in the list to bring up a slide show with representative examples of
> each artist's work.
>
> http://www.eldoradoarts.org/index.html
>
> And note in particular this artist's paintings:
>
> http://gallery.passion4art.com/members/higgiart/index.html
>
> He was featured in the news story about the El Dorado tour. I single him out
> for the simple reason he uses acrylics to create landscapes that look more like
> oil paintings than something done in acrylics -
Talk about a limited painter... White clouds RISING, white clouds and
a couple of trees, white light on bright clouds... can hardly wait for
his next great new WHITE CLOUD painting. Thanks for the tip...
Hans Down
says...
>
>x-no-archive: yes
>At least clouds move.
>What about Rothko and friends?
>Thur
Clouds move? In a painting? Hmmmm...
Now THAT would be a realistic painting, wouldn't it!
And what about Rothko and friends? (I don't get it)
Mike Stengl
Should probably explain myself: I wasn't meaning to dis Han's listing,
in fact I didn't follow the web address to see the acrylic/oil
connection, but just to check out some paintings that were mentioned
as check-out-able. What I found was simply a set of paintings I rather
enjoyed not liking... that's all.
Mike Stengl
Who's Rothko? (me neither)
Hadley
> a couple of trees, white light on bright clouds... can hardly wait for
> his next great new WHITE CLOUD painting. Thanks for the tip...
That was one of the most inarticulate critiques I have ever read. I
think even if you didn't *like* the work that your skills of analysis
are limited to that of a flat binary thinker.
Just my two cents!
Regards,
Hadley
___________________
"My three year old son can paint better than you!" -The average critic
of her day
"Well, congratulations, Madame, your son is a genius!" -Pablo Picasso
in response
Thur
Mark Rothko (famously) painted rectangles.
Now they do Not move. Clouds 'move' if you paint them well enough. :-)
by "friends" I meant those people typified by Barnett Newman.
I don't know if they were friends, perhaps a misuse of the word.
e.g see http://www.philamuseum.org/exhibitions/exhibits/newman.shtml
I was having a swipe at all lifeless art. Including Still Life
which I see as dead, and only useful as a demonstration of skill.
Thur
"Hans Down" <ha...@dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:3eb9...@news.zianet.com...
Chris
>
> Open studio art tours are a big hit in the part of the country I live in,
and
> maybe where you live too.
>
> Take a tour of some uniquely New Mexican artist's work on this web site.
What
> struck me, as I clicked through the slide show of the artist's works, is
the
> strong regional influence on each artist. Click on the 'artist index' then
on
> any artist in the list to bring up a slide show with representative
examples of
> each artist's work.
>
> http://www.eldoradoarts.org/index.html
>
Thanks Jax; that was a good tour. Quite a variety of good work there, but I
have to say that I'm a bit saturated on colour afterwards, I need a good
dose of tonal studies :) (Must be the bright sun of the Southwest versus the
grey atlantic northeast...)
> And note in particular this artist's paintings:
>
> http://gallery.passion4art.com/members/higgiart/index.html
>
> He was featured in the news story about the El Dorado tour. I single him
out
> for the simple reason he uses acrylics to create landscapes that look more
like
> oil paintings than something done in acrylics - demonstrating once again
my
> belief that it is the METHOD the artist uses to create the painting that
makes
> it look as it does, not the choice of medium (watercolors excepted).
>
His work was interesting - big skies and clouds. That sort of thing seems
pretty popular here, probably because of fog induced claustrophobia. But it
looks like he does what he does well. The trees and lndscape parts reminds
me of Wolfe Kahn to some extent. But as for acrylics looking like oils -
it's hard to say over the net, but while its easy to mistake some oil works
for acrylic - particularly those done in cheaper grades of paint - it's very
rare that one mistakes it the other way around. Well applied oil paints just
have a glow that doesn't exist in acrylics. Not that makes one better than
the other, just different.
Cheers;
Chris
Hans Down
xenoc...@sbcglobal.net says...
>I got the impression that he was trying to paint in a
>Turneresque way. But I could be wrong. Been known to happen.
>
>wanda
My 'impression' too. But I wanted to focus
on the message I was focusing on without
further muddying the waters with references
to Turner's influences.
Hans Down
says...
>I was having a swipe at all lifeless art. Including Still Life
>which I see as dead, and only useful as a demonstration of skill.
>Thur
Aha! Thanks for explaining yourself. I tend to
agree about a 'well painted' landscape
having the ability to enrapture the viewer,
and perhaps those clouds and other animated
features really do move for you - more likely
though it's only the viewer that is moved!
Somewhere one time
I saw an installation piece that was a video
projection of moving clouds onto darkened gallery
walls and ceiling. In the confines of the room it was
a 'moving experience of the vertigous kind.'
Paul Mesken
>Mark Rothko (famously) painted rectangles.
>Now they do Not move. Clouds 'move' if you paint them well enough. :-)
>by "friends" I meant those people typified by Barnett Newman.
>I don't know if they were friends, perhaps a misuse of the word.
>e.g see http://www.philamuseum.org/exhibitions/exhibits/newman.shtml
>I was having a swipe at all lifeless art. Including Still Life
>which I see as dead, and only useful as a demonstration of skill.
What really depresses me about artists like Newman is not only that
they obviously lack the skill to produce anything more complicated
than a triangle or something but that they also typically use inferior
materials. Already after a few years their rubbish falls apart, the
colors are not lightfast, etc. They're artists alright : CON artists.
Mike Stengl
> I am sure you do. :-)
> Mark Rothko (famously) painted rectangles.
> Now they do Not move. Clouds 'move' if you paint them well enough. :-)
> by "friends" I meant those people typified by Barnett Newman.
> I don't know if they were friends, perhaps a misuse of the word.
> e.g see http://www.philamuseum.org/exhibitions/exhibits/newman.shtml
> I was having a swipe at all lifeless art. Including Still Life
> which I see as dead, and only useful as a demonstration of skill.
>
minnow (see two cents below) also because my knowledge has only
followed my interest. No, the Newman stuff doesn't move me either.
>
>
> >
Hans Down
says...
>Well applied oil paints just
>have a glow that doesn't exist in acrylics. Not that makes one better than
>the other, just different.
>
>Cheers;
>
>Chris
No argument from me on that score. I first began
painting in oils and it's still my first choice
for certain subject matter. Especially subjects
that benefit from that 'glow' you mention. There
is something about oil paint glazes that is
hard to replicate in acrylic. My take on that
is the slower drying time of oils allows for more
intense manipulation than is possible in fast-drying
acrylics. As an example: I simply cannot get the
'glow' of skin tones using acrylics in the same
way that I can with oils.
Mike Stengl
> eatn...@humboldt1.com (Mike Stengl) wrote in message news:<45dd5dd.03050...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > Talk about a limited painter... White clouds RISING, white clouds and
> > a couple of trees, white light on bright clouds... can hardly wait for
> > his next great new WHITE CLOUD painting. Thanks for the tip...
>
> That was one of the most inarticulate critiques I have ever read. I
> think even if you didn't *like* the work that your skills of analysis
> are limited to that of a flat binary thinker.
>
> Just my two cents!
>
> Regards,
> Hadley
But dude, did you like SEE that stuff??
>
> ___________________
>
> "My three year old son can paint better than you!" -The average critic
> of her day
>
> "Well, congratulations, Madame, your son is a genius!" -Pablo Picasso
> in response
"Hey Pablo, that's some crazyassed shit!" -Mike Stengl, flat binary thinker
Hadley
Yes.
> > "My three year old son can paint better than you!" -The average critic
> > of her day
> >
> > "Well, congratulations, Madame, your son is a genius!" -Pablo Picasso
> > in response
>
> "Hey Pablo, that's some crazyassed shit!" -Mike Stengl, flat binary thinker
It's nice that you have a sense of humour about yourself! I'm sure
you're not a flat binary thinker... ;)
Take care,
Hadley
Mike Stengl
> It's nice that you have a sense of humour about yourself! I'm sure
> you're not a flat binary thinker... ;)
>
> Take care,
> Hadley
I know I'm very opinionated about what I see hanging on the wall in
public places and although I know it's ONLY MY OPINION bad art offends
my sensibilities. I think people should be better EDITORS of their own
work. Not necessarily censoring content but taking a good hard look at
composition and all that implies. I am not satisfied with all my
paintings, but the ones I choose to show have reached a certain level
of success in working out the inherent problems within each piece. The
problem I had with the brief look I took at this painters work was
that he worked out the problems ONCE and then basically with little
deviation did the same painting 5 more times. Once again, that's fine
if he needs to do that (for himself) but I only need to see it once
and then I'd like to see what else he can do.
But thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt.
Hadley
The problem is Mike that everyone has an opinion on something or
another which they may or may not know anything about. I think as far
as *art* goes, that to merely analyse a work based purely on aesthetic
content is a mistake. Let's think back in all of history and think of
various movements that had occurred, for example...say, the Dadaist
period, or the Impressionistic Period, etc. The majority of people
during the time of the movements dicated what was considered
*marketable* as *art* and would only analyse the various artists in
those groups based purely on technical merit and aesthetic value as
opposed to the work as a whole. For instance, the popular
academicians/artists of Monet's day thought his work was horrible.
They said his work was messy, lacked clarity of detail, and that he
used the same tired palate that portrayed the same tired theme in all
of his work. Why should Monet, or any other artist *edit* a particular
piece for public approval? It is the artist's preogative to create
what ultimately pleases her own eye; the artist herself is and will
always be her own worst critic. That being said, I think that having
peers to analyse/judge/elaborate on your work is just as valuable; but
those peers should be people whose opinions and intellect you
ultimately respect.
The fact is, when artists find an *object* or a *muse* of inspiration,
they exploit it until another object or muse replaces the previous
one. As far as your comments that this particular painter had been
primarily fond of clouds as a source of inspiration, I find nothing
repulsive about that.
However, usually I don't say anything when I find a work not worthy of
my comment and analysis. I think the worst thing someone can say about
your work though is that it is boring. Usually critics primarily refer
to technical & editing comments when they are intimidated by the work
or simply do not understand it; I find this to be accurate in visual
media as well as in written work as history dictates.
Regards,
Hadley
Hans Down
hadle...@hotmail.com says...
>The fact is, when artists find an *object* or a *muse* of inspiration,
>they exploit it until another object or muse replaces the previous
>one.
Can we assume that you would accept *market forces*
as a substitute for *muse*? The majority
of artists find that sticking with a subject
or theme is a NECESSITY once they become recognized
for the particular subject matter that brought
them recognition. For example: I once knew of
a superb seascape artist who was very successful.
Nothing but seascapes. But then he 'got religion'
and turned to painting religious themes and was
never heard from again. Here's another example
of an artist who does endless variations on the
same theme and who happens to be highly successful
with what he has done:
http://www.kaibab.org/gc/gccmf/gc_mell.htm
Mike Stengl
> eatn...@humboldt1.com (Mike Stengl) wrote in message news:<45dd5dd.03051...@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> what ultimately pleases her own eye; the artist herself is and will
> always be her own worst critic.
I would like this to be true. From what I see hanging on walls people
are a little too easy on themselves.
ms...@nac.net
Monet's art represented what he saw, and he had cataracts. It was an
accurate portrayal.
I know someone who asked an artist to repaint a wagon in a country scene
from red to blue so it would match her living room furniture. She also
badgered another artist into adding more tree shadows in a landscape,
leading one to believe there were two light sources--one from the left,
one from the right. The painting makes my jaws lock. All I ask of
artists is to stick to your guns and, if necessary, educate the customer
as to why certain changes would make the piece look goofy. Have pride
in one's work!
Liz
--
"Don't take your organs to heaven - heaven knows we need them here!"
(Sign the back of your driver's license and discuss it with your next of
kin.)
Hadley
> Can we assume that you would accept *market forces*
> as a substitute for *muse*? The majority
> of artists find that sticking with a subject
> or theme is a NECESSITY once they become recognized
> for the particular subject matter that brought
> them recognition. For example: I once knew of
> a superb seascape artist who was very successful.
> Nothing but seascapes. But then he 'got religion'
> and turned to painting religious themes and was
> never heard from again. Here's another example
> of an artist who does endless variations on the
> same theme and who happens to be highly successful
> with what he has done:
>
> http://www.kaibab.org/gc/gccmf/gc_mell.htm
In the case with the seascape artist, I say that he needed a new
publicist...However, I think what you're saying is that certain
artists get *typecasted* to cater to a certain demographic which they
find hard to diverge from. However I don't really consider *market
influences* a muse of sorts, and in fact, I think the former is
actually a direct contrary to the concept of the muse. *Market
influences* dicate that art be something familiar...that is something
that has already been tested and tried and now is ready for mass
consumption. The public has never liked and will never like something
that is progressive. Rather they take comfort in the past. For
instance, *shock art* is all the rage. The people are obsessed with
artists such as Damien Hirst & Tracy Emin because their art are
basically copies of the Dadaist period from the early 1900s. They can
be successful and receive wide recognition ABOUT A HUNDRED YEARS AFTER
THE FACT because what they're doing now is quite boring and expected.
The public loves *contrived controversy* and there's always money to
be made from it. This is a law of nature.
Regards,
Hadley
Hans Awn
>The people are obsessed with
>artists such as Damien Hirst & Tracy Emin because their art are
>basically copies of the Dadaist period from the early 1900s. They can
>be successful and receive wide recognition ABOUT A HUNDRED YEARS AFTER
>THE FACT because what they're doing now is quite boring and expected.
>The public loves *contrived controversy* and there's always money to
>be made from it. This is a law of nature.
>
>Regards,
>Hadley
You and I were surfing the same wave until you
got to the quoted section, above. I have no
idea what 'people are obsessed' except the Brits.
And I suspect it's only Brits withing the 'art
establishment' who are so obsessed, if indeed they are.
In the USA, it's certainly not a widely appreciated
genre (shock art), even within the art establishment.
And I seriously doubt that the artists employing
shock tactics will last any longer than those who
were in other -isms and movements of the last half
of the 20th century. I think world events of late
far overshadow the works of a few 'shock artists'
in the 'shock value' of fundamentalist oppressors,
religious-backed murder and mayhem, laser-guided
bunker-busters, SARS, AIDS, Ebola etc etc.
In the USA, we recently had elephant dung and the
figure of Christ in a bottle of piss, but I
seriously doubt that many people on the street,
to say nothing of many an artist, can recall
the names of the artists. I can't - but my memory
loss may well be age-related and not representative.
But I seriously doubt that the two artists in
question will make it into future Art History books.
I could well be wrong...
Hans Awn
xenochryst@_holycow_sbcglobal.net says...
>Wasn't that Mapplethorpe with the piss?
NOPE! But you make my point so well for me.
I had to refresh my own memory on who the
Piss Christ artist was - and it's Andre Serrano!
Mapplthorpe may very well achive a modicum
of 'Art Historical' fame because, after all,
he was an outstanding photographer, porno
images aside.
Hadley
> accurate portrayal.
>
> I know someone who asked an artist to repaint a wagon in a country scene
> from red to blue so it would match her living room furniture. She also
> badgered another artist into adding more tree shadows in a landscape,
> leading one to believe there were two light sources--one from the left,
> one from the right. The painting makes my jaws lock. All I ask of
> artists is to stick to your guns and, if necessary, educate the customer
> as to why certain changes would make the piece look goofy. Have pride
> in one's work!
>
> Liz
LOL!
Well if you want personal anecdotes, I once had a client who wanted to
be painted like a Boticelli, however, when I attempted to do her
portrait, all I could think of was the skanky assistant in my office
known for giving sexual favours to men. I painted her as a prostitute,
and she was pretty satisfied that portrayal. The painting was one of
the worst I had ever done in my entire life. She was an ugly model, to
say the least, but I did take time to make her face and body look more
flattering. I don't call this *art* however.
Regards,
Hadley
Hadley
From your response, I take it that you have been living as a recluse
in a cave somewhere for the last fifty-or-so years! Or perhaps you
have been watching too many reruns on the telly to notice what is
happening in the art world, whatever that may be in the United
States...
However, *shock art* is all the rage in America as well, my dear
poopsie...it's not just Mapplethorpe...who I must say, I thought was a
boring pornographer in the first place...his work thrived mainly on
the publicity it generated from his avaricious publicity campaigns (oh
and making the conservative Christians mad was definitely a good
move!)If you want to be banned in the USA and create some
pseudo-controversy, definitely piss off those conservative Christians.
I may be jaded, but I've already seen it all before. The work that
comes out of America tends to be pretty tame.
Thanks for sharing your views.
XOXO,
Hadley
ha...@dontemailme.com (Hans Awn) wrote in message news:<3ec0...@news.zianet.com>...
Hans Awn
>to notice what is
>happening in the art world, whatever that may be in the United
>States... (interpretation: YOU don't have a clue about
what is happening state-side!)
>However, *shock art* is all the rage in America as well (and
then you have the audacity to make that claim!)
Which is it? You're either an authority on the USA
art scene or you aren't. At least I live in the
USA, even if it is a remote mountain-top in an
even more remote part of the country! That's why
I have to rely on my hand-cranked generator for
power and my home-built satellite link to make
connections via this forum with you - you little
pettitoes you....
Paul Mesken
I'm having visions now of a cave dweller who feeds on the flesh of
dead animals and links to the world by a sattelite link made of lumber
and animal hide ;-)
Mike Stengl
> hansy-poo,
>
> From your response, I take it that you have been living as a recluse
> in a cave somewhere for the last fifty-or-so years! Or perhaps you
> have been watching too many reruns on the telly to notice what is
> happening in the art world, whatever that may be in the United
> States...
>
> However, *shock art* is all the rage in America as well, my dear
> poopsie...it's not just Mapplethorpe...who I must say, I thought was a
> boring pornographer in the first place...his work thrived mainly on
> the publicity it generated from his avaricious publicity campaigns (oh
> and making the conservative Christians mad was definitely a good
> move!)If you want to be banned in the USA and create some
> pseudo-controversy, definitely piss off those conservative Christians.
>
> I may be jaded, but I've already seen it all before. The work that
> comes out of America tends to be pretty tame.
>
> Thanks for sharing your views.
>
> XOXO,
> Hadley
Go ahead and say bad things about us, just because we want to rule the
world: How 'bout that Maplethorpe photo of the black man in the
business suit, profile, ready for wallstreet with an uncompromising
erection protuding from his pleats. Talk about shock and awe.
Hans Awn
eatn...@humboldt1.com says...
>the black man in the
>business suit, profile, ready for wallstreet with an uncompromising
>erection protuding from his pleats.
How do you KNOW it's an erection? How do
you know it's not his normal relaxed state?
Or perhaps it's where he carries his
concealed weapon (double entendre intended).
Hadley
> I'm having visions now of a cave dweller who feeds on the flesh of
> dead animals and links to the world by a sattelite link made of lumber
> and animal hide ;-)
Hmm...you must either have an active imagination or you share the same
satellite link with Paul here. :-P
Hadley
What is considered "art" in the United States anyway? I'm not talking
about the marketing aspect nor what self-promoting but untalented
writers make of the advertisement & publishing industries. It seems to
me that "art" arrives in the United States when it is ready to be
consumed by the masses, not as a starting point for artists to make
work that is progressive.
As for your question whether I am an authority or not on American art,
I don't have any of the pretensions that "I am THE authority" as other
people like to regularly consider themselves. I think in terms of what
I observe, and what I observe is that art is primarily marketed in
America AFTER THE FACT.
And even if you live in seclusion on some mountain top, I don't think
that living in America would necessarily make you an expert yourself
on the subject, however handsome & talented you may be!
XOXO,
Hadley
ha...@dontemailme.com (Hans Awn) wrote in message news:<3ec24aa1$1...@news.zianet.com>...
Hadley
> world: How 'bout that Maplethorpe photo of the black man in the
> business suit, profile, ready for wallstreet with an uncompromising
> erection protuding from his pleats. Talk about shock and awe.
Hey! Some of my favourite people happen to be Americans! But the
problem with your "American Art" is that it is simply boring. When
something is supposed to be "shocking" it usually is a response
against traditional Christian morals. That is, anything Americans
consider "underground" "independant" & "shocking" usually comprises of
a formula based on such sexually deviant themes such as
homosexuality, incest, prostitution, nudity/masturbation or the
dreaded sex & violence combo. An African-American man with a
protruding penis...So what? Most European advertisements are more
sexually provocative. Your "American Art" is one whose counterculture
is entirely dominated by the sexually repressed and to me and the rest
of the art-loving world, that's BORING.
Regards,
Hadley
Hans Awn
>Most European advertisements are more
>sexually provocative. Your "American Art" is one whose counterculture
>is entirely dominated by the sexually repressed and to me and the rest
>of the art-loving world, that's BORING.
>
>Regards,
>Hadley
My dear Pettitoes, though the above is not
directed at your Poosie, I must intrude here...
You're really beginning to confuse me. First
you claim to know the USA art scene with such
intimacy that you claim we are 'obsessed with
shock art' - be it yours (Brit) or ours. I replied
to that claim of yours with the following:
>In the USA, it's certainly not a widely *appreciated*
>genre (shock art), even within the art establishment.
(rest of paragraph snipped)
Now you claim we Americans are producing
"boring" art. So which is it? We can't be both
obsessed with the 'shock of the new' and be
bored at the same time. Unless you've decided to
add another definition to the dictionary for 'shock.'
What it really comes down to, IMHO, is JEALOUSY!
You Brits have been in the back waters of the
art world for so long that it is a revelation when
a Brit finally breaks through to make headlines,
even if it takes 'grossing out' the poor boring
provincial Americans in the process.
And you won't bait me into 'defending' American
art - it doesn't need my insignificant commentary
on what is already recorded in American Art History,
boring as that subject may be to you.
Paul Mesken
>Now you claim we Americans are producing
>"boring" art. So which is it? We can't be both
>obsessed with the 'shock of the new' and be
>bored at the same time. Unless you've decided to
>add another definition to the dictionary for 'shock.'
>
>What it really comes down to, IMHO, is JEALOUSY!
>You Brits have been in the back waters of the
>art world for so long that it is a revelation when
>a Brit finally breaks through to make headlines,
>even if it takes 'grossing out' the poor boring
>provincial Americans in the process.
>
>And you won't bait me into 'defending' American
>art - it doesn't need my insignificant commentary
>on what is already recorded in American Art History,
>boring as that subject may be to you.
>
Tsk tsk tsk. I smell a flame war developing. This is useless.
Everybody knows the bulk of the greatest of artists are Europeans
(Rembrandt, Bourguereau, Titian, Durer, Picasso, Dali, da Vinci, van
Gogh, Rubens, Hals, Caravaggio, Constable, etc. etc. the list goes on
forever).
That's not to say that the Americans don't have their fair share of
great artists (Turner, Vargas, Rockwell, Sheppard, etc.) but they're
simply not appreciated by the "American art scene" which likes to
focus more on con artists like Jack "the dripper" Pollock, Rothko,
Warhol and that one who made a Holy Mary of cow shit :-) Stuff a baby
could make by accident.
WoN ereH
>(Rembrandt, Bourguereau, Titian, Durer, Picasso, Dali, da Vinci, van
>Gogh, Rubens, Hals, Caravaggio, Constable, etc. etc. the list goes on
>forever).
That was then. Maybe in a few dozen years, all FLAT art will be considered
rather provincial. Art that can't be experienced in total -- sound, smell,
taste, touch, and the like, just won't have the same ooomph. Imagine viewing a
Picasso on acid, but in *normal* consciousness. Hmmmmm.....
D
Chris
"Hans Awn" <ha...@dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:3ec3...@news.zianet.com...
to the dictionary for 'shock.'
>
> What it really comes down to, IMHO, is JEALOUSY!
> You Brits have been in the back waters of the
> art world for so long that it is a revelation when
> a Brit finally breaks through to make headlines,
> even if it takes 'grossing out' the poor boring
> provincial Americans in the process.
>
I doubt he's british; the NNTP posting host implies it's just another AOLer
bloking for attention....
Chris
Paul Mesken
Well, I don't know about that. The demise of many a medium has been
heralded when new ones appeared but most have survived. Photography
hasn't replaced painting (it actually improved painting), movies
haven't replaced plays and icons haven't replaced the written word.
Hans Awn
says...
>I doubt he's british; the NNTP posting host implies it's just another AOLer
>bloking for attention....
>
>Chris
Thanks Chris. Never hurts to have one's
backside shielded! I too often tend to
take one at one's face value, but keep
forgetting that faces in this forum are
more often than not of the Janus kind.
NO NO - don't go pointing fingers in this
direction - PLEASE!
Paul Mesken
>Thanks Chris. Never hurts to have one's
>backside shielded! I too often tend to
>take one at one's face value, but keep
>forgetting that faces in this forum are
>more often than not of the Janus kind.
>
>NO NO - don't go pointing fingers in this
>direction - PLEASE!
Sure Jack... or Hans.. Newt... C.Enna.. Ah you get the point ;-)
Hans Awn
says...
>Stuff a baby could make by accident.
OHMIGOD! You've given me a great idea!
I can become the 'KING of Shock Art' by
STUFFING A BABY! Now don't try and stop
me - I'm off to find a baby worth
stuffing....
Paul Mesken
Now you're giving me an idea for a horror movie "The Baby Stuffer"
about an artist scavenging delivery rooms (think "It's Alive" by Larry
Cohen) for the freshest material possible for his magnum opus "Stuffed
Innocence". Ofcourse a lot of blood, screaming, police hunting and
killing involved ;-)
Chris
breaking paper "A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People
in Ireland from Being a Burden to their Parents or Country, and for Making
them Beneficial to the Public" (nowadays just referred to as "A Modest
Proposal").
OTOH, it may perk you up to know that his proposal was based upon American
research:
"I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in
London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most
delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked,
or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or
a ragout."
So it sounds perhaps like you may actually be carrying on in a grand
tradition; if you are interested in the entire article, it is here:
http://www.english.upenn.edu/~jlynch/Courses/95c/Texts/modest.html
Cheers,
Chris
WoN ereH
Good point. There will always be room for the classics. You know, Bill Gates
has a system in his house that projects images of famous paintings -- and
change at his discretion. Won't be long before anyone can access artwork this
way (for a fee or a hack). And eventually print them out on a 3d printer too!
Yea, I like technology, and still marvel at my little mobile phone. :)
Debra
Liz
> Well if you want personal anecdotes, I once had a client who wanted to
> be painted like a Boticelli, however, when I attempted to do her
> portrait, all I could think of was the skanky assistant in my office
> known for giving sexual favours to men. I painted her as a prostitute,
> and she was pretty satisfied that portrayal. The painting was one of
> the worst I had ever done in my entire life. She was an ugly model, to
> say the least, but I did take time to make her face and body look more
> flattering. I don't call this *art* however.
>
> Regards,
> Hadley
Hobson's choice: Make the clients happy by giving them what they want
(and paying the bills) ... or be a starving purist while waiting to be
recognized. It's a challenge. Inasmuch as the portrayal was better
than expected, your client may be motivated to expand her horizons.
[Art wise, of course. :-) ] Don't be so hard on yourself.
Hadley
spare me the US or THEM argument. The Brits have their own problems
knowing that arsehole Blair makes a nice lapdog to George W. However,
I don't think you've been reading my posts, otherwise I think perhaps
my words have glazed over your consciousness.
I NEVER SAID I was an authority on "American Art" thank god...I would
hate to sound like a pretentious hack who claims to know-all...but as
far as what I stated on "American Art" I stand by my opinions.
However, I do think Mapplethorpe makes interesting social commentary
aside from his reactionary pose against traditional Christian ethics
in American culture. But let me repeat this again, America is not
where "Art" begins, but rather, where it ends up. As for the Brits,
they are going through their own identity crisis; ever since they have
adopted the US as their role model, their art has been limited to
imported foreign talent. There is no jealousy as you say, only
resentment. Once great, they have now been demoted to
second-in-command. But thank god, for British counter-culture! Unlike
the American counter-culture movement, they are not limited to the
sexually repressed.
*Shock art* is hot. It sells. People flock to see *shock
art*...however as I've said before, this is part of CONTRIVED
CONTROVERSY. That is, under the disguise of controversy it is
something rather BLAND AND RECYCLED from an earlier era. And the
public loves "fake antiques"...in any genre, from film to sculpture.
As for your commentary, I hardly consider "American Art History" as
any kind of authority on anything in particular. Any textbooks
published in the USA on contemporary art culture most likely has been
funded by Saatchi & Saatchi and the rest of whatever advertising
companies who like to *sell* their outdated opinions on art in America
and abroad. I don't believe everything I read, unlike most dilettantes
who quote American art mags whose editors know absolutely nil about
art in the first place.
But I feel my vocabulary skills waning. Perhaps I need to update my
book on American idioms with a newer version, but what do you mean by
"poosie"?
Regards,
Hadley
Hadley
I'm quite flattered that you had taken the time to PING me, but I
suppose you do that with just about everyone on the internet. But
since you seem to have developed such an interesting opinion of me, I
would like to ask you then what you think my nationality is exactly?
Of course, if you think I'm "desperately seeking" your attention, by
all means, IGNORE ME.
Hadley
Hadley
> Hobson's choice: Make the clients happy by giving them what they want
> (and paying the bills) ... or be a starving purist while waiting to be
> recognized. It's a challenge. Inasmuch as the portrayal was better
> than expected, your client may be motivated to expand her horizons.
> [Art wise, of course. :-) ] Don't be so hard on yourself.
>
> Liz
Don't be naive, Liz. Artists aren't limited to one or the other. Let's
think about Picasso, Schiele, Rembrandt et al...thank god they had
rich friends as their patrons to pay their bills for them. What would
Picasso have done if he hadn't been such a charming womaniser to the
rich? Schiele if he hadn't met his perfect wife? Artists don't
starve...their aim is not to buy a house in the 'burbs, a diamond
bracelet nor a slot in "Who's Who in Art"; their aim is to CREATE and
they only surround themselves with people who understand that goal,
whether they be rich or poor.
Hadley
Paul Mesken
>http://www.english.upenn.edu/~jlynch/Courses/95c/Texts/modest.html
>
This is excellent, it makes a lot of sense. It will solve the problem
of over population, world hunger and the PETA activists will be
pleased ;-)
Hans Awn
says...
>So it sounds perhaps like you may actually be carrying on in a grand
>tradition; if you are interested in the entire article, it is here:
>
>http://www.english.upenn.edu/~jlynch/Courses/95c/Texts/modest.html
>
>Cheers,
>
>Chris
The difference is your discussing CULINARY ART
and I was thinking more in line with the guy
who 'makes art' from cadavers - VISUAL (or is that
visceral?) ART.
Hans Awn
>The difference is your discussing CULINARY ART
>and I was thinking more in line with the guy
>who 'makes art' from cadavers - VISUAL (or is that
>visceral?) ART.
An afterthought...if I may be so bold as
suggest I ever have such...
Once I've launched my new 'Stuffed Babies' project,
I'll forever after be known as 'Jack the Knife'
in both song and verse!
(NOTE: Jack the Ripper, Jack of Spades and other
names commonly found in any dictionary have all
been rejected - INCLUDING Jackass and Jackanape.)
Chris
> In article <3ec4...@news.zianet.com>, ha...@dontemailme.com says...
>
>
> >The difference is your discussing CULINARY ART
> >and I was thinking more in line with the guy
> >who 'makes art' from cadavers - VISUAL (or is that
> >visceral?) ART.
>
> An afterthought...if I may be so bold as
> suggest I ever have such...
>
> Once I've launched my new 'Stuffed Babies' project,
> I'll forever after be known as 'Jack the Knife'
> in both song and verse!
>
Sounds like you are on a roll here Jax; as I stare at the ruins of my
kitchen after my son and 3 buddies just made lunch, I am sorely tempted to
send you someone to practice on. A little life drawing and quartering, so to
speak...
Chris
Hadley
> As for your commentary, I hardly consider "American Art History" as
> any kind of authority on anything in particular. Any textbooks
> published in the USA on contemporary art culture most likely has been
> funded by Saatchi & Saatchi and the rest of whatever advertising
> companies who like to *sell* their outdated opinions on art in America
> and abroad. I don't believe everything I read, unlike most dilettantes
> who quote American art mags whose editors know absolutely nil about
> art in the first place.
On second thought, I think there are a lot of excellent
editors/critics who are very knowledgable, but I think those are the
ones who tend to be artists themselves; it's hard to take a critic's
opinion on art very seriously when she's not an artist herself.
Hans Awn
>On second thought, I think there are a lot of excellent
>editors/critics who are very knowledgable, but I think those are the
>ones who tend to be artists themselves; it's hard to take a critic's
>opinion on art very seriously when she's not an artist herself.
Once again you show a lack of knowledge regarding
what's what in the USA. Ever heard of getting
a degree in ART HISTORY? This is NOT a degree
given to artists - although there is no reason
an artist shouldn't seek such. And in sharp contrast
to the highest level of MFA for an art degree,
Art Historians can go on to PhD. One of my favorite
critics, who happens to be female professor of
Art History, is Frances Colpit (sp?). She has
written (continues to write) for a number of the
prestigious art publications (USA). Hers are usually
more 'reviews' of art exhibitions rather than
critical commentary of a singular artist, although
she has done both.
Erik A. Mattila
Yet usenet may have replaced thinking. I mean it's possible...
Erik
>
Hadley
professors whose opinions I greatly value for their insight and
knowledge that goes beyond mere aesthetics, although they're not
artists per se. However, I think that there's something about the
manner in which artists are intimate with their particular media which
adds to its mere surface value of simply assessing an exhibition based
on certain sociological factors from an art history background.
However, I think my general dissatisfaction with a lot of "art
critics" are those run of the mill average Dans who grew up in front
of the telly, makes collages of other people's artworks and who
couldn't storyboard a concept if her life depended on it, yet
considers herself an expert on the subject.
Hadley
_____________
"I rather be a failed artist than a mediocre critic." --Me
ha...@dontemailme.com (Hans Awn) wrote in message news:<3ec6...@news.zianet.com>...
judith
Hans Awn wrote in message <3ec6...@news.zianet.com>...
I can paint well but I'm not an 'artist' (yes, there is a difference) nor am
I a 'failed artist'. I graduated from a good art college, exhibited and
sold work, even secured commissions but then there is no accounting for
taste. I returned to university, received a BA in art history, lectured in
that subject along with visual communications in the above mentioned art
college. I now write for various prestigious Australian art publications,
one US monthly magazine and review art exhibitions in my own city for a
local 'street' paper. I do not call myself an art critic however at times I
do offer constructive criticism in my reviews.
Sorry, just had to put my tuppence in.
Judith
Hans Phul
>I now write for (snipped) one US monthly magazine
Would you care to give them a bit of publicity
here by naming the magazine? I'd be very interested
in knowing if I have read what you've written,
and if not, in doing so.
Hans Phul
>Yet usenet may have replaced thinking. I mean it's possible...
>
>Erik
Awww, cmon Eric, you know good and well you
were 'stimulated' to write that...
Think of usenet as a 'stimulas' - goes well with my morning coffee.
Erik A. Mattila
Well, yes...that's what I meant. A Pavlovian response.
Erik
>
judith
to is Carolina Arts ~ it covers No & So Carolina only. You can read my
articles on their web site www.carolinaarts.com
Reviews of local exhibitions in Western Australia can be seen on my web
site, www.artseeninwa.com
Judith
Hans Phul wrote in message <3ec79340$1...@news.zianet.com>...
Hans Phul
I read the article:
http://www.carolinaarts.com/503mcgrath.html
and found it provocative and not too far adrift
from what universities in the USA turn out by
way of graduates. I've posted results of a study
a couple of times to this forum - the only
one I've ever seen - that someone did of students
who went on to get their graduate MFA degrees. The
study was confined to only one school's graduates.
The intent was to learn how many, after graduating,
had found careers in the arts. And it was some
insignificant number who had. And far too many
had given up on art to the extent that they didn't
even indulge in it as a hobby. And in my own
experience, far too many of those I went through
graduate school with have faded away to the point
that I've not been able to find them even though
I've tried. And I suspect vice versa, although I
am rather an oddball when it comes to being a
university graduate with an MFA - atypical for sure!
Mike Stengl
> In article <ba9vh9$89d$1...@yeppa.connect.com.au>, jud...@vianet.net.au says...
>
> I read the article:
>
> http://www.carolinaarts.com/503mcgrath.html
I have not, and will do so only after posting this so as to illustrate
my perfect nature as a fool...
> and found it provocative and not too far adrift
> from what universities in the USA turn out by
> way of graduates.
> The intent was to learn how many, after graduating,
> had found careers in the arts. And it was some
> insignificant number who had. And far too many
> had given up on art to the extent that they didn't
> even indulge in it as a hobby.
Hmmm. In my experience if you are one who creates that which some call
art it is more like a disease than an ambition. If you can quit, good
for you... I'm about ready for AA (artists anonymous) "Hi my names
Mike and I fancy myself a painter..." I work full time and have for 25
years supporting myself, my family and this sick desire to create. My
VISA is red lined solely from years of buying materials and trying to
promote my work. I get up every day and if I'm not painting I'm
thinking about what I'm going to paint next or some very similar line
of thinking... My daughter, I'm sure, wishes I had some other 'hobby'
(a hopelessly frivolous term to describe my condition) and any
interest in the arts she may have enjoyed has been destroyed by her
witnessing my own obsession.
Besides, there's too damn many people creating art as it is. Young
ones getting good and making far too much progress way to quickly for
my taste. Let em fall by the wayside I say, move over and let us
hopeless painterly types taste a few crumbs of success before we keel
over like laboratory rats from expossure to heavy metals and noxious
fumes.
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>In article <ba9vh9$89d$1...@yeppa.connect.com.au>, jud...@vianet.net.au says...
>
>I read the article:
>
>http://www.carolinaarts.com/503mcgrath.html
This is quite a disturbing article. Not only does it report how
(australian) art schools hardly teach anything about making art (which
IMO should be the main concern) but it also reports how it apparently
succeeds in killing the creativity of its students (which is a hard
and also Bad Thing to do).
From this article I cannot conclude anything else than that going to
an australian art school is a waste of time and money (ofcourse I'm
open to counter examples).
>and found it provocative and not too far adrift
>from what universities in the USA turn out by
>way of graduates. I've posted results of a study
>a couple of times to this forum - the only
>one I've ever seen - that someone did of students
>who went on to get their graduate MFA degrees. The
>study was confined to only one school's graduates.
>The intent was to learn how many, after graduating,
>had found careers in the arts. And it was some
>insignificant number who had. And far too many
>had given up on art to the extent that they didn't
>even indulge in it as a hobby.
I find this hard to believe. Are you saying that American art schools
are so bad that they actually destroy the _need_ to make art? Even
though painting and drawing is only a hobby of mine and I don't have
any aspirations (anymore) to become a professional artist, I always
have the desire to make art. I cannot imagine how this desire (or
need) can be destroyed.
Personally, I believe that these people were never artists to begin
with, they were only interested in a job as artist. Even though I
never went to art school I did went to "programming school" (the HIO
in dutch) and a lot of students were only there because they believed
they could make a good deal of money as programmer. They're love was
not for the art but for the job. Ofcourse most never made it because
you need to like it before you can have any hopes of being succesfull
in it.
Hans Phul
eatn...@humboldt1.com says...
>Hmmm. In my experience if you are one who creates that which some call
>art it is more like a disease than an ambition. If you can quit, good
>for you... I'm about ready for AA (artists anonymous) "Hi my names
>Mike and I fancy myself a painter..." I work full time and have for 25
>years supporting myself, my family and this sick desire to create.
You're to be commended as are many of my full-time
artist friends. But Judith was addressing a specific
subject in her article, which you say you didn't
bother reading, and I was responding in a very
specific way. It has no bearing on the vast majority
of artists who have found success one way or another
in various art occupations.
But my own experience echoes the sentiments expressed
by Judith in her article. Young people who attend
university art programs come into those programs with
differing expectations. I encountered the ones in their
undergrad years who were simply taking the 'easiest
route' to a university degree to please mommy and
daddy who insisted their offspring get a 'college
education.' Then there were those who had the mistaken
notion that college art degrees would confer on them
instant success as artists once they graduated.
In graduate school there was more a sense of reality
among those students I went to school with, but even
so, many of them envisioned careers in teaching at
the university level. And there were several who made
that leap by virtue of giving up any pretense at
virtue! I'm thinking specifically of three graduate
students who were bedded by the professors and went
on to secure teaching posts as a reward for favors,
or that was at least the supposition, since none
of the others ended up with teaching posts.
Mike Stengl
> In article <45dd5dd.03051...@posting.google.com>,
> eatn...@humboldt1.com says...
>
> >Hmmm. In my experience if you are one who creates that which some call
> >art it is more like a disease than an ambition. If you can quit, good
> >for you... I'm about ready for AA (artists anonymous) "Hi my names
> >Mike and I fancy myself a painter..." I work full time and have for 25
> >years supporting myself, my family and this sick desire to create.
>
> You're to be commended as are many of my full-time
> artist friends.
Commended or committed, I think you misunderstood my term "work". I'm
a cook. That's how I support my 'habit'. It's a little like having two
full time careers because, well, that's what it is.
I don't know what to think of the Art School thing. I'm an uneducated
hopelessly romantic painter making the best of it all with the help of
a visa card and a job in the service industry...
Hadley
least bit provocative. I think her assumptions and generalisations
overlook the success rate of most art schools that are not confined to
Australia or even to the heedy capitalistic American society.
There will always be those "specialist" schools that primarily prepare
a student to go and work in the industry as a "skill." Hence they are
as, Paul Meskin said, akin to programmers. They feed the supply and
meet the demand. This has ALWAYS been true in any century, even before
the Dadaists made it hip.
I don't rate "success" by the amount of media coverage an "artist"
receives nor by the amount of money he makes.
Everyone wants to be an artist, but only few people have the ambition
to do so despite the numerous obstacles they might face. This is
actually the test of what separates artists from "people who wished
they had been artists."
Hadley
____________________
" I regret nothing. "
ha...@dontemailme.com (Hans Phul) wrote in message news:<3ec9...@news.zianet.com>...
Hadley
> I can paint well but I'm not an 'artist' (yes, there is a difference) nor am
> I a 'failed artist'. I graduated from a good art college, exhibited and
> sold work, even secured commissions but then there is no accounting for
> taste. I returned to university, received a BA in art history, lectured in
> that subject along with visual communications in the above mentioned art
> college. I now write for various prestigious Australian art publications,
> one US monthly magazine and review art exhibitions in my own city for a
> local 'street' paper. I do not call myself an art critic however at times I
> do offer constructive criticism in my reviews.
> Sorry, just had to put my tuppence in.
> Judith
I believe what you are is what people often to refer to as a "draughtsman."
Define constructive criticism.
judith
Hadley wrote in message ...
>> do offer constructive criticism in my reviews.
>> Sorry, just had to put my tuppence in.
>> Judith
>
>I believe what you are is what people often to refer to as a "draughtsman."
Ahh but I'm not that gifted.
>Define constructive criticism.
According to Webster's: 'constructive' = promoting improvement or
development.
'criticism' = evaluating or analysing with knowledge and propriety.
In other words, when a teacher tells you that spelling cat with a 'k' is
acceptable in certain instances however some people may not think so. Or
when your boss tells you that using a ladder is more acceptable then a chair
on top of a desk when changing a light bulb.
Ingenuity is always appreciated, ignorance is not.
Cheers
Judith
Paul Mesken
>Everyone wants to be an artist, but only few people have the ambition
>to do so despite the numerous obstacles they might face. This is
>actually the test of what separates artists from "people who wished
>they had been artists."
>
I believe these obstacles are mostly of a technical nature (in the
sense of skill). It takes a lot of effort and study to overcome them
and "artist wannabees" (those who want the title but don't love the
work itself) don't want to be bothered with them. OTOH a real artist
will always seek to improve his/her work by technical skills. As you
say : the real artist is ambitious and this is what separates him/her
from those making art as a hobby (in the sense of pastime) or the
wannabees (these two are not the same, I've seen far better work from
hobbyists than from the wannabees).
One of the major problems is that the title "artist" is no longer
considered to have any relation with skill or quality (indeed : at
times I _do_ sound like Mani Deli ;-) even by some art schools this
thread is about. This lets in the "artist wannabees" and devaluates
the title. Perhaps this is why a lot of artists are irritated by the
success of obvious wannabees, they feel cheated and IMO that feeling
is justified.
Originality, artistic statements and hype seem to rule the art scene
nowadays (or the "artzy fartzy scene" where talk takes precedence over
the art work itself). Observe how none of them guarantees any level of
quality.
Originality is often mistaken for "shock value" and stuff like shit,
porno, blasphemy, death, cruelty, etc. are hailed as being great on
their own merit. But people never really make anything original, at
best it is innovative, unique and personal and even this doesn't
necessarily make the art any better. It doesn't guarantee any level of
quality.
I've never understood what could prompt artists to make a single
artistic statement. It is as if the artistic skills were only
developed for the single goal they outline in it, as if they're on
some intellectual mission. Moreover : it gives rise to the idea that
artists need to pursuit some single, intellectual mission. This is
ofcourse nonsense.
The hype speaks for itself. Some people considered authorities deem an
artist's work of great importance (whatever that means) and many
others believe them, putting their own personal taste aside in favour
of people they consider more educated. It's a lot like the fashion
world. The most godawful cloths are showcased as being important but
on the streets everybody still wears jeans :-)
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>ha...@dontemailme.com (Hans Phul) wrote in message news:<3ec9...@news.zianet.com>...
>> In article <45dd5dd.03051...@posting.google.com>,
>> eatn...@humboldt1.com says...
>>
>> >Hmmm. In my experience if you are one who creates that which some call
>> >art it is more like a disease than an ambition. If you can quit, good
>> >for you... I'm about ready for AA (artists anonymous) "Hi my names
>> >Mike and I fancy myself a painter..." I work full time and have for 25
>> >years supporting myself, my family and this sick desire to create.
>>
>> You're to be commended as are many of my full-time
>> artist friends.
>
>Commended or committed, I think you misunderstood my term "work". I'm
>a cook. That's how I support my 'habit'. It's a little like having two
>full time careers because, well, that's what it is.
Chef at "Folie Douce". Well, then you have one of the most appreciated
jobs possible. I can't think of much that is more appreciated than a
good meal. Cooking is what really sets us apart from the other animals
and almost all of mankind's technology has gone into it :-)
>I don't know what to think of the Art School thing. I'm an uneducated
>hopelessly romantic painter making the best of it all with the help of
>a visa card and a job in the service industry...
I think it's a shame there are hardly schools anymore (at least where
I live) that educate proper drawing and painting. I feel a lot of
techniques and knowledge might slowly disappear this way if it wasn't
for the books. Even though I got quite some knowledge and inspiration
from the art books I read, they won't help me in telling me whether I
do it right and they won't show me how something can be improved. That
takes a teacher and I don't know of any in my neighbourhood that
teaches the traditional techniques I use.
Hans Phul
>Commended or committed, I think you misunderstood my term "work". I'm
>a cook. That's how I support my 'habit'.
Aha. Then you're no different from the rest of
us 'weakend' painters - or hobby artists as some
like to call us. Having two degrees in art hasn't
made it my livelihood, and that is what I was
addressing in my responses to Judith. It takes
an especially dedicated and deprivation-proof
person to 'make it' as a 'practicing artist.'
The vast majority have to maintain 'other sources'
of income. Then there are the ones who are lucky
enough to have a spouse who pays all the bills
so they can indulge their artistic instincts and
another few lucky souls who have inherited wealth.
Hans Phul
>I don't rate "success" by the amount of media coverage an "artist"
>receives nor by the amount of money he makes.
Why did you stop with that statement of personal opinion?
How about enlightening us as to just what does constitute
success in your opinion?
>Everyone wants to be an artist,
There you go again with unfounded and ridiculous
broadsides. I know of VERY few of my acquaintance
who harbor ANY desire to become artists, and
MANY artists of my acquaintance who don't have
any misconceptions about earning a living as one.
Why don't you go out on the street where you live and
stop people and get them to answer
the simple question: "Do you wish you were an
artist?" Only then can you come back here with some
statistics that will reflect your general locale,
but I suspect it will be pretty representative of
the world-at-large.
>This is
>actually the test of what separates artists from "people who wished
>they had been artists."
Wishing seldom makes it so in the real world!
And on that point we can agree!!
Hans Phul
says...
>I find this hard to believe.
Well, Mani Deli hasn't been posting much lately
but surely you've read his endless never-ending
rant against art education.
I wrote a bunch of stuff before realizing my answer
can be summed up thusly: Getting a college degree
does NOT guarantee ANYONE future success in whatever
field their degree study was in! Having an engineering
degree never made me rich or famous, but it did allow
me to make a decent living that I could not have made
otherwise since having that degree is a requirement
for working many types of jobs.
>Are you saying that American art schools
>are so bad that they actually destroy the _need_ to make art?
Most four-year universities in the USA are uniformly
EXCELLENT institutions. Some outshine others, in
the art dept as in other depts.
What is 'wrong' with most schools is the EXPECTATION
OF THE PUPILS attending them! That is not the school's
fault, except to the extent that most universities and
colleges don't make students spend their first semester
in 'orientation classes' so that they can make informed
decisions for themselves about which college degree
plan will most benefit them after graduation. Go back
and read what I wrote about my own experiece in the
'college of art' I attended - the two classes of student
in my undergrad experience: 1)Those who thought art
degrees were an easy way to achieve a college degree.
2) Those who thought a college degree would guarantee
them success as artists.
It's NOT a simple cut and dried progression for the
young (or even the old) student who is experiencing
college for the first time.
>Personally, I believe that these people were never artists to begin
>with, they were only interested in a job as artist.
"These people" are a cross-section of the population
in general, IMO. They all have their own reasons
for seeking whatever degree plan they choose. Those
who naively think that having a college art degree
will insure them success are just that - naive - VERY naive!
Hans Phul
hadle...@hotmail.com says...
>I believe what you are is what people often to refer to as a "draughtsman."
Is that the same as a "beer guzzler?"
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>In article <bqjicv8p1kbfu1fom...@4ax.com>, usu...@euronet.nl
>says...
>
>>I find this hard to believe.
For Heaven's Sake, at least refer to the thread my post was in. Even I
had to check back to my original post to see what I thought was hard
to believe. For the ones interested, the thread was "Good show,
Judith!".
>Well, Mani Deli hasn't been posting much lately
>but surely you've read his endless never-ending
>rant against art education.
Yes, I expected him to join in about now. The article of Judith
(http://www.carolinaarts.com/503mcgrath.html) neatly supports his
views about art education.
>I wrote a bunch of stuff before realizing my answer
>can be summed up thusly: Getting a college degree
>does NOT guarantee ANYONE future success in whatever
>field their degree study was in! Having an engineering
>degree never made me rich or famous, but it did allow
>me to make a decent living that I could not have made
>otherwise since having that degree is a requirement
>for working many types of jobs.
Yes, I agree with that. But one might expect that one's skills and
knowledge is improved by going to college and that the college degree
is an official confirmation of a certain level of education. Also,
that having such a degree improves one chances on the job market.
Ofcourse : getting rich and famous is something completely else and no
school will teach you that, especially since a great deal of luck and
vision is involved.
>>Are you saying that American art schools
>>are so bad that they actually destroy the _need_ to make art?
>
>Most four-year universities in the USA are uniformly
>EXCELLENT institutions. Some outshine others, in
>the art dept as in other depts.
I feel this is somewhat dissonant with your positive reply to Judith's
article. In this article I read a complaint against australian art
education.
>What is 'wrong' with most schools is the EXPECTATION
>OF THE PUPILS attending them! That is not the school's
>fault, except to the extent that most universities and
>colleges don't make students spend their first semester
>in 'orientation classes' so that they can make informed
>decisions for themselves about which college degree
>plan will most benefit them after graduation. Go back
>and read what I wrote about my own experiece in the
>'college of art' I attended - the two classes of student
>in my undergrad experience: 1)Those who thought art
>degrees were an easy way to achieve a college degree.
>2) Those who thought a college degree would guarantee
>them success as artists.
>
>It's NOT a simple cut and dried progression for the
>young (or even the old) student who is experiencing
>college for the first time.
It's very important to take away unfounded expectations one might have
about any educational institute. But are you saying that art college
itself (or whatever it is called in the USA) is excellent? Because in
Judith's article I read that (australian) art education is at least
"below par".
>>Personally, I believe that these people were never artists to begin
>>with, they were only interested in a job as artist.
>
>"These people" are a cross-section of the population
>in general, IMO.
You're refering to my "these people" and I meant the ones who stopped
pursuiting art even as a hobby. This is why I deemed them not being
artists at all since, at the very least, an artist must have a love
for making art and will thus always do it, whether professional or as
a hobby. My following example about students wanting to be a
programmer expounded on this.
> They all have their own reasons
>for seeking whatever degree plan they choose. Those
>who naively think that having a college art degree
>will insure them success are just that - naive - VERY naive!
Yes, this neatly corresponds with my own example of a lot of students
learning for programmer. They think of the study as a means of success
(a job which pays well) but they ultimately fail because of their lack
of love for the work itself.
Hadley
> >Define constructive criticism.
>
> According to Webster's: 'constructive' = promoting improvement or
> development.
> 'criticism' = evaluating or analysing with knowledge and propriety.
>
> In other words, when a teacher tells you that spelling cat with a 'k' is
> acceptable in certain instances however some people may not think so. Or
> when your boss tells you that using a ladder is more acceptable then a chair
> on top of a desk when changing a light bulb.
> Ingenuity is always appreciated, ignorance is not.
>
> Cheers
> Judith
I didn't ask you for the "dictionary definition." I am very well aware
of what it is. However, I find that what some people refer to as
"constructive criticism" is often thinly veiled yellow journalism
under the disguise of intellect.
Regards,
Hadley
Hans Phul
says...
>For Heaven's Sake, at least refer to the thread my post was in.
Sorry to confuse you. Most news readers, including
the Google one, keep the replies in the same thread
regardless of whether or not the subject (title) changes.
And my newsreader marks messages 'as read' so that I
only see 'new messages' when I open the rec.arts.fine
forum - it's an option, that is.
>Yes, I agree with that. But one might expect that one's skills and
>knowledge is improved by going to college and that the college degree
>is an official confirmation of a certain level of education.
Exactly what I meant by prospective students having
the wrong expectations. In the USA at least you get
an EDUCATION (in the broadest sense) FIRST and only
as an adjunct are allowed to indulge your art instincts.
The university provides the art studio, equipment,
and instructors but they can't teach a student who
won't apply themself to learning! It's a shock to
many first-semester students to discover that they
are expected to exert themselves and avail themselves
of the opportunity to learn - unlike high school
and elementary school where there was no obligation
other than to finish a homework assignment - if such
were even required.
>Also, that having such a degree improves one chances on the job market.
Again, in MOST instances that is true, but NOT in
the field of art. Not if you take only studio art
courses. Each university has somewhat different
programs and facilities and it's up to the prospective
student to know what's going to be available and how
they are going to be taught, and more importantly to
know if they can USE what the learn later in life.
BUT BUT BUT!!! - there is very
little attempt to 'orient' students to the uniqueness
of an art education - it's up to them to figure it
out, for the most part, and most can't be bothered.
Probably the best schools in the USA for guaranteeing
success in finding work upon graduation are the
ones dedicated to commercial design and other commercial
applications. These take a much different approach
to the curriculum presented than do most colleges,
and present it in a more disciplinarian manner.
>I feel this is somewhat dissonant with your positive reply to Judith's
>article. In this article I read a complaint against australian art
>education.
I read her assessment of Australian art education as
being geared more to educating the student to be
an 'art business' rather than teaching art methods.
And that is what most USA colleges attempt to do -
give a person an EDUCATION "in addition" to giving them
the opportunity to pursue their artistic instincts.
>But are you saying that art college
>itself (or whatever it is called in the USA) is excellent? Because in
>Judith's article I read that (australian) art education is at least
>"below par".
I didn't get any 'below par' message but I'll go
back and re-read her comments. I qualified my
comments about 'art colleges' in the USA to those
that are full-fledged four-year universities, with
all that that implies by way of facilities and
faculties. And in this post I expanded that to
the schools that specialize in commercial art studies.
>You're refering to my "these people" and I meant the ones who stopped
>pursuiting art even as a hobby.
I snipped the rest of your commentary because I
agree with you. It's not just true of artists though.
Everyone needs to exude dedication, determination
and willpower in order to be rewarded by their
working career, no matter what they choose to do.
It's too bad that it's not more common to find people
also enjoying every minute of their work-a-day careers.
My dad was not artistic, but he was
a business success and when I asked him, at age
65, why he wasn't thinking of retirement and
getting some enjoyment from retirement, he replied
to me that 'making money is what I enjoy' - and
I never asked him again. He died unhappy because
he was forced to give up his line of work when
he reached the age of 82 and was physically unable
to continue. He would have died happy if he
could have died while at his job - like his dad
before him. His dad died
at the age of 77 from a stroke suffered while
working on a dental patient.
Hadley
> I don't know what to think of the Art School thing. I'm an uneducated
> hopelessly romantic painter making the best of it all with the help of
> a visa card and a job in the service industry...
LOL! As long as you're not wasting your paycheck by indulging in some
methamphetamine habit, then I say you're in good shape. :)
Hadley
there is a difference between technical skill at application towards
art/media/etc. and other obstacles which prevent the artist from
creating in the first place.
In any given field, one must first overcome the technical
difficulties, but I think "art" is different from say, "journalism." I
agree with your statement that an artist *should* always be looking
for ways to increase his technical skills, but let's not confuse
genuine hard-work with anal-retentiveness. In a bit of digression, I
think that's the difference between a good film director and a
negative cutter.
> One of the major problems is that the title "artist" is no longer
> considered to have any relation with skill or quality
Ah, the woes of living in a post Dada/post pop art/graphic design
world. Contrary to your opinion, I think the title "Artist" is
pretentious in itself. But for the sake of argument, I think that
genuine "Artists" do possess a lot of skill. If you're talking about
marketing hype however, I think that's just what it is...
> Originality is often mistaken for "shock value" and stuff like shit,
> porno, blasphemy, death, cruelty, etc. are hailed as being great on
> their own merit. But people never really make anything original, at
> best it is innovative, unique and personal and even this doesn't
> necessarily make the art any better. It doesn't guarantee any level of
> quality.
If you read my other thread, then you would know that I think this
kind of "shock art" is mainly just marketing hype which is
pseudo-controversial. People love it because it makes money.
I also think that originality can exist in an artist's work, but I
suppose it depends on your perspective.
> I've never understood what could prompt artists to make a single
> artistic statement. It is as if the artistic skills were only
> developed for the single goal they outline in it, as if they're on
> some intellectual mission. Moreover : it gives rise to the idea that
> artists need to pursuit some single, intellectual mission. This is
> ofcourse nonsense.
Ha, I think what you're actually referring to is the "non-statement
statement" that some highly paid artists make when they're too lazy to
make anything then spend more time creating publicity as opposed to
art. This reminds me of that childhood tale: The Emperor's New
Clothes. As you said, it's all hype.
> It's a lot like the fashion
> world. The most godawful cloths are showcased as being important but
> on the streets everybody still wears jeans :-)
Well since you're making the analogy of fashion with art, it seems to
me that your opinion is that *art* should be *practical* which I don't
think should necessarily be true.
Hadley
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>In article <3rckcvkhioljv5jj6...@4ax.com>, usu...@euronet.nl
>says...
>
>
>>For Heaven's Sake, at least refer to the thread my post was in.
>
>Sorry to confuse you. Most news readers, including
>the Google one, keep the replies in the same thread
>regardless of whether or not the subject (title) changes.
>And my newsreader marks messages 'as read' so that I
>only see 'new messages' when I open the rec.arts.fine
>forum - it's an option, that is.
Okay, I've set the option (Agent makes by default a new thread when
the subject changes, didn't even know it was on). Wow! It now appears
all of this takes place in "Tour El Dorado" , I wonder how many people
I directed to the wrong threads.
Hm, I guess I should be thankfull to you for pointing out my own
mistake and apologize for complaining but that would go against my
very Nature! ;-)
>The university provides the art studio, equipment,
>and instructors but they can't teach a student who
>won't apply themself to learning! It's a shock to
>many first-semester students to discover that they
>are expected to exert themselves and avail themselves
>of the opportunity to learn - unlike high school
>and elementary school where there was no obligation
>other than to finish a homework assignment - if such
>were even required.
I think this system is good. Universities in the Netherlands work more
or less the same way. At a certain level more can be expected from
students than merely doing assignments.
>>Also, that having such a degree improves one chances on the job market.
>
>Again, in MOST instances that is true, but NOT in
>the field of art. Not if you take only studio art
>courses. Each university has somewhat different
>programs and facilities and it's up to the prospective
>student to know what's going to be available and how
>they are going to be taught, and more importantly to
>know if they can USE what the learn later in life.
>BUT BUT BUT!!! - there is very
>little attempt to 'orient' students to the uniqueness
>of an art education - it's up to them to figure it
>out, for the most part, and most can't be bothered.
I think the main problem is that students think in terms of
prospective salary instead of wondering about what they like, can do
best and should pursuit as further development. After all : it's a
long term decision and as such cannot be taken lightly.
>Probably the best schools in the USA for guaranteeing
>success in finding work upon graduation are the
>ones dedicated to commercial design and other commercial
>applications. These take a much different approach
>to the curriculum presented than do most colleges,
>and present it in a more disciplinarian manner.
You know, it's funny that you say that because a long time ago I tried
entering an art college and was rejected (I'll never forgive the damn
bastards! ;-) They told me I'd better enter schools doing commercial
designs which were more concerned by solid drawing and painting. After
a walk through the college (the one in The Hague, I forgot its name) I
was quite glad I wasn't accepted. It was all <insert Deli rants of
choice> I would have learned nothing I consider valuable.
The interview I had with the rector made it clear that whatever I was
after, I wouldn't find it there. Nevertheless, the ones (like me)
working naturalistic could only go to a school for commercial design
which makes it appear that traditional techniques are no longer
considered part of art. After all : you go to a commercial design
school to learn how to make advertisements and stuff, not to become
the next Bouguereau.
Now, I don't know whether it's the same in the USA or in other
countries but it seems to me that the only place where one can learn
traditional techniques are the commercial design schools and that's
not the first thing that pops to the mind of the ones looking to learn
making better naturalistic art. Besides : they won't teach you how to
make your own gesso ;-)
>Everyone needs to exude dedication, determination
>and willpower in order to be rewarded by their
>working career, no matter what they choose to do.
>It's too bad that it's not more common to find people
>also enjoying every minute of their work-a-day careers.
If it takes great amounts of will power then they've chosen the wrong
career. I have a great dedication to my work, about all my money goes
back into it and I study every day (I don't have a wife or kids) but
this is only natural because I would have done it even if it wasn't my
job.
Paul Mesken
>> It's a lot like the fashion
>> world. The most godawful cloths are showcased as being important but
>> on the streets everybody still wears jeans :-)
>
>Well since you're making the analogy of fashion with art, it seems to
>me that your opinion is that *art* should be *practical* which I don't
>think should necessarily be true.
Well, not really. What I meant was that a select group of people
decide on what good fashion is (or "high fashion" whatever) but that
their opinion is not shared by the masses. Most people (at least the
people I've heard about it) don't think someone like say Pollock is a
good artist but in the art scene he's considered great and important.
The dissonance between what the masses like and what the art scene
likes gives birth to such expressions as "I don't know about Art but I
do know what I like.". To me this means that the art scene is quite
successfull in monopolizing the definition of the word "Art" (this all
goes for the Western World ofcourse). The masses accept the authority
of the art scene and relieve themselves of judging whether something
is "Art" (with the capital) or not.
The art scene is considered highly intellectual (that's why there's so
many words spend on art) and that's why the masses don't call an
artist a scam if the art scene considers the artist the greatest thing
since sliced bread.
Hans Phul
says...
>The dissonance between what the masses like and what the art scene
>likes gives birth to such expressions as "I don't know about Art but I
>do know what I like.".
And forever shall it be thus! The GOOD news coming
from 'the masses' is that, at least in the USA, more
of 'them' are attending art museums and galleries than
ever before. And you can't do that without being 'educated'
to some degree - unless you're totally devoid of an I.Q.
to begin with.
Hans Phul
says...
>You know, it's funny that you say that because a long time ago I tried
>entering an art college and was rejected (I'll never forgive the damn
>bastards! ;-)
In the USA you'd have found it's the other way around.
The state-supported universities will accept virtually
anyone who applies - assuming you had the grades in
pre-college schooling to qualify. It's the private
commercially oriented 'Design Institutes' that are
difficult to get accepted into. They usually want to
see your portfolio. Freshman entering ordinary 'Colleges
of Art' are not required nor expected to present
portfolios - in MOST colleges in the USA. It is
different for getting into College of Art graduate
schools - there you better have a winning portfolio
since many schools only admit a limited number of
grad students each semester.
>Now, I don't know whether it's the same in the USA or in other
>countries but it seems to me that the only place where one can learn
>traditional techniques are the commercial design schools
Commercial design schools are not going to teach you
the basics of say, oil painting. They will be heavy
on whatever the school specializes in: turning out
advertising designers, film animators, web site
designers, mechanical draftsmen, etc.
>If it takes great amounts of will power then they've chosen the wrong
>career. I have a great dedication to my work, about all my money goes
>back into it and I study every day (I don't have a wife or kids) but
>this is only natural because I would have done it even if it wasn't my
>job.
I will draw this analogy: you may have the desire to
quit smoking (break the nicotine habit) but it takes
a great deal of will power to accomplish it. I know
this from experience!!
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>In article <q92lcvo64qe704a1q...@4ax.com>, usu...@euronet.nl
>says...
>>If it takes great amounts of will power then they've chosen the wrong
>>career. I have a great dedication to my work, about all my money goes
>>back into it and I study every day (I don't have a wife or kids) but
>>this is only natural because I would have done it even if it wasn't my
>>job.
>
>I will draw this analogy: you may have the desire to
>quit smoking (break the nicotine habit) but it takes
>a great deal of will power to accomplish it. I know
>this from experience!!
If doing one's work takes that amount of will power then one certainly
has chosen the wrong profession! Certainly it takes will power to go
beyond being merely talented or promising but I believe dedication
should come for the greater part from the love for the work and the
ambition to become good in it. Will power comes in handy on those days
you don't feel like doing your work.
I (smoker of about 20 a day, I'm smoking right now :-) once broke
abruptly with the habit merely to see if I had that kind of will power
at my disposal. The first 3 days were do-able, the next two weeks were
far harder. The next 3 months there were times I still felt the urge
to light one up at certain times (after dinner, when waking up, etc.).
After about 9 months I considered my experiment a success and started
to smoke again because I don't feel any necessity to not smoke :-)
Mani Deli
>>What is 'wrong' with most schools is the EXPECTATION
>>OF THE PUPILS attending them!
_and what's wrong with most art schools is that the teachers who are
the result of a hundred years of fashionable incompetence hardly know
anything.
And what is it that you think a student should expect?
>Yes, this neatly corresponds with my own example of a lot of students
>learning for programmer. They think of the study as a means of success (a job which pays well)
and what's wrong with that? Should they go to school to study how to
enter the realm of poverty?
> but they ultimately fail because of their lack
>of love for the work itself.
Most students who follow courses which aren't bullshit learn a
profession and make a living at it. I have touble finding anything
wrong with that.
Most who choose to study art are attracted to a romantic dream. They
have little talent, no diligence for learning and little interest in
artwork. They are taught a creed instead of a craft.
Even most of those who are genuinely interested are bamboozled by nice
teachers who spout double talk as a substitute for teaching the craft
of which they have little knowledge. Only later do graduates realize
they haven't learned a damned thing. And whether they realize it or
not it shows in their artwork.
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Mike Stengl
> In article <45dd5dd.03051...@posting.google.com>,
> eatn...@humboldt1.com says...
>
>
> >Commended or committed, I think you misunderstood my term "work". I'm
> >a cook. That's how I support my 'habit'.
>
> Aha. Then you're no different from the rest of
> us 'weakend' painters - or hobby artists as some
> like to call us.
"Weakend" painter, I feel that. Every time I have to go to work
mid-painting session. But the terms 'weekend painter' and 'hobby
artist' cause the gag reflex to engage. I have been burning the candle
at both ends for too long to be summed up in such frivolous terms.
Unsuccessful, I'll give you if were looking to see if I've spent more
than I've made, pathetic or immature if were talking about my
insistance to make art without sufficient monetary rewards, if you
must, but don't classify my lifelong passion as a hobby, por favor!
> Having two degrees in art hasn't
> made it my livelihood, and that is what I was
> addressing in my responses to Judith.
I don't believe a degree would have changed my fate, but who knows. My
experience cartooning and illustrating (also with little monetary
reward) served as my education and seemed to give me the foundation
necessary to begin painting. There IS NO JOB I am familiar with that
interests me, degree or not. What is necessary in a job is that the
hours and the pay combine to allow me to paint as much as I like.
> It takes
> an especially dedicated and deprivation-proof
> person to 'make it' as a 'practicing artist.'
> The vast majority have to maintain 'other sources'
> of income. Then there are the ones who are lucky
> enough to have a spouse who pays all the bills
> so they can indulge their artistic instincts and
> another few lucky souls who have inherited wealth.
This is from my friend who writes for a living in Portland: What do
you call a poet without a girlfriend?
Homeless.
Hadley
to sound like such a snob, but when the average Dan goes to a museum
that has been advertised by Saatchi & Saatchi et al, and all the
"people" have been talking about it in the media, then she will like
"the pretty pictures" full of detail and pleasing to her eye which she
imagines can be replicated as a poster in her house. Most people do
not even know who Pollack is, nor do they care. The average Dan goes
to MOMA and merely sees "paint splatter, dripping" then assesses that
it is not as pretty as something by say, Rothko, Modigliani or even
that famous hack, Andy Warhol, without understanding the IDEOLOGY that
is at the heart of the work. For the record, I am not condoning
Pollack. However, the average consumer has little to no understanding
of art but they are the ones who frequent museums so that they can buy
all their pretty pictures on postcards, posters, keychains, cookie
cutters and the like...
> Well, not really. What I meant was that a select group of people
> decide on what good fashion is (or "high fashion" whatever) but that
> their opinion is not shared by the masses. Most people (at least the
> people I've heard about it) don't think someone like say Pollock is a
> good artist but in the art scene he's considered great and important.
I think you are straying off topic. I consider fashion, a separate
entity from art. However, I think that fashion, like art, tends to be
unconventional. That is...models walking down the catwalk is a kind of
performance art. Clothes are always impractical, exaggerated, and
representative of the human form which is not to be confused with
street pret-a-porter. In that sense, *fashion can be art.* However,
the reality is that most people prefer clothes that are flattering and
comfortable to wear. That is, in making this *fashion as art* analogy,
the average Dan wants a commercialised poster of van Gogh's
"sunflowers" coloured in contemporary popular tastes that can be
easily hung in her room as opposed to the real thing, which is torn,
worn, delicate, with its oil colours fading & peeling from exposure to
the elements and hard to maintain...
I think ultimately, that art is entirely separate from
*marketing*...and that they are mutually exclusive.
> The dissonance between what the masses like and what the art scene
> likes gives birth to such expressions as "I don't know about Art but I
> do know what I like.". To me this means that the art scene is quite
> successfull in monopolizing the definition of the word "Art" (this all
> goes for the Western World ofcourse). The masses accept the authority
> of the art scene and relieve themselves of judging whether something
> is "Art" (with the capital) or not.
Again, I think that the public likes "pretty" things in contemporary
taste that they want to hang up on their walls. Damien Hirst isn't
pretty, and although he might be part of that "artzy fartzy marketing
hype," the public nonetheless is still fascinated with him due to his
great P.R. campaign. However, let's remember that the majority public
of say, Rembrandt, Monet, Dali, Klimt, Chagall, van Gogh, Munch's time
(etc, etc) didn't consider them "worthy" and hadn't even been familiar
with them until close to the end of their careers (or in some cases,
after they had prematurely died). As for well known commercial artists
of their time, they had indeed been familar with the works of these
"unknown" artists, but their own works are not scrutinised for its
"greatness" nor are they plagiarised for mass consumption now is it?
The problem with the modern world & any other time in history as well,
is that 1) there are only few authoritarians who decide "what art is"
and usually they are in the business of selling & marketing "art"
hence the "artzy fartzy" (or as in the UK, are simply referred to as
"trendy") 2) the public may or may not like what that art may be, but
is still fascinated with/patronise the latter 3) genuine innovative
artists who are at odds with 1 & 2, but having proper connections then
may achieve part exposure from 1.
I actually think it's less complicated from what I've said, but all in
all, I think that's what's the "art" scene has always been like.
> The art scene is considered highly intellectual (that's why there's so
> many words spend on art) and that's why the masses don't call an
> artist a scam if the art scene considers the artist the greatest thing
> since sliced bread.
Again, I think that you are confusing the "marketing" of a certain
artist as opposed to the overall structure of the "art scene" which
comprises of a degree of factors, including money, politics, exposure,
and last but not least, something threatening and ORIGINAL. All those
things, of course, are entirely separate from the other, and only the
"artist" brings all these elements together.
Regards,
Hadley
_________________________
Hadley
OMIGOD! For once, I agree with everything you
say!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think the hardest thing about "choosing" your "chosen" career as an
artist is mainly finance. You may be great behind a camera; you may
write poetry like a fucken god, but you just can't seem to make those
necessary house payments. Therefore, you go to school to become
trained as a lawyer like Shakespeare, Ivo van Hove, Lars von Trier et
al, and make your wife & parents happy until you come back to what you
love doing best.
Hadley
> the result of a hundred years of fashionable incompetence hardly know
> anything.
> and what's wrong with that? Should they go to school to study how to
> enter the realm of poverty?
You remind me of an office assistant I know who dropped out of her
M.A. writing programme at University of Chicago because her professors
didn't think too highly of her academic writing style and because she
spent most of her time reading fashion magazines & watching the telly
to know the difference in the first place. Please, spare the rest of
us your rhetoric. Art schools, like any other schools, are more than
the professors who may or may not know their subject(s) very well.
Schools are a valuable resource where the artist can engage in
meaningful dialogue with OTHER STUDENTS. In this day and age,
interaction in multi-media is important. No one is just a "painter"
per se, but works within a realm of other media.
One first needs to master the language before breaking it apart. Art
schools are great in that the artist has a great playground for
experimenting with her art along with her contemporaries, whether or
not they despise the establishment.
Regards,
Hadley
_____________________
Hans Phul
eatn...@humboldt1.com says...
>"Weakend" painter, I feel that. Every time I have to go to work
>mid-painting session. But the terms 'weekend painter' and 'hobby
>artist' cause the gag reflex to engage.
I can only commisserate. I went through the same thing
you're going through but had a wife and kids who were
a great boon to me at the time. Without their help and
indulgence I'd never have been able to do what I did
'back then.' But that was 'then' and this is 'now' and
I've outgrown the notion that I'd ever be able to make
a living from selling my art work. And yes, I've even
tried giving up ALL other income - allowing the wife
to 'donate her pay check' to my cause - but even so,
the market simply was not there. And the frustration of
getting my work into VIABLE sales outlets was a
real grind on my nervous system - certainly not
conducive to enjoying what I was doing.
So, lucky is (s)he who has an agent to handle all the
business details while (s)he spends all available
minutes of the day slaving at the creative forge!
I think I'm going out to find a wealthy soulmate to pay
the bills while I create! See ya...
Hans Phul
hadle...@hotmail.com says...
>
>The masses, the masses. What the hell do they know about art?
Well well, and my oh my, you finally posted an
entire post I can agree with. Congratulations!
Of course you only did that to please me...right?
Hans Phul
says...
>I considered my experiment a success and started
>to smoke again because I don't feel any necessity to not smoke :-)
That's pretty sad commentary on your personal
judgement, I'd say. I began smoking in my teen
years and came to the realization it was ruining
my health and had one HELL of a time stopping,
after several abortive attempts. Thankfully I
was finally able to 'kick the habit' and hopefully
will not develop complications beyond the inability
of my lungs to provide enough oxygen to my body
that I experience today. I hope you get to see the
news story just posted today on various news
outlets. Here is one such reference for you:
(sorry - the URL was too long to paste here)
But here's an excerpt that will give you the
gist of the article:
World Health Body Adopts Historic Anti-Smoking Pact
Wed May 21, 2003 08:47 AM ET
By Richard Waddington
GENEVA (Reuters) - More than 190 countries on Wednesday
approved the first international treaty against smoking,
including an advertising ban, aimed at breaking a habit
that kills nearly 5 million people a year.
The World Health Assembly, the annual meeting of the
World Health Organization's 192 countries, unanimously
adopted the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC)
that commits them to fighting the "devastating ...
consequences of tobacco consumption and exposure."
"Today, we are acting to save billions of lives and
protect people's health for generations to come.
This is an historic moment," said WHO Director-General
Gro Harlem Brundtland.
Hans Phul
>Schools are a valuable resource where the artist can engage in
>meaningful dialogue with OTHER STUDENTS.
I wish you'd have stopped that sentence after the word 'resource.'
While what you say about having others to 'interact' with is
certainly true, many of the artists I know who never had
a formal education still 'network' among themselves. It's
almost an essential element to success once one does begin
striving to make it as an artist.
What a full-service College of Art provides by way of
available resources involves far more - 'interaction' with all
the resources that one will possibly never have at one's
disposal again, once out of college. Libraries, museums,
studios and workshops, various lecture series, visiting
artists, oftentime the latest in high-tech tools (computers
and such) and on and on...to say nothing of the
accessibility of the faculty members, career counselors, etc.
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>In article <cdflcvkl1u66gm335...@4ax.com>, usu...@euronet.nl
>says...
>
>>I considered my experiment a success and started
>>to smoke again because I don't feel any necessity to not smoke :-)
>
>That's pretty sad commentary on your personal
>judgement, I'd say. I began smoking in my teen
>years and came to the realization it was ruining
>my health and had one HELL of a time stopping,
>after several abortive attempts. Thankfully I
>was finally able to 'kick the habit' and hopefully
>will not develop complications beyond the inability
>of my lungs to provide enough oxygen to my body
>that I experience today. I hope you get to see the
>news story just posted today on various news
>outlets. Here is one such reference for you:
>
>(sorry - the URL was too long to paste here)
>
>But here's an excerpt that will give you the
>gist of the article:
<snip>
Yes, I know about it. In my home country the Netherlands and in a lot
of other countries this was already a reality for some years. Now it's
official and international.
Smoking is a pretty bad habit and I certainly wouldn't advise it to
ones who never smoked before and are thus free of the addiction or the
experience of smoking.
However, there're more bad habits (lots of sporting is actually one of
them! Heart failure at a relative young age) and in the end we're
presented with the bill of what we did in our lives.
I'm not overly concerned with my own health since there are no genetic
defects in my family to speak of. My grand father was a heavy smoker
and on top of that worked his whole live with heavy chemicals
(thinners and primers) and poisenous pigments (far worse than my lead
pigments) without taking *any* preventive measures (in his days this
wasn't an issue at all). He was an old school house painter,
completely unconcerned with health and he built up some kind of
resistance against the heavy primers he liked to use (while others
fled the building because of the aggressive fumes, he was painting
happily :-) Ofcourse he died of cancer throughout his entire body
which he left completely unattended but he did this at the age of 80.
To me this is completely natural, I don't aim to live for a hundred
years (but I do aim to get _at least_ to 70 :-)
Thur
a 'snob' or not.
You seem to me to have an idea that on one side of a 'chasm'
there is the art that you consider worthy and on the other side
there is the choice of the buyers who for the most part are not
even worthy enough to recognise the value of your art.
Well how could they if a good proportion of them have never been
to 'Art School' or had any formal training in the subject?
This view from the mountain top has been often stated on this ng,
in differing forms.
>The average Dan goes
> to MOMA and merely sees "paint splatter, dripping" then assesses that
> it is not as pretty as something by say, Rothko, Modigliani or even
> that famous hack, Andy Warhol, without understanding the IDEOLOGY that
> is at the heart of the work.
There may be an untold goldmine of good intentions and very deep
thought behind all art, but that which manages to sell itself to the viewer
seems to be how it is judged. There is nothing to stop an artist making
art worthy of his/her fellow artists approval, and yet be accessible to the
'masses', see the Past.
It is the 20th century that made the need for an art work to be 'new' or
'original' which led to so many fads or fashions. Once a fashion becomes
'old hat' then a new fashion emerges. eg. Pop Art, now where did that go
to?
In one sense every art work is original, for even a copy has discernible
differences in the brushwork.
On the other hand, art historians try their best to tell us how each work of
art has emerged from a previous style, and we know each artist produces
works that relate to each other.
Therefore originality is a red herring. Great artists and great art do not
need to be 'original', only to be viewed.
Thur
"Hadley" <hadle...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b8ec3e2c.03052...@posting.google.com...
Neil Maxwell
wrote:
>"Today, we are acting to save billions of lives and
>protect people's health for generations to come.
>This is an historic moment," said WHO Director-General
>Gro Harlem Brundtland.
Great. Next they can take on cars, alcohol, water, and fat. Nothing
like demonizing someone else's recreational preferences. You
certainly wouldn't want to give someone a choice about something like
that.
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Mani Deli
>> _and what's wrong with most art schools is that the teachers who are
>> the result of a hundred years of fashionable incompetence hardly know
>> anything.
>
>> and what's wrong with that? Should they go to school to study how to
>> enter the realm of poverty?
>
>You remind me of an office assistant I know who dropped out of her
>M.A. writing programme at University of Chicago because her professors
>didn't think too highly of her academic writing style and because she
>spent most of her time reading fashion magazines & watching the telly
>to know the difference in the first place. Please, spare the rest of
>us your rhetoric.
You didn't answer the question. If what I write bothers you don't read
it.
>Art schools, like any other schools, are more than
>the professors who may or may not know their subject(s) very well.
But that's a guarantee of failure.
>Schools are a valuable resource where the artist can engage in
>meaningful dialogue with OTHER STUDENTS. In this day and age,
>interaction in multi-media is important. No one is just a "painter"
>per se, but works within a realm of other media.
Here's a good example in a letter written to ARC
"Hi, I've had my first taste of University art school recently and
found that not one teacher has anything to offer except modern art
instruction(AKA trash). Get this my Color theory teacher gave me a D
in the class after I embarrassed her in front of the class by showing
she didn't know jack. The students I was with if you could even call
them that seemed to be majoring in booze."
snip
-sincerely Blair Baskin
>One first needs to master the language before breaking it apart. Art
>schools are great in that the artist has a great playground for
>experimenting with her art along with her contemporaries, whether or
>not they despise the establishment.
>
Nothing is duller than an excuse for crappy artwork claimed as an
experiment.
Mike Stengl
> years (but I do aim to get _at least_ to 70 :-)
I think the closer you get to 70 you might change your mind. Take
Peter Townsend of the Who, "hope I die before I get old..", I bet he's
changed his mind on that tune. Myself, I want to live as long as
possible to paint every picture I possibly can. I've smoked on and off
since highschool, 6 months on, 18 months off, two years on, three
years off. When I smoke I KNOW it's a self destructive phase and never
plan NOT to quit. During this time I have always put more emphasis on
regular excercise of some sort than my habit of smoking and eventually
the smoking just has to go. I think, in general the folks you describe
as excercising themselves to death are those that do it sporadicly.
Like you said, though, (however you said it) we all pay the bill for
how we live or lives, I just wanna put off the tab as long as
possible.
Andrew D
<ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[snip]
>Here's a good example in a letter written to ARC
>"Hi, I've had my first taste of University art school recently and
>found that not one teacher has anything to offer except modern art
>instruction(AKA trash). Get this my Color theory teacher gave me a D
>in the class after I embarrassed her in front of the class by showing
>she didn't know jack. The students I was with if you could even call
>them that seemed to be majoring in booze."
Hmmm, sounds like our Richard - except this excerpt doesn't mention the
college babes!
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Erik A. Mattila
> You're refering to my "these people" and I meant the ones who stopped
> pursuiting art even as a hobby. This is why I deemed them not being
> artists at all since, at the very least, an artist must have a love
> for making art and will thus always do it, whether professional or as
> a hobby. My following example about students wanting to be a
> programmer expounded on this.
Just to be contentious, Paul,.....why? I mean, can't you imagine an
artist who hates making art? I can, but then we have to descend into
the pit of hell and argue "what is art." It would end up..."an artist
is a person who loves making art." So the artist who hates making art
(the same way we can imagine anyone hating their job) would have to be
defined as a non-artist; an unartist, antiartist, hack, whore, criminal etc.
Hey, guess who has a particularly shitty client right now to deal with?
Erik