Mani goes to heaven
Erik Johnson
R Blanchard wrote:
>
> At last I have found them. Paintings by highly skilled technically
> excellent painters of lush landscapes, seascapes, floral arrangements,
> and puppies. These 'sofa sized' paintings fit right on my wall, and
> there are warehouses full of them at rock bottom prices.
>
> They should show up in an 'art extravaganza' in a mall near you very
> soon. Don't miss out.
>
> All skill...what art?
Though Mani's 'no skill no art' may be extreme, it is basically true.
But as you point out, all the skill in the world won't make for very
good art without creativity or whatever. One must have the required
skill to execute their 'creative vision', otherwise their work will
fail to convey that 'creative vision' and wouldn't likely even find
its way to the mall near you.
-Erik Johnson
er...@phidias.colorado.edu
http://phidias.colorado.edu/vgallery.html
R Blanchard
At last I have found them. Paintings by highly skilled technically
excellent painters of lush landscapes, seascapes, floral arrangements,
and puppies. These 'sofa sized' paintings fit right on my wall, and
there are warehouses full of them at rock bottom prices.
They should show up in an 'art extravaganza' in a mall near you very
soon. Don't miss out.
All skill...what art?
--
Rick Blanchard
Mdeli
R Blanchard wrote:
>All skill...what art?
>Rick Blanchard
If you think that all the stuff you describe exhibits
"all skill" I would say you probably suffer from Modern
Academic Artrhytis. This affliction causes one to think
that anything depicting realism is nothing but skill no
matter how poorly executed.
I suggest you go to the museum and peruse the realistic
drivel of the likes of Hockney and Rivers for starters.
If they had other connections they would never make the
to your warehouse. Today’s modern academic realism is
much worse than the abstract variety.
IF YOU TRY TO DEPICT FORM AND FAIL IT ALWAYS LOOKS FAR
WORSE THAN IF YOU TRY TO DEPICT NOTHING AND SUCCEED.
You might take a trip to you nearest high priced
furniture store and see an even better grade of
nothing-special impressionist stuff and superior modern
style abstraction. These guys have the wrong
connections and thus can’t hang near Hockney and
Rivers. Well at least they are using their skill to
make a living. I can’t say the same for the millions of
aesthetes who have no skills, little money and lots of
complaints about the abilities of others.
Name some great painters before the advent of modern
art who exhibit NO SKILL.
Mani DeLi
---no skill no art
Isn’t it amazing how much this statement irritates the
Modern Academic aesthetes? I think it hits the nail on
the balls.
ellie clemens
In article <4vihqf$f...@news.interlog.com>, hu...@interlog.com (Mdeli) says:
>I suggest you go to the museum and peruse the realistic
>drivel of the likes of Hockney and Rivers for starters.
>If they had other connections they would never make the
>to your warehouse. Today’s modern academic realism is
>much worse than the abstract variety.
I wonder what this paragraph is trying to say.
>
>IF YOU TRY TO DEPICT FORM AND FAIL IT ALWAYS LOOKS FAR
>WORSE THAN IF YOU TRY TO DEPICT NOTHING AND SUCCEED.
>
But what if someone is not interested in depicting form? I
used to be interested in this, but now I'm interested more
in depicting color, and I make form secondary. Why do you
think your view is the only interesting or valid view? It
takes skill to depict color, light, et al also. But you
are interested only in the skill required to depict form.
I too value skill in depicting form, and spend a lot of
time prefecting it. But that doesn't mean it's the
only way I care to see things.
>
>Isn’t it amazing how much this statement irritates the
>Modern Academic aesthetes? I think it hits the nail on
>the balls.
Mani, it may surprise you to learn that some people don't
have, or care about, balls. BTW, since you have such limited
skill at metaphor, why do you insist on writing?
*No skill no literature.*
-ellie
R Blanchard
Mdeli wrote:
> If you think that all the stuff you describe exhibits
> "all skill" I would say you probably suffer from Modern
> Academic Artrhytis. This affliction causes one to think
> that anything depicting realism is nothing but skill no
> matter how poorly executed.
The execution is high quality. The subject matter was not important. Can
you crank out ten of these a day with the same level of skill and
technique?
> IF YOU TRY TO DEPICT FORM AND FAIL IT ALWAYS LOOKS FAR
> WORSE THAN IF YOU TRY TO DEPICT NOTHING AND SUCCEED.
Then these are successful paintings, and the rest are crap? 'Looks far
worse is a rather surficial argument. If it looks neato, it is art?
> I suggest you go to the museum and peruse the realistic
> drivel of the likes of Hockney and Rivers for starters.
> If they had other connections they would never make the
> to your warehouse. Today’s modern academic realism is
> much worse than the abstract variety.
I never find drivel in museums, only here. If you have the right
connections you can make art? Winslow Homer is much worse than Leger? If
they are in a museum they are drivel? You are losing it I fear.
> You might take a trip to you nearest high priced
> furniture store and see an even better grade of
> nothing-special impressionist stuff and superior modern
> style abstraction. These guys have the wrong
> connections and thus can’t hang near Hockney and
> Rivers. Well at least they are using their skill to
> make a living.
Better grade and superior paintings hang in furniture stores?
Connections crate art? Making a living creates great art? Over the edge
for sure.
> I can’t say the same for the millions of
> aesthetes who have no skills, little money and lots of
> complaints about the abilities of others.
Self portrait?
> Name some great painters before the advent of modern
> art who exhibit NO SKILL.
Great painters have more than one skill, and what makes them great is
that skill isn't what is important about their work.
> ---no skill no art
>
> Isn’t it amazing how much this statement irritates the
> Modern Academic aesthetes? I think it hits the nail on
> the balls.
Not even so much as a fingernail on a blackboard. With the same effect.
--
Rick Blanchard
Yolanda Liberte
In article <4vkf5t$6...@news-central.tiac.net>, cle...@ccs.tiac.net says...
> BTW, since you have such limited
>skill at metaphor, why do you insist on writing?
> *No skill no literature.*
Mani's problem(s) relates to his LACK of SKILL
in the Appreciation of "ART" (the ARTS).
--
<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>
Yolanda Liberte
<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<:>:<>:<>:<>
Jack Smith
Yolanda Liberte wrote:
>
> And this post was keeps repeating itself, put here by an obsessive-
> compulsive, AIDS infected faggot...
Yolanda Liberte is not a woman. Yolanda is a homophobic, misogynistic,
bigoted old man living in Austin, Texas; who pretends to be an art
professional, and pretends to be associated with the University of
Texas.
Here is a post Yolanda Liberte (Jay Elless <j...@tejas.com> A.K.A. Barbie
Kew, Helen Bakk, Rose Madder, etc.) made last January when he was
calling himself Ima Dillo:
Subject: re: What do YOU think.
From: Arm...@shell.com (Ima Dillo)
Date: 1996/01/10
Message-Id: <4d0o20$j...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
Organization: Tex-I-Can, Inc.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Because I don't want all the fairies in the world invading my
email box, you will have to reply here to this post query.
While cruising through southern New Mexico early one morning,
before sunrise, on an open highway without another vehicle in
sight, I was pulled over for speeding by a New Mexico State
Trooper. I accepted the ticket, put it in my bag, and didn't look
at it until later when I was unpacking from my trip. The ticket
is a carbon copy, and written across the face with a pen and
ink in original form are these words:
Hi My name is Charlie, and I'm gay.
The officer's signature on the carbon of the ticket is Charles D____.
Aside from being highly insulted by the inferrence of handing this
ticket to a lone male driver in the darkness of early morn, I am
astounded that a highway patrol officer would exercise such
un-professionalism.
My legal question is this. Was the ticket voided by his actions?
I intend to write to the New Mexico Dept. of Public Safety and
complain, and ask that this ticket be voided as an acceptable
apology to me.
Ima Dillo.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And here is another post Yolanda Liberte (Jay Elless <j...@tejas.com>)
made in June when he was calling himself Rose Madder:
Subject: Re: How do you know the county is . . .
From: Fugi...@large.com (Rose Madder)
Date: 1996/06/28
Message-Id: <4r1e58$d...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
Distribution: austin
References: <4qmcpq$5...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
<4qmjui$l...@boris.eden.com> <4qon9i$2...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
<4qrrq7$b...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> <31D2A124...@tab.com>
Organization: Colorful Characters, Inc.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: austin.general
In article <31D2A124...@tab.com>, j...@tab.com says...
>Needles to say, if Rose Madder really is a true transsexual she'll
>figure it out some day.
Honey, I figured out long ago who and what I am. Visualize a
morphing of former Gov. Ann Richards with columnist Molly Ivins,
then age the morphed image a 1/4 century, and add the sound
of Phyllis Dillard's voice and laugh and you will be damned close to
figuring out why I choose to disguise myself and sport an alias.
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Colorful but fugitive.
~ Rose Madder ~
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mdeli
Sounds like you have you been taking a logic course
from Ross Green
I wrote:
>> If you think that all the stuff you describe exhibits
>> "all skill" I would say you probably suffer from Modern
>> Academic Artrhytis. This affliction causes one to think
>> that anything depicting realism is nothing but skill no
>> matter how poorly executed.
R. Blanchard answers:
>The execution is high quality. The subject matter was not important.
How did you come to this conclusion from what I wrote?
> Can
>you crank out ten of these a day with the same level of skill and
>technique?
When I started out used to crank out all sorts of stuff
from realism to abstraction. Twenty a day. I have some
hilarious stuff to tell about this in my book. I might
add that good schlock painters are usually better than
artzy failures.
I used to know artists who exhibited their abstractions
uptown and their mass produced schlock downtown. The
ones I knew never made it big at either end of town.
>> IF YOU TRY TO DEPICT FORM AND FAIL IT ALWAYS LOOKS FAR
>> WORSE THAN IF YOU TRY TO DEPICT NOTHING AND SUCCEED.
>Then these are successful paintings, and the rest are crap? 'Looks far
>worse is a rather surficial argument. If it looks neato, it is art?
Your logic is muddled.
>
>> I suggest you go to the museum and peruse the realistic
>> drivel of the likes of Hockney and Rivers for starters.
>> If they had other connections they would never make the
>> to your warehouse. Today’s modern academic realism is
>> much worse than the abstract variety.
>I never find drivel in museums, only here. If you have the right
>connections you can make art? Winslow Homer is much worse than Leger? If
>they are in a museum they are drivel? You are losing it I fear.
You lost it all together. I don't know what you are
talking about.
>> Name some great painters before the advent of modern
>> art who exhibit NO SKILL.
>Great painters have more than one skill, and what makes them great is
>that skill isn't what is important about their work.
The usual cop-out.
Mani DeLi
R Blanchard
Mdeli wrote:
>
> Sounds like you have you been taking a logic course
> from Ross Green
At least I took one.
>
> I wrote:
> >> If you think that all the stuff you describe exhibits
> >> "all skill" I would say you probably suffer from Modern
> >> Academic Artrhytis. This affliction causes one to think
> >> that anything depicting realism is nothing but skill no
> >> matter how poorly executed.
>
> R. Blanchard answers:
> >The execution is high quality. The subject matter was not important.
>
> How did you come to this conclusion from what I wrote?
I didn't come to that conclusion from what you wrote. I can never come
to a conclusion from what you write.
>
> > Can
> >you crank out ten of these a day with the same level of skill and
> >technique?
>
> When I started out used to crank out all sorts of stuff
> from realism to abstraction. Twenty a day.
All skill, no doubt.
> >> IF YOU TRY TO DEPICT FORM AND FAIL IT ALWAYS LOOKS FAR
> >> WORSE THAN IF YOU TRY TO DEPICT NOTHING AND SUCCEED.
>
> >Then these are successful paintings, and the rest are crap? 'Looks far
> >worse is a rather surficial argument. If it looks neato, it is art?
>
> Your logic is muddled.
Its on the receiving end, not the transmitting end. Your caps quote
suggests you prefer large eyed weepy puppies that are true to form over
a blank canvas.
> >
> >> I suggest you go to the museum and peruse the realistic
> >> drivel of the likes of Hockney and Rivers for starters.
> >> If they had other connections they would never make the
> >> to your warehouse. Today’s modern academic realism is
> >> much worse than the abstract variety.
>
> >I never find drivel in museums, only here. If you have the right
> >connections you can make art? Winslow Homer is much worse than Leger? If
> >they are in a museum they are drivel? You are losing it I fear.
>
> You lost it all together. I don't know what you are
> talking about.
Thought so.
>
> >> Name some great painters before the advent of modern
> >> art who exhibit NO SKILL.
>
> >Great painters have more than one skill, and what makes them great is
> >that skill isn't what is important about their work.
>
> The usual cop-out.
The usual non-response.
--
Rick Blanchard
Bruce Attah
In article <4vkf5t$6...@news-central.tiac.net>, cle...@ccs.tiac.net (ellie
clemens) wrote:
> >IF YOU TRY TO DEPICT FORM AND FAIL IT ALWAYS LOOKS FAR
> >WORSE THAN IF YOU TRY TO DEPICT NOTHING AND SUCCEED.
> >
>
> But what if someone is not interested in depicting form?
Hmm. An interesting case of someone missing the point. The statement
that prompts the question could be expressed as "A successful abstract
always looks better than an unsuccessful 'realistic' picture", a sentiment
with which I would agree. Ellie Clemens is clearly not asking the right
question here.
On the general topic of this thread, I have to say that I always find it
amusing that opponents of naturalistic painting invariably pick on schlock
examples of the genre in order to illustrate their argument that
naturalistic painting is itself bad, or bankrupt as an art. The strategy
is quite risible. One wonders if these same people would present the
novels of Jeffrey Archer as proof that the novel as a form of literature
was bankrupt.
If you want to prove that a form, medium or genre of art is bankrupt, it
is no use showing merely that it is possible to produce bad art within
that form, medium or genre; you must show that it is NOT possible to
produce good art within the constraints of that form, medium or genre.
So, the availability of schlock landscape paintings at department stores
is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT to the status of landscape painting (let alone
_painting_) as an art form.
As an aside, what would schlock Abstract Expressionism, or schlock
Post-Painterly Abstraction look like, if there were sufficient demand to
sustain a large market for such stuff? How easily would the schlock be
distinguished from the masterpiece?
Bob Cantor
Bruce Attah wrote:
>
> > >IF YOU TRY TO DEPICT FORM AND FAIL IT ALWAYS LOOKS FAR
> > >WORSE THAN IF YOU TRY TO DEPICT NOTHING AND SUCCEED.
> > >
> >
> > But what if someone is not interested in depicting form?
>
> Hmm. An interesting case of someone missing the point. The statement
> that prompts the question could be expressed as "A successful abstract
> always looks better than an unsuccessful 'realistic' picture", a sentiment
> with which I would agree.
>
An interesting interpretation of the original statement, since it
assumes that:
1. realistic work is nothing other than an attempt to depict form, and
2. abstract work is an attempt to depict nothing.
I am sure that there are many artists both realist and abstract who would
disagree with this, but at least these assumptions are consistent with
most of your arguments.
Bob C.
Bruce Attah
> Great painters have more than one skill, and what makes them great is
> that skill isn't what is important about their work.
Great painters have more than one skill, and what makes them great is
that.
Bruce Attah
In article <322345...@dev.infomkt.ibm.com>, Bob Cantor
<can...@dev.infomkt.ibm.com> wrote:
Actually, the interpretation only assumes that the _original_statement_
means 1 and 2, though my concurring with the sentiment would imply that I
believe 1 and 2 to be true. I should have been a little more pedantic in
my phrasing, and said:
"A successful abstract always looks better than an unsuccessful
'realistic' picture _that_fails_in_its_attempt_at_realism_."
That would have made clear that I believe the original statement meant
(among other things) that
1. realistic work is _at_least_ an attempt to depict form, and
2. abstract work is an attempt to depict nothing.
I should remark that "an attempt to depict nothing" is ambiguous, and
could more clearly be expressed as "not an attempt to depict anything".
As to the consistency of your analysis of my remarks with other things
I've said in these posts, I would say that there is little agreement. I
have REPEATEDLY stated explicitly and implicitly that realistic painting
is not merely the depiction of form.
As for 2, Ellie Clemens is possibly one of the many who would disagree
with me. She says "I'm interested more in depicting color". Colour is
not depictable. She is not using the word 'depict' in a way that makes
any sense to me. I believe that those who would say that abstract works
(completely abstract works, that is, not _nearly_ abstract works) depict
things are using the word 'depict' in a non-standard (and possibly
meaningless) way.
R Blanchard
Bruce Attah wrote:
>
> In article <322345...@dev.infomkt.ibm.com>, Bob Cantor
> <can...@dev.infomkt.ibm.com> wrote:
> > An interesting interpretation of the original statement, since it
> > assumes that:
> > 1. realistic work is nothing other than an attempt to depict form, and
> > 2. abstract work is an attempt to depict nothing.
> Actually, the interpretation only assumes that the _original_statement_
> means 1 and 2, though my concurring with the sentiment would imply that I
> believe 1 and 2 to be true. I should have been a little more pedantic in
> my phrasing, and said:
>
> "A successful abstract always looks better than an unsuccessful
> 'realistic' picture _that_fails_in_its_attempt_at_realism_."
>
> That would have made clear that I believe the original statement meant
> (among other things) that
>
> 1. realistic work is _at_least_ an attempt to depict form, and
> 2. abstract work is an attempt to depict nothing.
>
> I should remark that "an attempt to depict nothing" is ambiguous, and
> could more clearly be expressed as "not an attempt to depict anything".
Personally, when I go to a gallery or museum and look at a piece, I am
looking for those qualities that make the piece 'successful', regardless
of whether it is puppies, poppies, poop, or paranoia. Successful has a
broad range of interpretation for me, buy usually means that the piece
has its own intrinsic value and the artist realised his/her intentions.
--
Rick Blanchard
R Blanchard
Both true.
--
Rick Blanchard
Mdeli
Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah) wrote:
>Great painters have more than one skill, and what makes them great is
>that.
A really good point.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Mdeli
I wrote:
IF YOU TRY TO DEPICT FORM AND FAIL IT ALWAYS LOOKS FAR
WORSE THAN IF YOU TRY TO DEPICT NOTHING AND SUCCEED.
Bruce Attah writes:
>That would have made clear that I believe the original statement meant
>(among other things) that
> 1. realistic work is _at_least_ an attempt to depict form, and
> 2. abstract work is an attempt to depict nothing.
I don’t quite agree. By form I simply mean depicting
the third dimension not necessarily realism. This can
be abstract as in Tanguey or some Dali concoction or
Baroque ornament etc..
>I should remark that "an attempt to depict nothing" is ambiguous, and
>could more clearly be expressed as "not an attempt to depict anything".
I think this improves the real meaning of the
statement. However I am not being rigerious here.
>I have REPEATEDLY stated explicitly and implicitly that realistic painting
>is not merely the depiction of form.
I quite agree.
There are really two kinds of abstraction; flat and
formed. Flat can depict patterns which may or may not
have meaning or as in abstract Expressionism etc. it
can depict practically nothing. Formed, is when the
mark takes on the illusion of the third dimension. Most
artwork combines these elements.
Mani DeLi
Mdeli
(Bruce Attah) wrote:
>As an aside, what would schlock Abstract Expressionism, or schlock
>Post-Painterly Abstraction look like, if there were sufficient demand to
>sustain a large market for such stuff? How easily would the schlock be
>distinguished from the masterpiece?
There IS sufficient demand to sustain a market for
modern schlock abstraction. Fine furniture stores abhor
schlock landscapes and puppy pictures. Abstraction is
well represented there. It is often a better grade of
abstraction than what’s in the museums. As to textile
and floor covering design; Abstract Expressionism is
present here along with the infinite variety of other
stuff.
Furniture store schlock painting at the moment can
easily be distinguished from the museum variety. It is
neater more colorful and more carefully composed and
also smaller as it has to hang above an average couch.
The office building variety is a bit more sloppy and
spontaneous and much larger. There is a new variety
popping up, at least around here; that is the bank
variety. This usually consists of smaller pictures
carefully matched. To produce these the artist
frequently makes a biggy and then cuts it up. There are
plenty of dealers who specialize in commercial abstract
schlock.
University academics are totally unaware of these art
markets. They convey the impression that all that is
worthwhile knowing about is whatever they consider
great art. The student is thus left unaware of what
really goes on in the art world. That is why some of
the nieve here think that anything not conforming to
modern academic art tenets is about realistic pictures
of puppy dogs and schlock landscapes etc. They are
unaware that most so-called-artists even lack the
skills to imitate these.
Mani DeLi
…no skill no art
ellie clemens
In article <Bruce.Attah-27...@support-neptune.isltd.insignia.com>, Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah) says:
>
>In article <4vkf5t$6...@news-central.tiac.net>, cle...@ccs.tiac.net (ellie
>
>> >IF YOU TRY TO DEPICT FORM AND FAIL IT ALWAYS LOOKS FAR
>> >WORSE THAN IF YOU TRY TO DEPICT NOTHING AND SUCCEED.
>> >
>>
>
>that prompts the question could be expressed as "A successful abstract
>always looks better than an unsuccessful 'realistic' picture", a sentiment
>question here.
Not me, man! Looks like me only through someone's cut-and-paste
sorcery. I don't even know what this comment pertains to at this
point. My only comment in this thread was about Mani's failure to
understand how to use metaphor. And I hope I write more intelligibly
than whoever wrote the comment in question.
In fact, even though I have no particular axe to grind against AE, I
myself am (mostly) a landscape painter. I have nothing, really, against
photo-realism eithher; I just find it uninteresting.
>
>If you want to prove that a form, medium or genre of art is bankrupt, it
>is no use showing merely that it is possible to produce bad art within
>that form, medium or genre; you must show that it is NOT possible to
>produce good art within the constraints of that form, medium or genre.
>
Yes. The logic used in this thread hasn't been quite - well - logical.
>So, the availability of schlock landscape paintings at department stores
>is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT to the status of landscape painting (let alone
>_painting_) as an art form.
And I think a more general question is Why would anyone care whether
someone else agrees with what they think is worth painting? I have not
the least interest, personally, in what anyone else thinks is the status
of landscape painting. I can't even begin to understand why I should
care.
>
>
>As an aside, what would schlock Abstract Expressionism, or schlock
>Post-Painterly Abstraction look like, if there were sufficient demand to
>sustain a large market for such stuff? How easily would the schlock be
>distinguished from the masterpiece?
An interesting question. I find most Abstract Espressionism pretty
boring. After all, I grew up on the stuff, as did most everyone writing
in here, I'd guess. I remember that AE was wierd and bewildering to my
mother, who pored over book after book of paintings and criticism trying
to figure it out. But it had no particular shock value to me, because I
was a kid, and it was just something else that was *out there*. I tend
to think of it as the sort of thing you see (or used to see) in ritzy
corporate lobbies. So to me it just seems decorative.
Maybe it's best viewed as an emetic, used after centuries of strict
standards for acceptable art. But after an emetic has served it's purpose,
what's the point of drinking more? 8^)
-ellie
Mdeli
R Blanchard <bde...@sd.znet.com> wrote:
>Personally, when I go to a gallery or museum and look at a piece, I am
>looking for those qualities that make the piece 'successful', regardless
>of whether it is puppies, poppies, poop, or paranoia.
Amazing, I would have never guessed.
>Successful has a
>broad range of interpretation for me, buy usually means that the piece
>has its own intrinsic value and the artist realised his/her intentions.
>--
>Rick Blanchard
The artists intention is to attract the viewer. He
succeeds or fails at this by means of his skills. The
viewer is subject to the artists skills whether or not
he realizes it.
Bruce Attah
In article <505b2b$a...@news-central.tiac.net>, cle...@ccs.tiac.net (ellie
clemens) wrote:
> Not me, man!
My sincerest apologies.
R Blanchard
Mdeli wrote:
>
> R Blanchard <bde...@sd.znet.com> wrote:
>
> >Personally, when I go to a gallery or museum and look at a piece, I am
> >looking for those qualities that make the piece 'successful', regardless
> >of whether it is puppies, poppies, poop, or paranoia.
>
> Amazing, I would have never guessed.
I know.
>
> The artists intention is to attract the viewer. He
> succeeds or fails at this by means of his skills. The
> viewer is subject to the artists skills whether or not
> he realizes it.
The artists intention is to produce a piece. Attraction and viewer are
necessary for commercial art, else there is no profit, but are secondary
to intent (except for money as intent). Skills are the vehicle, intent
is the contents of the vehicle. Viewers find what they want in a piece,
and buy it if they want to look at it some more. Skill is useless
without intent.
--
Rick Blanchard
R Blanchard
Bruce Attah wrote:
Mani Delis quote:
> > >IF YOU TRY TO DEPICT FORM AND FAIL IT ALWAYS LOOKS FAR
> > >WORSE THAN IF YOU TRY TO DEPICT NOTHING AND SUCCEED.
> On the general topic of this thread, I have to say that I always find it
> amusing that opponents of naturalistic painting invariably pick on schlock
> examples of the genre in order to illustrate their argument that
> naturalistic painting is itself bad, or bankrupt as an art. The strategy
> is quite risible. One wonders if these same people would present the
> novels of Jeffrey Archer as proof that the novel as a form of literature
> was bankrupt.
The paintings I was referring to are 'hack' paintings, to be sure; but
they can be skillfully executed, with good technique, brush control,
etc. Same goes for painted 'copies' from the Louvre. Somne of them are
hard to tell from the originals. These examples do 'depict form and
succeed' as painted pieces. They do not fall into my definition of
'art', bad or good. The missing ingredient for me is intent. If the only
intent is to get paid for working, it is no more than creating any other
'widget' for the marketplace.
As far as naturalistic painting, I use realism when it follows my
intent, and don't when it does not. I don't think naturalistic or
abstract work should be dismissed just because it is one or the other.
> If you want to prove that a form, medium or genre of art is bankrupt, it
> is no use showing merely that it is possible to produce bad art within
> that form, medium or genre; you must show that it is NOT possible to
> produce good art within the constraints of that form, medium or genre.
I thought all the thrashing about on this newsgroup is about abstract
art being a load of trash. The arguments showing 'it is not possible...'
have been weak and generally in an attacking mode of argument rather
than reasoned positions.
> So, the availability of schlock landscape paintings at department stores
> is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT to the status of landscape painting (let alone
> _painting_) as an art form.
So your position is that there is no way possible to produce good art
within this genre? What is different about current landscape work in
galleries?
> As an aside, what would schlock Abstract Expressionism, or schlock
> Post-Painterly Abstraction look like, if there were sufficient demand to
> sustain a large market for such stuff? How easily would the schlock be
> distinguished from the masterpiece?
Does this mean you can't tell? Kostabi and Koons come to mind when I
think of examples of how to distinguish schlock from other works.
--
Rick Blanchard
Bruce Attah
> Skills are the vehicle, intent is the contents of the vehicle.
I think I might just agree with that. But what if the intention is the
display of skill? Then, perhaps, the vehicle and the content are one and
the same...
I don't think that the intention to do something skilfully is ever absent
from the creation of a work of art -- even among those worshippers of
'spontaneity' who wish to produce an expression of something 'from the
subconscious' (or whatever they want to call it). Such people speak of
developing an ability to 'open themselves up' to the subconscious, and
engage in a sort of systematic mental relaxation in order to achieve their
aims. In other words, there is a skill, however slight, expressed in
producing even 'automatic' drawings.
I think that the idea of intention is inseparable from that of skill. As
I see it, one cannot behave in accordance with intentions except through
the exercise of skill, whether that be skill in buttering bread, lacing up
shoes, or what. Suppose that you were an utterly skilless being, yet
capable of wanting to do particular things. Suppose, then, that you
wanted to blink, but had no skill in blinking. You could not *cause*
yourself to blink, but would have to wait until some power other than your
own made you blink involuntarily. Your desire to blink would not be an
intention, but a *hope*.
On the other hand, I doubt that there is any such thing as skilful
involuntary behaviour. In other words, I believe that there is probably
no such thing as skill in the absence of intention. When we say that
someone or something performs an act skilfully, we imply that the person
or thing *intends* to perform that act. Thus, when we describe the
predatory behaviour of a praying mantis as skilful, we imply that it
_intends_ to catch its prey. If we doubt that the insect has sufficient
sentience to intend anything, we also doubt that its behaviour is
skilful. In such a case, we believe instead that the mantis's
behaviour is automatic, and is merel a simulacrum or an analogue of skill.
Something you'll probably have thought of at once when I spoke of 'skilful
involuntary behaviour' is habitual or expert behaviour, which is performed
efficiently without impinging on consciousness. Such behaviours include
biting one's fingernails, balancing on a monocycle, tapping one's toes to
a beat and returning a fast serve at tennis, as well as myriad other
things, both mundane and extraordinary. Are these counterexamples? Do
they not exemplify skill, and sometimes exceptional skill, expressed
without intent? I think not. I think you can demonstrate that these
behaviours are intended, by placing a hindrance in their way. At once,
what was unconscious becomes conscious, as the frustrated subject seeks a
way around the hindrance, and it becomes apparent that 'involuntary' is
not the same thing and 'unconscious'.
> Viewers find what they want in a piece,
Not always. Sometimes what they want is patently not there.
> and buy it if they want to look at it some more.
Again, not always. They can buy a copy -- and, of course, sometimes
neither the original nor a copy is available for sale.
> Skill is useless
> without intent.
Skill does not exist without intent, and intent does not exist without
skill. Even if one could exist without the other, each would be useless
(and meaningless) on its own.
Bruce Attah
Abstract Expressionism is bankrupt (cannot produce good art) because it is
too narrow, too limiting as a genre, both in the subject matter that is
available to the artist and in the range of techniques that are
permissible to be exploited. Artists who wants to communicate their love
of particular phenomena in nature or urban life cannot do so with Abstract
Expresssionism. Nor can they tell stories about their experience, or
proselytize their religious or political beliefs. There is nothing
meaningfull that the artist can communicate to the viewer other than
'isn't this a pretty colour', or 'isn't this a cute texture'. Even the
formal characteristics of the painting as an object are constrained. Too
much suggestion of depth is prohibited, as are all optical illusions. Too
much indication of attention to detail is again prohibited. Escape from
the surface of the painting is impossible within Abstract Expressionism.
The artist is stuck to the paint as surely as a fly is stuck in amber.
Within such constraints, there can be no real expression of individuality
-- experiments must be limited to slight variations of simple formulae,
otherwise no one artist can be told apart from another. There is no
opportunity to distinguish oneself by being exceptionally skilful, for
there is _nothing_in_which_to_be_skilful_. The outcome is that all
Abstract Expressionism is shlock.
The same goes for post-painterly abstraction. The rules are slightly
different, but they are just as narrow.
Naturalism, by contrast, is a valid (i.e., not bankrupt) approach to art,
as it grants artists expressive power and their individuality, by lending
itself to many uses and techniques.
> > So, the availability of schlock landscape paintings at department stores
> > is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT to the status of landscape painting (let alone
> > _painting_) as an art form.
>
> So your position is that there is no way possible to produce good art
> within this genre?
Excuse me, but how does that follow? I believe that the availability of
noodles at Chinese restaurants is utterly irrelevant to the status of
chemistry as a science. Does it follow from this that my position is that
chemistry is not a science?
> > As an aside, what would schlock Abstract Expressionism, or schlock
> > Post-Painterly Abstraction look like, if there were sufficient demand to
> > sustain a large market for such stuff? How easily would the schlock be
> > distinguished from the masterpiece?
>
> Does this mean you can't tell? Kostabi and Koons come to mind when I
> think of examples of how to distinguish schlock from other works.
A small problem: Neither Koons nor Kostabi are Abstract Expressionists or
Post-Painterly Abstractionists.
Andrew Werby
R Blanchard <bde...@sd.znet.com> wrote:
>The paintings I was referring to are 'hack' paintings, to be sure; but
>they can be skillfully executed, with good technique, brush control,
>etc. Same goes for painted 'copies' from the Louvre. Somne of them are
>hard to tell from the originals. These examples do 'depict form and
>succeed' as painted pieces. They do not fall into my definition of
>'art', bad or good. The missing ingredient for me is intent. If the only
>intent is to get paid for working, it is no more than creating any other
>'widget' for the marketplace.
[How do we know that "getting paid for working" is the only motive
activating these furniture store painters? Certainly there are easier
ways to make a living. How does the universal desire to make enough
money to survive invalidate one's art? Can art be the province of
aristocrats only? Weren't the universally revered artists of the
Renaissance also producing for their marketplace? Can't a widget be a
work of art too?]
>
>I thought all the thrashing about on this newsgroup is about abstract
>art being a load of trash. The arguments showing 'it is not possible...'
>have been weak and generally in an attacking mode of argument rather
>than reasoned positions.
>
>> So, the availability of schlock landscape paintings at department stores
>> is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT to the status of landscape painting (let alone
>> _painting_) as an art form.
>
>So your position is that there is no way possible to produce good art
>within this genre? What is different about current landscape work in
>galleries?
[Like many genres, this sort of painting has its rules and limitations,
but within them there is considerable room for improvisation. Actually,
these rules are looser than those governing the production of the more
stultified types of academically approved art that receive gallery and
museum representation. Motel art, for instance, is fairly unrestricted
as to content and style, the basic requirement is that it be bigger than
a suitcase...]
Andrew Werby - United Artworks
Kajojacobs
In article <50ke7n$k...@lanshark.lanminds.com>, Andrew Werby
<dre...@lanminds.com> writes:
>[Like many genres, this sort of painting has its rules and limitations,
> but within them there is considerable room for improvisation. Actually,
>these rules are looser than those governing the production of the more
>stultified types of academically approved art that receive gallery and
>museum representation. Motel art, for instance, is fairly unrestricted
>as to content and style, the basic requirement is that it be bigger than
>a suitcase...]
>
>
I could be wrong, but . . . as I see it, the game rules for high end
galleries are to create trends and supply those who follow trends ---
other galleries (not so high-end) supply what most lay people want - *what
everyone else has* but it must have some credentials (just don't make them
have to explain to their friends what that painting is about and what it
is doing in their living room!) --- Museums are supposed to catalog the
best of the past, what's happening at present and, to a much lesser
degree, possibly predict the future. --- Motel requirements
(been-there-done-that) are that it be cheap and match the bedspread - have
you seen any you'd want to put in your suitcase? (With the possible
exception of a large hotel in Birmingham which has better taste than most.
. .Ahem.) --- Furniture store "art", I'm fairly certain comes from the
Art-By-The-Yard market, coming soon to the banquet room of a Holiday Inn
near you. (Sofa paintings for $39.00) Sorry, I've deleted several
remarks and can't bring myself to say how I feel about them. It just
hurts so much to go into a very nice home and see........
~Karen Jacobs~
R Blanchard
Bruce Attah wrote:
>
> In article <322A82...@sd.znet.com>, bde...@sd.znet.com wrote:
>
> > Skills are the vehicle, intent is the contents of the vehicle.
>
> I think I might just agree with that. But what if the intention is the
> display of skill? Then, perhaps, the vehicle and the content are one and
> the same...
Well, ok, but that may only be the conscious level of intent. The
unconscious intent may be to prop up a thin self image or overextended
ego, and that may show in the work as well, even if not intended.
>
> I don't think that the intention to do something skilfully is ever absent
> from the creation of a work of art -- even among those worshippers of
> 'spontaneity' who wish to produce an expression of something 'from the
> subconscious' (or whatever they want to call it). Such people speak of
> developing an ability to 'open themselves up' to the subconscious, and
> engage in a sort of systematic mental relaxation in order to achieve their
> aims. In other words, there is a skill, however slight, expressed in
> producing even 'automatic' drawings.
Loosely defined 'skill' applies in rather generic terms, as there is
some autonomic skill in breathing. That implies that there are different
types of skill that may be discerned, and that there is a difference
between an innate 'cleverness' one may have as a birthright, and a
learned activity. Each produces a skilled piece, but the intent may
alter the result. Differentiating between producing from the conscious
or the subconscious (left brain - right brain activities) is a major
factor when looking at the Abstract movement in general. The inner
activities of humans are being explored in the same way as the outer
world is explored. The journals of these travels are the art produced.
> Suppose that you were an utterly skilless being, yet
> capable of wanting to do particular things.
Then you are good at being skill-less, in spite of your wanting.
> Suppose, then, that you
> wanted to blink, but had no skill in blinking. You could not *cause*
> yourself to blink, but would have to wait until some power other than your
> own made you blink involuntarily. Your desire to blink would not be an
> intention, but a *hope*.
I don't have any skill for blinking. I have no idea how my eyes decide
that it is time for a blink. Substitute 'paint' for 'blink'. What would
cause me to involuntarily paint? I can intend to paint someday, and can
do so without any guidance whatsoever, without any predefined 'skills'
either. I may not realise that I 'painted' nor produce any 'art', but I
can do it.
> On the other hand, I doubt that there is any such thing as skilful
> involuntary behaviour. In other words, I believe that there is probably
> no such thing as skill in the absence of intention.
Such as blinking.
> Something you'll probably have thought of at once when I spoke of 'skilful
> involuntary behaviour' is habitual or expert behaviour, which is performed
> efficiently without impinging on consciousness.
What came to my mind is a 3 year old that can play Mozart without any
training. An innate skill may not need any intent. Just happens, and is
recognized by others.
> what was unconscious becomes conscious, as the frustrated subject seeks a
> way around the hindrance, and it becomes apparent that 'involuntary' is
> not the same thing and 'unconscious'.
Certain acts, when brought into the conscious, have all sorts of
trouble. When the actions are left to their own devices - unconsciously
- there is a greater chance of success. Not the least of which is the
"Aha" theory, that breakthroughs occur more readily when not sought
directly.
> > Viewers find what they want in a piece,
>
> Not always. Sometimes what they want is patently not there.
Good thing there is more than one artist and more than one way to
express art.
> > and buy it if they want to look at it some more.
>
> Again, not always. They can buy a copy -- and, of course, sometimes
> neither the original nor a copy is available for sale.
Or go back to the museum and look again. They can draw a facsimile of
it. They can buy it for an investment. My example isn't the only reason
art is purchased, but does illustrate one of the main attractions of art
- to make the owner feel good.
> > Skill is useless without intent.
>
> Skill does not exist without intent, and intent does not exist without
> skill. Even if one could exist without the other, each would be useless
> (and meaningless) on its own.
so skill _is_ useless without intent. You can intend to do something
without ever doing it, whether you have the requisite skills or not.
--
Rick Blanchard
R Blanchard
Bruce Attah wrote:
> Abstract Expressionism is bankrupt (cannot produce good art) because it is
> too narrow, too limiting as a genre, both in the subject matter that is
> available to the artist and in the range of techniques that are
> permissible to be exploited.
I find the opposite true. The inner depths of abstract thought have only
been scratched for the more blatant emotional bursts that surface. The
genre is wide open, which is what you were complaining about - lack of a
direction, etc.
> Artists who wants to communicate their love
> of particular phenomena in nature or urban life cannot do so with Abstract
> Expresssionism. Nor can they tell stories about their experience, or
> proselytize their religious or political beliefs.
All of these are possible in the abstract as well as the concrete. It
takes a different thought process to reach for the higher resonances of
a particular phenomenon rather that rote copying of what is visible.
> There is nothing
> meaningfull that the artist can communicate to the viewer other than
> 'isn't this a pretty colour', or 'isn't this a cute texture'.
The sum is usually more than the parts, and the sum is what is of
interest.
> Even the
> formal characteristics of the painting as an object are constrained.
No moreso than that of a painting of a tree in the woods. The
constraints are physical, and apply to any painting. AE exploits this
and also prefers to stay true to the physical, rather than achingly
portraying a persian rug and all its patterns and colors thread by
thread - only to be confronted by the fact that it is still only paint
on canvas.
> Too
> much suggestion of depth is prohibited, as are all optical illusions. Too
> much indication of attention to detail is again prohibited.
I don't think these are out of the range of AE, and don't necessarily
see tham as the canons of righteous painting.
> Escape from
> the surface of the painting is impossible within Abstract Expressionism.
> The artist is stuck to the paint as surely as a fly is stuck in amber.
That is the point. Why pretend that nobody painted the painting, that it
appeared by magic by some unseen hand of god? The artist is the
painting, and there is no sense in denying an obvious fact.
> Within such constraints, there can be no real expression of individuality
That is all that is there. You just said that the artist was stuck to
the paint.
> -- experiments must be limited to slight variations of simple formulae,
> otherwise no one artist can be told apart from another. There is no
> opportunity to distinguish oneself by being exceptionally skilful, for
> there is _nothing_in_which_to_be_skilful_. The outcome is that all
> Abstract Expressionism is shlock.
There are equal skills necessary to paint in AE, and the difference is
as easily read as in a poorly executed landscape. It may take more skill
on the viewer to understand the painting at the level of skill that it
was painted at. If all you see is schlock, raise the ante and use more
of your intellect.
> Naturalism, by contrast, is a valid (i.e., not bankrupt) approach to art,
> as it grants artists expressive power and their individuality, by lending
> itself to many uses and techniques.
And for sure we need more paintings of bowls of fruit and the garden at
west end and the old lighthouse on the point and....
> > > So, the availability of schlock landscape paintings at department stores
> > > is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT to the status of landscape painting (let alone
> > > _painting_) as an art form.
> >
> > So your position is that there is no way possible to produce good art
> > within this genre?
>
> Excuse me, but how does that follow? I believe that the availability of
> noodles at Chinese restaurants is utterly irrelevant to the status of
> chemistry as a science. Does it follow from this that my position is that
> chemistry is not a science?
The existence of landscape paintings that are produced (with or without
a high degree of skill) in a sweatshop is somehow irrelevant to
painting? If it is irrelevant as you claim, then you are not willing to
consider it at all, meaning that no good or art can come of it, and
dismiss it summarily. That was how it followed. Chinese noodles follow
the normal laws of physics and chemistry, as I recall, and are not
irrelevant to science, just not interesting to scientists this week.
Good noodles are an art form.
> > > As an aside, what would schlock Abstract Expressionism, or schlock
> > > Post-Painterly Abstraction look like, if there were sufficient demand to
> > > sustain a large market for such stuff? How easily would the schlock be
> > > distinguished from the masterpiece?
As easy as good noodles from schlock noodles.
> > Does this mean you can't tell? Kostabi and Koons come to mind when I
> > think of examples of how to distinguish schlock from other works.
>
> A small problem: Neither Koons nor Kostabi are Abstract Expressionists or
> Post-Painterly Abstractionists.
So then they must be landscape realists. Does this mean you really can't
tell?
--
Rick Blanchard
R Blanchard
Andrew Werby wrote:
> [How do we know that "getting paid for working" is the only motive
> activating these furniture store painters? Certainly there are easier
> ways to make a living. How does the universal desire to make enough
> money to survive invalidate one's art? Can art be the province of
> aristocrats only? Weren't the universally revered artists of the
> Renaissance also producing for their marketplace? Can't a widget be a
> work of art too?]
We don't know the entire motivation of the people hired to paint the
same scene over and over (what a living hell that must be). There may be
easier ways to make a living, but there may be no other industry in that
location at all. It may be a second job. Unless Kathie Lee starts to
sell paintings, we may never know the extent of the conditions that
these paintings are produced under. My point was that these paintings
were executed with enough skill to satisfy some portion of the art
buying public (sorry, Karen), but in a manner in which the 'art' had
been wrung out of the process long ago.
Making money and producing art are neither mutually exclusive nor
inclusive. One can make money from ones art or not, and it doesn't alter
the 'art' content, which can be there in a large amount or small.
Renaissance artists were often prisoners in the province of the
aristocrats or the current Pope. They did alright. Widget art? I dunno,
ask Mani.
>> What is different about current landscape work in
> >galleries?
>
> [Like many genres, this sort of painting has its rules and limitations,
> but within them there is considerable room for improvisation. Actually,
> these rules are looser than those governing the production of the more
> stultified types of academically approved art that receive gallery and
> museum representation. Motel art, for instance, is fairly unrestricted
> as to content and style, the basic requirement is that it be bigger than
> a suitcase...]
Didn't quite follow this leap, here. Current landscape painting is
looser than that shown in galleries and museums, and an example of this
looseness is motel art? Karen equates this to another living hell if I
read her message right.
--
Rick Blanchard
Bruce Attah
> The inner depths of abstract thought have only
> been scratched for the more blatant emotional bursts that surface.
Abstract thought and abstract painting have only the word 'abstract' in
common, in all other respects, they are quite unrelated. Perhaps the word
'abstract' has misled you, but non-objective painting is not the best tool
for communicating abstract thought.
> The
> genre is wide open, which is what you were complaining about - lack of a
> direction, etc.
Nope, I ain't complaining about a lack of direction either in abstract
expressionism or in modern art generally. Rather, my complaint (in the
'avant garde' thread) was to do with the pretence that modern art does
have a direction.
> It
> takes a different thought process to reach for the higher resonances of
> a particular phenomenon rather that rote copying of what is visible.
I wonder what you mean by 'higher resonances'? Don't bother to tell me,
let's just leave that hanging mysteriously, shall we? Meanwhile, let me
remark that I am not advocating 'rote copying', if that's what you think,
and nor am I saying that the only alternatives to AE and PPA are
figurative painting styles.
> The sum is usually more than the parts, and the sum is what is of
> interest.
And the sum is very small in AE and PPA (Post-Painterly Abstraction).
> The constraints are physical, and apply to any painting.
Not true. Any 'style' of painting places constraints that are not
physical, but ideological, on what can and cannot be painted within that
style. AE is more constraining than most.
> AE exploits this
> and also prefers to stay true to the physical, rather than achingly
> portraying a persian rug and all its patterns and colors thread by
> thread - only to be confronted by the fact that it is still only paint
> on canvas.
Painting like Ingres is not the _sole_ alternative to painting like Rothko
(though it certainly is a better option), but also, in such a style of
painting, one is never 'confronted' by the fact that the picture is an
illusion created using paint and canvas; rather, this is something one is
always to some extent aware of, and to which one's attention might be
drawn from time to time as one considers the formal characteristics of the
picture or the skill with which the illusory effects were achieved. There
is nothing wrong with this -- it is part of the art.
> > Too
> > much suggestion of depth is prohibited, as are all optical illusions. Too
> > much indication of attention to detail is again prohibited.
>
> I don't think these are out of the range of AE, and don't necessarily
> see tham as the canons of righteous painting.
If you think you can include these things in your painting and still be an
abstract expressionist, then you don't know what abstract expressionism
is. Besides, I did not state that these are 'canons of righteous
painting', so you are arguing against a straw man.
>
> > Escape from
> > the surface of the painting is impossible within Abstract Expressionism.
> > The artist is stuck to the paint as surely as a fly is stuck in amber.
>
> That is the point. Why pretend that nobody painted the painting, that it
> appeared by magic by some unseen hand of god? The artist is the
> painting, and there is no sense in denying an obvious fact.
Why pretend, why not pretend? There is no moral superiority to be gained
by denying oneself the power to create illusions. But, in any case, you
get painting completely wrong if you think that using an illusion to
create pictures amounts to denying that one is painting. Even trompe
l'oeil does not seek to fool the viewer permanently, but rather to
emphasise the fact that it is a work of art by inviting the viewer to try
to see past the illusion.
> > Within such constraints, there can be no real expression of individuality
>
> That is all that is there. You just said that the artist was stuck to
> the paint.
The image I used had nothing to do with the idea of the artist's
individuality being apparent in the finished painting. It was solely
about the restrictions that prohibit the artist from putting the
painting-object to good use as a thing for storing pictures, but rather
being stuck with the object as a useless, lumpen rectangle.
By analogy, an abstract expressionist novel would be one without imagery
or narrative. Describing the situation of a novelist committed to such a
style, I might have used the image of a writer stuck to the pages of the
book, since, unlike writers of real novels, writers of abstract
expressionist novels are unable to use their tools as starting points for
flights of the imagination, but are forever earthbound.
> > -- experiments must be limited to slight variations of simple formulae,
> > otherwise no one artist can be told apart from another.
You left this point unremarked, I note.
> > There is no
> > opportunity to distinguish oneself by being exceptionally skilful, for
> > there is _nothing_in_which_to_be_skilful_. The outcome is that all
> > Abstract Expressionism is shlock.
>
> There are equal skills necessary to paint in AE, and the difference is
> as easily read as in a poorly executed landscape.
Yeah, I bet. Think about it for a minute: everything that has ever
appeared in an AE painting could appear in a non-AE painting that had
additional elements (such as depiction). In such a painting, all the AE
skills would be needed, PLUS the skills required to integrate the non-AE
elements.
> It may take more skill
> on the viewer to understand the painting at the level of skill that it
> was painted at. If all you see is schlock, raise the ante and use more
> of your intellect.
Using more of one's intellect does not bring more out of an abstract
expressionist painting, but rather shows it up for the schlock that it
is. The more one thinks about an abstract expressionist painting, the
clearer it becomes that the object is worthless rubbish propped up by a
confused and nonsensical ideology. If one applies the intellect to the
theories that are supposed to underlie abstract expressionism, it swiftly
becomes apparent that where they are not incoherent, they are a
straighforward reducto ad absurdum of an argument that was mistaken in the
first place.
>
> > Naturalism, by contrast, is a valid (i.e., not bankrupt) approach to art,
> > as it grants artists expressive power and their individuality, by lending
> > itself to many uses and techniques.
>
> And for sure we need more paintings of bowls of fruit and the garden at
> west end and the old lighthouse on the point and....
If that's as far as your imagination is capable of taking you, don't blame
me. (Not that there's anything intrinsically wrong with bowls of fruit,
mind, just that it ought to be obvious to you that these traditional
subjects are not the only possible ones for naturalistic painting.)
>
> > > > So, the availability of schlock landscape paintings at department stores
> > > > is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT to the status of landscape painting (let alone
> > > > _painting_) as an art form.
> > >
> > > So your position is that there is no way possible to produce good art
> > > within this genre?
> >
> > Excuse me, but how does that follow? I believe that the availability of
> > noodles at Chinese restaurants is utterly irrelevant to the status of
> > chemistry as a science. Does it follow from this that my position is that
> > chemistry is not a science?
>
> The existence of landscape paintings that are produced (with or without
> a high degree of skill) in a sweatshop is somehow irrelevant to
> painting? If it is irrelevant as you claim, then you are not willing to
> consider it at all, meaning that no good or art can come of it, and
> dismiss it summarily. That was how it followed. Chinese noodles follow
> the normal laws of physics and chemistry, as I recall, and are not
> irrelevant to science, just not interesting to scientists this week.
> Good noodles are an art form.
This cascade leaves me completely gobsmacked. How can you fail to realise
that you have produced a non-sequitur? Not only that, but, faced with an
analogous argument you produce another, similar non-sequitur? I'm
shocked. Maybe you need a course in logic -- or maybe you just didn't
understand what I said in the first place. Your paraphrase suggests the
latter. So, for your benefit (and because I am kind) I will supply my own
paraphrase of what I said earlier:
The truth of the statement "you can get schlock landscapes in department
stores" neither implies nor suggests either the truth or the falsity of
the statement "landscape painting is a valid art form".
In other words
Landscape painting may or may not be a valid art form, but the existence
of schlock landscape paintings has no bearing on this fact.
I hope that clears up the matter.
Mdeli
Bruce Attah wrote:
>> Artists who wants to communicate their love
>> of particular phenomena in nature or urban life cannot do so with Abstract
>> Expresssionism. Nor can they tell stories about their experience, or
>> proselytize their religious or political beliefs.
R Blanchard answers
>All of these are possible in the abstract as well as the concrete. It
>takes a different thought process to reach for the higher resonances of
>a particular phenomenon rather that rote copying of what is visible.
"a different thought process to reach for the higher
resonances. Tired Artspeak.
>> There is nothing
>> meaningfull that the artist can communicate to the viewer other than
>> 'isn't this a pretty colour', or 'isn't this a cute texture'.
>The sum is usually more than the parts, and the sum is what is of
>interest.
This is interesting. I used to hear this when I
attended a well known Modern Academic artschool about
forty years ago. It served as an excuse for the
incompetent work churned out by the student victims of
ignorant teachers. This slogans relation to any artwork
still puzzles me. Perhaps it means don’t look for
detail or complexity in artwork.
The fact is that the parts are often more interesting
then the work as a whole. Detail is what is absent in
most modern painting. Detail is of no interest to the
Modern Academic because there isn't any in most of his
work.
Take de kooning. He uses a brush charged with different
colors and schmiers around. Some of it is interesting
in detail. As to the whole; his schmiery Keane bug
eyes starring out ot the puddle of cat vomit doesn't
evoke much more than a glance, especially after seeing
the tenth version.
>> Too
>> much suggestion of depth is prohibited, as are all optical illusions. Too
>> much indication of attention to detail is again prohibited.
>I don't think these are out of the range of AE, and don't necessarily
>see tham as the canons of righteous painting.
>> Escape from
>> the surface of the painting is impossible within Abstract Expressionism.
>> The artist is stuck to the paint as surely as a fly is stuck in amber.
>That is the point. Why pretend that nobody painted the painting, that it
>appeared by magic by some unseen hand of god? The artist is the
>painting, and there is no sense in denying an obvious fact.
"The artist is the painting. " More Artspeak.
>There are equal skills necessary to paint in AE, and the difference is
>as easily read as in a poorly executed landscape. It may take more skill
>on the viewer to understand the painting at the level of skill that it
>was painted at. If all you see is schlock, raise the ante and use more
>of your intellect.
We can ask ourselves why we like or dislike something
and come up with understandable answers. However no
viewer needs any skill to observe a painting and come
to conclusions as to how he feels about it.. Painting
is not understood. Technique, history and subject
matter can be understood..
Mdeli
Rick Blanchard come to this brilliant conclusion after
much persiflage:
>without ever doing it, whether you have the requisite skills or not.
Correct Rick.
But always remember that intent is also useless if you
don’t wake up in the morning and its also helpful if
you get out of bed.
The supreme tragedy is when one’s skills don’t live up
to ones aspirations." S. Dali
Bruce Attah
In article <322EAC...@sd.znet.com>, bde...@sd.znet.com wrote:
Just tying up a few loose ends from the skill/intention discussion:
> Bruce Attah wrote:
> >
> Differentiating between producing from the conscious
> or the subconscious (left brain - right brain activities) is a major
> factor when looking at the Abstract movement in general.
Are you saying that conscious thought happens in one cerebral hemisphere
while the subconscious resides in the other? If you are, you are quite
wrong.
As for the claim that distinguishing conscious from unconscious intentions
are especially important when looking at abstract art, that is just
mystical humbug dreamt up as a pseudo-justification for a largely mindless
activity. Figurative art is very good at betraying the unconscious
assumptions/attitudes/whatever of an artist -- more so, I would claim,
than abstract.
> The inner
> activities of humans are being explored in the same way as the outer
> world is explored. The journals of these travels are the art produced.
If you insist. But I'd rather say that the journals of these travels are
Acta Psychologica and various others on the shelves of your local college
library.
> > Suppose that you were an utterly skilless being, yet
> > capable of wanting to do particular things.
>
> Then you are good at being skill-less, in spite of your wanting.
No, you'd be good at nothing.
> > Suppose, then, that you
> > wanted to blink, but had no skill in blinking. You could not *cause*
> > yourself to blink, but would have to wait until some power other than your
> > own made you blink involuntarily. Your desire to blink would not be an
> > intention, but a *hope*.
>
> I don't have any skill for blinking. I have no idea how my eyes decide
> that it is time for a blink.
Let's see, if someone wagered you fifty bucks that you couldn't blink five
times in four seconds, you wouldn't try, *couldn't* try?
> What came to my mind is a 3 year old that can play Mozart without any
> training. An innate skill may not need any intent. Just happens, and is
> recognized by others.
A three year old who plays Mozart is exhibiting skill without intent? So,
when little Jo says "Mummy I can play eine kleine Nachtmusik, look!" and
then sits down to play, the child is actually playing without intending
to? (Why, by the way, does the child have to be three years old in this?)
> > > Skill is useless without intent.
> >
> > Skill does not exist without intent, and intent does not exist without
> > skill. Even if one could exist without the other, each would be useless
> > (and meaningless) on its own.
>
> so skill _is_ useless without intent.
Skill would be useless without intent, if skill could exist without intent.
> You can intend to do something
> without ever doing it, whether you have the requisite skills or not.
I concede you are right on that point, but I would add that you can only
intend to do something if you believe you have the ability to do it (and
that ability will include some skill). If the skill, or some other
circumstance is lacking, the intention will not be realized. An intention
without the skills required for carrying it out is delusional.
R Blanchard
Mdeli wrote:
> But always remember that intent is also useless if you
> don’t wake up in the morning and its also helpful if
> you get out of bed.
I am assuming from your post that it takes you an inordinately large
amount of skill to wake and get out of bed? ;O}
Matisse used to paint from his bed, so it is not absolutely necessary to
get out of it.
--
Rick Blanchard
Mdeli
R Blanchard <bde...@sd.znet.com> wrote:
>Mdeli wrote:
>> But always remember that intent is also useless if you
>> don’t wake up in the morning and its also helpful if
>> you get out of bed.
Rick Blanchard wrote:
>I am assuming from your post that it takes you an inordinately large
>amount of skill to wake and get out of bed? ;O}
Bearing in mind your abilities at logic this statment
is expected.
>Matisse used to paint from his bed, so it is not absolutely necessary to
>get out of it.
Perhaps it is usefull to remain in bed if you want to
paint as badly as Matisse. Was he awake at the time?
Mdeli
Blanchard wrote:
>Detail is of no interest if it gets in the way of the artists intent. A
>perfectly formed left nipple on a vixen mounted on a watcha-ma-callit is
>pretty meaningless by itself. One stroke of a brush by DeKooning can say
>more than a hundred 'Ogres from Io'.
Tell us what one sroke of de Kooning's brush means.
Also give an example of where detail "gets in the way
of the artists intent."
R Blanchard
Bruce Attah wrote:
>
> In article <322EB2...@sd.znet.com>, bde...@sd.znet.com wrote:
>
> > The inner depths of abstract thought have only
> > been scratched for the more blatant emotional bursts that surface.
>
> Abstract thought and abstract painting have only the word 'abstract' in
> common, in all other respects, they are quite unrelated. Perhaps the word
> 'abstract' has misled you, but non-objective painting is not the best tool
> for communicating abstract thought.
I think it is a better tool than translation into structured language
constructs,
or am I supposed to be able to read alpha waves directly?
>
> > The
> > genre is wide open, which is what you were complaining about - lack of a
> > direction, etc.
>
> Nope, I ain't complaining about a lack of direction either in abstract
> expressionism or in modern art generally. Rather, my complaint (in the
> 'avant garde' thread) was to do with the pretence that modern art does
> have a direction.
As I recall, your complaint was with a non-existant group that had
proclaimed
themselves as _the_ Avant Garde. You are also making a judgement that
modern
art has to have a direction. I see the current art scene as an
exploration in breadth
rather than in a pointed direction. This is a recurring ebb and flow.
Water flows into the bay and spreads, then rushes back out, creating
highly directional channels. They are both valid approaches to art.
>
> > It
> > takes a different thought process to reach for the higher resonances of
> > a particular phenomenon rather that rote copying of what is visible.
>
> I wonder what you mean by 'higher resonances'? Don't bother to tell me,
> let's just leave that hanging mysteriously, shall we?
I do hope you use other emotions besides the basic ones. Some resonate
at higher
frequncies than others. For a model, look at the system of Chakras. Why
do
you want to let it 'hang mysteriously'? Do you not get it that there are
higher
resonances? I was assuming too much it seems.
Meanwhile, let me
> remark that I am not advocating 'rote copying', if that's what you think,
> and nor am I saying that the only alternatives to AE and PPA are
> figurative painting styles.
Well, what exactly is it you are espousing? Running out of major
categories
pretty soon now, so perhaps clarity is needed.
> > The sum is usually more than the parts, and the sum is what is of
> > interest.
>
> And the sum is very small in AE and PPA (Post-Painterly Abstraction).
>
> > The constraints are physical, and apply to any painting.
>
> Not true. Any 'style' of painting places constraints that are not
> physical, but ideological, on what can and cannot be painted within that
> style. AE is more constraining than most.
Any ideology can support more than one style, and the differences then
become physical.
AE is less constraining as there are fewer ideological clues to
constrain
either the viewer or the artist.
> > AE exploits this
> > and also prefers to stay true to the physical, rather than achingly
> > portraying a persian rug and all its patterns and colors thread by
> > thread - only to be confronted by the fact that it is still only paint
> > on canvas.
>
> Painting like Ingres is not the _sole_ alternative to painting like Rothko
> (though it certainly is a better option),
Only for Ingres.
but also, in such a style of
> painting, one is never 'confronted' by the fact that the picture is an
> illusion created using paint and canvas; rather, this is something one is
> always to some extent aware of, and to which one's attention might be
> drawn from time to time as one considers the formal characteristics of the
> picture or the skill with which the illusory effects were achieved. There
> is nothing wrong with this -- it is part of the art.
Skill in illusory effects is not all of art either, and is not
necessary, only
preferred in some styles. Prior to AE, one never considered that they
were confronting
anything other than the subject matter. This is where AE broke through.
> > > Too
> > > much suggestion of depth is prohibited, as are all optical illusions. Too
> > > much indication of attention to detail is again prohibited.
> >
> > I don't think these are out of the range of AE, and don't necessarily
> > see tham as the canons of righteous painting.
>
> If you think you can include these things in your painting and still be an
> abstract expressionist, then you don't know what abstract expressionism
> is. Besides, I did not state that these are 'canons of righteous
> painting', so you are arguing against a straw man.
Sorry, I must not have read the "Rules and Regulations of Abstract
Expressionistic
Works to be Offered to the General Public." I don't consider any of
these out of range.
I do wonder how you decided that these attributes were 'verboten', Do
you keep the
master list of 'correct and acceptable' criteria? If so, then you are
the straw man I
am tilting at.
> >
> > > Escape from
> > > the surface of the painting is impossible within Abstract Expressionism.
> > > The artist is stuck to the paint as surely as a fly is stuck in amber.
> >
> > That is the point. Why pretend that nobody painted the painting, that it
> > appeared by magic by some unseen hand of god? The artist is the
> > painting, and there is no sense in denying an obvious fact.
>
> Why pretend, why not pretend? There is no moral superiority to be gained
> by denying oneself the power to create illusions. But, in any case, you
> get painting completely wrong if you think that using an illusion to
> create pictures amounts to denying that one is painting. Even trompe
> l'oeil does not seek to fool the viewer permanently, but rather to
> emphasise the fact that it is a work of art by inviting the viewer to try
> to see past the illusion.
The first big giveaway for me is that it is as flat as a board. Guess
that is
a pretty subtle clue, eh?
>
> > > Within such constraints, there can be no real expression of individuality
> >
> > That is all that is there. You just said that the artist was stuck to
> > the paint.
>
> The image I used had nothing to do with the idea of the artist's
> individuality being apparent in the finished painting. It was solely
> about the restrictions that prohibit the artist from putting the
> painting-object to good use as a thing for storing pictures, but rather
> being stuck with the object as a useless, lumpen rectangle.
Good for storing pictures? Better than a flat file? How many can you
store in
one of these painting-objects? Sounds like you got some water damage on
your
lumpen rectangle. Try ironing it.
>
> By analogy, an abstract expressionist novel would be one without imagery
> or narrative. Describing the situation of a novelist committed to such a
> style, I might have used the image of a writer stuck to the pages of the
> book, since, unlike writers of real novels, writers of abstract
> expressionist novels are unable to use their tools as starting points for
> flights of the imagination, but are forever earthbound.
The writer is every bit as stuck to the book as an artist is to their
work. As
far as AE novels, how did you come to the decision that the only
literary equivalent
is the novel? Writers using their AE tools usually come up with
something called
poetry. Heard of it I assume?
>
> > > -- experiments must be limited to slight variations of simple formulae,
> > > otherwise no one artist can be told apart from another.
>
> You left this point unremarked, I note.
Only to spare you embarrasment, as I felt it to be too weak to attack. I
might
point out that the difference between Pt and Au is a very slight
variation of a
simple formula, with vastly different results (that's Platinum and Gold
for the
chemically challenged).
>
> > > There is no
> > > opportunity to distinguish oneself by being exceptionally skilful, for
> > > there is _nothing_in_which_to_be_skilful_. The outcome is that all
> > > Abstract Expressionism is shlock.
> >
> > There are equal skills necessary to paint in AE, and the difference is
> > as easily read as in a poorly executed landscape.
>
> Yeah, I bet. Think about it for a minute: everything that has ever
> appeared in an AE painting could appear in a non-AE painting that had
> additional elements (such as depiction). In such a painting, all the AE
> skills would be needed, PLUS the skills required to integrate the non-AE
> elements.
It usually takes more skill to decide what to leave out than what to
include.
Depiction was found to be inappropriate for the subject matter of AE,
and its
inclusion was a hinderance. The part of AE that could not appear in
pre-AE paintings
was the role of self examination and emphasis on concious creation
during the painting process.
>
> > It may take more skill
> > on the viewer to understand the painting at the level of skill that it
> > was painted at. If all you see is schlock, raise the ante and use more
> > of your intellect.
>
> Using more of one's intellect does not bring more out of an abstract
> expressionist painting, but rather shows it up for the schlock that it
> is.
AE shows up the viewer for what they bring to the painting, and they get
out of
it that which they find appealing. Asking for more participation by the
viewer and involving their intellect brings out a lot more than trying
the same on a figurative piece.
The more one thinks about an abstract expressionist painting, the
> clearer it becomes that the object is worthless rubbish propped up by a
> confused and nonsensical ideology.
What is so confusing? What can't you make sense out of?
If one applies the intellect to the
> theories that are supposed to underlie abstract expressionism, it swiftly
> becomes apparent that where they are not incoherent,
That is, they are coherent.
they are a
> straighforward reducto ad absurdum of an argument that was mistaken in the
> first place.
What is the 'mistake' in the argument? That the human range of
expression is to be
forever limited to things that we already uunderstand? That expression
must be controlled
by carefully executed details? That color theory stopped with Munsell? I
find your
postition very narrow and stultifying.
> > > Naturalism, by contrast, is a valid (i.e., not bankrupt) approach to art,
> > > as it grants artists expressive power and their individuality, by lending
> > > itself to many uses and techniques.
Like dogs playing poker, yet another sunset painting, posters for the
Garden Society. What
uses and techniques are you championing here? Why not just take a photo
and get on.
> >
> > And for sure we need more paintings of bowls of fruit and the garden at
> > west end and the old lighthouse on the point and....
>
> If that's as far as your imagination is capable of taking you, don't blame
> me. (Not that there's anything intrinsically wrong with bowls of fruit,
> mind, just that it ought to be obvious to you that these traditional
> subjects are not the only possible ones for naturalistic painting.)
I fail to see how naturalistic subjects can do much for one's
imagination. It
is either there or it isn't. If it isn't, then we are back to AE. If you
are alluding
to painting things that only you can imagine - in a naturalistic way,
well, they are your fantasy, not mine.
Not in the least. By declaring that department store paintings are
irrelevant to
painting as an art form, then any results that buyers recieve from the
purchase
of such art are null and void, and as such, cannot have any value nor
any effect
on painting as an art form. It follows then that you are declaring that
there is
no way possible to produce good art within this genre.
Speaking of following, how did you make this tremendous leap to noodles
as somehow
being analogous to art? Equally specious is equating a noodle to
chemistry as a
painting is to art. That is one noodle I can't swallow. Talk about a
non-sequitur!
Let me rephrase your paraphrase for clarity: "in department stores you
can buy landscape
paintings that are sold as art, but this has no effect on landscape
painting, regardless
of the fact that it may not be percieved as any different than landscape
paintings that are
sold in a gallery setting."
And in still other words
Landscape painting may or may not be valid, but if they are sold in
department stores,
they cannot have any value or effect whatsoever.
Moral of this story: Don't sell your stuff to department stores. :o}
--
Rick Blanchard
R Blanchard
Mdeli wrote:
> Tell us what one sroke of de Kooning's brush means.
Ask De Kooning, its his brush.
> Also give an example of where detail "gets in the way
> of the artists intent."
I leave out nose hairs on portraits.
--
Rick Blanchard
R Blanchard
Mdeli wrote:
> I wrote:
> >I am assuming from your post that it takes you an inordinately large
> >amount of skill to wake and get out of bed? ;O}
>
> Bearing in mind your abilities at logic this statment
> is expected.
Bearing in mind your openness and skill at everything, your statement is
not only expected, it is required.
>
> >Matisse used to paint from his bed, so it is not absolutely necessary to
> >get out of it.
>
> Perhaps it is usefull to remain in bed if you want to
> paint as badly as Matisse. Was he awake at the time?
More awake than you will ever be at this rate.
--
Rick Blanchard
Mdeli
>Mdeli wrote:
>> Tell us what one sroke of de Kooning's brush means.
Blanchard answers
>Ask De Kooning, its his brush.
>> Also give an example of where detail "gets in the way
>> of the artists intent."
>I leave out nose hairs on portraits.
The usual cop-out.
You claimed that de Kooning's brushwork means
something. I don't think it means anything.
Does Leonardo's detail get in the way of his intent?
How about Mondrian's detail?
peter james kashur
Talent is not as rare as we think it is. Hard work and
discipline are rare.