Why I can't paint like De Kooning
John Ng
reason is that I just can't bring myself to use so much good paint and
precious canvases for inapt pieces of garbage. If I could somehow
find cheap substitutes, I could churn out these things en-masse to
send to lottery-style competitions. The odds are that once in a
while, I should become lucky.
Could anyone help?
(I think the majority of people are like me. For most, the idea for
funky art is easy, the execution is easy, but the generosity of waste
is hard to overcome).
John
ART RENEWAL ADVOCATE
http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
Erik A. Mattila
> I have imagined painting like De Kooning but I HAVE FAILED. The
> reason is that I just can't bring myself to use so much good paint and
> precious canvases for inapt pieces of garbage. If I could somehow
> find cheap substitutes, I could churn out these things en-masse to
> send to lottery-style competitions. The odds are that once in a
> while, I should become lucky.
>
> Could anyone help?
>
> (I think the majority of people are like me. For most, the idea for
> funky art is easy, the execution is easy, but the generosity of waste
> is hard to overcome).
Sure, John...It's a chicken and egg argument. If you can get 40 grand
for a painting, you wouldn't feel so strapped for art materials and you
could paint like de Kooning who got 40 grand for his painting. Simple.
Erik
Neil Maxwell
>I have imagined painting like De Kooning but I HAVE FAILED. The
>reason is that I just can't bring myself to use so much good paint and
>precious canvases for inapt pieces of garbage. If I could somehow
>find cheap substitutes, I could churn out these things en-masse to
>send to lottery-style competitions. The odds are that once in a
>while, I should become lucky.
>
>Could anyone help?
When I need lots of color coverage for something I know I'm going to
burn, I go to the local hardware store (Orchard Supply), where they
have house paints that people have returned for a variety of reasons.
The colors are already pre-mixed, but there is an astonishing variety
there. They're extremely cheap, and I use various agents to thicken
or texturize them as required.
Once you make the big time, the fact that you use house paints will
add considerable ironic cachet to your work. Add the fact that your
colors are the rejects of everyman, and you've got an artsy-fartsy
manifesto begging to be written. Prepare to receive your Turner
prize!
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
temperament you will never know otherwise. But not to worry you are in good
company with richard and mani.
keith.
John Ng <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1bb492a.02111...@posting.google.com...
Avram Chompsky
> I have imagined painting like De Kooning but I HAVE FAILED.
Yes, well, most USENET thugs are failures in the real world.
> Could anyone help?
The Art Police is looking for a few good people to enforce
opinion. Maybe you can give them a try. I think you'll do
very well.
>
> (I think the majority of people are like me.
And I feel you deserve some sort of recognition for that. Good
luck in your future endeavors!
>
>
> John
> ART RENEWAL ADVOCATE
If you understood irony we could laugh about your sig together.
Andrew D
pigsm...@hotmail.com (John Ng) wrote:
>I have imagined painting like De Kooning but I HAVE FAILED. The
>reason is that I just can't bring myself to use so much good paint and
>precious canvases for inapt pieces of garbage. If I could somehow
>find cheap substitutes, I could churn out these things en-masse to
>send to lottery-style competitions. The odds are that once in a
>while, I should become lucky.
>Could anyone help?
House paint on a stretched cotton sheet. You don't need a lot of colours
to make a modern piece. Less is more. Two shades of grey should do it if
you want to be really expressive. Don't frame it - frames are for those
idiots who can't let go of tradition.
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
John Ng
> You think the thick paint makes the art - that is your mistake and with your
> temperament you will never know otherwise
Can you name one funky art that doesn't have thick paint? Viewers of
Modern Art are attracted by the brilliance of the paint, especially if
they are raw from the tube.
Yes, people who know me says I have an "artist's temperament" and it
would be just right to fool people. Just grow the long unkempt hair,
round glasses and shoddy looks, and I am into the big time... suckers.
John Ng
Sharr Truce
pigsm...@hotmail.com says...
>Can you name one funky art that doesn't have thick paint?
Have you seen many egg-tempera paintings?
Have you seen air-brushed paintings? Sure
you have - think of all those 'funny cars'
and vans running around with great air-brush
art on them! If that's not "funky art" then
you need to define what you mean by "funky."
Goethe Helen Waite
John Ng <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com" <scot...@rogers.com> wrote in message
>
>> You think the thick paint makes the art - that is your mistake and with your
>> temperament you will never know otherwise
>
>Can you name one funky art that doesn't have thick paint? Viewers of
>Modern Art are attracted by the brilliance of the paint, especially if
>they are raw from the tube.
Dale Cihuly's glass pieces don't have a speck of paint on them :)
--
"Arguing on the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics - even
if you win you're still retarded."
Kramer Wetzel, home of the Texas Shakespeare Massacre
John Ng
> If that's not "funky art" then
> you need to define what you mean by "funky."
Funky art is not air-brush graphics... it is a name I came up that
represents all those Modern Art and its like... of splotches and
splatters and inkblot design, from the works of Kadinsky to Picasso.
Someone was talking about whether I have seen this exhibition of
abstract art and to whom I replied, "That is too funky to me". The
next day, I attended a ANOTHER exhibition's prize-giving ceremony and
the judge actally said that they awarded that piece because it was
"funky". And that is precisely the attitude of Modern Art... funk...
to be seen because it is "chic".
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
waste my time differentiating images into irrelevant categories of
representational, abstract, modern, gothic etc.
You do not have the knowledge to separate the art from the irrelevant. When
I say the thick paint in a particular work adds to the textural content then
it is relevant. When I say it is thick paint for the sake of think paint
then it does not contribute to artistic content. You sir have no aesthetic
concepts and cannot tell the difference. Thus you have joined the chorus
of ignorant opinions that spring up like rats in the night.
k
John Ng <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1bb492a.02111...@posting.google.com...
John Ng
> You do not have the knowledge to separate the art from the irrelevant. When
> I say the thick paint in a particular work adds to the textural content then
> it is relevant.
Name me one piece whereby thick paint is not relevant? Artist's
paints (eg oil) by themselves gives plenty of mood and colour. There
is no real art involved except the art of making paint and the art of
squeezing it out of the tube.
> You sir have no aesthetic
> concepts and cannot tell the difference. Thus you have joined the chorus
> of ignorant opinions that spring up like rats in the night.
On the contrary, I can tell all right... about which abstract painting
is good and which ones are not so good (The good ones always involve a
substantially thick surface paint and some basic art principles). I
do not argue about banning Modern Art or about not being able to like
it. They sometimes match decor very well.
However, my argument is, "Is it art?" or just a decoration as the
house paint on your wall, the fabric of the sofa, the carpet etc? Is
it an object made by Winsor & Newton rather than the painter?
More importantly, should arty-farty art become so dominant that true
2D art is supplanted? The scourge of Modern Art in the last century
have left us a society of art imbeciles, and has robbed us of the
knowledge to create pieces as great as those in the last 400 years.
Erik A. Mattila
John, I think you've got a paper-tiger by the tail. Figurative art,
landscapes, still lifes etc. are alive and well in the art market.
Abstraction didn't supplant them.
Look at one of my old professor's web site, for example:
http://www.davidhollowell.com/
David like all sorts of art, including abstract, Bay Area Funk, "Bad
Art" and so on. He paints, however, from the traditions that you often
advocate. And his works sell in galleries for high prices.
Carlo Maria Mariani - actually if you browse around the Hackett-Freedman
web site you can find plenty of realists, from landscapes to figurative.
http://www.realart.com/hfg/home.html
And that's just a superficial stab at google. If you concentrate, you
can find tons of art that will please you. But here's the thing, if all
the art that you don't like is outlawed tomorrow, it ain't gonna make
the art you do like any better (or worse).
Erik
Lauri Levanto
John Ng wrote:
> ... I
> do not argue about banning Modern Art or about not being able to like
> it. They sometimes match decor very well....
GREAT PROGRESS, John. It is not so long ago you wanted
like Talibans to destroy all modern art.
-lauri
John Ng
> GREAT PROGRESS, John. It is not so long ago you wanted
> like Talibans to destroy all modern art.
I still say Modern Art is shit and equivalent in stature to the sponge
coat of paint on my wall. It is your interpretation that I wish to
destroy Modern Art. Mind you the Talibans did not destroy the statues
because they were bad art... rather it was for the fact that they
represent another religion.
John Ng
John Ng
> John, I think you've got a paper-tiger by the tail. Figurative art,
> landscapes, still lifes etc. are alive and well in the art market.
> Abstraction didn't supplant them.
Sure, there are some good representational art around but not good
enough -- or even if they are, it is extremely rare. You can walk
into one of these exhibitions and walk straight through without seeing
quality. Bright colours and gimicky subjects are the flavour of the
day (or 20 century).
Art kept improving since the Renaissance until 19C where it took a
nose dive. All knowledge acquired over the last 400 years is greatly
lost.
(No, abstraction is only one of the many forms of arty-farty art.)
John Ng
William Palmer
> Lauri Levanto <laur...@netti.fi> wrote in message
>
> > GREAT PROGRESS, John. It is not so long ago you wanted
> > like Talibans to destroy all modern art.
>
> I still say Modern Art is shit and equivalent in stature to the sponge
> coat of paint on my wall.
This is the same sort of thing I am seeing
frequently in this group. Is it that some
people don't realize that Surrealism is
"Modern art," just as much as abstract
art is, or do they truely believe that
all modern art, including the work of
Dali and the other Surrealists, is shit?
In other words, they are either very
sloppy about their terminology or they
are cranks, just as bad as people who
maintain that no 20th century novel or
poem is worth reading. I think many
modern artists do fantastically good
work. I just don't care that much for
abstract art, though I have a few exceptions,
such as the work of Stuart Davis. And
Modern artist Dali is a far greater painter
than de Kooning, Rothko, and Motherwell all
rolled up together.
It is your interpretation that I wish to
> destroy Modern Art. Mind you the Talibans did not destroy the statues
> because they were bad art... rather it was for the fact that they
> represent another religion.
>
They were ignorant fanatics whose taboos were far
stronger than their common sense. In one case, they
went into a museums and smashed up the statues with
sledgehammers. Now this was a time when many Afghanis
were going without food. If the Taliban had put all
that art they smashed on the international market,
they could have likely brought in enough to feed, for
a year, all the people who had been going hungry.
Of course, these fanatics would not have wanted to
"sully their hands" by selling that art. I strongly
suspect that a pack of howling mandrills could have
done a better job of running that unfortunate country.
a.g.b-p
>
> John Ng
Erik A. Mattila
William Palmer wrote:
If the Taliban had put all
> that art they smashed on the international market,
> they could have likely brought in enough to feed, for
> a year, all the people who had been going hungry.
> Of course, these fanatics would not have wanted to
> "sully their hands" by selling that art. I strongly
> suspect that a pack of howling mandrills could have
> done a better job of running that unfortunate country.
A pack of howling mandrills is running Afghanistan right now, so we
shall see.
Erik
G*rd*n
| > > GREAT PROGRESS, John. It is not so long ago you wanted
| > > like Talibans to destroy all modern art.
pigsm...@hotmail.com (John Ng):
| > I still say Modern Art is shit and equivalent in stature to the sponge
| > coat of paint on my wall.
willia...@prodigy.net (William Palmer):
| This is the same sort of thing I am seeing
| frequently in this group. Is it that some
| people don't realize that Surrealism is
| "Modern art," just as much as abstract
| art is, or do they truely believe that
| all modern art, including the work of
| Dali and the other Surrealists, is shit?
| In other words, they are either very
| sloppy about their terminology or they
| are cranks, just as bad as people who
| maintain that no 20th century novel or
| poem is worth reading. ...
They're talking about Modernism, and it shows that Modernism
still has enormous power, after all these years, to make people
feel attacked and persecuted, even though it's only some stuff
sitting on a wall. This, even after the movement has mostly
retired into history, and cheesy Modernistic material can be
found at the mall next to cheap Van Gogh repros and pictures
of Einstein and Pike's Peak, indicating almost complete cultural
absorption and assignment to the realm of decor. It's a
curious phenonmenon which some anthropologist should
investigate.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 11/14/02 <-adv't
Lauri Levanto
John Ng wrote:
> Lauri Levanto <laur...@netti.fi> wrote in message
>
> > GREAT PROGRESS, John. It is not so long ago you wanted
> > like Talibans to destroy all modern art.
> John Ng:
> It is your interpretation that I wish to
> destroy Modern Art.
>>Just because I fight for inane art to be "weeded out" >>
Those were your words Jan 23 2002 on this forum.
-lauri
Erik A. Mattila
rising to the top of the soup, High Modernism must be ressurected so the
bourgeoisie can see itself. It's power, sure - but not power of its own
volition.
I just know there are some anthros who have investigated the third venue
you outline. I just can't think of "who." Edmund Carpenter comes
close, I think. But an anthro who gets too close to this runs the risk
of turning into a Literary Critic.
Erik
Mani Deli
All artwork done in the 20th century is modern art. The stuff allowed
into museums is a small facet of modern art. It is the majority of
that work which I label Modern Academic Art to distinguish it from all
that other work.
I call it academic because it follows the patterns of what modern art
historians claim are the faults of the 19th C. academic system. It is
also the art taught in most art schools and that can irritate someone
like Richard no end because his situation requires him to enter the
Modern Academic Asylum every day.
I was once in the same situation. Like Richard I was angry at the
situation and tested my teachers and fellow students about the validly
of what was going on and on occasions said exactly what I think.
Fortunately, having previously been a science major left me rather
bullshit proof. It was particularly annoying to experience teachers
who knew almost nothing, spouting slogans and empty double talk.
I still regard it as a system that wasted the time I could have been
taught something. I unlike many, was fortunate to be able to go to
another school later and learn my craft and earn a live as a
professional doing something I liked
I believe there has been a much fine art produced in this century as
in any other. It just isn't what is generally allowed in museums and
what critics at the moment are allowed to consider fine art. People
know who those artists are and pay high prices for their work. Except
for a limited number of Blue chip Modern Academics most who produce
the same sort of stuff are members of the legions of failures who are
forced to live on purely abstract money.
On 22 Nov 2002 00:25:49 -0800, willia...@prodigy.net (William
Palmer) wrote:
>This is the same sort of thing I am seeing
>frequently in this group. Is it that some
>people don't realize that Surrealism is
>"Modern art," just as much as abstract
>art is, or do they truely believe that
>all modern art, including the work of
>Dali and the other Surrealists, is shit?
>In other words, they are either very
>sloppy about their terminology or they
>are cranks, just as bad as people who
>maintain that no 20th century novel or
>poem is worth reading. I think many
>modern artists do fantastically good
>work. I just don't care that much for
>abstract art, though I have a few exceptions,
>such as the work of Stuart Davis. And
>Modern artist Dali is a far greater painter
>than de Kooning, Rothko, and Motherwell all
>rolled up together.
>
...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/
Richard
On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 14:59:46 -0500, Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
>The one thing none of us can avoid is being modern.
>All artwork done in the 20th century is modern art. The stuff allowed
>into museums is a small facet of modern art. It is the majority of
>that work which I label Modern Academic Art to distinguish it from all
>that other work.
It would be cumbersome to say "cubism and expressionism" every time
instead of "modern art."
I like impressionism somewhat and I like *good* surrealism very much.
Degas is the only surrealist I like a lot. Monet comes in second. The
other impressionists were rather crappy. Cubism is stupid and ugly and
expressionism is probably from hell.
Lets not get picky about words, OK? Like who cares.
I think you all realize that I'm talking about the really dumb stuff
when I say I hate modern art.
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
William Palmer
> pigsm...@hotmail.com (John Ng) wrote in message news:<d1bb492a.02111...@posting.google.com>...
> > I have imagined painting like De Kooning but I HAVE FAILED.
>
> Yes, well, most USENET thugs are failures in the real world.
What I have found is that most Usenet thugs are failures
in USENET. By that I mean they are "draggers." Draggers
are people who for one reason or another are not really
comfortable in the world of words we call Usenet, so
they are continually trying to "drag" communication
transactions back to "real life." Somethimes they
do this in fairly innocuous ways, such as bragging
about their off-line accomplishments so that their
posts will be given more consideration than the wording
of them merits. At worst, draggers resort to things
like physical threats when their posting behavior
is challenged. In a world of words, which they
visit for the wrong reasons, perhaps because it
makes them feel intelligent or that they can
dominate others, they are fish out of water.
Hence they will do any number of things to get
posters back to what these draggers call real
life. Of course, Usenet IS real life when you
are here. Like a swimming pool, it is "real
life" while you are in it, swimming...a.g.b-p.