Nineteenth century landscape as contemporary subject matter
Charles Eicher
>
>
>
>Can a representational landscape painting that depicts mostly rustic
>scenes and century old buildings be taken seriously as contemporary
>art? By this, I mean paintings that do nothing to
>create an awareness of the modern world.
I believe that the term for that is "post-anachronism." It refers to the type of
art you describe, as well as oddities like contemporary science fiction that is
written as if it were a product of the 19th century, tales of traveling to the
moon in steam powered boats.
>No clues of current
>technology, no shining chrome as in a Richard Estes, only rural frame
>or stone structures and subjects thought of as picturesque.
>Andrew Wyeth's paintings seem to be executed in this rustic vein, but
>they possess a psychological brooding that gives them an aspect of
>disqualified modernism. This painting, I am suggesting, would be as
>close as you can get to a revival of nineteenth century British
>watercolorists.
I don't see any point in this revival..
>Perhaps this kind of painting would strictly be an exercise in
>nostalgia, best executed by artist often exhibiting at Malls and Fairs,
>or could it's feel and technique be such that it could hang alongside
>abstract works such as a Hans Hofmann or contemporary realists like
>Gabriel Laderman?
I've done exercises, copying from older painter's styles, its easy. But its just
an exercise in technicalities, its not art. But then, these days, people still
love Wyeth and Rockwell, so what do I know?
steph...@my-deja.com
Can a representational landscape painting that depicts mostly rustic
scenes and century old buildings be taken seriously as contemporary
art? By this, I mean paintings that do nothing to
create an awareness of the modern world. No clues of current
technology, no shining chrome as in a Richard Estes, only rural frame
or stone structures and subjects thought of as picturesque.
Andrew Wyeth's paintings seem to be executed in this rustic vein, but
they possess a psychological brooding that gives them an aspect of
disqualified modernism. This painting, I am suggesting, would be as
close as you can get to a revival of nineteenth century British
watercolorists.
Perhaps this kind of painting would strictly be an exercise in
nostalgia, best executed by artist often exhibiting at Malls and Fairs,
or could it's feel and technique be such that it could hang alongside
abstract works such as a Hans Hofmann or contemporary realists like
Gabriel Laderman?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
burnin...@my-deja.com
steph...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
> Can a representational landscape painting that depicts mostly rustic
> scenes and century old buildings be taken seriously as contemporary
> art?
More appropriately, can a cow sawed up with a chain saw be taken
seriously as contemporary art? A self-photo of a person with
a bullwhip shoved up his arse? Maybe the infamous Piss Christ?
> By this, I mean paintings that do nothing to
> create an awareness of the modern world.
Neither does the Mona Lisa, your point?
> No clues of current
> technology, no shining chrome as in a Richard Estes, only rural frame
> or stone structures and subjects thought of as picturesque.
Neither does Van Gogh's crows over a wheat field, your point?
> Andrew Wyeth's paintings seem to be executed in this rustic vein,
Possibly to you.
> but
> they possess a psychological brooding that gives them an aspect of
> disqualified modernism.
You've been reading to many attempted excuses of Wyeth's work by people
who don't like him because he was successful.
> This painting, I am suggesting, would be as
> close as you can get to a revival of nineteenth century British
> watercolorists.
Try listing a nineteeth centry British watercolor with an art house
to see what it would bring at auction and then come back.
>
> Perhaps this kind of painting would strictly be an exercise in
> nostalgia, best executed by artist often exhibiting at Malls and
Fairs,
It doesn't sould like you've been to many Fairs.
> or could it's feel and technique be such that it could hang alongside
> abstract works such as a Hans Hofmann or contemporary realists like
> Gabriel Laderman?
You've asked a lot of stupid questions. If you want a critique,
scan it and post it.
burnin...@my-deja.com
Charles Eicher <cei...@inav.net> wrote:
> In article <7k9jj1$5mt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, steph...@my-deja.com
> >
> >
> >
> >Can a representational landscape painting that depicts mostly rustic
> >scenes and century old buildings be taken seriously as contemporary
> >create an awareness of the modern world.
>
LOL :P
As opposed to contemporary-anachronism :)
> It refers to the type of
> art you describe, as well as oddities like contemporary science
fiction that is
> written as if it were a product of the 19th century, tales of
traveling to the
> moon in steam powered boats.
Oddities? You mean like the sawed up cow? Or do you like
"performance art"? :PPP
>
> >No clues of current
> >technology, no shining chrome as in a Richard Estes, only rural frame
> >or stone structures and subjects thought of as picturesque.
> >Andrew Wyeth's paintings seem to be executed in this rustic vein, but
> >they possess a psychological brooding that gives them an aspect of
> >disqualified modernism. This painting, I am suggesting, would be as
> >close as you can get to a revival of nineteenth century British
> >watercolorists.
>
> I don't see any point in this revival..
Well, that ends that.
>
> >Perhaps this kind of painting would strictly be an exercise in
> >nostalgia, best executed by artist often exhibiting at Malls and
Fairs,
> >or could it's feel and technique be such that it could hang alongside
> >abstract works such as a Hans Hofmann or contemporary realists like
> >Gabriel Laderman?
>
> I've done exercises, copying from older painter's styles, its easy.
It is?
Please post a few of your copies so we can bask in your virtuosity.
If you can do a good J.S. Sargeant, I might be interested in buying
a few.
Or, by that, did you mean you had made a few Pollacks?
> But its just
> an exercise in technicalities, its not art.
Again, proof of your words?
> But then, these days, people still
> love Wyeth and Rockwell, so what do I know?
:P
Rhetorical question I take it?
Bennett
>I've done exercises, copying from older painter's styles, its easy. But its
just
>an exercise in technicalities, its not art. But then, these days, people
still
>love Wyeth and Rockwell, so what do I know?
Charles...not to pick a nit, because I don't do that, but regarding your
"its easy," I would love to see your copy of Rembrandt's 1659 self-portrait,
or Corot's "Lady with a Pearl."
I've done some copying myself, believing that we do, as the man once said,
"learn in the museums." But it was not easy. Those buggers were damned
good!
(If you do get past Rembrandt's self-portrait -- that particular one which
just blows my mind every time I see it -- try his portrait of his son Titus,
called "Titus at His Writing desk." I would not have believed a Dutchman of
any century so capable of such tenderness. And when you get past that, for
relaxation, go back to Corot and copy "The Bridge at Mantes."
Finish those, and you will have earned your master's license.
Regards and happy painting...
Bennett
>
Chris Brobeck
What is contemporary to one is not contemporary to all; by and large I find
the urban angst and plates on canvas or a couple of red stripes or what
ever is passing for Contemporary (note the big C) to be by and large less
interesting and less deep than what is often found in malls and painting
clubs...with (if anything) the technical skill level higher now in the
latter than the former...
More seriously, I think that it is a disservice to try to establish the
value of art on an arbitrary catagorization of the subject matter...for
example Mary Cassatt is often dismissed because she painted "moppets" (John
Hughes); and her scenes are generally confined to the upper class
existence. What's overlooked is that she took on subjects in quite a
different light than would normally be expected - eg the Mother and Child -
1889 (Wichita), Breakfast in Bed (1897) (San marino, Calif), and Maternal
Carress (Phil)..(compare these with the contemporary (around that time)
tole-paintings by Renoir!)
I guess the only place where these distinctions make a difference anyway is
in who gets funded; but frankly, if it has to be funded through force (eg
taxes) then it probably isn't art....
Cheers;
Chris
>
mdeli
>In article <7k9jj1$5mt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, steph...@my-deja.com says...
snip
>>Andrew Wyeth's paintings seem to be executed in this rustic vein, but
>>they possess a psychological brooding that gives them an aspect of
>>disqualified modernism. This painting, I am suggesting, would be as
>>close as you can get to a revival of nineteenth century British
>>watercolorists.
>
>I don't see any point in this revival..
>
>>Perhaps this kind of painting would strictly be an exercise in
>>nostalgia, best executed by artist often exhibiting at Malls and Fairs,
>>or could it's feel and technique be such that it could hang alongside
>>abstract works such as a Hans Hofmann or contemporary realists like
>>Gabriel Laderman?
If Wyeth would hang next to either of the above one would immediately
sense its superiority in technique, skill, detail, ideas. No
theoretical bullshit would be necessary.
>
>I've done exercises, copying from older painter's styles, its easy.
and I can imagine the result.
Sure, I've seen what purports to be copies of "older paintings" by
students and many professionals. They are mostly schmiery opaque
impressionism that looks similar if seen from a good distance. A
closer look reveals why these copyists will be limited to producing
little more than hack abstract schmier for the rest of their lives.
As a student I've seen students copy details of master paintings and
produce what they imagined were copies. It must of indeed been easy to
schmier up the detail and make a mess thanks to their lack of
technical knowledge. I recall how the average student even lacked the
ability to do a clean blend, Most never even had the patience to look
carefully at the beautiful surface finish in fine painting or note the
vast differences in the techniques of these works.
I am to this day still convinced that most students, to say it
metaphorically, couldn't copy a big toe in an Ingres without the
result looking like more than a poor rendering filled in with flat
looking colored cement.
> But its just
>an exercise in technicalities, its not art.
I presume this guy imagines the emptiness of Rothko's oversized horse
blankets, de Kooning's formless schmiers, and Mondrian's patch quilts
constitute more than an exercises in "technicalities" repeated
ad-nausuem.
> But then, these days, people still
>love Wyeth and Rockwell, so what do I know?
>
Those who fail to master their craft will spend the rest of their
lives wondering why!
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
steph...@my-deja.com
> >
> >
> > Can a representational landscape painting that depicts mostly rustic
> > scenes and century old buildings be taken seriously as contemporary
> > art?
>
> seriously as contemporary art? A self-photo of a person with
> a bullwhip shoved up his arse? Maybe the infamous Piss Christ?
>
> > create an awareness of the modern world.
>
>
> > technology, no shining chrome as in a Richard Estes, only rural
frame
> > or stone structures and subjects thought of as picturesque.
>
>
>
>
> > but
> > they possess a psychological brooding that gives them an aspect of
> > disqualified modernism.
>
people
> who don't like him because he was successful.
>
> > close as you can get to a revival of nineteenth century British
> > watercolorists.
>
> to see what it would bring at auction and then come back.
>
> >
> > nostalgia, best executed by artist often exhibiting at Malls and
> Fairs,
>
>
alongside
> > abstract works such as a Hans Hofmann or contemporary realists like
> > Gabriel Laderman?
>
> scan it and post it.
>
right with me, it is why I posted this thread in the first place. But
I can't resist clarifying a few points:
The reference to Wyeth was not a criticism of his work (I like his art
very much), it was that he did not quite fit into what I was
describing.
Regarding the British watercolors, I always felt that art's merit
resided in it's feeling, not in whether you could afford it.
The Daliesque thing with the cows might actually be interesting, a kind
of classicism of the avant-garde.
Piss Christ? Well, what can I say? Being a mild sort, the idea of
offending millions of people and almost bringing the N.E.A. to it's
knees doesn't do much for me.
Finally, I can't say I have much interest in bullwhips up the arse
either, unless of course, you would like to do the posing.
xform1
steph...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
> Can a representational landscape painting that depicts mostly rustic
> scenes and century old buildings be taken seriously as contemporary
> create an awareness of the modern world. No clues of current
> technology, no shining chrome as in a Richard Estes, only rural frame
> or stone structures and subjects thought of as picturesque.
> they possess a psychological brooding that gives them an aspect of
> close as you can get to a revival of nineteenth century British
> watercolorists.
>
> nostalgia, best executed by artist often exhibiting at Malls and
Fairs,
> abstract works such as a Hans Hofmann or contemporary realists like
> Gabriel Laderman?
>
In a strict sense, I believe the answer is no: the art product
is always deeply embedded with the ideologies of the era. We cannot
know beyond certain a level of detail what the artist was thinking
or especially what drove him/her to paint exactly in that way.
In some sense this is a problem with all history: histories tell
us just as much about the time they are written as they do about
the era that is their subject.
However, your question brings an interesting idea: One
could take a 19th century realist painting and attempt to copy it
objectively, as a pure image, brushstroke by brushstroke.
(Assume one has the requisite skill). The result would be
a "19th century painting" but in a deeper sense, its status
is unclear. Is it a representation of the subject, a
representation of the painting or in the end just another
abstract image? One can't help but think of these latter
issues, which are very contemporary.
--Harvey
--xform1 at geocities dot com--
Transformations Digital Gallery:
http://www.geocities.com/Soho/Exhibit/5782
burnin...@my-deja.com
steph...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I will take your response to mean no, I think.
...? To be precise, I think what you describe can *easily* qualify as
art.
> This is certainly all
> right with me, it is why I posted this thread in the first place. But
> I can't resist clarifying a few points:
>
> The reference to Wyeth was not a criticism of his work (I like his art
> very much), it was that he did not quite fit into what I was
> describing.
Wyeth is almost unique. A combination of technical skill *and*
vision which is rarely seen.
>
> Regarding the British watercolors, I always felt that art's merit
> resided in it's feeling, not in whether you could afford it.
It is, however, a good indication of how much "feeling" a piece has.
> The Daliesque thing with the cows might actually be interesting, a
kind
> of classicism of the avant-garde.
It wasn't Daliesque. It was Texas Chainsawesque and looked appropriate
for the Center For Disease Control. I keep waiting for the people
standing around such to break out laughing about the gag being played.
> Piss Christ? Well, what can I say? Being a mild sort, the idea of
> offending millions of people and almost bringing the N.E.A. to it's
> knees doesn't do much for me.
The NEA is one of largest impediments to art in the country. The
sooner it's gone, the better. The offensive nature aside, there
was nothing there.
> Finally, I can't say I have much interest in bullwhips up the arse
> either, unless of course, you would like to do the posing.
LOL :P A sense of humor...?
Well, thanks, but I think I let that one pass... and not "pass"
in the sense of a BM. :P
Charles Eicher
>
>Hi Stephen;
>
>What is contemporary to one is not contemporary to all; by and large I find
>the urban angst and plates on canvas or a couple of red stripes or what
>ever is passing for Contemporary (note the big C) to be by and large less
>interesting and less deep than what is often found in malls and painting
>clubs...with (if anything) the technical skill level higher now in the
>latter than the former...
The measure of art is not to be found solely in technical merit.
>More seriously, I think that it is a disservice to try to establish the
>value of art on an arbitrary catagorization of the subject matter...for
>example Mary Cassatt is often dismissed because she painted "moppets" (John
>Hughes); and her scenes are generally confined to the upper class
>existence. What's overlooked is that she took on subjects in quite a
>different light than would normally be expected - eg the Mother and Child -
>1889 (Wichita), Breakfast in Bed (1897) (San marino, Calif), and Maternal
>Carress (Phil)..(compare these with the contemporary (around that time)
>tole-paintings by Renoir!)
You are mistaken. Cassat is dismissed for the right reasons. She was a mediocre
impressionist, only a minor figure from amongst the artists from that era. Her
works receive excessive attention solely due to the legions of feminists who are
looking for another historical figure to canonize. And before you gripe at me, I
have known her works for years and saw the recent "blockbuster" retrospective.
Kay
Larry Seiler wrote in message <7kfcui$b...@newsops.execpc.com>...
:
:> By this, I mean paintings that do nothing to
:> create an awareness of the modern world.
:Hhhmm...
:OOoooouucccchh! Just pinched myself. Yup! Guess I'm alive in the
:modern world. I live in northern Wisconsin. I've been charged three times
:by whitetail deer....
Whitetail deer charge???
:have had unique experiences with black bear. I know
:how to vocalize and call in by mouth alone Canadian geese....river otters,
:deer, turkeys.
But can you yodel?
:
:Now....as an artist. Living. Do I not then create awareness of "my" world
:when I paint? Does not my world have significance?
Yes. Yes.
:
:In fact...is there not even a utilical purpose in a world bent on
:destroying the natural environment, to cause a sense of euphoria and
:connectedness such that opinions of the value of the natural world might
:not be felt and reinforced by my making such works?
:Curious......
:
Yes.
Kay
:Larry
:Larry Seiler
:artist's site- http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
:WetCanvas Artists page- (shorter and quicker loading)
:http://www.wetcanvas.com/Gallery/S/Larry_Seiler/index.html
:
:"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man
:persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress
:depends on the unreasonable man." George Bernard Shaw
:
Larry Seiler
> By this, I mean paintings that do nothing to
> create an awareness of the modern world.
Hhhmm...
OOoooouucccchh! Just pinched myself. Yup! Guess I'm alive in the
modern world. I live in northern Wisconsin. I've been charged three times
by whitetail deer....have had unique experiences with black bear. I know
how to vocalize and call in by mouth alone Canadian geese....river otters,
deer, turkeys.
Now....as an artist. Living. Do I not then create awareness of "my" world
when I paint? Does not my world have significance?
In fact...is there not even a utilical purpose in a world bent on
destroying the natural environment, to cause a sense of euphoria and
connectedness such that opinions of the value of the natural world might
not be felt and reinforced by my making such works?
Curious......
Larry
Chris Brobeck
Charles Eicher wrote:
> In article <3769B419...@ns.sympatico.ca>, Chris says...
> >
>
> The measure of art is not to be found solely in technical merit.
That's true - but so is the converse - a lack of technical merit doesn't necessarily
make it art :)
>
>
> You are mistaken. Cassat is dismissed for the right reasons. She was a mediocre
> impressionist, only a minor figure from amongst the artists from that era. Her
> works receive excessive attention solely due to the legions of feminists who are
> looking for another historical figure to canonize. And before you gripe at me, I
> have known her works for years and saw the recent "blockbuster" retrospective.
My, my, grumpy, grumpy! Let me see here - you base your dismissal of Cassatt on a)
she wasn't a charter member of a specific group, and b) somebody you disagree with
likes her.. Quite the profound art criticism!
Aside from the fact that she was contemporary with the Impressionists, and worked
closely with Degas (who seemed to have a somewhat higher opinion of her work than
you do), she wasn't associated greatly with the Impressionists, especially in terms
of technical style. But I really don't see how that detracts from her qualities as
an artist. Perhaps you could elaborate!
As for the feminist involvement, I really think that is neither here nore there in
terms of judging the quality of her work. I fell in love with Cassatt's work growing
up in DC in the 60's, long before she became a feminist issue, though I do believe
feminists have just cause in celebrating her work. She was one of the first modern
artists to look into women's lives and portray them as individuals, rather than
concepts. It's very easy to miss the gentle irony in "Maternal Caress" or "Breakfast
in Bed"; or the tenderness in "Autumn", because they are subtle (by todays
standards), and created for an educated viewer. But again, that doesn't detract from
her work; rather (like the work of many great artists) I think it makes the viewer
want to learn more.
In that sense, I'd say she was far more in line with what might loosely be called
humanist artists - certainly a line stretching back to Holbein and extending to
other great American artists like Homer and Eakins. (better get my asbestos suit
on...)
Cheers;
Chris
Larry Seiler
yup....rut season. In fact, I remained calm..understanding that deer
require two senses to hone into one's exact...I mean "exact" position. I
was camoflaged and wearing scent. But...I did not so much as move an eye
lash or make a sound after the initial charge.
This is a different sort of thing between one that jumped onto the "I make
wildlife art" bandwagon living in a larger city...and one that painted from
experience. I really wish when people trash an art genre, they abandoned
generalities, for it does injustice to people that are just as radically
artists by nature as others. There are posers in every genre for whatever
reasons. (an added note Kay....not directed at you personally. Just a
rant of mine).
But....imagine a 200 pound animal 10 feet away, nostrils flaring, eyes red,
and huge sharp antlers swaying back and forth waiting to cue in on the
target! Things like that don't tend to get buried easily for an artist
because others chose to see little merit in it as "real" art.
> But can you yodel?
hahaha.....well...uhm.....mmm.....probably not.
But....when I keynote speak....invevitably some of my notoriety goes before
me and some teen in the auditorium will shout out a request to do animal
sounds.
Crazy....a man at 44 years of age capable of barking like dogs....not just
dogs, but specific specie types! Cats.....bobcats, grunts and snarls like
bears, turkeys yelp and gobble....ducks, geese....and more. People imagine
this strange person like actually not having much of a life, practicing
etc; hahahha.....
> :Now....as an artist. Living. Do I not then create awareness of "my"
world
> :when I paint? Does not my world have significance?
>
> Yes. Yes.
thanks for your vote of confidence......
I think if we paint, create out of integrity from our actual life
experiences, what more can be asked of an artist?
If it speaks nothing to the culture at large, then perhaps it is worthy
simply being a testiment to one's life for future generations.
peace,
Kay
Larry Seiler wrote in message <7kjj87$s...@newsops.execpc.com>...
:> Whitetail deer charge???
:
:yup....rut season. In fact, I remained calm..understanding that deer
:require two senses to hone into one's exact...I mean "exact" position. I
:was camoflaged and wearing scent. But...I did not so much as move an :eye
lash or make a sound after the initial charge.
:
:This is a different sort of thing between one that jumped onto the "I make
:wildlife art" bandwagon living in a larger city...and one that painted from
:experience. I really wish when people trash an art genre, they abandoned
:generalities, for it does injustice to people that are just as radically
:artists by nature as others. There are posers in every genre for whatever
:reasons. (an added note Kay....not directed at you personally. Just a
:rant of mine).
No problem, Larry, and I have been guilty of jumping on the anti-Realism
bandwagon too. But, I must say in my defense, it is usually in response to
someone in the Realist camp saying Contemporary art is invalid/stupid/not
art or something else similar. I can admire a well-done representational
work more than someone who works in that manner can tolerate a
non-representational work, IMO. But, yes, I think experience in your genre
would be essential to a successful work.
:But....imagine a 200 pound animal 10 feet away, nostrils flaring, eyes red,
:and huge sharp antlers swaying back and forth waiting to cue in on the
:target! Things like that don't tend to get buried easily for an artist
:because others chose to see little merit in it as "real" art.
Reminds me of when I was dating!
:> But can you yodel?
:
:hahaha.....well...uhm.....mmm.....probably not.
:But....when I keynote speak....invevitably some of my notoriety goes before
:me and some teen in the auditorium will shout out a request to do animal
:sounds.
:Crazy....a man at 44 years of age capable of barking like dogs....not just
:dogs, but specific specie types! Cats.....bobcats, grunts and snarls like
:bears, turkeys yelp and gobble....ducks, geese....and more. People imagine
:this strange person like actually not having much of a life, practicing
:etc; hahahha.....
:
I'd love to hear it. Can you do something and put it in a binaries "midi"
n.g.?
Kay
:> :Now....as an artist. Living. Do I not then create awareness of "my"
:
Erik A. Mattila
While sleeping out in the wood, I opened my eyes and I was nose to nose with a
porkypine. I knew I was in trouble. Veeeeeeeeeery sloooooowly I began to
crawl down in my sleeping bag. Ms. P. Pine didn't seem impressed one way or
another -- as my eyes reached the edge of the bag, she just waddled off into
the night. I felt somewhat lucky.
Erik
Larry Seiler wrote:
> > Whitetail deer charge???
>
> yup....rut season. In fact, I remained calm..understanding that deer
> require two senses to hone into one's exact...I mean "exact" position. I
> was camoflaged and wearing scent. But...I did not so much as move an eye
> lash or make a sound after the initial charge.
>
> This is a different sort of thing between one that jumped onto the "I make
> wildlife art" bandwagon living in a larger city...and one that painted from
> experience. I really wish when people trash an art genre, they abandoned
> generalities, for it does injustice to people that are just as radically
> artists by nature as others. There are posers in every genre for whatever
> reasons. (an added note Kay....not directed at you personally. Just a
> rant of mine).
>
> But....imagine a 200 pound animal 10 feet away, nostrils flaring, eyes red,
> and huge sharp antlers swaying back and forth waiting to cue in on the
> target! Things like that don't tend to get buried easily for an artist
> because others chose to see little merit in it as "real" art.
>
> > But can you yodel?
>
> hahaha.....well...uhm.....mmm.....probably not.
> But....when I keynote speak....invevitably some of my notoriety goes before
> me and some teen in the auditorium will shout out a request to do animal
> sounds.
>
> Crazy....a man at 44 years of age capable of barking like dogs....not just
> dogs, but specific specie types! Cats.....bobcats, grunts and snarls like
> bears, turkeys yelp and gobble....ducks, geese....and more. People imagine
> this strange person like actually not having much of a life, practicing
> etc; hahahha.....
>
Larry Seiler
> another -- as my eyes reached the edge of the bag, she just waddled off
into
> the night. I felt somewhat lucky.
>
> Erik
that's funny....hahaha....!!
Actually...porkies are very harmless. They remind me of manatee which are
very innocent in nature and aware of little harm to themselves. Porkies
can when riled at close distance shoot out spines....but, tend to waddle
off as you say.
At worst they tend to roll up in a ball....and hope you'll go away.
Funny stuff though!
What is really fun to watch are racoons. Their curious nature....and those
clever little paws, able to turn lids on jars of food, etc; Watched one
one night in our tent, content to let 'em eat what he wanted just because I
was fortunate to be the audience. He turned the lid off an instant coffee
jar very carefully and stuck his paws in to grab grounds.
Yet....they can be very scary too. I've seen big adults stand on their
hind legs and growl very loudly flashing their teeth. I have a hard time
taking the threat serious....but, their bites could be nasty!
peace,
Larry
Larry Seiler
to
> someone in the Realist camp saying Contemporary art is invalid/stupid/not
> art or something else similar.
well...hhmm..having been there, let me say or think out loud, that I think
realists carry a particular defense mechanism and almost "need to" for a
period of their development. I'm not excusing the intolerant nasty
behavior, just trying to help y'all see why its there. I think that the
demands and focus of developing the skills invites such single narrow
mindedness....almost to fight off personal fears of being detracted...of
yielding to one's own laziness, etc;
It took me nearly 15-18 years of endeavoring to paint the way I did that it
possesses me.
Not saying that abstract artists aren't "possessed!" hahahahaaaa....but,
perhaps there is a certain freedom in painting more freely, that allows
more congeniality maybe. Less demand to seek technical things...less
invested, thus less to "protect?" Does that make sense?
At some point though...it is good to see that there are elements that ought
to exist in good realism and good abstract. See...just because someone
learns to render realistically does not make for a good realistic painting.
The artist might know pitifully little about design and composition which
makes the whole thing weak....trite and boring. While others might
espouse the virtues of freedom and expression...but know nothing of the
same.
I can sketch quickly some negative and positive elements that serve to move
the eye throughout the picture plane which have very abstract qualities,
and in essence that is my painting. The rendering after that is simply
fleshing it out and laboring.
I think what many abstract painters arrive at earlier than realists is the
sense of good design....realists often being hung up for years on
developing the ability to render. In a sense....we are all
abstractists...for my "image" of reality is by no means real. Its just
that design is fleshed out a bit more. For some...the need to flesh that
out is a bit redundant.
In fact, I enjoy looking at many abstract pieces now...for being often more
fundamental I see and learn some relationship in design that can offer a
different way to construct my pieces.
I do though think that much abstract art is art for the artist. A language
that most non-artists do not understand.
A strategy to capture the public's mind by abstractist's might be to
recognize when a realist is using a good sense of design and key in to
edify that person, and instead of attacking another realist's work as
poor...help them understand design elements.
The unknowing public buys much art because of subject recognition, but I
want them to like good design over poor design. If the public could begin
to understand when good design is used by a realist...perhaps in time more
of the public would begin to understand contemporary art in general.
Of course....I realize there are times when an abstract painter/artist ops
to ignore design considerations, but then it is usually to make some point,
(unless like immature poorer realist painters they are poorer abstract
painters). Again though...it is by enlarge other artists or people
involved in the arts that are equipped to be discerning enough to catch
that.
> :But....imagine a 200 pound animal 10 feet away, nostrils flaring, eyes
red,
> :and huge sharp antlers swaying back and forth waiting to cue in on the
> :target! <snip>
> Reminds me of when I was dating!
lol.......!!!
> I'd love to hear it. Can you do something and put it in a binaries
"midi"
> n.g.?
> Kay
Hhhmmmm....I think I'll spare everyone. I fear that with all I'm doing to
develop recognition for what I would prefer recognition for....I'd go to my
grave being remembered for such! <smile>
peace,
Larry
Larry Seiler
artist's site- http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
WetCanvas Artists page- (shorter and quicker loading)
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Gallery/S/Larry_Seiler/index.html
ACT ministry home page-
http://netministries.org/see/charmin.exe/CM00117
Bennett
We have enjoyed several of your posts and your very obvious evangelizing on
behalf of abstraction, but most of all, enjoy your animal anecdotes. Having
just read your paean to raccoons and their talented little paws, I have to
say your concerns about their teeth is misplaced. Those cute little paws
with their uncute little claws are what your should shun.
In my checkered past, I lived for a time back East on an estate where the
owner kept prized fighting cocks, which he cared for like beloved pets
(possibly because he had grown old, and no longer actually fought them).
Much of that acreage was in woods, with a generous population of 'coons.
What those animals did to those chickens with their claws was hard to
believe, and very hard to look at. The claws are sharp as knives, and the
'coons use them as such.
Stay healthy and paint well,
Bennett
Larry Seiler wrote in message <7klo63$6...@newsops.execpc.com>...
Larry Seiler
thanks....! really....
> Those cute little paws
> with their uncute little claws are what your should shun.
I don't doubt you are right...not at all.
I do know that for quite awhile up here...there was great concern about
some strain of horrible disease they were carrying.
<snip>
> What those animals did to those chickens with their claws was hard to
> believe, and very hard to look at. The claws are sharp as knives, and
the
> 'coons use them as such.
nasty....
when I was in Boy Scouts years ago...the summer camp found an abandon baby
coon.....and named him Bing. Cutest thing, cried like a baby, paws waving
about. Quite active/energetic.
But....it only makes sense as soft as their paws are, that the claws must
be as you say sharp as knives.....since they can scramble up a tree like
nothing.
>
> Stay healthy and paint well,
thanks Bennett.....and the same for you!
peace,
Larry
Larry Seiler
artist's site- http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
WetCanvas Artists page- (shorter and quicker loading)
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Gallery/S/Larry_Seiler/index.html