One more thing for Fox...
Nerd Gerl
I thought about your "Water Planet" last night and tried to figure out
what objects it could represent in real life.
I thought of many things, and then I thought of the memories connected
with those things.
Thank you. :-)
===============
Naked Angel Art
http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl
Andrew D
nerd...@rcip.com (Nerd Gerl) wrote:
+I'm afraid I'll always be stuck on "objects". And that is ok with me.
+I thought about your "Water Planet" last night and tried to figure out
+what objects it could represent in real life.
+
+I thought of many things, and then I thought of the memories connected
+with those things.
If the true value of abstract art is the viewer's ability to look for
things that aren't there then why would anyone invest thousands of dollars
in it? Just get a sheet of masonite and a four inch paint brush and let
the kids cut loose with a few cans of paint. For $5 you could have a
painting that will keep your mind occupied for decades.
The only difference I can see is a "belief" that a painting selling for
thousands of dollars *must* have a meaning because it was produced by "an
artist", not school kids, and therefore you feel compelled to find
meaning where possibly none exists and where you really have little hope
of finding it if it does exist - unless you're privvy to the inner-mind of
the producer of the piece.
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
news:right-24100...@i165-235.nv.iinet.net.au...
>
>
> If the true value of abstract art is the viewer's ability to look for
> things that aren't there then why would anyone invest thousands of dollars
> in it? Just get a sheet of masonite and a four inch paint brush and let
> the kids cut loose with a few cans of paint. For $5 you could have a
> painting that will keep your mind occupied for decades.
>
of fashionable decorative paintings, and indeed to produce them children
would do as well as elephants or paint ball overalls.
Abstract art, which is an abstraction of reality, or aspects of it, is an
artistic communication of that underlying reality. There is an argument that
all 'representational' painting is abstract as it abstracts a three
dimensional world onto a two dimensional canvas.
--
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." Adolf Hitler
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
It is the conjurers game - see how I make this figure so life like - but it
is not real - an illusion that feeds my lie. And you shall worship at the
alter of my skill and praise my greatness for creating this lie that feeds
your pleasure.
keith
Peter H.M. Brooks <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:ap8jb6$o4f$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
Nerd Gerl
> If the true value of abstract art is the viewer's ability to look for
> things that aren't there then why would anyone invest thousands of dollars
> in it? Just get a sheet of masonite and a four inch paint brush and let
> the kids cut loose with a few cans of paint. For $5 you could have a
> painting that will keep your mind occupied for decades.
Well, as Fox's sig says, "Art is what the Trust Fund Kids say it is."
:-o
Anyway, I see "some" direction in abstract art. Not all of it is just
a "mess".
> The only difference I can see is a "belief" that a painting selling for
> thousands of dollars *must* have a meaning because it was produced by "an
> artist", not school kids, and therefore you feel compelled to find
> meaning where possibly none exists and where you really have little hope
> of finding it if it does exist - unless you're privvy to the inner-mind of
> the producer of the piece.
>
Maybe there's some mental stuff going on here. What if some population
actually sees things in abstract that us realists can't? What if the
abstract brain is physiologically different than that realist brain?
????
> Andy D.
>
> "I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Mani Deli
> A few artists paint work that is primarily abstract but
>has little bits of figuration (usually faces!) here and there. I think this
>divides the work and reduces its impact.
Definitely reduces the impact!
>People have claimed to see The Last Supper in Rothkos' work, which really
>fascinates me.
I saw two large blue assholes in a Pollock which immediately reduced
it's impact to nil. However when I saw a large bed sheet in a Rothko
it puzzled me. I got a sense of immediacy. However, it was so fast
that I never got a chance to experience any impact.
Fox's paintings, should he drop them on your head, aren't really large
enough to have a big impact.
...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/
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
to his paintings not being large enough for your taste.
Mani why didn't you say so in the first place.
keith
Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:8bjgrusk5f07uchap...@4ax.com...
Andrew D
nerd...@rcip.com (Nerd Gerl) wrote:
+right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D) wrote in message
news:<right-24100...@i165-235.nv.iinet.net.au>...
+
+> If the true value of abstract art is the viewer's ability to look for
+> things that aren't there then why would anyone invest thousands of dollars
+> in it? Just get a sheet of masonite and a four inch paint brush and let
+> the kids cut loose with a few cans of paint. For $5 you could have a
+> painting that will keep your mind occupied for decades.
+
+
+Well, as Fox's sig says, "Art is what the Trust Fund Kids say it is."
+:-o
+
+Anyway, I see "some" direction in abstract art. Not all of it is just
+a "mess".
+
+> The only difference I can see is a "belief" that a painting selling for
+> thousands of dollars *must* have a meaning because it was produced by "an
+> artist", not school kids, and therefore you feel compelled to find
+> meaning where possibly none exists and where you really have little hope
+> of finding it if it does exist - unless you're privvy to the inner-mind of
+> the producer of the piece.
+>
+
+Maybe there's some mental stuff going on here. What if some population
+actually sees things in abstract that us realists can't? What if the
+abstract brain is physiologically different than that realist brain?
But the artist to which you referred [Dan] has said that there are no
objects in his work - and he's the abstractionist.
Andrew D
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
+"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
+news:right-24100...@i165-235.nv.iinet.net.au...
+>
+>
+> If the true value of abstract art is the viewer's ability to look for
+> things that aren't there then why would anyone invest thousands of dollars
+> in it? Just get a sheet of masonite and a four inch paint brush and let
+> the kids cut loose with a few cans of paint. For $5 you could have a
+> painting that will keep your mind occupied for decades.
+>
+Well, that isn't the value, at least not of abstract art - it is the value
+of fashionable decorative paintings, and indeed to produce them children
+would do as well as elephants or paint ball overalls.
+
+Abstract art, which is an abstraction of reality, or aspects of it, is an
+artistic communication of that underlying reality. There is an argument that
+all 'representational' painting is abstract as it abstracts a three
+dimensional world onto a two dimensional canvas.
I'm referring more to the sort of expressionism that inhabits Dan's
website since Nerd Girl was referring specifically to Dan's work.
Andrew D
"keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com" <scot...@rogers.com> wrote:
+I agree:
+It is the conjurers game - see how I make this figure so life like - but it
+is not real - an illusion that feeds my lie. And you shall worship at the
+alter of my skill and praise my greatness for creating this lie that feeds
+your pleasure.
As opposed to "I don't know what the hell it is it just came out that way.
But it's great art."
Andrew D
Fox) wrote:
+nerd...@rcip.com (Nerd Gerl) wrote:
+> I'm afraid I'll always be stuck on "objects". And that is ok with me.
+> I thought about your "Water Planet" last night and tried to figure out
+> what objects it could represent in real life.
+>
+> I thought of many things, and then I thought of the memories connected
+> with those things.
+>
+> Thank you. :-)
+
+You're welcome. Most people want to see objects in abstract paintings - I
+could think of several reasons why, such as habit, a need for 'pattern
+recognition,' etc. I personally don't see objects in abstract paintings -
+others or my own. A few artists paint work that is primarily abstract but
+has little bits of figuration (usually faces!) here and there. I think this
+divides the work and reduces its impact.
+
+People have claimed to see The Last Supper in Rothkos' work, which really
+fascinates me.
People have claimed to have seen little green men on the desert plains.
Andrew D
<ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
+(Dan Fox) wrote:
+> A few artists paint work that is primarily abstract but
+>has little bits of figuration (usually faces!) here and there. I think this
+>divides the work and reduces its impact.
+
+Definitely reduces the impact!
+
+>People have claimed to see The Last Supper in Rothkos' work, which really
+>fascinates me.
+
+I saw two large blue assholes in a Pollock which immediately reduced
+it's impact to nil. However when I saw a large bed sheet in a Rothko
+it puzzled me. I got a sense of immediacy. However, it was so fast
+that I never got a chance to experience any impact.
My wife saw a Mondrian poster selling for $35 and remarked that it was the
most expensive gift wrapping paper she'd ever seen.
Andy SD.
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
communicate your point then.
Not that all expressionism is bad, nor is none of it abstract in the proper
sense.
--
The utmost that can happen is that South Africa may secede from the Imperial
partnership. Surely it were a thousand times better that South Africa should
cease to be a member of the Empire than that it should corrupt and undermine
the whole of the Imperial fabric. It is infinitely better that the Empire
has fewer partners than there are, but all working together in the same
upward direction than that it should, by coquetting with legalised
confiscation and such other immoralities, sow the seeds of its own
disruption. And, after all, selfishness, greed and injustice are handmaidens
of cowardice. There is no reason to fear that a wholesome and timely
exercise of the Royal veto will create any great stir in South Africa...
Gandhi -Young India, September 6, 1919; Collected Works, Volume 16, pages
87-89
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
>
> most expensive gift wrapping paper she'd ever seen.
>
Nerd Gerl
<right-25100...@i165-123.nv.iinet.net.au>...
> No. That was only part of the interaction. You conveniently ignored the
> emotional responses I began with.
I didn't "conveniently" ignore anything. I *mistakenly* thought the
objects you pointed out were in the supposed reflection of said
supposed car.
> You didn't pay attention. I listed among other things, success, money,
> women and dry skin. All these are emotional responses that may or may not
> come into play depending on the painting - remember, this is hypothetical
> so I'm not about to get specific about my response to this painting.
I did pay attention. It's just that it's hard to understand run-on
sentences not that my English is perfect or anything I'm just tryin'
to help you out and it appeared that you just listed a bunch of nouns
after another noun that followed a comma so it made me think that the
nouns were part of the noun that preceded the comma and that you saw
these things drawn INTO the reflection instead of your mind know what
I mean?
> But why should I comment specifically on the car? Perhaps my response is
> entirely unrelated to the subject. Perhaps I "see" beyond the obvious.
You most certainly can!!
> +So then
> +perhaps this difference defines the purpose of both arts - with one
> +being to elicit wonder of craft (realism), and the other to jog
> +emotions and/or memories (abstract).
>
> A beautifully painted seascape with cool morning light streaming across
> sand dunes and seagulls nestling together to ward off the breeze can
> rekindle childhood memories even if the subject is not specifically a
> location a viewer grew up in. Similarly, paintings of kids playing can
> draw deep emotional responses from people even though the subject isn't
> their own kids.
Very true!
> +Maybe abstract art is just supposed to make you think. Think about
> +anything, rather than to be admired. Maybe the people who have a
> +crappy life want something at home that doesn't remind them of
> +anything on this planet.
>
> I've followed this line in another post
I couldn't find it. I cannot properly follow up from Google either.
Forgive me.
>
> Andy D.
>
> "I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
=============
Nerd Gerl
is to make some of it myself.
=============
Naked Angel Art
http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl
Andrew D <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in article
<right-25100...@i165-123.nv.iinet.net.au>...
> +Maybe there's some mental stuff going on here. What if some population
> +actually sees things in abstract that us realists can't? What if the
> +abstract brain is physiologically different than that realist brain?
>
> But the artist to which you referred [Dan] has said that there are no
> objects in his work - and he's the abstractionist.
>
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
keith
Andrew D <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
news:right-25100...@i165-123.nv.iinet.net.au...
Mani Deli
>I agree:
>It is the conjurers game - see how I make this figure so life like- but it
>is not real an illusion that feeds my lie.
-a skill at which o'connor is an utter failure. I guess he imagines
that his output has something to do with truth.
>- . And you shall worship at the alter of my skill and praise my greatness for creating this lie that feeds
>your pleasure.
I doubt that your artwork even feeds you.
>> > If the true value of abstract art is the viewer's ability to look for
>> > things that aren't there then why would anyone invest thousands of
>dollars in it?
Never underestimate the gullibility of the faithful.
Erik A. Mattila
Yes, but you're conflating discrete usages of the term "abstract." Ever
since the term "abstract expressionism" was introduced "abstract" has
meant "non-representational." You know, it's like "sophistication" has
somehow become a positive value, shifting far from it's archaic root: "a
clever but fallacious argument." Anyway, "abstract" is context laden:
"abstraction in late-Roman art" means what you are saying, indeed, but
"abstraction in Kandinsky" means "non-representational." It's a hell of
a deal, really, but there's nothing we can do about it. People will
utter what they utter. The only important thing is if we, the
interlocutees, understand what is being uttered.
Erik
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message > >>+of fashionable
attention to the separate meanings.
The meaning of the word 'abstract' in the sense of 'an abstraction from
reality' is still there and has a clear meaning, the use of the word
'abstract' as a lazy short hand for 'abstract expressionism' is what muddies
the waters.
I agree that it is important that we understand what we are saying, which is
why I make it clear that I am using the definition that I am using.
On the matter in hand, I'd agree with you generally, but not necessarily
completely - it can be argued that abstraction in Kandinsky may mean just
that, it may be a difficult argument to sustain, but the language allows one
to do just that by drawing the distinction between 'non-representational'
and 'abstract'.
--
The grandeur of real art, on the contrary, . . . is to rediscover, grasp
again and lay before us that reality from which we become more and more
separated as the formal knowledge which we substitute for it grows in
thickness and imperviousness--that reality which there is grave danger we
might die without ever having known and yet which is simply our life, life
as it really is, life disclosed and made clear . . . .
- Vladimir Nabokov "Marcel Proust (1871-1922)"
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Dan Fox" <danf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> On the other hand, there are two essential ways to produce an abstract
> painting: with no direct reference to the external world, and by using
> external forms as a basis for abstract forms in the work (which is
probably
> a more precise use of the term 'abstraction.') Some artists use a
> combination of the two.
>
I'm not sure there are just two. I think that symbolic, or iconic, art is
also something that has limited reference to the external world - Islamic
carpets, Indian carving (most equisite in the Taj Mahal) and Greek icons
themselves employ a non realistic symbolic route to meaning that is also
visible in a lot of apparently realistic art.
I have recently been exploring this a bit myself. Chinese, Korean and other
ideogram based scripts have their ideograms drawn, originally, from
realism - they are a step further down the line than Egyptian heiroglyphics,
but their glyphs, like cyrillic and indeed our alphabet, have realistic
roots. Pi is like a house, as is Alpha, or Aleph in Hebrew, and so forth.
What I have started to do is to explore using glyphs as a staring point in a
landscape and seeing how they can be formed back into a more
representational form. I am finding it really exciting and fun, some glyphs
are clearly very distantly removed from their origins, particularly glyphs
about abstractions, like happiness, etc.. However, I am seeing how these
glyphs can be un-distilled, for want of a better word, back into a more
realistic setting. Of course this is something that has been done many times
before (there is nothing new under the sun as Ecclesiastes points out),
children's alphabets where the 'S' is shaped like a snake, the 'A' like an
apple and so forth are exploring exactly the same territory.
It is, as I am finding, a vast territory and I think it maps out part of, or
a subset of, or an adjunct to, what Jung was getting at with his idea of a
universal unconcious. I am going to start exploring unicode the computer
representation that is a vast superset of ASCII that allows for the
representation of any (or so it claims) glyph that you wish to see.
Actually I think that this is becoming one of my top projects - and I think
it has many lifetimes worth of exploration in it.
Now, I wonder what made me chose this thread to bring this up.... I'll
rename this posting in case others find this an interesting avenue to
explore
Erik A. Mattila
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>
>>Yes, but you're conflating discrete usages of the term "abstract." Ever
>>since the term "abstract expressionism" was introduced "abstract" has
>>meant "non-representational." You know, it's like "sophistication" has
>>somehow become a positive value, shifting far from it's archaic root: "a
>>clever but fallacious argument." Anyway, "abstract" is context laden:
>>"abstraction in late-Roman art" means what you are saying, indeed, but
>>"abstraction in Kandinsky" means "non-representational." It's a hell of
>>a deal, really, but there's nothing we can do about it. People will
>>utter what they utter. The only important thing is if we, the
>>interlocutees, understand what is being uttered.
>>
>>Erik
>
>
>
> An artist friend of mine prefers the term, 'non-objective art,' which is
> probably more accurate.
>
> Until I began reading RAF, I had never heard the assertion that 'every
> painting has areas of abstraction.' Of course it does. If you restrict your
> visual field and get close enough to any painting, photo, or scene in the
> natural world, you see an abstract pattern. So what? This has nothing to do
> with the overall work being abstract or representational.
Oh, boy, Dan -- this just plunges right into philosophy. I remember
when I first was introduced to George Berkely in my ancient past, I
thought he was pretty cool, yet somewhat daft. But his ideas have kept
nagging at me over the years, and I can say today I see his work as very
profound...especially as it meanders into modernism and post-modernism.
"Esse es percepi" (to be is to be perceived)really helps define, in my
opinion, the foundations of various theories of representation. It
seems to me that the essential quality of the "human" is representation,
whether it is language, myth, art and so on. I'm just saying this
because looking at it this way causes the boundaries between reality and
idealism to grow shakey- it's not always clear if art is just as "real"
as "life' or not.
That's just my prelude to claiming that "abstract" "non-objective"
"non-representational" art is a bit of a myth. Not that it inevitably
represents something else outside of art, but rather that it inevitably
represents itself.
Look at Kandinsky. In his childood in Odessa he saw a lot of homes that
had every nook and cranny tatooed with Ukraninian folk-art. He later
stated this was his inspiration for non-objective painting: "Being in
those buildings was like being inside a painting" he wrote (or words to
that effect.)
But it's interesting that Kandinsky was autonomizing painting, in a way.
-- bringing painting into its own self-defined reality while it departs
from the 'depiction' of something outside of painting. Self-serving, to
the max, I would say. But I don't think that this departs from
"representation" also. It's simply that "painting" became something
represented itself. I don't really buy into the line that abstract art
represents human emotions, although it may evoke emotional responses -
but no more than Mantegna's Martyrdom of St. Sebastian would, or a
macabre Grunwald Chirst in his tomb.
>
> On the other hand, there are two essential ways to produce an abstract
> painting: with no direct reference to the external world, and by using
> external forms as a basis for abstract forms in the work (which is probably
> a more precise use of the term 'abstraction.') Some artists use a
> combination of the two.
In my mind it's like my favorite Gorbachev quote: "True communism is
impossible to attain, but we should never-the-less aspire to it." The
artist has no control what the viewer will do with his/her work: and
people will "see" whatever they are compelled to see. It's not
surprising - think of all those acetics who spend their lifetime
attempting to get past "meaning."
>
> Hans Hoffman came to see Pollack early on (at Lee Krasner's behest) and
> famously upbraided him for not using nature as a basis for his abstract
> work. 'You will run out of ideas!' he said. Well, Pollack did run out of
> ideas, but who knows if it was alcohol and depression or not working from
> nature?
Also the pressure that comes with producing best sellers. That's
knocked the shit out of the growth of many artists. Picasso's pottery
period comes to mind. (AKA "potty period")
>
> But your conclusion is the practical one: we all know what we mean by
> abstract art (well, most of us!), so the word is accurate and useful.
>
Yeah, that's important...I mean, that we know what each-other is saying.
I'll stand by my guns: there's not a helluvalot of confusion about
what one means by saying "abstract art." One of the really great things
I stumbled across in reading about language and meaning is the idea of
the "economy of language." Speakers (meaning us humans) seem to
inevitably develop narrative shorthand on thing that are discussed
frequently. The science-writer Hilary Putnam had some wonderful things
to say about "stereotypes" - against the idea of the stereotype being a
"dumbing-down" of language. His claim it is a question of economy of
speech - and others such as Umberto Eco, Roland Barthes and so on seem
to agree. Putnam used the phrase "a large cat with stripes" to bring
the point home. Most of us know what he means by such a stereotype.
Erik
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
news:3DBB779F...@oco.net...
> >
> "Esse es percepi" (to be is to be perceived)really helps define, in my
> opinion, the foundations of various theories of representation. It
> seems to me that the essential quality of the "human" is representation,
> whether it is language, myth, art and so on. I'm just saying this
> because looking at it this way causes the boundaries between reality and
> idealism to grow shakey- it's not always clear if art is just as "real"
> as "life' or not.
>
division, but trying to hunt down and define the boundaries isn't
particularly rewarding.
>
> Also the pressure that comes with producing best sellers. That's
> knocked the shit out of the growth of many artists. Picasso's pottery
> period comes to mind. (AKA "potty period")
>
>
> >
> > But your conclusion is the practical one: we all know what we mean by
> > abstract art (well, most of us!), so the word is accurate and useful.
> >
> Yeah, that's important...I mean, that we know what each-other is saying.
> I'll stand by my guns: there's not a helluvalot of confusion about
> what one means by saying "abstract art." One of the really great things
> I stumbled across in reading about language and meaning is the idea of
> the "economy of language." Speakers (meaning us humans) seem to
> inevitably develop narrative shorthand on thing that are discussed
> frequently. The science-writer Hilary Putnam had some wonderful things
> to say about "stereotypes" - against the idea of the stereotype being a
> "dumbing-down" of language. His claim it is a question of economy of
> speech - and others such as Umberto Eco, Roland Barthes and so on seem
> to agree. Putnam used the phrase "a large cat with stripes" to bring
> the point home. Most of us know what he means by such a stereotype.
>
considered bad - mostly people can't explain why they are bad.
The economy of expression can indeed lead to an impoverishment of language,
cat is a lazy shorthand for hunderds of different breeds of cat, but it can
also enable you to get on with discussing more complex points without
bothering with irrelevant detail that already is known to all parties and
can be assumed.
chris
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
news:3DBB779F...@oco.net...
> Also the pressure that comes with producing best sellers. That's
> knocked the shit out of the growth of many artists. Picasso's pottery
> period comes to mind. (AKA "potty period")
>
Are you familiar with the work of Edward Deci? He's got some interesting
observations on the conflict between intrinsic and extrinsic rewards (i.e.
doing something for the love of it, or for pay). A related article from the
National Post is here:
http://nationalpost.com/commentary/story.html?id=AC203EF8-DAF5-4C8A-A201-A2C
97DE3DCE1
If the link breaks, go to http://www.nationalpost.com , do a search on "Andy
Lamey" , and click on the link to the article about "healthy, wealthy, and
wise"...
Chris
Peter H.M. Brooks
"chris" <bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:iCWu9.1$cW3....@sapphire.mtt.net...
>
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> news:3DBB779F...@oco.net...
> > Also the pressure that comes with producing best sellers. That's
> > knocked the shit out of the growth of many artists. Picasso's pottery
> > period comes to mind. (AKA "potty period")
> >
>
> Are you familiar with the work of Edward Deci? He's got some interesting
> observations on the conflict between intrinsic and extrinsic rewards (i.e.
> doing something for the love of it, or for pay). A related article from
the
> National Post is here:
>
the professional and the amateur. Though corruption of the Olympic ideal has
occurred, the division used to be absolute, once you had received payment
for any activity X, you were a professional (and hence, if you were paid for
athletic events, ineligible to enter the Olympic games which are amateur
events). So amateurism is like virginity, once lost, never regained - though
you can lose your amateur status in different fields at different times and
only lose your virginity in two or three [or maybe a couple more though it
is rather pushing the definition] ways.
Two views exist at the same time about this, even though they are
contradictory, and are often held simultaneously by the same person [a clear
instance of cognitive dissonance]. One is that amateurs are 'better' than
professionals because they do it for love and consequently devote more time
and energy on the activity, have a more spontaneous approach or, as in 'Zen
and the Art of motorcycle maintenance' might put it, have a spiritual
connection with the activity that a 'mere' professional can never have. The
other view is that, because professionals are paid and do the work as their
main 'day job', not as a 'mere' hobby they must be better at it, more
dedicated, more workmanlike and so forth, so professionals are 'better' than
amateurs.
In my view, though the two views clearly can't both be true all the time,
they are true in different people to different proportions. Some amateur
astronomers, for example, are simply dabblers who buy an expensive telescope
to look at Alpha Centuri irritating professional astronomers by sending in
badly recorded inaccurate or irrelevant 'observations'. Some professional
astronomers have tenured positions and time on expensive telescopes that
they use to explore what are quite likely pointless and nutty hypotheses -
something that is expensive and wasteful but required if academic freedom is
to thrive. Similarly some amateur astronomers have made discoveries quite as
important as professionals and, in the recent case of the SETI initiative,
are actually indispensable to the proper operation of the enterprise.
So, as I expect is often the case where two stereotypes exist that
contradict each other, both are true in different ways - unless, maybe
because of changes in the subject of the stereotype, one is an old, now
inaccurate stereotype with the other the new one that will ultimately be the
replacement. [the association of tattoos with sailors and low-life vs.
actresses {no intent to claim any sort of absolute division between the
three groups} comes to mind]
Andrew D
nerd...@rcip.com (Nerd Gerl) wrote:
+Andrew D <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in article
+<right-25100...@i165-123.nv.iinet.net.au>...
[SNIP]
+> +Maybe abstract art is just supposed to make you think. Think about
+> +anything, rather than to be admired. Maybe the people who have a
+> +crappy life want something at home that doesn't remind them of
+> +anything on this planet.
+> I've followed this line in another post
+I couldn't find it. I cannot properly follow up from Google either.
+Forgive me.
You thanked Dan for producing something which allowed you to drift away
and imagine what objects were emberdded in one of his paintings. I made
the point that if the only real value of abstract art (let's call it
"expressionism" in order to placate the purists) is to allow people to
find "objects" within the variety of shapes then why would it have any
monetary value? You could spend as much time finding your own objects in
the reams of paper thrown away by primary schools on a weekly basis. You
could even spill your own paint and do the same.
In other words, if your total enjoyment of Dan's work comes 00% from your
own imagination, then the work in question has no real value to you
because you could apply your imagination to anything and find exactly the
same enjoyment. Stare at your own curtains, carpet, wallpaper or gift
wrapping paper and see if you can find the same sort of imaginative
objects there.
Erik A. Mattila
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> news:3DBB779F...@oco.net...
>
>>"Esse es percepi" (to be is to be perceived)really helps define, in my
>>opinion, the foundations of various theories of representation. It
>>seems to me that the essential quality of the "human" is representation,
>>whether it is language, myth, art and so on. I'm just saying this
>>because looking at it this way causes the boundaries between reality and
>>idealism to grow shakey- it's not always clear if art is just as "real"
>>as "life' or not.
>
> Surely that is 'to be is to perceive'. I'd agree, mainly, though. There is a
> division, but trying to hunt down and define the boundaries isn't
> particularly rewarding.
I don't think so. You know, it's the old riddle: "If a tree falls in
the forest is there a sound if no one is near to hear it?" Berkeley
would say "no." Somewhat homocenric, but the epistemology of it is that
"reality" is something we construct in our heads.
>
>>Also the pressure that comes with producing best sellers. That's
>>knocked the shit out of the growth of many artists. Picasso's pottery
>>period comes to mind. (AKA "potty period")
>>
>
> Actually I rather liked some of the pots.
Me too...but do you know the story? Picasso felt he had betrayed his
Marxist ethic because he catered to a rich crowd that could afford to
buy his works, and he wanted to do something for "the people." So he
hired a potter and set him up on his Estate, and came in and decorated
the saucers and teacups from time to time. But as it turned out, there
was this vast upper-middle class market base that was willing to pay 500
bucks for a teacup. Still out of reach for the working class. So he
gave up on the project.
>
>>>But your conclusion is the practical one: we all know what we mean by
>>>abstract art (well, most of us!), so the word is accurate and useful.
>>>
>>
>>Yeah, that's important...I mean, that we know what each-other is saying.
>> I'll stand by my guns: there's not a helluvalot of confusion about
>>what one means by saying "abstract art." One of the really great things
>>I stumbled across in reading about language and meaning is the idea of
>>the "economy of language." Speakers (meaning us humans) seem to
>>inevitably develop narrative shorthand on thing that are discussed
>>frequently. The science-writer Hilary Putnam had some wonderful things
>>to say about "stereotypes" - against the idea of the stereotype being a
>>"dumbing-down" of language. His claim it is a question of economy of
>>speech - and others such as Umberto Eco, Roland Barthes and so on seem
>>to agree. Putnam used the phrase "a large cat with stripes" to bring
>>the point home. Most of us know what he means by such a stereotype.
>>
>
> I have also fought against the current vogue for stereotypes to be
> considered bad - mostly people can't explain why they are bad.
It was Walter Lippman who more or less set the stage back in the 1920s,
insofar as mass media is concerned. "Stereotype" was a French printing
term, refering to making casts of set movable type so a new quoin would
not have to be assembled each time the old type wore out. The castings
were called "stereotypes." Somewhere along the line a psychologist
picked up the term and applied it to race relations around the same time
that Lippman wrote about pop-culture as stereotype, in the "dumbing
down" sense.
>
> The economy of expression can indeed lead to an impoverishment of language,
> cat is a lazy shorthand for hunderds of different breeds of cat, but it can
> also enable you to get on with discussing more complex points without
> bothering with irrelevant detail that already is known to all parties and
> can be assumed.
I think it's a double-edged sword..."impoverishment" that is. That
danger always exists with stereotyping, but over-reliance on set-forms
can also do that - natural languages are always fluid and changing. Add
to that the impact of mass communication...well, I think what has
happened because of that is that language use "sectors" have formed. It
may be atavistic - I'm thinking of several example from anthropology
where women, men and priests speak distinct dialects.
Erik
Andrew D
[snip]
+Yes, but you're conflating discrete usages of the term "abstract." Ever
+since the term "abstract expressionism" was introduced "abstract" has
+meant "non-representational." You know, it's like "sophistication" has
+somehow become a positive value, shifting far from it's archaic root: "a
+clever but fallacious argument."
(as in sophistry)
My dictionary list one meaning of sophisticated as "pretentiously or
superficially wise". Kind of buggers Dan's dismissal of the masses as
"unsophisiticated" as if that's some sort of insult. Turns out
sophistication is more dogma and pomposity than genuine wisdom so being
uinsophisticated is probably a plus.
Andrew D
Fox) wrote:
+"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote:
+>
+> Yes, but you're conflating discrete usages of the term "abstract." Ever
+> since the term "abstract expressionism" was introduced "abstract" has
+> meant "non-representational." You know, it's like "sophistication" has
+> somehow become a positive value, shifting far from it's archaic root: "a
+> clever but fallacious argument." Anyway, "abstract" is context laden:
+> "abstraction in late-Roman art" means what you are saying, indeed, but
+> "abstraction in Kandinsky" means "non-representational." It's a hell of
+> a deal, really, but there's nothing we can do about it. People will
+> utter what they utter. The only important thing is if we, the
+> interlocutees, understand what is being uttered.
+>
+> Erik
+
+Hi, Erik -
+
+An artist friend of mine prefers the term, 'non-objective art,' which is
+probably more accurate.
+
+Until I began reading RAF, I had never heard the assertion that 'every
+painting has areas of abstraction.' Of course it does. If you restrict your
+visual field and get close enough to any painting, photo, or scene in the
+natural world, you see an abstract pattern. So what? This has nothing to do
+with the overall work being abstract or representational.
+
+On the other hand, there are two essential ways to produce an abstract
+painting: with no direct reference to the external world,
Hard to do if you plan to actually "produce" something others can see,
touch, taste, smell or hear. How do you, for example, produce an
abstract/expressionist painting without paint or canvas or other
art-related materials?
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
> > "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> > news:3DBB779F...@oco.net...
> >
> >>"Esse es percepi" (to be is to be perceived)really helps define, in my
> >>opinion, the foundations of various theories of representation. It
> >>seems to me that the essential quality of the "human" is representation,
> >>whether it is language, myth, art and so on. I'm just saying this
> >>because looking at it this way causes the boundaries between reality and
> >>idealism to grow shakey- it's not always clear if art is just as "real"
> >>as "life' or not.
> >
> > Surely that is 'to be is to perceive'. I'd agree, mainly, though. There
is a
> > division, but trying to hunt down and define the boundaries isn't
> > particularly rewarding.
>
> I don't think so. You know, it's the old riddle: "If a tree falls in
> the forest is there a sound if no one is near to hear it?" Berkeley
> would say "no." Somewhat homocenric, but the epistemology of it is that
> "reality" is something we construct in our heads.
>
physical world to be a mental construction. A 'sound' is something that is a
quale, so, to exist, it has to be heard - the noise of the tree falling
[that is the physical disturbance of the air] is, of course, always there.
>
> >
> >>Also the pressure that comes with producing best sellers. That's
> >>knocked the shit out of the growth of many artists. Picasso's pottery
> >>period comes to mind. (AKA "potty period")
> >>
> >
> > Actually I rather liked some of the pots.
>
> Me too...but do you know the story? Picasso felt he had betrayed his
> Marxist ethic because he catered to a rich crowd that could afford to
> buy his works, and he wanted to do something for "the people." So he
> hired a potter and set him up on his Estate, and came in and decorated
> the saucers and teacups from time to time. But as it turned out, there
> was this vast upper-middle class market base that was willing to pay 500
> bucks for a teacup. Still out of reach for the working class. So he
> gave up on the project.
>
than his politics!
>
> > I have also fought against the current vogue for stereotypes to be
> > considered bad - mostly people can't explain why they are bad.
>
> It was Walter Lippman who more or less set the stage back in the 1920s,
> insofar as mass media is concerned. "Stereotype" was a French printing
> term, refering to making casts of set movable type so a new quoin would
> not have to be assembled each time the old type wore out. The castings
> were called "stereotypes." Somewhere along the line a psychologist
> picked up the term and applied it to race relations around the same time
> that Lippman wrote about pop-culture as stereotype, in the "dumbing
> down" sense.
>
the identifying of groups by superficial characteristics - 'clever people
wear glasses' sort of thing [a valid stereotype as myopia is indeed linked
to increased IQ].
>
> >
> > The economy of expression can indeed lead to an impoverishment of
language,
> > cat is a lazy shorthand for hunderds of different breeds of cat, but it
can
> > also enable you to get on with discussing more complex points without
> > bothering with irrelevant detail that already is known to all parties
and
> > can be assumed.
>
> I think it's a double-edged sword..."impoverishment" that is. That
> danger always exists with stereotyping, but over-reliance on set-forms
> can also do that - natural languages are always fluid and changing. Add
> to that the impact of mass communication...well, I think what has
> happened because of that is that language use "sectors" have formed. It
> may be atavistic - I'm thinking of several example from anthropology
> where women, men and priests speak distinct dialects.
>
Erik A. Mattila
Well, that's the whole point about common usage - it often doesn't match
up with dictionaries. Dan's use of "unsophisticated" is perfectly clear
to me, and I'm sure most others, even though it doesn't jive with
Wester's. BTW, lexicographers pour over "common usage" and use it as a
basis for developing new "senses" of definition for words. It's an
ongoing process that aspires to keep up with language mutation.
However, maybe Dan could use "lumpin proletariat" or "the unwashed masses."
Erik
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> I think I owe you a response in another thread. I'll check. In the
> meantime, in the spirit of this thread, sort of, I must point out that it
> is 'jibe', not 'jive.' Jive is hip or sarcastic talk. Jibe is 'be
> compatible, similar or consistent; coincide in their characteristics; "The
> two stories don't agree in many details"; "The handwriting checks with the
> signature on the check." And the proper word is 'pore', not 'pour.'
>
I could never live with cheque being mispelt! It just seems so puerile and
wrong.
>
> Also, it's 'lumpen proletariat.' (grin - don't hit me)
>
Indeed.
>
> I personally like 'hoi polloi' (not *the* hoi polloi as often misused).
>
Only by those not up with their Greek!
Andrew D
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
+"Dan Fox" <danf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
+news:20021028190445.209$k...@newsreader.com...
+>
+> I think I owe you a response in another thread. I'll check. In the
+> meantime, in the spirit of this thread, sort of, I must point out that it
+> is 'jibe', not 'jive.' Jive is hip or sarcastic talk. Jibe is 'be
+> compatible, similar or consistent; coincide in their characteristics; "The
+> two stories don't agree in many details"; "The handwriting checks with the
+> signature on the check." And the proper word is 'pore', not 'pour.'
+>
+I could never live with cheque being mispelt! It just seems so puerile and
+wrong.
What can you expect from a nation that drops the "u" out of "neighbour",
presumably to simplify it, yet leaves in the "eigh"??? ;)
And let's not even go near "colour", "centre" and "travelling".......
Erik A. Mattila
Dan Fox wrote:
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>
>>Well, that's the whole point about common usage - it often doesn't match
>>up with dictionaries. Dan's use of "unsophisticated" is perfectly clear
>>to me, and I'm sure most others, even though it doesn't jive with
>>Wester's. BTW, lexicographers pour over "common usage" and use it as a
>>basis for developing new "senses" of definition for words. It's an
>>ongoing process that aspires to keep up with language mutation.
>>
>>However, maybe Dan could use "lumpin proletariat" or "the unwashed
>>masses."
>
>
> I agree, Erik. Many people here (and elsewhere) do of course wear
> unsophistication like a badge. It will probably get the bad guys elected
> again in tomorrow's elections.
>
> I think I owe you a response in another thread. I'll check. In the
> meantime, in the spirit of this thread, sort of, I must point out that it
> is 'jibe', not 'jive.' Jive is hip or sarcastic talk. Jibe is 'be
> compatible, similar or consistent; coincide in their characteristics; "The
> two stories don't agree in many details"; "The handwriting checks with the
> signature on the check."
Have mercy, Dan. I live 20 minutes north of Mexico, and "b" and "v" are
phonetic clones of one another. Also, out here in California "jibe"
is letting the wind on your stern so it catches the boom which knocks
your ass violently all the way to Madagascar. That's no jive!
>
> Also, it's 'lumpen proletariat.' (grin) I personally like 'hoi polloi' (not
> *the* hoi polloi as often misused.
You remind me of the guy at the bookstore in Berkeley who got really
upset when I handed him a note citing "Carl Marx." But thanks for the tip.
Erik
>
>
> Regards,
> Dan
>
nobody
yells and screams their objections. You either get it or you don't. What
does it matter? Liked Fox's website.
>>up with dictionaries. Dan's use of "unsophisticated" is perfectly clear
>>to me, and I'm sure most others, even though it doesn't jive with
>>Wester's. BTW, lexicographers pour over "common usage" and use it as a
>>basis for developing new "senses" of definition for words. It's an
>>ongoing process that aspires to keep up with language mutation.
>>
>>However, maybe Dan could use "lumpin proletariat" or "the unwashed
>>masses."
>
>
> unsophistication like a badge. It will probably get the bad guys elected
> again in tomorrow's elections.
>
> I think I owe you a response in another thread. I'll check. In the
> meantime, in the spirit of this thread, sort of, I must point out that it
> is 'jibe', not 'jive.' Jive is hip or sarcastic talk. Jibe is 'be
> compatible, similar or consistent; coincide in their characteristics; "The
> two stories don't agree in many details"; "The handwriting checks with the
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Dan
>
Mani Deli
>As to what constitutes art: yep, you either know what it looks like or you
>don't.
Dan, are you one possessed of this mystical gift?
>A consensus of qualified people is relatively easy to come by, and
>that is how it has always been determined.
Does one need a degree?
An artist produces a product called artwork, oil on canvas, drawing
painting etc. If many people like it for a time they roughly
considered it art whatever the media or purpose.
Art is a value judgment. It is subjective in that people don't agree
on whether they like it or not. Fox considers shitting on the museum
floor art. I don't. We have a very large differing subjective opinion
on the matter.
Art is also subject to time.What is considered art in the long run is
a matter of a consensus. The emperor's new clothes my still be art,
but will it last? Consider the avant-gone.
Andrew D
Fox) wrote:
+nobody <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
+> The zeitgeist is what dictates 'what is art' no matter how much anyone
+> yells and screams their objections. You either get it or you don't. What
+> does it matter? Liked Fox's website.
+
+Thanks - I've been putting more new stuff on it this month, so check back.
+
+As to what constitutes art: yep, you either know what it looks like or you
+don't. A consensus of qualified people is relatively easy to come by, and
+that is how it has always been determined.
Unless you disagree with the process of "qualification".