HAS THE LINE BEEN CROSSED?
s.robinson7
Scarlett
news:<2RlL5.30195$h%4.23...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>... I
was
just wondering.......................in the 20th century we
decided to split art into
'traditional' (often referred to as chocolate-box art by fine art
degree snobs) and
'contemporary' or 'modern'.
***First of all, the fine art degree snobs know the difference
between
contemporary and modern. There is no such thing as traditional
art.
Somewhere in there is the term 'classical', which I think is very
near the choco-box
for some people, but now we are in the 21st century, and modern
art has been
with us for 100 years, hasn't this become the traditional, the
contemporary?
***"Modern: After Impressionism
Contemporary: After AbEx
So what is modern art now then?
***Modern is still modern. What is the latest now is
Post-post-modernism. If that
confuses you stick the "Neo" term onto styles you know about.
Where does this leave the college tutor?
***What is a college tutor? Another student?
He/she can no longer sniff at a students work that its "a bit
classical" .
***Want to bet?
Surely everything is classical now.
***Based on what reasoning?
Does that mean we can do absolutely anything now without fear of
the art snobs
putting us down?
***Of course you can do absolutely anything. However you just
can't hang
around with us art snobs ;-)
Fingers crossed. ----------
***Eyes crossed -------
Alison A Raimes
s.robinson7 <s.rob...@ntlworld.com> writes
Another art student who has been told to clean up their act. Anyone
secure in what they are doing doesn't care what anyone else says or
thinks - if you believe in your art, then nothing that anyone says to
you will upset you. That is what the art tutors want to hear, and then
they will support you one hundred percent. And I suggest you do some art
history studies if you want to participate in any sort of debate.
--
Alison A Raimes ...... an art snob and proud of it.
http://www.raimes.com
http://artlives.homestead.com
s.robinson7
thanks for replying. But it seems there is a little confusion here. I am
not an art student, but I do work in the art section of a UK university and
I know what I hear, and I know what I see.
There is definitely snobbery at work here and it seems so pointless. If its
good, and if you like it, what can possibly be wrong with it?
I was talking to a student today and , as she said, during the last century
artists rebelled against previous art, but what is there to rebel against
now? Perhaps abstract expressionism is the hated thing, since, as I said
last time, this has become the new classicism.
I dont need to study art history in order to debate with you. What you need
to do is to stop pretending and realise that art is whatever it wants to be,
which ultimately means that it can get back to its original
task............................aesthetics for the sake of decoration.
If art has no meaning outside of a gallery . if it cannot exist in its own
right, perhaps in someone's home, then it perhaps shouldn't be quite so
uppity.
keep your eyes crossed, it may help you to see more clearly.
Steve
"Alison A Raimes" <ali...@raimes.com> wrote in message
news:XdBc9GATyn$5E...@raimes.com...
Peter H.M. Brooks
s.robinson7 <s.rob...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:uDEL5.73590$sE.2...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
> There is definitely snobbery at work here and it seems so pointless.
If its
> good, and if you like it, what can possibly be wrong with it?
>
about things that are inaesthetic - it is then simply an aping of an
establishment view, which is something quite different.
--
That, if I then had waked after long sleep,
Will make me sleep again; and then, in dreaming,
The clouds methought would open, and show riches
Ready to drop upon me, that when I waked
I cried to dream again.
- Caliban, The Tempest.
Alison A Raimes
s.robinson7 <s.rob...@ntlworld.com> writes
>Scarlet, Alison,
>
>thanks for replying. But it seems there is a little confusion here. I am
>not an art student, but I do work in the art section of a UK university and
>I know what I hear, and I know what I see.
Well then what would be the point of having any sort of art education?
Lets all just do what we want - any chance of a value system goes out
the window with your woolly structure.
What artists should be rebelling about is BAD art. And that means
opposing the *everything is art* nonsense. Everything may be *art*, but
not everything is *Fine Art* and that is what is taught in Universities.
I suggest you re-adjust your vision and remember that over ninety
percent of those students you work with will never make it as an artist.
--
Alison A Raimes
http://www.raimes.com
http://artlives.homestead.com
Scarlett
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:8tn56g$7ri$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
:
: s.robinson7 <s.rob...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
: news:uDEL5.73590$sE.2...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
: >
: > There is definitely snobbery at work here and it seems so
pointless.
: If its
: > good, and if you like it, what can possibly be wrong with it?
: >
: I think that this is a misreading of 'snobbery'. You can't be
snobbish
: about things that are inaesthetic - it is then simply an aping
of an
: establishment view, which is something quite different.
And what is the superior view Peter?
Establishment view, to me, means someone who has made a
commitment involving a lot of money and time. Studying. Going
without sleep. Believing in something and/or loving it enough to
devote 4 years or longer to something that is almost guaranteed
not to have a financial payoff? This also involves an incredible
amount of DISCIPLINE! There is no audience to cheer. It is easier
to make what you and Steve do call "traditional art" (though
there is no such thing) because the majority of the public is
visually illiterate.
How much easier to *fit art in* in one's *spare time*. A lot
cheaper too. Much more practical to pursue a career with a steady
paycheck. But you want it all don't you? How can you possibly
assume to be entitled to the same things someone who has
dedicated their lives to at great cost??? How arrogant! Yes,
there are incredible artists I know that are self-taught.
However, they kept their eyes open, never assumed they knew it
all and had a hunger to learn - always! Starting out with an
attitude that you already know it all is totally absurd and you
are setting yourself up for failure...
You will never achieve credibility and that's the best thing you
earn with an art degree:
C_R_E_D_I_B_I_L_I_T_Y
--
Scarlett
Website:
http://ScarlettDecker.homestead.com
Scarlett
"s.robinson7" <s.rob...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:uDEL5.73590$sE.2...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
:
: thanks for replying. But it seems there is a little confusion
here. I am
: not an art student, but I do work in the art section of a UK
university and
: I know what I hear, and I know what I see.
Do you *really* think working in an area lets you acquire
sufficient knowledge??? How absurd!
:
: There is definitely snobbery at work here and it seems so
pointless. If its
: good, and if you like it, what can possibly be wrong with it?
Just what do you mean by snobbery? Do you mean they exclude you
from their discussions? Do they treat you as though you are not
*one of them*? What in the world do you expect???? Do you think
that by being around it but not studying it that you can absorb
their information? How silly...
:
: I was talking to a student today and , as she said, during the
last century
: artists rebelled against previous art, but what is there to
rebel against
: now?
So you acquire your knowledge from a student? It's a start.
Perhaps abstract expressionism is the hated thing, since, as I
said
: last time, this has become the new classicism.
And as I said before AbEx has *NOT* become the new classicism. If
you had spoken with a student with a bit more knowledge or even
(GASP!) a professor, you might have been aware that AbEx
co-existed with Pop art, Minimalism and many other stylistic
forms. The 20th century allowed unprecedented freedom of artistic
expression with a myriad of *isms* - none dominant and none the
*proper* art style. Artists were free to pursue any *ism* and
create others. Do you feel intimidated by this wonderful *freedom
of choice* and diversity??? Study some more. It isn't the least
bit scary - honest! There is a great book called "The Pluralist
Era" which may make this frightening phenomenon understandable to
you.
: I don't need to study art history in order to debate with you.
Yes you most certainly do! Otherwise, you become an Archie Bunker
caricature subject to ridicule on this ng. When you make blanket
statements
(and you have) you are laying the fuel for flames.
What you need
: to do is to stop pretending and realize that art is whatever it
wants to be,
: which ultimately means that it can get back to its original
: task............................aesthetics for the sake of
decoration.
Good statement, Arch...
: If art has no meaning outside of a gallery . if it cannot exist
in its own
: right, perhaps in someone's home, then it perhaps shouldn't be
quite so
: uppity.
Just go smack that art upside its ugly head. Show it who the boss
is!
: keep your eyes crossed, it may help you to see more clearly.
"None so blind as those who will not see"
Thomas Ziorjen
> [...] What you need
> to do is to stop pretending and realise that art is whatever it wants to be,
> which ultimately means that it can get back to its original
> task............................aesthetics for the sake of decoration.
This statement is such a mess it is almost impossible to respond to. Stop
pretending what? That we have ideas about art? Do you mean we should stop
thinking about art? What it should do?
And why do you assume that art's only original task was decoration? What about
the symbolic? What about narrative? And what about all the things we have
learned to do since then?
You are putting art in a pretty small and shallow box, and personally I can't
accept that. And frankly why should I?
The line I see being crossed here is that you have entered into an area of
debate that you are clearly not equipped to deal with. "When the only tool you
have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
--
Thomas
online portfolio:
http://mypage.uniserve.ca/~sn3222
http://www.egroups.com/group/artlives
http://artlives.homestead.com
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Scarlett" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
>
> And what is the superior view Peter?
> Establishment view, to me, means someone who has made a
> commitment involving a lot of money and time. Studying. Going
> without sleep. Believing in something and/or loving it enough to
> devote 4 years or longer to something that is almost guaranteed
> not to have a financial payoff? This also involves an incredible
> amount of DISCIPLINE! There is no audience to cheer. It is easier
> to make what you and Steve do call "traditional art" (though
> there is no such thing) because the majority of the public is
> visually illiterate.
>
I understand your point about all the blood, sweat, tears etc., but it
isn't that that makes good art - not even the discipline [in capital
letters or not]. Sadly an awful lot effort doesn't equate to a good
result.
I don't know where I have used the phrase 'traditional art', maybe you
can find the reference.
>
> How much easier to *fit art in* in one's *spare time*. A lot
> cheaper too. Much more practical to pursue a career with a steady
> paycheck. But you want it all don't you? How can you possibly
> assume to be entitled to the same things someone who has
> dedicated their lives to at great cost??? How arrogant! Yes,
> there are incredible artists I know that are self-taught.
> However, they kept their eyes open, never assumed they knew it
> all and had a hunger to learn - always! Starting out with an
> attitude that you already know it all is totally absurd and you
> are setting yourself up for failure...
>
This is all rather confused. I do see that you are feeling some emotion
about something, but it isn't quite clear what.
Why should anybody be 'entitled' to anything? Why should great cost,
unless it is a direct payment in the usual sense, entitle somebody to
some result?
I don't know where you get this idea about anybody having an attitude of
knowing it all - mostly it is something you find in adolescents or
recent graduates. Who is the adolescent or recent graduate that you have
in mind here?
>
> You will never achieve credibility and that's the best thing you
> earn with an art degree:
>
> C_R_E_D_I_B_I_L_I_T_Y
>
Well, I get all the capital letters and accompanying emoting, but, sadly
a degree of any sort, even an art degree, doesn't buy credibility at
all! If a degree does anything, it should teach, if it fails to teach,
then it is worthless. A diploma on the wall is just wasting space that
would be better used with a painting or drawing.
No, credibility can come from good marketing of rubbish, or poor
marketing but luck with good stuff - or it may never come at all in the
lifetime of the artist. Mostly, though, it comes with mediocrity tied to
mediocre marketing - after all most art measured by any standard is
mediocre.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Tu es ianua diaboli - Tertullian
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Alison A Raimes <alis...@SPAMraimes.com> wrote:
>
> What artists should be rebelling about is BAD art. And that means
> opposing the *everything is art* nonsense. Everything may be *art*,
but
> not everything is *Fine Art* and that is what is taught in
Universities.
>
artists. Still, it is nice to see that you are against bad art [with
capitals in the standard comic book tradition], at least you are
somebody in a good position to start working against it!
Pity about your inbuilt negativity, though. People shouldn't be devoting
their lives to fighting bad art - they should be devoting their time to
seeking out and promoting good art.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Thomas Ziorjen <thomas_...@sunshine.net> wrote:
>
> The line I see being crossed here is that you have entered into an
area of
> debate that you are clearly not equipped to deal with. "When the only
tool you
> have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
>
such a helpful remark. This is after all rec.arts.fine, not
sci.arts.fine or hist.arts.fine, it is a recreational group, where
things are discussed for fun. Clearly people have to learn from
somewhere, I would rather somebody who is prepared to express an opinion
and learn from the response to someone who is afraid to speak for fear
of being bullied and mocked.
Clearly you can, as you did, mention other aspects of art, and even be
helpful with recommendations of places to read more on the subject. It
strikes me that to react so strongly to a fairly innocent little posting
reflects a level of insecurity that shouldn't really be there.
A few newsgroups manage to indulge in serious discussion, whilst having
a degree of banter and joshing. I know that this takes maturity and
self-confidence, but there isn't really any reason why r.a.f shouldn't
be such a place. Artists aren't all so brittle and insecure that they
have to react like scalded cats to anything that they feel might be a
threat.
alison...@my-deja.com
Peter H.M. Brooks <pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> Fine Art certainly isn't taught in
universities, it is produced by
> artists. Still, it is nice to see that you are
against bad art [with
> capitals in the standard comic book tradition],
at least you are
> somebody in a good position to start working
against it!
Fine Art certainly IS taught in Art schools -
just as it has been taught for hundreds of years
in Western Society. If you choose to spend up to
seven years of your life studying Fine Art then
you are accepting a structure of discipline. One
that is steeped in tradition.
>
> Pity about your inbuilt negativity, though.
People shouldn't be devoting
> their lives to fighting bad art - they should
be devoting their time to
> seeking out and promoting good art.
>
Pity about your crap art. One certainly won't
find anything other when searching your pathetic
site. A dose of Fine Art training would soon
bring your world crashing down.
Alison A Raimes
Andrew Werby
s.robinson7 wrote:
now we are in the 21st century, and modern art has been with us for 100
years, hasn't this become the traditional, the contemporary? So what is
modern art now then? Where does this leave the college tutor? He/she can no
longer sniff at a students work that its "a bit classical" .
Surely everything is classical now.
Does that mean we can do absolutely anything now without fear of the art
snobs putting us down?
Fingers crossed.
[You've got that half right...]
"Pity about your crap art. One certainly won't
find anything other when searching your pathetic
site. A dose of Fine Art training would soon
bring your world crashing down."
-Alison R.
[See what I mean?]
Andrew Werby
http://unitedartworks.com
Peter H.M. Brooks
<alison...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8tpgrd$4c6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> . A dose of Fine Art training would soon
> bring your world crashing down.
>
future life you will be able to rebuild it.
--
That, if I then had waked after long sleep,
Will make me sleep again; and then, in dreaming,
The clouds methought would open, and show riches
Ready to drop upon me, that when I waked
I cried to dream again.
- Caliban, The Tempest. .
Peter H.M. Brooks
Andrew Werby <and...@computersculpture.com> wrote in message
news:EHYL5.378886$i5.62...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com...
> [You've got that half right...]
>
> "Pity about your crap art. One certainly won't
> find anything other when searching your pathetic
> site. A dose of Fine Art training would soon
> bring your world crashing down."
>
> -Alison R.
>
> [See what I mean?]
>
nonentities and their insecurities. Whatever you do, you will find that
those that can't will find a way to carp. Be brave, ignore the plebs and
do what you have to do!
I must say that it is a great thing that r.a.f. has a resident,
belligerent female philistine - as long as she doesn't bully the
vulnerable, I am happy that she provides a great service!
Thomas Ziorjen
> In article <39FFB89...@sunshine.net>,
> Thomas Ziorjen <thomas_...@sunshine.net> wrote:
> >
> > The line I see being crossed here is that you have entered into an
> area of
> > debate that you are clearly not equipped to deal with. "When the only
> tool you
> > have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
> >
> This is true enough, as far as it goes. But I don't think that it is
> such a helpful remark. This is after all rec.arts.fine, not
> sci.arts.fine or hist.arts.fine, it is a recreational group, where
> things are discussed for fun.
So we should aim our discussion at the hobbyist level? Sorry, am I in the
wrong group? Is there a usenet group where they take art a little more
seriously than that?
Why aim for the lowest common denominator, when you can challenge people to
do their homework and get up to speed?
> Clearly people have to learn from
> somewhere,
Books, classes, galleries, films, and yeah sure the internet... but if
they're going to make silly, uninformed, reductive statements like that in
an unmoderated discussion group they're going to get flamed. Ya takes yer
chances.
> I would rather somebody who is prepared to express an opinion
> and learn from the response to someone who is afraid to speak for fear
> of being bullied and mocked.
Hey why not learn first & express opinions when they've got something
substantial behind them?
<snip>
Peter H.M. Brooks
Thomas Ziorjen <thomas_...@sunshine.net> wrote in message
news:3A006B73...@sunshine.net...
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
>
> > In article <39FFB89...@sunshine.net>,
> > Thomas Ziorjen <thomas_...@sunshine.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > The line I see being crossed here is that you have entered into an
> > area of
> > > debate that you are clearly not equipped to deal with. "When the
only
> > tool you
> > > have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
> > >
> > This is true enough, as far as it goes. But I don't think that it is
> > such a helpful remark. This is after all rec.arts.fine, not
> > sci.arts.fine or hist.arts.fine, it is a recreational group, where
> > things are discussed for fun.
>
> So we should aim our discussion at the hobbyist level? Sorry, am I in
the
> wrong group? Is there a usenet group where they take art a little
more
> seriously than that?
>
being inappropriate, but I don't think that you need to apologise. But
then you don't make a habit of attacking people, but, rather, attempt to
elevate the discussion. So, I think that even if you did enter into a
hobbyist level group you could both help in giving interesting ideas and
learn from the ideas that came unformed from people who were just
starting. I think that anybody with wisdom would have the humility to
know that there is always a possibility to learn from naive. I see no
reason to think that you wouldn't be wise enough for that.
>
> Why aim for the lowest common denominator, when you can challenge
people to
> do their homework and get up to speed?
>
How do you deal with those who have clearly done their 'homework' but
have also, just as clearly, not got up to speed?
How indeed, do you deal with those how have clearly [or, maybe to the
uneducated eye not] got up to speed without doing the 'homework'?
How do you deal with the objective value of art and avoid the pitfalls
of misunderstanding conventional second-rate aping as art?
I think that these are important questions.
>
> > Clearly people have to learn from
> > somewhere,
>
> Books, classes, galleries, films, and yeah sure the internet... but if
> they're going to make silly, uninformed, reductive statements like
that in
> an unmoderated discussion group they're going to get flamed. Ya takes
yer
> chances.
>
Well, yes. The naive might think that there is some value in attacking
them. The wise simply leave such statements alone. Why should anybody
need to 'flame' such people? In seriously intellectual discussion
groups, where people are less insecure, you don't get 'flaming' simply
because people are not so well informed. If anything, such people are
ignored. At best, they form [as has apparently happened here] a starting
point for a more interesting discussion. If the latter occurs, I think
that their naivety has provided valuable fodder and is to be welcomed
for just that.
>
> > I would rather somebody who is prepared to express an opinion
> > and learn from the response to someone who is afraid to speak for
fear
> > of being bullied and mocked.
>
> Hey why not learn first & express opinions when they've got something
> substantial behind them?
>
Simply because it is only the arrogant and ill-informed who ever arrive
at the conclusion that they have 'something substantial behind them'.
True wisdom arrives when you understand how much you have to learn. A
degree, for example, is only the first, tiny, faltering step towards
understanding a subject it is crass naivety for anybody to think that it
is an indication of having arrived anywhere -furthermore, it is a
powerful indictment of a body that confers degrees for them to allow any
graduate to have such a pathetically inflated opinion of themselves.
No, what is important in debate is honesty, openness and a willingness
to learn. Those whose minds are so closed as to believe that academic
art is the final answer ought to be excluded from intelligent debate,
rather than trying to control it.
Alison A Raimes
Werby <and...@computersculpture.com> writes
>
>s.robinson7 wrote:
>now we are in the 21st century, and modern art has been with us for 100
>years, hasn't this become the traditional, the contemporary? So what is
>modern art now then? Where does this leave the college tutor? He/she can no
>longer sniff at a students work that its "a bit classical" .
>
>Surely everything is classical now.
>
>Does that mean we can do absolutely anything now without fear of the art
>snobs putting us down?
>
>Fingers crossed.
>
>[You've got that half right...]
Declared by the power of Werby?
>
>"Pity about your crap art. One certainly won't
>find anything other when searching your pathetic
>site. A dose of Fine Art training would soon
>bring your world crashing down."
>
>-Alison R.
>
>[See what I mean?]
>
Your right. Brookes daubings can't possibly be compared with anything
that has a start, a journey and an end. Glad the Werby vision came to
our rescue here.
Alison A Raimes
<pe...@new.co.za> writes
>Indeed. You make your point well. But everybody has to put up with these
>nonentities and their insecurities. Whatever you do, you will find that
>those that can't will find a way to carp. Be brave, ignore the plebs and
>do what you have to do!
>
>I must say that it is a great thing that r.a.f. has a resident,
>belligerent female philistine - as long as she doesn't bully the
>vulnerable, I am happy that she provides a great service!
And the vulnerable would be those who you think you have to stand up
for? My god, your ego is going to burst one of these days. Thank god
this forum has someone as stupid as you to do the big brother job of
looking after those in need. By the way, did Marilyn and her cronies
invite you to join their little egroup? I can't imagine it without their
knight in shining armour.
Alison A Raimes
<thomas_...@sunshine.net> writes
>So we should aim our discussion at the hobbyist level? Sorry, am I in the
>wrong group? Is there a usenet group where they take art a little more
>seriously than that?
Hey Thomas, I think this group just serves as a reminder of why we have
groups like Artlives! Its always good to drop in here and slum it for a
couple of days with the likes of the dumbo Brookes - it always gets me
psyched up for an intelligent debate with educated artists after the mud
slinging ;-) ............. off we go then .............
Alison A Raimes
<pe...@new.co.za> writes
>
><alison...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:8tpgrd$4c6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> . A dose of Fine Art training would soon
>> bring your world crashing down.
>>
>I am so sorry to hear that your world crashed down. I hope that in some
>future life you will be able to rebuild it.
Have you ever considered a course in basic reading skills? you might
want to add on one in grade one art lessons too, while you are
enrolling. Your reading skills and basic grammar are on a par with your
art skills ..... somewhere between zero and nil.
Erik A. Mattila
>
> Fine Art certainly isn't taught in universities, it is produced by
> artists.
I'm having trouble grasping this, Peter. You seem to be saying something
akin to "Wheat doesn't grow in Kansas, it's found in cereal boxes." Are
you honestly claiming that a university art department doesn't teach 'fine
art' or just saying that someone can be an artist without a university
degree?
Erik Mattila
Erik A. Mattila
In the spirit of mediation, Alison, Peter's may have been a simple
overstatement. As vulnerable as I obvious am, Peter never defended me when
you were bullying me. In fact he may have enjoyed seeing me squirm and
suffer. (egad, he may have even secretly agreed with your position on, for
example, art prostitution!)
Erik
Thomas Ziorjen
>
> Well, no, Thomas. It is good that you are prepared to apologise for
> being inappropriate, but I don't think that you need to apologise. But
> then you don't make a habit of attacking people, but, rather, attempt to
> elevate the discussion. So, I think that even if you did enter into a
> hobbyist level group you could both help in giving interesting ideas and
> learn from the ideas that came unformed from people who were just
> starting. I think that anybody with wisdom would have the humility to
> know that there is always a possibility to learn from naive. I see no
> reason to think that you wouldn't be wise enough for that.
Look Peter, that wasn't an apology, and I didn't (and don't) think I was
being inappropriate. Nor is flattery going to advance your cause.
Basically what I think is: if you don't know you_should_find_out -- not
expect people to dumb down either their art, or their thinking and
discussion about art, to correspond with your level of understanding. And
if you don't know, you do the research or ask polite questions. What you
*don't* do is jump into an art group, throwing around terminology your
unsure of, while using phrases such as "fine art degree snobs". Anyone who
does *deserves* the unfriendly feedback. We're talking basic social skills
here.
And the rest of your post seems to me to be anti-Alison propaganda, and I
won't participate. She may state her opinions a little more harshly that I
would, but basically I'm in agreement with them. That goes for Scarlett
too. I don't have a degree, but I do have a huge investment in my art
education, and I'm not about to sympathize with anyone whose aim is to
trivialize or devalue that.
--
Scarlett
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote in message
news:3A009098...@tomatoweb.com...
What he is saying is that he calls himself an "Artist" and has no
degree - therefore, anyone with a degree had better not act as
though they know anything more than him because degrees are
useless and universities teach nothing.
Cute moronic statement.
"I put on bandages, therefore I am a doctor"
(At least this is waking up this newsgroup!)
--
Scarlett
Website:
http://ScarlettDecker.homestead.com
:
Scarlett
I think you and I had a flamewar about prostituting one's art.
Alison wasn't involved except to say that "You've been sitting on
the fence so long your testicles are.....(?)" Don't remember what
your testicles were doing but it was a good one!
I don't think we ever resolved that one ;-)
--
Scarlett
http://ScarlettDecker.homestead.com
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote in message
news:3A00930E...@tomatoweb.com...
Scarlett
(snip)
: Simply because it is only the arrogant and ill-informed who
ever arrive
: at the conclusion that they have 'something substantial behind
them'.
Which is how you perceive the "educated" - ill-informed?Amazing!
:
: True wisdom arrives when you understand how much you have to
learn.
I agree with that statement. However, I see this as applying or
being felt only to people who have done extensive research in
their fields. On the day I received my degree I realized that if
I studied my entire life I would learn only a minute portion of
what I needed/wanted to know about art.
BUT PEOPLE LIKE YOU
read a coffee-table book and with the anonymity of the internet
think you can invalidate my own knowledge?
I know so little, but you and your ilk know incredibly less.
A
: degree, for example, is only the first, tiny, faltering step
towards
: understanding a subject it is crass naivety for anybody to
think that it
: is an indication of having arrived anywhere -furthermore, it is
a
: powerful indictment of a body that confers degrees for them to
allow any
: graduate to have such a pathetically inflated opinion of
themselves.
So degree-holders should be aware that people who have not
studied may be their equal? Degree-holders should treat weekend
hobbiests as equals?
How reasonable :-P
: No, what is important in debate is honesty, openness and a
willingness
: to learn. Those whose minds are so closed as to believe that
academic
: art is the final answer ought to be excluded from intelligent
debate,
: rather than trying to control it.
Can you even READ? I stated that many artists I know and respect
are self-taught. However, what differentiates them from you and
others that are so anti-education is that while they did not
receive traditional education that granted a degree they never
closed their eyes and minds to art. They worked and studied and
learned just as any academic student did. They never poo-pooed
the value of academic education but for various reasons of their
own were unable to persue art via the traditional method. No,
they are certainly equal with degree-holders but they are few and
far between and are certainly not your "Sunday painters" that one
finds here.
And in this matter, my time is more valuable than yours and I am
unwilling to waste more with you.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> And the vulnerable would be those who you think you have to stand up
> for? My god, your ego is going to burst one of these days. Thank god
> this forum has someone as stupid as you to do the big brother job of
> looking after those in need. By the way, did Marilyn and her cronies
> invite you to join their little egroup? I can't imagine it without
their
> knight in shining armour.
>
Your ability to reveal yourself never ceases to amaze me!
You reveal:
- Your ego problem (obvious to anybody)
- Your stupidity (ditto)
- Your desire to run a web-group with the famously fascist rules [laugh
a rule if anybody is interested]
- Your belief that prople only run web-groups for their own
self-aggrandisment
- Your belief that you are a knight in shining armour
I wonder if you can do better next time - maybe you could accuse me of
having your inside leg measurement!
Peter H.M. Brooks
> overstatement. As vulnerable as I obvious am, Peter never defended me
when
> you were bullying me. In fact he may have enjoyed seeing me squirm
and
> suffer. (egad, he may have even secretly agreed with your position on,
for
> example, art prostitution!)
>
Alison...
Peter H.M. Brooks
> > Hey Thomas, I think this group just serves as a reminder of why we
have
> groups like Artlives!
>
Hitler Youth type rules for your little group
wouldn't dream of joining it in a million years.
>
> off we go then .............
>
even more of an ass of yourself, but, you are certainly more than free
to go.
Peter H.M. Brooks
world haven't had university degrees.
However, I am making the further point that fine art is produced by
artists, another truism, but it reflects the fact that it isn't produced
by universities, nor does a university education ensure that somebody
will produce fine art - certainly not in the same way that a university
education will ensure that an Engineering student will be able to do
engineering.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Scarlett <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote in message
news:9q3M5.62486$YX4.1...@news2.giganews.com...
>
> What he is saying is that he calls himself an "Artist" and has no
> degree - therefore, anyone with a degree had better not act as
> though they know anything more than him because degrees are
> useless and universities teach nothing.
>
always talking about themselves.
Actually, my point was purely theoretical, and most certainly was not
that universities are useless [though there
are very evident cases where they have failed!!] and they do teach an
awful lot.
Still, you didn't get the above point when I made it last time, so there
probably isn't much sense in making it now.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Nor is flattery going to advance your cause.
>
>
> Basically what I think is: if you don't know you_should_find_out --
not
> expect people to dumb down either their art, or their thinking and
> discussion about art, to correspond with your level of understanding.
And
> if you don't know, you do the research or ask polite questions. What
you
> *don't* do is jump into an art group, throwing around terminology your
> unsure of, while using phrases such as "fine art degree snobs".
Anyone who
> does *deserves* the unfriendly feedback. We're talking basic social
skills
> here.
>
different topics all the time. Generally they are either ignored or
pointed in the right direction, with references to books, articles or
web-pages that will help them get a better idea. Of course, in some
fairly primitive groups a mass attack on the unfortunate is launched,
but then they appear to thrive on such attacks rather than on the
subject matter and are generally best avoided.
>
> I don't have a degree, but I do have a huge investment in my art
> education, and I'm not about to sympathize with anyone whose aim is to
> trivialize or devalue that.
>
intend to either devalue of trivialize your, or anybody elses,
investment. However, it is important to distinguish effort and
investment from results. Thousands of people put huge effort into
various sports, but only a tiny elite ever manage to be good enough for
the Olympic games and even fewer win them.
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
> news:8tpsg0$oil$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> (snip)
> : Simply because it is only the arrogant and ill-informed who
> ever arrive
> : at the conclusion that they have 'something substantial behind
> them'.
>
> Which is how you perceive the "educated" - ill-informed?Amazing!
>
can't read what is written!
The ill-informed are those who consider their education to be more
important than their results. Let me give a simple example, would you
rather go to a doctor with a wall full of diplomas, or to one who you
knew had great success in curing people?
>
> :
> : True wisdom arrives when you understand how much you have to
> learn.
>
> I agree with that statement. However, I see this as applying or
> being felt only to people who have done extensive research in
> their fields. On the day I received my degree I realized that if
> I studied my entire life I would learn only a minute portion of
> what I needed/wanted to know about art.
>
True. This was rather my point!
>
> read a coffee-table book and with the anonymity of the internet
> think you can invalidate my own knowledge?
>
I am afraid that I haven't read many coffee-table books, maybe I should
read more!
You persist in misundersanding my point, I certainly don't 'invalidate'
your knowledge. I don't even try to.
>
> I know so little, but you and your ilk know incredibly less.
>
I wonder who you imagine my ilk to be. People you misunderstand maybe?
>
> A
> : degree, for example, is only the first, tiny, faltering step
> towards
> : understanding a subject it is crass naivety for anybody to
> think that it
> : is an indication of having arrived anywhere -furthermore, it is
> a
> : powerful indictment of a body that confers degrees for them to
> allow any
> : graduate to have such a pathetically inflated opinion of
> themselves.
>
> So degree-holders should be aware that people who have not
> studied may be their equal? Degree-holders should treat weekend
> hobbiests as equals?
>
This is certainly true in many disciplines. Not of all graduates, nor of
all hobbyists. It is surprising how much archaelogy, for example, has
been done by enthusiastic amateurs, and just how good they have been.
Mean while universities have produced hundreds of people, trained in
archaelogy who have done nothing significant.
>
> : No, what is important in debate is honesty, openness and a
> willingness
> : to learn. Those whose minds are so closed as to believe that
> academic
> : art is the final answer ought to be excluded from intelligent
> debate,
> : rather than trying to control it.
>
> Can you even READ? I stated that many artists I know and respect
> are self-taught. However, what differentiates them from you and
> others that are so anti-education is that while they did not
> receive traditional education that granted a degree they never
> closed their eyes and minds to art.
>
It is bizarre that you have this idea that I am anti-education. I am all
for it - however, I don't worship it as a shrine. You appear to take
criticism of it as being an insult to some god. Actually criticism is
what enables things to be improved.
Actually, of course, I haven't even criticised it - I have only
criticised those who have an over-inflated opinion of it.
>
> They worked and studied and
> learned just as any academic student did. They never poo-pooed
> the value of academic education but for various reasons of their
> own were unable to persue art via the traditional method. No,
> they are certainly equal with degree-holders but they are few and
> far between and are certainly not your "Sunday painters" that one
> finds here.
>
Probably just as few and far between as good artists with degrees.
>
> And in this matter, my time is more valuable than yours and I am
> unwilling to waste more with you.
>
Don't worry, you haven't wasted it! I am, as I have said, very surprised
at your misunderstandings. It would be interesting to know how you
arrived at them. But, if you don't reply, I will have to assume that
they arise from loyalty.
Erik A. Mattila
> Erik A. Mattila <emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote in message
> news:3A009098...@tomatoweb.com...
> > "Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Fine Art certainly isn't taught in universities, it is produced by
> > > artists.
> >
> > I'm having trouble grasping this, Peter. You seem to be saying
> something
> > akin to "Wheat doesn't grow in Kansas, it's found in cereal boxes."
> Are
> > you honestly claiming that a university art department doesn't teach
> 'fine
> > art' or just saying that someone can be an artist without a university
> > degree?
> >
> I am stating the obvious truism that most artists in the history of the
> world haven't had university degrees.
>
> However, I am making the further point that fine art is produced by
> artists, another truism, but it reflects the fact that it isn't produced
> by universities, nor does a university education ensure that somebody
> will produce fine art - certainly not in the same way that a university
> education will ensure that an Engineering student will be able to do
> engineering.
Yet universities don't make great engineering, engineers do. Or am I
confused?
If I'm not mistaken, 'fine art' as such is fairly modern, in terms of
university curriculum. Before that there were art academies, and before
that there were apprenticeship programs. So if you're going to talk about
art history, it seems like you either have to include these sorts of
training venues, or, if not, talk about art history exclusively during the
historical period that univerity curriculum exists. I think it's very
possible that in this period (since university fine art curriculum) that
most artist do have degrees. Even those who studied under Walter Foster,
Bob Ross and Alexander, were never-the-less studying art.
Do you follow me? If you take the time-period from the flaking of an
achulean flint to the design of the International Space Station, you could
say that most engineers didn't have university degrees - but that would be
sort of a silly claim.
Erik Mattila
Erik A. Mattila
> Probably just as few and far between as good artists with degrees.
I have an idea, Peter. Produce a list of artists that you regard as 'good
artists' and let's determine if they have art degrees or not. With a good
enough sample, we could even do some basic statistics. But I would say
that to be fair, it be limited to a period that universities offered fine
art degrees, or else include the earlier forms of formal training. (The
academy & apprenticeships). Personally, I have some favorites who are
entirely self-taught, but on my list most have formal training.
What do you say?
Erik Mattila
lauri levanto
if you reckognise something as art, it must resemble
someway the art you know.
* * *
Saying that art is what artists do, is a simplification
of institutional art theory.
The institutional theory regards all that is exposed in fine art contex
as relevant. It is a dangerous and misleading concept. Long ago
Duchamp and DaDa questioned the institutional art.
Have we learned anything since that?
Hardly.
In every major show the same question is asked
with a new oneliner. Nobody bothers to answer.
Duchamp knew the answer - and quit painting.
If we take the institutional point of view "as is",
we have to see that the leading institutions now are
all American. And the American artworld is tightly
bound to American society. The valid art values are
reduced to simple American values.
The institutional theory has a remarkable fault.
It is a topdown system by definition. If this-or-that
is displayed on MoMa it must be institutional
art. Therefore is must be, according the institutiona theory,
art also in SouthPark.
Ergo, this-or-that is what one has to teach
in local evening classes.
No wonder the majority of AbEx paintings or installations or whatever
(note I do not say AbEx Art and installation art or whatever art)
are simply emperors new clothes. That is what the local
artists were told to do by local art schools.
Maybe I should say it more politely,
they are inventing more gunpowder.
Six generations ago the academic art seemed to reach a dead end.
The techical possibilities were exhausted to such perfection
that only superficial surface remained.
Three generations ago the Greenbergian flat surface
was exhausted as well. It went faster because the
search for solutions was deliberately delimited to a subset,
abstract divisions of the surface.
Isn't now the time when anything-goes is exhausted in turn.
-lauri
--
Some one line jokes are art - read Stanislav Jerzy Lec.
All one line jokes are not art - look a stand up comedian in telly.
Alison A Raimes
<thomas_...@sunshine.net> writes
>And the rest of your post seems to me to be anti-Alison propaganda, and I
>won't participate. She may state her opinions a little more harshly that I
>would, but basically I'm in agreement with them. That goes for Scarlett
>too. I don't have a degree, but I do have a huge investment in my art
>education, and I'm not about to sympathize with anyone whose aim is to
>trivialize or devalue that.
Ha! all of his posts are *anti* me, he is obsessed - a man on a mission.
He seems himself as a saviour for all the weak links..... those poor
little things I used to attempt sensible debate here, but soon realised
that was pointless. That is why we set up Artlives.
Incidentally, I would say approximately fifty percent of the people I
show with have no art education. Its perfectly apparent who is committed
and who is not. Art is a matter of self development and the best artists
are those whose work never remains static. Art schools are there for a
specific learning experience. The best students will soak it all up and
constantly seek to draw on the experiences of others. Only a swollen ego
believes that it is capable of becoming a great artist without this
learning experience.
Alison A Raimes
<scarl...@theriver.com> writes
>Erik,
>I think you and I had a flamewar about prostituting one's art.
>Alison wasn't involved except to say that "You've been sitting on
>the fence so long your testicles are.....(?)" Don't remember what
>your testicles were doing but it was a good one!
>
>I don't think we ever resolved that one ;-)
>
>
>--
>Scarlett
>http://ScarlettDecker.homestead.com
Hahahahahahaahha! Nice one, Scar. God, Erik and I have had so many
flamewars I've forgotten what we flamed about ...... we seem to come out
of them all with a kiss and a hug! I think we did do one on prostituting
ones art ........ and the *sitting on the fence so long that his
testicles were in his mouth* referred to when Marilyn told us off for
talking about blow jobs because she didn't want her 28 year old daughter
reading it! Lets not distort history, eh?
Poor old Erik ....... he always gets blamed for everything ;-)
Alison A Raimes
<pe...@new.co.za> writes
>Good for you, Erik! I probably am a great one for secretly agreeing with
>Alison...
Something I have suspected for a long time.
Alison A Raimes
<pe...@new.co.za> writes
>You do have to try so hard it must hurt - anybody who has read your
>Hitler Youth type rules for your little group
>wouldn't dream of joining it in a million years.
The FAQs for Artlives can be found at http://artlives.homestead.com/FAQS
They were originally written for a philosophy list that then started a
newsgroup called alt.philosophy. The three guys who started that group
then got involved in writing a book and the group went downhill after
that because no one moderated the group. Now it is just another
*wannabee a philosopher* group where no one has actually studied
philosophy but everyone is one. Sound familiar?
The *anyones* who have read the FAQS are members of Artlives - 30 in
total at this time. No new members are admitted who have not read the
FAQs. I restrict the membership to 30 people because it makes it more
manageable. This week five new members joined and I kicked off someone
who hasn't contributed for months. The discussions are lively and when
there are a few threads running at the same time it can get very busy.
Membership is restricted to practising artists - in other words, those
who can show they are committed in their professionalism. A website is a
must. By having these restrictions to membership, we have succeeded in
setting up one of the best art discussion groups in cyber.
Erik A. Mattila
> >Scarlett
> >http://ScarlettDecker.homestead.com
>
> Hahahahahahaahha! Nice one, Scar. God, Erik and I have had so many
> flamewars I've forgotten what we flamed about ...... we seem to come out
> of them all with a kiss and a hug! I think we did do one on prostituting
> ones art ........ and the *sitting on the fence so long that his
> testicles were in his mouth* referred to when Marilyn told us off for
> talking about blow jobs because she didn't want her 28 year old daughter
> reading it! Lets not distort history, eh?
>
> Poor old Erik ....... he always gets blamed for everything ;-)
Only because I deserve it. It's an attention getting device. But it's
sort of neat - like strutting around showing-off your fencing scar.
Erik
Peter H.M. Brooks
> > Do you follow me? If you take the time-period from the flaking of
an
> achulean flint to the design of the International Space Station, you
could
> say that most engineers didn't have university degrees - but that
would be
> sort of a silly claim.
>
being an artist.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> academy & apprenticeships). Personally, I have some favorites who are
> entirely self-taught, but on my list most have formal training.
>
sure a lot of people would be interested, not just me!
Peter H.M. Brooks
lauri levanto <lauri....@nokia.com> wrote in message
news:HD8M5.14690$oL4.3...@news2.nokia.com...
> There is nothing but traditional art.
>
> if you reckognise something as art, it must resemble
>
> someway the art you know.
>
'traditional art' - often they mean tribal art.
>
> Maybe I should say it more politely,
>
> they are inventing more gunpowder.
>
> Six generations ago the academic art seemed to reach a dead end.
>
> The techical possibilities were exhausted to such perfection
>
> that only superficial surface remained.
>
> Three generations ago the Greenbergian flat surface
>
> was exhausted as well. It went faster because the
>
> search for solutions was deliberately delimited to a subset,
>
> abstract divisions of the surface.
>
> Isn't now the time when anything-goes is exhausted in turn.
>
or art movement, to break the inertia. I have no idea where this will
come from, but it certainly won't be from any of the new British
Artists.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Ha! all of his posts are *anti* me, he is obsessed - a man on a
mission.
> He seems himself as a saviour for all the weak links..... those poor
> little things I used to attempt sensible debate here, but soon
realised
> that was pointless. That is why we set up Artlives.
>
You did say you were leaving for your home station, I suppose you didn't
mean it.
I am interested to realise that you are obsessed with me - I hadn't
realised that before.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> In article <8tqqcq$9g8$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>, Peter H.M. Brooks
> <pe...@new.co.za> writes
>
> >Good for you, Erik! I probably am a great one for secretly agreeing
with
> >Alison...
>
>
> Something I have suspected for a long time.
>
yours you are always going on about - you know, the inflated one.
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> By having these restrictions to membership, we have succeeded in
> setting up one of the best art discussion groups in cyber.
>
somebody who is already a self-parody.
I realise, why you were so upset about the rival group!
Alison A Raimes
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>
>Only because I deserve it. It's an attention getting device. But it's
>sort of neat - like strutting around showing-off your fencing scar.
>
>Erik
I've told you to start doing wheelies !!!!!!!!!
Chris
I have to open with a bit of a caveat - it's probably a mistake to look
to compare engineering and fine arts too closely. Maybe comparing fine
art and religious education - as well as the relationship between fine
art, religion, and general society - would be more apt. But for now
comparisons between art and engineering might be worth exploring.
I think a well known comparison comes from employment statistics. The
last time I saw anything on this - which was, I admit, a number of years
ago - engineering produced among the highest percentage of graduates who
went on to work in their chosen profession, while the fine arts provided
among the lowest. Maybe that's changed; but if it is still true, one
would have to ask why, especially in a society as visually oriented as
ours.
Similarly, I get the impression from Alison's posts that Cable Street is
at the end of its tether financially. But there you have a collection of
some 180 people - most of whom are nominally bright, and educated well
beyond the average - unable to make a go of it. Between you & me, if a
group of engineers found themselves whinging about a similar
predicament, I'd laugh - after all, one expects engineers to be able to
look after themselves, and not depend on tax breaks and charitable
status. (Think of all those dot coms falling off the tail of the
stockmarket these days). But why should artists need this double
standard?
Anyway, I don't want to dwell to much on the financial aspects - other
than indicators of the general state. I do find the question of
"self-teaching" more interesting. One too often forgets that outsiders
(which is what "sef-taught" tends to be about) may be few in number but
tend to have a relatively larger impact - from Benjamin West to Vincent
van Gogh to Grandma Moses - both on artists and on how the public
perceives art. Engineering actually has many parallels - Thomas Edison
and Bill Gates spring to mind, as two self-taught people who radically
changed their field.
BTW - I hope you don't take this as somehow denigrating institution
training; I think it is as valid a path as any other. It's just that
institutions almost by definition design their own histories, and in
doing so tend to overlook their inherent inertia.
Chris
--
"Art is the supreme manifestation of individualism" - Oscar Wilde
Artwork: http://www.gammarat.com
Soma
>
> Alison A Raimes <ali...@raimes.com> wrote in message
> news:bUgHuKAZ...@raimes.com...
> > In article <8tqqcq$9g8$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>, Peter H.M. Brooks
> > <pe...@new.co.za> writes
> >
> > >Good for you, Erik! I probably am a great one for secretly agreeing
> with
> > >Alison...
> >
> >
> > Something I have suspected for a long time.
> >
> I know you won't manage it, but do try to keep a check on that ego of
> yours you are always going on about - you know, the inflated one.
Ego is it really warranted? Ive checked her site and her art and really
its nothing I havent seen before from a first year art student, nothing
that will go down in history as even a spot on the map. I believe you
paint 10 - 15 of these a day and select one to "sell"?
Titles such as Intimate Inquiry into Nothingness really sums it all up.
Sorry to burst your bubble Alison, but behind that web page and your
studio, Your a true hack.
I dont know where you get your elitist mindset from, but you really have
to get back to earth.
Alison A Raimes
<so...@soma.com> writes
>Ego is it really warranted? Ive checked her site and her art and really
>its nothing I havent seen before from a first year art student, nothing
>that will go down in history as even a spot on the map. I believe you
>paint 10 - 15 of these a day and select one to "sell"?
>Titles such as Intimate Inquiry into Nothingness really sums it all up.
>Sorry to burst your bubble Alison, but behind that web page and your
>studio, Your a true hack.
>I dont know where you get your elitist mindset from, but you really have
>to get back to earth.
No bubble to burst thanks. But I am impressed by your assumption that
you could do it - your display of self importance is admirable. And
earth is not a place I am particularly impressed with incidentally - I
can assure you that my place in its history is furthest from my mind.
Its kind of you to go to all the trouble of critiquing my work though -
if I had the chance to paint one a week these days I would be happy.....
and so would my agent. Imagine, 10-15 a day and I would need to build a
warehouse to keep them in and open an off shore bank account. Now there
is a thought .......
Alison A Raimes
<bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> writes
>Similarly, I get the impression from Alison's posts that Cable Street is
>at the end of its tether financially. But there you have a collection of
>some 180 people - most of whom are nominally bright, and educated well
>beyond the average - unable to make a go of it. Between you & me, if a
>group of engineers found themselves whinging about a similar
>predicament, I'd laugh - after all, one expects engineers to be able to
>look after themselves, and not depend on tax breaks and charitable
>status. (Think of all those dot coms falling off the tail of the
>stockmarket these days). But why should artists need this double
>standard?
Why do you talk such crap? get your facts right before you make ill
educated judgements.
The charity that leases the premises - Cable Street Art Factory Ltd is
now in liquidation. Why? because the landlords forced excessive costs on
the charity that made it insolvent. That charity was responsible for the
outreach programme that took those artists out into the community to do
voluntary work. It also supported two galleries for emerging artists and
graduate students to exhibit their work in free of charge. The artists
who leased premises paid market rent for their studios and did not
profit from the charity within the group. In fact, their rents supported
the continuation of the galleries. The dealings of an unscrupulous
landlord who committed criminal offences to evict artists from the
premises in order to sell for huge profit are responsible for the
present predicament. They came unstuck and will be prosecuted for it -
there is no doubt about that. They committed illegal acts.
Within that group are 180 artists - all self employed business people
who have to engage in legal wrangling just in order to have a place to
work in. All of them going about their daily lives as artists. There is
nowhere else for them to go - there are not enough premises to house
them in East London. Many of them have been there for up to 15 years. It
has nothing to do with any of their individual attempts to *make a go at
it*. Get your facts right. Cable Street Studios housing some of the most
successful individual artists in London. Whinging? These people are
fighting for their livelihoods. They have paid market rents and have
entered into long term lease agreements which the landlords thought they
could just take away at will. They have also had their rights violated.
They have a right to work in those premises just like any other business
would have, according to the terms of their leases. If it had been a
group of engineers then the landlords wouldn't have dared to do what
they did. Artists are exploited because their number one priority is to
make art. They don't have the money to fight legal battles.
Stick to engineering Christine. For that you need no soul.
Erik A. Mattila
> I know you won't manage it, but do try to keep a check on that ego of
> yours you are always going on about - you know, the inflated one.
Peter, I'm very earnest when I say that you also have a bit of an
inflated ego, at least from my point of view. But let me qualify that -
I don't think it's such a bad thing. You know, the health of the ego is
important. So I wouldn't ding Alison for the same. In fact, this long
standing argument couldn't sustain if either of you was a weak-willed
wimp.
Actually, when I see you and Alison drift closer and closer to the black
hole of your argument, I imagine you reaching the event horizon and
singularity, and coming out the other side as friends. It could happen,
you know - so be forewarned!
Erik MahatmaMattila, direct from his Ashram in the desert
ps. And it might not be ego at all - maybe 'libidinal excesses' :-)
Scarlett
:
: lauri levanto <lauri....@nokia.com> wrote in message
: news:HD8M5.14690$oL4.3...@news2.nokia.com...
: > There is nothing but traditional art.
: >
: > if you reckognise something as art, it must resemble
: >
: > someway the art you know.
: >
: That is a good point. Though I think people mean something
different by
: 'traditional art' - often they mean tribal art.
That is perhaps the most bizarre statement I've read here in a
year (including Mattison's)!!!!!!!!
(snip)
: > Duchamp knew the answer - and quit painting.
Actually, you are wrong. When Duchamp "quit painting" he was
doing his "Green Room". What he did was quit marketing himself.
Yes, he said he had quit painting but he certainly didn't.
: > all American. And the American artworld is tightly
: >
: > bound to American society. The valid art values are
: >
: > reduced to simple American values.
This dialogue is between Lauri and Peter, both non-Americans.
However, great authorities on Americans and American art....
(snip)
: > Isn't now the time when anything-goes is exhausted in turn.
: >
: Yes. Actually some time ago. What is needed is a mould breaking
artist,
: or art movement, to break the inertia. I have no idea where
this will
: come from, but it certainly won't be from any of the new
British
: Artists.
Jenny Saville is a magnificent painter. The Wilson Twins are
incredible as well. Learn a bit about art before you so eagerly
dismiss it.
--
Scarlett
Website:
http://ScarlettDecker.homestead.com
Scarlett
"Soma" <so...@soma.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.146c872f...@news.ozemail.com.au...
: In article <8trhma$kb9$3...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>, pe...@new.co.za
Another old raf member posting anonymously? Obviously Alison's
aesthetics don't appeal to you? Unfortunately your ignorance has
confused you. Her student work which is plainly visible on her
Homestead site is far superior to most professional artists. She
can draw, she can paint, she can cook. What can you do??? You
even object to her titles!
I assume you are another bitter moron...
--
Scarlett
http://ScarlettDecker.homestead.com
"Do you know what he needs? Two or three shock treatments,"
Mary George said. "Get that artist business right out of his
head once
and for all." (from "An Enduring Chill" by Flannery O'Connor)
Scarlett
: >You do have to try so hard it must hurt - anybody who has read
your
: >Hitler Youth type rules for your little group
: >wouldn't dream of joining it in a million years.
:
: The FAQs for Artlives can be found at
http://artlives.homestead.com/FAQS
Most egroups have rules. Moderation makes sure that the fake
'hotmail', deja accounts, and others are kept out and therefore
intelligent discussion can be uninterrupted. And there certainly
*is* intelligent discussion!
I joined and the group is fun, informative and just plain
interesting. A great mix of people (professional artists all).
Why don't you set up your own e-group? Maybe call it "I hate
professional artists"? No, you have to shorten it... How about
"anti...@egroups.com
Nice ring. I'm sure you can get Christine to join.
Scarlett
:
: Alison A Raimes <ali...@raimes.com> wrote in message
: news:LUmDOPAB...@raimes.com...
: >
: > By having these restrictions to membership, we have succeeded
in
: > setting up one of the best art discussion groups in cyber.
: >
: Brilliant! As I have said before, it would be difficult to
parody
: somebody who is already a self-parody.
:
: I realise, why you were so upset about the rival group!
I'm curious, what rival group is she upset about? I missed that
one.
Erik A. Mattila
> Hi Erik;
>
> I have to open with a bit of a caveat - it's probably a mistake to look
> to compare engineering and fine arts too closely. Maybe comparing fine
> art and religious education - as well as the relationship between fine
> art, religion, and general society - would be more apt. But for now
> comparisons between art and engineering might be worth exploring.
These were logical parallelisms, Chris, not comparisons. What I was trying to
point out to Peter was that university curriculum in fine art was much shorter
than fine arts' history, therefore it might be a distortion to say 'most
artists don't have university degrees' unless you restrict your sample to the
appropriate period to avoid distortion. Thus 'engineering' from
paleo-engineering to the present would produce the same distortion.
> I think a well known comparison comes from employment statistics. The
> last time I saw anything on this - which was, I admit, a number of years
> ago - engineering produced among the highest percentage of graduates who
> went on to work in their chosen profession, while the fine arts provided
> among the lowest. Maybe that's changed; but if it is still true, one
> would have to ask why, especially in a society as visually oriented as
> ours.
But this distorts the picture also, since we are specifically talking about
artists who are making art, and what the meassure would be regarding formal
training vs. self taught. The percentage of fine art graduates who find
careers elswhere won't affect this measure, since these aren't considered in
the study.
> Similarly, I get the impression from Alison's posts that Cable Street is
> at the end of its tether financially. But there you have a collection of
> some 180 people - most of whom are nominally bright, and educated well
> beyond the average - unable to make a go of it. Between you & me, if a
> group of engineers found themselves whinging about a similar
> predicament, I'd laugh - after all, one expects engineers to be able to
> look after themselves, and not depend on tax breaks and charitable
> status. (Think of all those dot coms falling off the tail of the
> stockmarket these days). But why should artists need this double
> standard?
But Cable Street fell victim to unscrupulous practices - perhaps outright fraud
- which had nothing to do with the intrinsic capacity of its members. It's a
very poor example to use to argue the futility of university art degrees. For
one, I believe that most of the members did not have degrees, and two, the
program was very successful up until the fraud occured - successful in what the
organization intended to do in terms of studio and gallery space.
As far as subsidies for the art goes, I find your question a bit strange. The
arts have always been marginal enterprizes in contrast with national economies
- yet there is a consensus that art is something that it good for society. So
what's the problem?
> Anyway, I don't want to dwell to much on the financial aspects - other
> than indicators of the general state. I do find the question of
> "self-teaching" more interesting. One too often forgets that outsiders
> (which is what "sef-taught" tends to be about) may be few in number but
> tend to have a relatively larger impact - from Benjamin West to Vincent
> van Gogh to Grandma Moses - both on artists and on how the public
> perceives art. Engineering actually has many parallels - Thomas Edison
> and Bill Gates spring to mind, as two self-taught people who radically
> changed their field.
But that's nonsense, Chris. You are only citing self-taught artists who have
made a great impact, while ignoring the many who are completey unknown. But
there's no argument here that self-taught is a bad thing. The argument is
actually about the influence of a university degree, pro or con.
Billy Gates dropped out of Harvard in his junior year. You can't say he is
self-taught. In fact, many engineers have been hired right off the campus
because of the demands of the high-tech industry, short of their earning
degrees. One criteria for hiring is outstanding achievment while enrolled in
an engineering school. The head-hunters keep an eye on these people, you know
- the demand is so great.
> BTW - I hope you don't take this as somehow denigrating institution
> training; I think it is as valid a path as any other. It's just that
> institutions almost by definition design their own histories, and in
> doing so tend to overlook their inherent inertia.
But the university doesn't exist in a vacuum, Chris. There are all sorts of
tendrils going out that influence curriculum, notibly that curriculum is
appropriate to the professional field it addresses. So I think your beef, if
you have a beef, is with the so-called "Art World" itself - and certainly the
university is a component that shapes this cultural institution - but not the
singular or even the primary influence.
Erik
Peter H.M. Brooks
of
> > yours you are always going on about - you know, the inflated one.
>
> Ego is it really warranted? Ive checked her site and her art and
really
> its nothing I havent seen before from a first year art student,
nothing
> that will go down in history as even a spot on the map. I believe you
> paint 10 - 15 of these a day and select one to "sell"?
>
craftwork.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
>
> > I know you won't manage it, but do try to keep a check on that ego
of
> > yours you are always going on about - you know, the inflated one.
>
> Peter, I'm very earnest when I say that you also have a bit of an
> inflated ego, at least from my point of view. But let me qualify
that -
> I don't think it's such a bad thing. You know, the health of the ego
is
> important. So I wouldn't ding Alison for the same. In fact, this
long
> standing argument couldn't sustain if either of you was a weak-willed
> wimp
>
usual projective way, goes on about inflated egos - I don't.
>
> Actually, when I see you and Alison drift closer and closer to the
black
> hole of your argument, I imagine you reaching the event horizon and
> singularity, and coming out the other side as friends. It could
happen,
> you know - so be forewarned
>
enneagrammatic 'eight', just as Alison is, she and I are now good
friends, but she certainly made it a difficult process over about five
years.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Scarlett <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote in message
news:9snM5.64324$YX4.2...@news2.giganews.com...
>
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
> news:8trhlr$kb9$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> :
> : lauri levanto <lauri....@nokia.com> wrote in message
> : news:HD8M5.14690$oL4.3...@news2.nokia.com...
> : > There is nothing but traditional art.
> : >
> : > if you reckognise something as art, it must resemble
> : >
> : > someway the art you know.
> : >
> : That is a good point. Though I think people mean something
> different by
> : 'traditional art' - often they mean tribal art.
>
> That is perhaps the most bizarre statement I've read here in a
> year (including Mattison's)!!!!!!!!
>
>
> (snip)
> : > Duchamp knew the answer - and quit painting.
>
> Actually, you are wrong. When Duchamp "quit painting" he was
> doing his "Green Room". What he did was quit marketing himself.
> Yes, he said he had quit painting but he certainly didn't
>
objecting to things that various posters have said on this thread, not
just to things that I have said. You might want to go back and just
criticise the things I said, it might make you feel better.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> >
> Why don't you set up your own e-group? Maybe call it "I hate
> professional artists"? No, you have to shorten it... How about
>
I have pointed out, quite clearly, that I have no objection to
professional artists, for one thing, apropos a discussion on this topic
some time ago, I would have to object to myself!
Alison A Raimes
<scarl...@theriver.com> writes
>Jenny Saville is a magnificent painter. The Wilson Twins are
>incredible as well. Learn a bit about art before you so eagerly
>dismiss it.
>
>
>--
>Scarlett
>Website:
>http://ScarlettDecker.homestead.com
And Jason Martin, Callum Innes, Ian Davenport, Zebedee Jones .........
and a few thousand more emerging artists.
Alison A Raimes
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>But Cable Street fell victim to unscrupulous practices - perhaps outright fraud
>- which had nothing to do with the intrinsic capacity of its members. It's a
>very poor example to use to argue the futility of university art degrees. For
>one, I believe that most of the members did not have degrees, and two, the
>program was very successful up until the fraud occured - successful in what the
>organization intended to do in terms of studio and gallery space.
Thank you for reminding me of that, Erik. I have no idea how many have
degrees. There is such a diversity of artists working there - graphic
designers; illustrators; glass makers; ceramists; fashion designers and
so on. Somewhere along the line are the painters and sculptors who
mostly work at least one part time job - often as many as four - in
order to be able to afford a space to work in. They come from all over
the world - we have artists from Japan; Vietnam; Russia; New Zealand;
Australia; ... and the list goes on.
It was outright fraud. That is a fact. In fact, before we went into
liquidation they attempted to pay us off - on the condition that the
Charity Commission would not prosecute them. Of course the CC would not
agree to that.
Incidentally, the programme will not dissolve. The programme has
benefited from the strength of the group fighting together. The tenants
are standing their ground and refuse to move out. The charity may have
dissolved but the community around it is as strong, if not stronger,
than it was before. Two new companies have emerged in London now - East
End Art Factory Ltd, with Sir Anthony Caro as our patron and Vision in
Art, an initiative that is intended to create a network and a support
system that will meet the gap between policy makers and artists.
Alison A Raimes
<pe...@new.co.za> writes
>>
>Stranger things have happened. My step-daughter is also an
>enneagrammatic 'eight', just as Alison is, she and I are now good
>friends, but she certainly made it a difficult process over about five
>years.
I have to say, that of all the diarrhoea that comes out of Brooks' lips,
his attempts at amateur psychology have always amused me most ! I guess
he bought a book in it once ;-) Just like his art. I'd love to see him
fare in a group of professional psychiatrists. Fun this.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
> In article <8ttge7$p1p$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>, Peter H.M. Brooks
> <pe...@new.co.za> writes
>
> >>
> >Stranger things have happened. My step-daughter is also an
> >enneagrammatic 'eight', just as Alison is, she and I are now good
> >friends, but she certainly made it a difficult process over about
five
> >years.
>
> I have to say, that of all the diarrhoea that comes out of Brooks'
lips,
> his attempts at amateur psychology have always amused me most ! I
guess
> he bought a book in it once ;-) Just like his art. I'd love to see him
> fare in a group of professional psychiatrists. Fun this.
>
normal for people who are insecure to feel threatened by things they
don't understand - my comment about 'eights', if you ever look it up, is
not in the least derogatory - in fact it might help you to some
self-knowledge. You don't even have to admit that you have done it here,
you can just improve yourself quietly and nobody, not even me, will
know. Doesn't that make you feel better?
Soma
scarl...@theriver.com says...
For what it is I quite like Intimate Inquiry into Nothingness, I have
seen it before, but I like all art. I was really coming down on her
*attitude* it really isn't very becoming. The way she was speaking i was
expecting to see the second coming of Jesus in the form of a London
painter, but I soon realised a few things.
Some people like to "be an artist" more than they like to be an artist.
Now these ideas are just coming from the way she portrays herself on
usenet. She may really be a nice person in real life, but I guess ill
never know. To be an artist does not mean to be an elitist, though I know
of many artists today who are and its quite sad. They were once in the
beginning learning what gesso was and how to mix colours, but for some
reason they dont remember those days. All I ask of her is to *respect*
others and others will respect her. Its that simple.
Alison A Raimes
<so...@soma.com> writes
>I apologise if it seems that I was only knocking her art.
>For what it is I quite like Intimate Inquiry into Nothingness, I have
>seen it before, but I like all art.
Then why did you make derogatory remarks? That would be downright lies.
Do you live a lie? it certainly sounds like it.
>I was really coming down on her
>*attitude* it really isn't very becoming.
My attitude is my business. And why would I care what people here think
of me? Can you answer that? I certainly will not conform to anyone
else's expectations imposed on me. Look at people like Broebeck - she
quotes the Bible at me .. and justify the painting of a dreadful war
that she has seen TV pictures of while eating supper because she has
worked in a military camp once. And then skips off to pray to a
fictitous god that can only be justified by making it a human. And
Brooks who paints the *psyche* after reading some amateur psychology
book. or Dan Fox who hasn't progressed past copying other artists who
already have a place in history. That is the sort of attitude that I
find unbecoming.
>The way she was speaking i was
>expecting to see the second coming of Jesus in the form of a London
>painter, but I soon realised a few things.
Well that is a relief. You aren't exactly projecting yourself as anyone
with any perceptions so far.
>Some people like to "be an artist" more than they like to be an artist.
Which is exactly what I'm opposing. Look at the likes of Broebeck ,
Brooks and Fox.
>Now these ideas are just coming from the way she portrays herself on
>usenet. She may really be a nice person in real life, but I guess ill
>never know.
You don't sound like someone I would spend time with. I don't like
people who lie for effect. I spend my time with people who are honest
and you certainly are not.
>To be an artist does not mean to be an elitist, though I know
>of many artists today who are and its quite sad. They were once in the
>beginning learning what gesso was and how to mix colours, but for some
>reason they dont remember those days. All I ask of her is to *respect*
>others and others will respect her. Its that simple.
I will respect those who do not live lies. And if I am able to uncover
lies then I will. Make no mistake about that. Now go back through my
posts and read what I have to say. If you want to read the flamewars
then be sure to read how they were provoked. You will always find mine
are simply reactions to the venom that is projected from the jealous.
The more *bad* art I see the more I promote art education. It represents
a commitment and a willingness to learn. I have the utmost respect for
anyone who has gone through the institute and succeed in making art at
the other end.
There is an ocean of uneducated opinions on this group as a result of
the *anything goes* attitude. And while everyone politely says *how
interesting* I say what I think. And am not afraid to do so. But you can
all live in your comfortable little zone being polite and wishing you
had the guts to say what you really think. Look at you. You didn't have
the guts to say actually you liked my work. You thought you had the
power to *burst my bubble*. That puts you in the same category as Brooks
- who is a liar, a cheat and a fraud.
--
Alison A Raimes
http://www.raimes.com
http://artlives.homestead.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> . And
> Brooks who paints the *psyche* after reading some amateur psychology
> book
>
journals and textbooks.
--
That, if I then had waked after long sleep,
Will make me sleep again; and then, in dreaming,
The clouds methought would open, and show riches
Ready to drop upon me, that when I waked
I cried to dream again.
- Caliban, The Tempest. .
Peter H.M. Brooks
> >Some people like to "be an artist" more than they like to be an
artist.
>
> Which is exactly what I'm opposing.
>
Peter H.M. Brooks
> That puts you in the same category as Brooks
> - who is a liar, a cheat and a fraud.
>
>
lengths to prove it.
You already have admitted, though your previous apology, that you know
that your actionable libel is untrue. So to repeat it in a public forum
as an act of extreme folly. I shall consider my options and may sue. You
are welcome to withdraw your groundless libel and apologise for it -
though I know you don't have the grace or the brains for either, or, if
you have any evidence for it, present it.
Soma
>
> There is an ocean of uneducated opinions on this group as a result of
> the *anything goes* attitude. And while everyone politely says *how
> interesting* I say what I think. And am not afraid to do so. But you can
> all live in your comfortable little zone being polite and wishing you
> had the guts to say what you really think. Look at you. You didn't have
> the guts to say actually you liked my work. You thought you had the
> - who is a liar, a cheat and a fraud.
Look Alison, its usenet. Its not the master artists association.
And please dont right yourself back up again, I said I liked one piece,
but it is nothing special, ive seen it a hunded times before. Nothing to
pride yourself as a master artist. You are not. I also like some
childerns paintings. Just because you paint 2 meter random washes doesnt
make me admire anything about your art. You may sell a few paintings, but
your art is commercial, please dont let this fact get to your head.
But again, my argument is not with your art, its with your attitude.
Please tone it down, im trying to understand you, but you are really
impossible.
Why do you post here? You obviously see yourself as above everyone here
so why do you bother?
Is it just to spam your website?
Alison A Raimes
<so...@soma.com> writes
>But again, my argument is not with your art, its with your attitude.
>Please tone it down, im trying to understand you, but you are really
>impossible.
That makes me feel very comfortable. For one moment I thought you might
think you could possibly understand me! Why waste any more of your so
valuable time trying .... and why would you want to anyway? Do you know
how to use the killfile?
>
>Why do you post here?
Why do you? I've been posting here for years. I've injected a lot of
energy into some very good discussions. I've made life time friends in
people like Scarlett and Thomas who I am now showing with all over the
world. And my brother figure in Erik, of course ;-) I've also made some
enemies - non artists all of them. On my epitaph it will say *Alison did
not suffer fools*.
>You obviously see yourself as above everyone here
>so why do you bother?
Because I express an opinion? Of course I do not. Where did you *pop* up
from that you suddenly know so much about me? You anonymous little pea.
Perhaps you would like to go through my posts and find where I say I am
a *master* artist? I've never claimed such a thing. Nor have I ever
claimed that art can only emerge from an art degree. What nonsense. You
and Brooks should get on very well - you're in the same league.
>Is it just to spam your website?
Actually it is to get new members for Artlives. Its works every time. I
had one guy who I asked where he had heard about us tell me that he had
seen me give Brooks a *panning* on rec.arts.fine. At least we don't get
the faint hearted joining us, eh?
It's been a pleasure chatting with you. You really have contributed so
much to this group. Invaluable input.
Alison A Raimes
<pe...@new.co.za> writes
>You already have admitted, though your previous apology, that you know
>that your actionable libel is untrue.
Evidence please. There has been no apology only your imagination could
possibly think there has been! I told you to write your
own! Durrrrrrrrrrrrr. Even a pea brain like you can work the
implications of that.
>So to repeat it in a public forum
>as an act of extreme folly. I shall consider my options and may sue.
Good. I will enjoy watching you flitter away your fortune on lawyers and
a cause that will inevitably fail.
> You
>are welcome to withdraw your groundless libel and apologise for it -
I think not. Especially when I know that it upsets you enough to take
legal action. That is a mark of victory!
>though I know you don't have the grace or the brains for either, or, if
>you have any evidence for it, present it.
>
Right in front of our eyes.
--
Alison A Raimes
http://www.raimes.com
http://artlives.homestead.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> seen me give Brooks a *panning* on rec.arts.fine
>
Alison A Raimes
<pe...@new.co.za> writes
>
>> seen me give Brooks a *panning* on rec.arts.fine
>>
>Now, for once the girl has managed to say something truly funny!
I nearly wet myself when I read that guy too ;-)
Peter H.M. Brooks
> In article <8u1jbo$b42$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>, Peter H.M. Brooks
> <pe...@new.co.za> writes
> >
> >> seen me give Brooks a *panning* on rec.arts.fine
> >>
> >Now, for once the girl has managed to say something truly funny!
>
> I nearly wet myself when I read that guy too ;-)
>
Peter H.M. Brooks
>. That is a mark of victory!
>
>
> >though I know you don't have the grace or the brains for either
> >
>
Thomas Ziorjen
> and Brooks should get on very well - you're in the same league.
They bowl together? ; )
Thomas
online portfolio:
http://mypage.uniserve.ca/~sn3222
http://www.egroups.com/group/artlives
http://artlives.homestead.com
Peter H.M. Brooks
Thomas Ziorjen <thomas_...@sunshine.net> wrote in message
news:3A0457BD...@sunshine.net...
> > You
> > and Brooks should get on very well - you're in the same league.
>
> They bowl together? ; )
>
lauri levanto
"Scarlett" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote in message
news:<9snM5.64324$YX4.2...@news2.giganews.com>...
>
> (snip)
> : > Duchamp knew the answer - and quit painting.
>
> Actually, you are wrong. When Duchamp "quit painting" he was
> doing his "Green Room". What he did was quit marketing himself.
> Yes, he said he had quit painting but he certainly didn't.
>
Thanks, Scarlett for this valuable piece of information.
Once again I was reminded not to trust what they tell you at the university.
> : > all American. And the American artworld is tightly
> : >
> : > bound to American society. The valid art values are
> : >
> : > reduced to simple American values.
>
> This dialogue is between Lauri and Peter, both non-Americans.
> However, great authorities on Americans and American art....
Isn't it an instance of anglo-american culture that instead
of pointing an error you attack the credibility of authors?
Sure I admit my ignorance of American art. All the time I have to
keep a reference book nearby when reading this ng.
That the center of artworld has shifted from Paris to NY
is not only my opinion, however. (Do you regard Ny as perpheral?)
What is here seen as American values includes the subcultures and
countercultures, too.
The anti-Vietnam movement was not invented by Olof Palme.
he imported it. When Madeleine Albright was asked what she thought
of anti-american demonstrations outside the U.S.Embassy,
she said "I'm not worried, they still wear blue jeans".
> (snip)
> Jenny Saville is a magnificent painter. The Wilson Twins are
> incredible as well. Learn a bit about art before you so eagerly
> dismiss it.
Wo said I dismiss art or even recent art?
Quite the opposite I try to contribute it.
Sure there are thousands of good
emerging artists both in and outside of USA, as Alison pointed out.
How many of them are in turn oppressed by the institutional art theory?
Thanks for comments
-lauri
http://www.netti.fi/~laurleva/index.html
Alison A Raimes
"lauri levanto" <lauri....@nokia.com> wrote:
> Once again I was reminded not to trust what they tell you at the
university.
Hey Lauri, I didn't realise that you had a university art degree ;-)
But seriously, university is there for you to make good of
opportunities. They provide you with library and research facilities
that you will never have again, and access to an ocean of information.
How you deal with that is then your own task. You can listen to the
words of one person, or you can delve into the research material and
discover for yourself the possibilities. Clever students will take all
the information they receive and question it, dissect it and then draw
their own conclusions. A large proportion of students don't make use
and often come out of art school disillusioned and feeling they have
been cheated. Their natural reaction is to accuse the institute of
failing them. Others work their asses off and come out with a great
sense of achievement and the drive and energy to make sure the years
they put into their education are not wasted. Those are the ones that
become professionals. Good students continue to be constantly intrigued
and challenged by art long after they leave art school.
> Isn't it an instance of anglo-american culture that instead
> of pointing an error you attack the credibility of authors?
Interesting idea. But look at *your* answer. You passed the buck to
what you learned at university. See the dilemma? Now you have attacked
the credibility of the teaching as an excuse for your lack of
knowledge. Where do we go now?
> Sure I admit my ignorance of American art. All the time I have to
> keep a reference book nearby when reading this ng.
> That the center of artworld has shifted from Paris to NY
> is not only my opinion, however. (Do you regard Ny as perpheral?)
> What is here seen as American values includes the subcultures and
> countercultures, too.
>
> The anti-Vietnam movement was not invented by Olof Palme.
> he imported it. When Madeleine Albright was asked what she thought
> of anti-american demonstrations outside the U.S.Embassy,
> she said "I'm not worried, they still wear blue jeans".
> Wo said I dismiss art or even recent art?
> Quite the opposite I try to contribute it.
But Lauri, you attack the hegemonic structure and then offer nothing
from the peripherals in exchange. Dominance only occurs when the voice
is loudest ... not by any means the best. If the peripherals were to
offer something extraordinary then the hegemony would crumble. For what
it is worth, I think they are beginning to do this - Chile has some of
the finest artists in the world now. And London too. Both countries
almost totally ignored throughout modernism in the shadow of Paris and
then New York, and yet now offering some of the most important moves in
art.
But its almost impossible to imagine a world where the attention is so
spread that no central point exists. How would the world revolve ;-) I
say this in jest, of course, because as you know, I want nothing more
than the centre to shift from the USA and if it were to end up in the
Netherlands, or Scandinavia or South America I would be the first to
rejoice.
>
> Sure there are thousands of good
> emerging artists both in and outside of USA, as Alison pointed out.
> How many of them are in turn oppressed by the institutional art
theory?
Oppressed? Very few I would imagine. There are many, many good artists
that rejected art institutions - for whatever reason. Some of them
dropped out because they disliked the structure of education, some
because they saw no need for learning as part of their practise. But
the most successful artists are usually the most intelligent (not
necessarily the best educated) - the strongest characters who refuse to
be oppressed - the ones who work hard and constantly push their own
limits. Most of them, as art students, rebelled and refused to
conform. Good artists need great minds, or they will be nothing more
than image makers. And the world is full of those. Good artists stand
aside because they can make decisions and have opinions that they form
from their own minds - in other words, any ideas of art school
propaganda fails because they are not, nor ever will be puppets. It is
those artists who will forge their way through new doors in art. The
art education institute serves as a the frame for those doors, but not
necessarily the hinges. In other words, you can lead a horse to
water ....
Best regards
Alison A Raimes
http://www.raimes.com
http://artlives.homestead.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Scarlett
:
:
: "Scarlett" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote in message
: news:<9snM5.64324$YX4.2...@news2.giganews.com>...
:
: >
:
: > (snip)
:
: > : > Duchamp knew the answer - and quit painting.
:
: >
:
: > Actually, you are wrong. When Duchamp "quit painting" he was
:
: > doing his "Green Room". What he did was quit marketing
himself.
:
: > Yes, he said he had quit painting but he certainly didn't.
:
: >
:
: Thanks, Scarlett for this valuable piece of information.
: Once again I was reminded not to trust what they tell you at
the university.
:
That's funny Lauri. I learned this at my University. Then again,
I didn't learn it at the beginning level. An artist here needs
quite a bit of art history and most of them are '400' level
(upper division) for a BFA degree. Too much is condensed in the
basic beginning art history courses. Also, Marcel Duchamp had a
brother and sister who were also artists ;-)
--
Scarlett
http://ScarlettDecker.homestead.com
"Do you know what he needs? Two or three shock treatments,"
Mary George said. "Get that artist business right out of his
head once
and for all." (from "An Enduring Chill" by Flannery O'Connor)
lauri levanto
> In article <s%uN5.13571$AM5.2...@news1.nokia.com>,
> "lauri levanto" <lauri....@nokia.com> wrote:
>
> > Once again I was reminded not to trust what they tell you at the
> university.
>
> Hey Lauri, I didn't realise that you had a university art degree ;-)
Nope, I don't. But I do study art history in the university
and I'm also participating in a university organized post graduate program
in arts.
> But seriously, university is there for you to make good of
> opportunities. They provide you with library and research facilities
> that you will never have again, and access to an ocean of information.
> How you deal with that is then your own task.
I'm familiar with that. I have studied in four universities,
teached in two, now enrolled in one.
> Others work their asses off and come out with a great
> sense of achievement and the drive and energy to make sure the years
> they put into their education are not wasted. Those are the ones that
> become professionals.
I've tried to avoid the discussion of professionals.
In Copenhagen I have heard two kinds of professional musicians
playing in the streets. One is like the first violinist of Danish Radio
Symphony orchestra.
He is not there for money. The other is an ex sailor. He can neither sing
nor play guitar,
but it is apparent that the 'music' is his only income. A different kind of
professional.
I have my reasons of not beeing and especially not calling myself
professional.
Semi-professional, yes, a journeyman.
> > Isn't it an instance of anglo-american culture that instead
> > of pointing an error you attack the credibility of authors?
>
> Interesting idea. But look at *your* answer. You passed the buck to
> what you learned at university. See the dilemma? Now you have attacked
> the credibility of the teaching as an excuse for your lack of
> knowledge. Where do we go now?
To make the things worse, I did the same mistake twice,
taking Scarlett's words at face value, without arking for reference.
>
> > Sure I admit my ignorance of American art. All the time I have to
> > keep a reference book nearby when reading this ng.
> > That the center of artworld has shifted from Paris to NY
> > is not only my opinion, however. (Do you regard Ny as perpheral?)
> > What is here seen as American values includes the subcultures and
> > countercultures, too.
> >
> But Lauri, you attack the hegemonic structure and then offer nothing
> from the peripherals in exchange. Dominance only occurs when the voice
> is loudest ... not by any means the best.
By the way, as you mentioned it,
the patriotism in Scarlett made her rise her voice unnecessarily.
This is how the topics drift in a ng. My point was not anti-americanism
but institutional dominance. In artworld dominance occurs also where money
speaks.
For me it is difficult to see what art gains, if aesthetics is replaced
by institutional approval.
> > How many of them are in turn oppressed by the institutional art
>> theory?
>
> Oppressed? Very few I would imagine. There are many, many good artists
> that rejected art institutions - for whatever reason.
I'm afraid that there are as many good artists too, that the art
institutions
(not schools but museums, galleries and critics) rejected
- for whatever reason.
As you well know, the institutional art theory equals not
what they teach in educational art institutions.
-lauri
Alison A Raimes
"lauri levanto" <lauri....@nokia.com> wrote:
> I've tried to avoid the discussion of professionals.
> In Copenhagen I have heard two kinds of professional musicians
> playing in the streets. One is like the first violinist of Danish
>Radio Symphony orchestra.
> He is not there for money. The other is an ex sailor. He can neither
>sing nor play guitar,
> but it is apparent that the 'music' is his only income. A different
kind of professional.
> I have my reasons of not beeing and especially not calling myself
> professional. Semi-professional, yes, a journeyman.
Everyone is a journeyman, Lauri. However, most are just sleep walking.
The musician in the street? The one who plays like the first violinist
is probably bitter and twisted in having to seek his audience in the
streets instead of the concert halls. The one who can't play, and yet
still succeeds in earning enough money to live from, is probably
fulfilled in his own sense of achievment. Who do you think is the
happiest?
Alison A Raimes
ali...@raimes.com
http://www.raimes.com
lauri levanto
He has a habit to play in the street sometimes,
just to check audience reactions.
They are not so visible in a concert hall.
I have only romantic views of both of them
nothing ob which to base a judgement about happiness.
-lauri
"Alison A Raimes" <ali...@raimes.com> wrote in message
news:8u6mpv$f8b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <I7AN5.13614$AM5.2...@news1.nokia.com>,
> "lauri levanto" <lauri....@nokia.com> wrote:
>
> > I've tried to avoid the discussion of professionals.
> > In Copenhagen I have heard two kinds of professional musicians
> > playing in the streets. One is like the first violinist of Danish
> >Radio Symphony orchestra.
> > He is not there for money. The other is an ex sailor. He can neither
> >sing nor play guitar,
> > but it is apparent that the 'music' is his only income. A different
> kind of professional.
> > I have my reasons of not beeing and especially not calling myself
> > professional. Semi-professional, yes, a journeyman.
>
> Everyone is a journeyman, Lauri. However, most are just sleep walking.
> The musician in the street? The one who plays like the first violinist
> is probably bitter and twisted in having to seek his audience in the
> streets instead of the concert halls. The one who can't play, and yet
> still succeeds in earning enough money to live from, is probably
> fulfilled in his own sense of achievment. Who do you think is the
> happiest?
>
>
> Alison A Raimes
> ali...@raimes.com
> http://www.raimes.com
>
>
Alison A Raimes
<lauri....@nokia.com> writes
>The first one WAS the first violinist in DR symphony orchestra!
>He has a habit to play in the street sometimes,
>just to check audience reactions.
>They are not so visible in a concert hall.
Ah, I get it. Like Michelangelo coming down into the streets to do a
chalk drawing! I suppose the masters must, at some stage, get disturbed
by their audiences and long for human reaction. Their world is so
artificially surrounded with the bourgeoisie and their show time of
spending money and being seen in environments of so called *culture*.
Its easy to get seduced by rich audiences and use them to justify
success. But reality is, as this musician is more than aware, that the
rich are an artificial measure of success. Its admirable to come down
into the street for light relief on occasion. But the reality is that
the master is already financially secure and that his trips to the
masses can only represent a desire to be amongst real people and
possibly even a rejection of his audience in the music halls. However,
the ex-sailor, is probably dependent on the money he collects - the food
on the table is reliant on the masses. I doubt he has any aspirations
and therefore very few disappointments. He has more connection with
reality. Interesting this.
>
>
>I have only romantic views of both of them
>nothing ob which to base a judgement about happiness.
>
Yet you seem to be capable of judging the quality of the two musicians
based on your subjectivity. Interesting again.
--