Structuralism and visual art
BT
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote in rec.arts.fine:
> A few weeks back, N replied to a reply of mine with some remarks about
> structuralist approaches to looking at art. [...]
>
> The aspect that interested me most was the notion of looking at art in a
> way that utilizes no criteria or judgement, if I understood correctly.
>
> [...]would anyone else like to help me understand
> this point of view better?
I suspect that there are folks reading this who are more fluent with this
material than I am, but I'll give it a crack. My understanding of much of
this history is superficial: please set me straight if I go astray. (I'm
cross-posting this to alt.postmodern in case anyone there wants to
clarify, correct or elaborate upon my post.)
"Structuralism," as I understand it, is an umbrella term that describes an
influential trend in French intellectual life that emerged in the 1960's
(although some of the key works were published as early as the 1940's).
The term groups together the work of a number of thinkers, including the
anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss and the literary theorist Roland
Barthes. To confuse the issue further, the term "Post-Structuralist" is
difficult to disentangle from "Structuralist," and one or the other term
has been applied to pretty much every famous French intellectual who has
come down the pike since the 60's--Foucault, Lacan, Derrida (the prototype
Poststructuralist, who attacks Saussure's "structures"), Lyotard,
Kristeva, Deleuze, Baudrillard, and so on.
The things "Structuralists" seem to have in common are a rejection of
Romantic Individualism and a big debt to the Structural Lingustics of
Ferdinand de Saussure, who developed Semiology, the study of "signs,"
which is a method for generalizing linguistics onto a practically
limitless array of phenomena. (A somewhat different approach to the same
subject was developed in the US by C.S. Peirce, and is known as
"Semiotics.")
One of Saussure's ideas was to view language synchronically--that is, all
at once, as a sort of snapshot of a whole system of conventions,
relationships and codes--as opposed to diachronically, across time, the
method of traditional language study, which might examine, for example,
the evolution of a single word through history. (Saussure had several
other influential notions: if you come across "signifier and signified,"
or "langue and parole," or discussions of the arbitrary nature of signs,
you are reading about Saussure's ideas.)
Levi-Strauss applied Saussure's ideas to cultural anthropology (L-S wrote
a two-volume work titled "Structural Anthropology"). He attempted to
discover underlying structures in the rituals and myths of "primitive"
societies. Rather than simply reporting the novel particularities of a
given tribe's behavior, he identified recurring components which are
rearranged within a sort of structural grid to yield particular narratives
and behaviors: he proposed something like the underlying grammer and
syntax of all social rituals.
Similarly, Roland Barthes, for one, took to treating all sorts of cultural
forms: buildings, paintings, clothing, advertising, etc., as "texts," to
be "read" with the tools of a literary criticism that is informed by
semiology. All such texts become sites for the production of meaning
("signification"), which is understood as a self-referential system of
signs ("signifiers") which have both denotative and connotative aspects.
("The red carpet" for example, denotes an object with a particular hue and
floor-covering function, where the same phrase--or the same piece of
cloth--might also connote "first class treatment," or "V.I.P.," or
"pretentious self-promotional campaign," or "arrogant reinforcement of
social inequality," or all of these meanings ("signifieds" is Sausurre's
term) and more, depending on the context in which it is read, and on the
competence of the reader.)
So, to finally get around to how Structuralism might apply to visual art,
one would expect to find skepticism about the idea that an artwork carries
within it stable meaning placed there by an individual artist. Instead,
the (post-) structuralist will look at the work in terms of its context,
the social systems and codes in which it is embedded, the systems which
make meaning possible, the systems upon which knowledge depends.
The artist who has been influenced by such thinking will likewise direct
his or her attention to the conventions by which meaning is produced,
which might mean an analysis of pictorial codes or an investigation of
contextual aspects of art that were traditionally seen as beyond the
artists' job description, especially having to do with the way language
operates on and around art, which is arguably the principal characteristic
of Conceptual Art. Conceptualism and the work that has followed it is
largely influenced by one-or-another version of (post-) structuralist
thought. Barthes and the gang are frequently invoked to establish the
critical legitimacy of that art.
Somebody might interpret this as "no criteria or judgement," but I think
that would be a mistake: it represents a critique of certain conventional
methods of judgement, but hardly abandons all criteria for evaluation.
While the idea of comparing the work to some transcendental standard of
quality becomes irrelevant in most of these views, the judgement of "good"
or "bad" might be replaced with "challenging" or "transgressive" vs.
"banal." The Marxist variants (there are many, and they all insist on a
historical view, which puts them somewhat at odds with "pure"
structuralism) will judge according to a "progressive" vs. "reactionary"
standard, i.e., the question becomes one of how well the work serves the
larger project of destabilizing power relations en route to a Socialist
Utopia.
I've tried to sketch out some shared traits of Structuralist and
Post-Structuralist writers--their emphasis on language and systems that
generate meaning-- but the specific thinkers that are so labelled have
many disagreements and differences in emphasis. And their thinking has
been influential enough that many British and American critics are also
called "structuralist" or "post-structuralist."
For a clearer understanding, you might want to read some of Barthes'
essays, or much of the literature surrounding Conceptual Art. An
interesting treatment of art history that attempts to integrate
Structuralist viewpoints into discussions of Giotto, Vermeer, and the like
is "Vision and Painting" by Norman Bryson (which is also written with a
kind of clarity often absent in many academic writers).
This overview isn't as lucid as I'd like it to be, but given the
constraints of time and my shaky grasp on some of this material, it will
have to do for now. I hope that others who swim in these waters will jump
in here. If nothing else, some grasp on this history will help remove
some of the mystery that seems to surround the esteem in which many
artworks---particularly those that do not display artisanal
craftsmanship--are held by the "artworld".
Paul D. Lanier
On Wed, 1 Jul 1998, BT wrote:
BT:
PL comments:
Yeah, and the assertion of the complete abitrariness of signs seems
anti-realist to me.
BT:
Levi-Strauss applied Saussure's ideas to cultural anthropology (L-S wrote
a two-volume work titled "Structural Anthropology"). He attempted to
discover underlying structures in the rituals and myths of "primitive"
societies. Rather than simply reporting the novel particularities of a
given tribe's behavior, he identified recurring components which are
rearranged within a sort of structural grid to yield particular narratives
and behaviors: he proposed something like the underlying grammer and
syntax of all social rituals.
PL:
I think I'm finally understanding where the sociologist Levi-Straus fits
in to the postmodern and the structuralist worldviews. Thanks.
BT
Similarly, Roland Barthes, for one, took to treating all sorts of cultural
forms: buildings, paintings, clothing, advertising, etc., as "texts," to
be "read" with the tools of a literary criticism that is informed by
semiology. All such texts become sites for the production of meaning
("signification"), which is understood as a self-referential system of
signs ("signifiers") which have both denotative and connotative aspects.
("The red carpet" for example, denotes an object with a particular hue and
floor-covering function, where the same phrase--or the same piece of
cloth--might also connote "first class treatment," or "V.I.P.," or
"pretentious self-promotional campaign," or "arrogant reinforcement of
social inequality," or all of these meanings ("signifieds" is Sausurre's
term) and more, depending on the context in which it is read, and on the
competence of the reader.
PL queries:
Do you know anything about the denaturalized or historicized myth and
the naturalized signifier? ( I believe Roland places the socialist
revolution in this nature arena, though he doesn't appear to think much of
Stalinist propaganda.)
BT:
So, to finally get around to how Structuralism might apply to visual art,
one would expect to find skepticism about the idea that an artwork carries
within it stable meaning placed there by an individual artist. Instead,
the (post-) structuralist will look at the work in terms of its context,
the social systems and codes in which it is embedded, the systems which
make meaning possible, the systems upon which knowledge depends.
PL:
Strange, yes.
BT:
The artist who has been influenced by such thinking will likewise direct
his or her attention to the conventions by which meaning is produced,
which might mean an analysis of pictorial codes or an investigation of
contextual aspects of art that were traditionally seen as beyond the
artists' job description, especially having to do with the way language
operates on and around art, which is arguably the principal characteristic
of Conceptual Art. Conceptualism and the work that has followed it is
largely influenced by one-or-another version of (post-) structuralist
thought. Barthes and the gang are frequently invoked to establish the
critical legitimacy of that art.
PL:
Why just Roland Barthes and structuralists? Why couldn't conceptual art
be legit in a non-structuralist art theory, like I think Arthur Danto's
is?
BT:
Somebody might interpret this as "no criteria or judgement," but I think
that would be a mistake: it represents a critique of certain conventional
methods of judgement, but hardly abandons all criteria for evaluation.
While the idea of comparing the work to some transcendental standard of
quality becomes irrelevant in most of these views, the judgement of "good"
or "bad" might be replaced with "challenging" or "transgressive" vs.
"banal." The Marxist variants (there are many, and they all insist on a
historical view, which puts them somewhat at odds with "pure"
structuralism) will judge according to a "progressive" vs. "reactionary"
standard, i.e., the question becomes one of how well the work serves the
larger project of destabilizing power relations en route to a Socialist
Utopia.
PL muses:
Seems to me that a project of destablizing power relations en route to a
Capitalist Utopia could occur also.
BT:
I've tried to sketch out some shared traits of Structuralist and
Post-Structuralist writers--their emphasis on language and systems that
generate meaning-- but the specific thinkers that are so labelled have
many disagreements and differences in emphasis. And their thinking has
been influential enough that many British and American critics are also
called "structuralist" or "post-structuralist."
PL asks:
I'm wondering, can you spell out the post-structural difference (examples
of authors included) with structuralists, please?
BT:
For a clearer understanding, you might want to read some of Barthes'
essays, or much of the literature surrounding Conceptual Art. An
interesting treatment of art history that attempts to integrate
Structuralist viewpoints into discussions of Giotto, Vermeer, and the like
is "Vision and Painting" by Norman Bryson (which is also written with a
kind of clarity often absent in many academic writers).
This overview isn't as lucid as I'd like it to be, but given the
constraints of time and my shaky grasp on some of this material, it will
have to do for now. I hope that others who swim in these waters will jump
in here. If nothing else, some grasp on this history will help remove
some of the mystery that seems to surround the esteem in which many
artworks---particularly those that do not display artisanal
craftsmanship--are held by the "artworld".
PL:
I do recommend Arthur Danto as a non-structuralist to thinking through
what is to be considered art and what not to be, whether the "artworld"
critics say so or not. He does accept conceptual art into the arena.
I think a book of his that might be to the question is _Tranfiguration of
the Commonplace_.
Regards,
Paul Lanier
mark webber
BT,
Thanks very much for taking the time to outline these ideas. Contrary to
your final remarks, I find your summary very lucid. But it seems clear
that there is a judgemental process at work.
Do you think there are criteria involved - criteria or notions of quality?
I have a couple of other remarks/questions below:
On Wed, 1 Jul 1998, BT wrote:
> mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote in rec.arts.fine:
>
> > A few weeks back, N replied to a reply of mine with some remarks about
> > structuralist approaches to looking at art. [...]
> >
> > The aspect that interested me most was the notion of looking at art in a
> > way that utilizes no criteria or judgement, if I understood correctly.
> >
> > [...]would anyone else like to help me understand
> > this point of view better?
>
> I suspect that there are folks reading this who are more fluent with this
> material than I am, but I'll give it a crack. My understanding of much of
> this history is superficial: please set me straight if I go astray. (I'm
> cross-posting this to alt.postmodern in case anyone there wants to
> clarify, correct or elaborate upon my post.)
>
(snip bulk of summary)
>
> So, to finally get around to how Structuralism might apply to visual art,
> one would expect to find skepticism about the idea that an artwork carries
> within it stable meaning placed there by an individual artist. Instead,
> the (post-) structuralist will look at the work in terms of its context,
> the social systems and codes in which it is embedded, the systems which
> make meaning possible, the systems upon which knowledge depends.
>
> The artist who has been influenced by such thinking will likewise direct
> his or her attention to the conventions by which meaning is produced,
> which might mean an analysis of pictorial codes or an investigation of
> contextual aspects of art that were traditionally seen as beyond the
> artists' job description, especially having to do with the way language
> operates on and around art, which is arguably the principal characteristic
> of Conceptual Art. Conceptualism and the work that has followed it is
> largely influenced by one-or-another version of (post-) structuralist
> thought. Barthes and the gang are frequently invoked to establish the
> critical legitimacy of that art.
In light of all you've said, Conceptualist art doesn't seem any more
structuralist than Giotto or Vermeer. How is it, do you think, that
Conceptual artists link themselves to structuralism?
>
> Somebody might interpret this as "no criteria or judgement," but I think
> that would be a mistake: it represents a critique of certain conventional
> methods of judgement, but hardly abandons all criteria for evaluation.
> While the idea of comparing the work to some transcendental standard of
> quality becomes irrelevant in most of these views, the judgement of "good"
> or "bad" might be replaced with "challenging" or "transgressive" vs.
> "banal." The Marxist variants (there are many, and they all insist on a
> historical view, which puts them somewhat at odds with "pure"
> structuralism) will judge according to a "progressive" vs. "reactionary"
> standard, i.e., the question becomes one of how well the work serves the
> larger project of destabilizing power relations en route to a Socialist
> Utopia.
This may be the best answer to my question - the one about structuralist
judgement, that is. But what about art without criteria? What about art
that defies the remark "No, he fails here." - making this sort of
judgement impossible?
Is it really possible to have art that defies judgement?
Thanks again,
Mark
BT
In article <6nha15$d5k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Croqu...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >Mark Webber wrote:
> > <major snip>
>
> > Is it really possible to have art that defies judgement?
> >
> > Thanks again,
> >
> > Mark
>
> Is it really possible to have art that submits to judgment? A judgment is
> always more a reflection of the judge, and this is never more so than with
> Structuralism which seeks to evaluate the work within the context of it's
> environment (hence "structure").
That seems a fair statement of a structuralist attitude toward judgement:
any standard that pretends to stand outside the particular context of the
"reading" and competence of the "reader" is a sort of ideological trick,
an attempt to make the interests of a particular class appear natural.
For example, Barthes critiqued the idea of lucidity in written argument on
similar grounds, seeing "clarity" as a smokescreen for indoctrination in
the rhetoric of persuasion suited to the law and originating in the
(royal) courts of the seventeenth century. "Clarity" is then understood
as the administrative idiom of a priveleged class, not the apolitical,
universal, "natural" goal of language that French pedagogogy presents.
It is more of a critical analysis tool than a
> tool of creation and has been out of favor with the anthropological community
> since the early thirties, so I am surprised to find it resurrected in the art
> criticism community.
Huh? I find it hard to believe that anthropology dropped structuralism in
the early thirties. As I understand it, Levi-Strauss is the pre-eminant
and pioneer Structural Anthropologist. (Right?) Since his most-cited
books (Tristes Tropiques, Structural Anthropology, The Raw and The Cooked,
Totemism, etc.) were published in the fifties and sixties, your claim does
not compute. (He was, though, doing field work and teaching in Brazil in
the mid-thirties, so maybe you know something that I don't...) It is
possible that structuralism's influence on the humanities in general
outlasted its popularity among anthropologists.
As to Structuralism the art community--it makes a certain sense, at least
in terms of that part of the art community which is attached to academia,
since the French theorists, structuralist and post, talk about meaning and
culture. I think that this material hit English-language art theorists
and critics in the mid-seventies, following its impact on literary
studies, and has florished then petered out as an influence since, though
it still is addressed in graduate art and art history programs.
But then, perhaps I shouldn't be surprised since such a
> tool does provide one the opportunity to prattle on and on about how lovely,
> sensitive and socially conscious one is; furthermore, such a way of seeing
> generates insoluble problems wherein it is all "too complicated" for the
> "ordinary" intellect.
There are some thoughts that might be worth pursuing here, but c'mon...Why
so snotty?
Croqu...@my-dejanews.com
>Mark Webber wrote:
> <major snip>
> Is it really possible to have art that defies judgement?
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Mark
Is it really possible to have art that submits to judgment? A judgment is
always more a reflection of the judge, and this is never more so than with
Structuralism which seeks to evaluate the work within the context of it's
environment (hence "structure"). It is more of a critical analysis tool than a
tool of creation and has been out of favor with the anthropological community
since the early thirties, so I am surprised to find it resurrected in the art
criticism community. But then, perhaps I shouldn't be surprised since such a
tool does provide one the opportunity to prattle on and on about how lovely,
sensitive and socially conscious one is; furthermore, such a way of seeing
generates insoluble problems wherein it is all "too complicated" for the
"ordinary" intellect.
Ah. Forgive the intrusion. You were saying?...
Adieu,
Richard
>
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Dan Clore
> I suspect that there are folks reading this who are more fluent with this
> material than I am, but I'll give it a crack. My understanding of much of
> this history is superficial: please set me straight if I go astray. (I'm
> cross-posting this to alt.postmodern in case anyone there wants to
> clarify, correct or elaborate upon my post.)
I'm doing so, but it's more of an addition than a correction.
> "Structuralism," as I understand it, is an umbrella term that describes an
> influential trend in French intellectual life that emerged in the 1960's
> (although some of the key works were published as early as the 1940's).
You are largely correct, so far as you go, but there are earlier
ancestors. The Russian Formalists in the 1910s and 1920s produced
material that should be included under the rubric of Structuralism, some
of it dealing with visual art. The Czech Structuralists of the 1920s and
1930s are another example, and did in fact refer to themselves by this
term. Mukharovsky was an important member of the Czech Structuralists
who wrote about visual art. An important tie between all groups is Roman
Jakobson, a linguist and semiotician who belonged to the Russian
Formalists, fled from the Soviet regime to Prague, where he was involved
with the Structuralists there, fled from the Nazis to Denmark, Norway,
and finally the US, where he met Levi-Strauss in New York. He influenced
Levi-Strauss and they co-wrote some articles. For my money, I lot of the
work put out by the Russians and Czechs is better thought-out and more
interesting than most of the French Structuralists' work, and it's well
worth taking the trouble to read. Umberto Eco is a more recent figure
who has produced some very significant work in this area.
--
---------------------------------------------------
Dan Clore
The Website of Lord We˙rdgliffe:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/index.html
Welcome to the Waughters....
The Dan Clore Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm
Because the true mysteries cannot be profaned....
"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!"
BT
see that he wrote:
>Ayn Rand was a
> capitalist utopian, but she'd have nothing to do with all this
> relativistic talk--reality (and morality) are absolutely, objectively
> comprehensible according to her. She had a theory of art, too--art should
> project idealized heroic role models. She found modernism repellent.
> >
Just for the record, this last line about Ayn Rand is false. She was a
champion of certain strains of modernism, particularly modernist
architecture, as exemplified by the architect-hero of her book "The
Fountainhead," who was inspired by Frank Lloyd Wright. In California,
Rand lived in a Richard Neutra house.
What she found repellent was anything that trafficked in ambiguity, doubt,
ugliness, anxiety... anything that did not resolve itself into heroic
individualism.
BT
Thanks, Dan, for jumping in. I'm aware of the Russians by reputation,
though I've never read much by them. I am fairly familiar with Eco's
work, though: in fact I've found it more personally useful (for thinking
about art) than any of the French authors we mentioned--I guess I'm more
attuned to his pragmatic, Piercian bias than to the intricacies of French
agonistics.
I skipped the Peircian semiotics in my "overview of Structrialism" post,
just to keep things simple. I'm glad you brought it into the discussion.
Any further elaboration about the Russian Formalists will be most welcome.
Paul D. Lanier
A very nice war of ideas for her to drive herself through.
I especially the contradictory praise of morality and compassion and honor
as mere selfish egoism. She has to backtrack at times and brings in
worship as the ideal for love, a worship her heroine has for Man and more
specifically John Galt of _Atlas Shrugged_. NOt that I don't think the
seeing of the egoist side of love is bad, just the altruist side is
obscured far too much. In all her talk of self and idenitity "A is A" she
forgets to say "A is next to B", the Other which one lives with and
chooses to cherish. :)
Regards,
Paul Lanier
Dan Clore
> Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> Thanks, Dan, for jumping in. I'm aware of the Russians by reputation,
> though I've never read much by them. I am fairly familiar with Eco's
> work, though: in fact I've found it more personally useful (for thinking
> about art) than any of the French authors we mentioned--I guess I'm more
> attuned to his pragmatic, Piercian bias than to the intricacies of French
> agonistics.
I think that Eco did a quite brilliant job in _Theory of Semiotics_
drawing together what was worthwhile in previous theorizings on the
subject. And, I have to say, some of the French guys tended to go off
track a bit and get caught up in their own cleverness instead of really
advancing understanding (Barthes is a good example, insightful as much
of his work certainly is). Some of them, like Genette or Riffaterre,
don't have this problem.
> I skipped the Peircian semiotics in my "overview of Structrialism" post,
> just to keep things simple. I'm glad you brought it into the discussion.
>
> Any further elaboration about the Russian Formalists will be most welcome.
I suppose I really need a more specific topic to address than simply
"visual art" -- what precisely what the subject originally? Whether a
structuralist approach without judging it, or something like that?
I'd say that structuralism does not exactly do this; instead, it would
try to discover (through whatever means) the values that are embodied in
the work, and describe how these values give the work its shape. The
term the Russian Formalists coined was the "dominant", the
structure-giving principle that deforms or transforms all the other
elements of the work; or better, a work would have a hierarchy of
dominants all interacting at and between its various levels.
BT
> One way to pose the question is this: How do we determine which minimalist
> or conceptual pieces are the more successful? (I had recounted an anecdote
> in which Dekooning speaks of his own good and bad work.)
>
> Unless I'm oversimplifying, much of what has been added in the last couple
> of days (here in r.a.f.) seems to indicate that structuralism goes a long
> way toward identifying critria, giving a context for it, not eradicating
> it.
>
> So we are left with the original question of criteria for minimalism and
> conceptual art.
Mark,
I'm a little confused by this turn in the discussion--is your ultimate
question one of whether the "advanced" art of the last thirty-five years
or so is guided by any criteria? Does this mean that you find minimalism
and conceptual art mystifying? (Clearly, many contributors to this
newsgroup find minimal and conceptual art incomprehensible and therefore
worthy of contempt. Just as clearly, you are not among the
contemptuous.) If so, please give some examples of work that seems to be
held in esteem for unaccountable reasons, and I'll try to respond--in some
cases, I may shrug along with you--though not necessarily with any
recourse to Structuralism.
BT
mark webber
On Thu, 9 Jul 1998, BT wrote:
> mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
>
> > One way to pose the question is this: How do we determine which minimalist
> > or conceptual pieces are the more successful? (I had recounted an anecdote
> > in which Dekooning speaks of his own good and bad work.)
> >
> > Unless I'm oversimplifying, much of what has been added in the last couple
> > of days (here in r.a.f.) seems to indicate that structuralism goes a long
> > way toward identifying critria, giving a context for it, not eradicating
> > it.
> >
> > So we are left with the original question of criteria for minimalism and
> > conceptual art.
>
> Mark,
>
> I'm a little confused by this turn in the discussion--is your ultimate
> question one of whether the "advanced" art of the last thirty-five years
> or so is guided by any criteria?
Yes, that is probably a better way of putting it than I previously have.
> Does this mean that you find minimalism
> and conceptual art mystifying?
No, not really mystifying - I've spent many pleasnt moments with work by
people like Donald Judd or Walter de Maria, and that enjoyment came
specifically from the (at the time) new point of view I was experiencing -
those ideas about objectness and relationship to space and viewer which
are much less clear in more traditional art (be it Gorky or Giorgione.)
However, I haven't found that sort of experience can be sustained the way
work based on formal relationships can.
I understand that it could be argued that this is an aspect of personal
taste, but personally, I don't see how a Judd or a de Maria can endure the
way a Michelangelo can, and continue to offer more and more visual
experience.
I find myself regarding conceptual art and minimalist art as illustration
(!) because it seems so reliant on text.
> (Clearly, many contributors to this
> newsgroup find minimal and conceptual art incomprehensible and therefore
> worthy of contempt. Just as clearly, you are not among the
> contemptuous.)
Yeah, middle ground is a pretty quiet place. One can watch the lobbed
salvos without being a target. Most of the time, anyway. (I really can't
for the life of me understand hating someone else's creative act so much
as to attack it in public. Or to have a web page featuring such attacks.)
> If so, please give some examples of work that seems to be
> held in esteem for unaccountable reasons, and I'll try to respond--in some
> cases, I may shrug along with you--though not necessarily with any
> recourse to Structuralism.
>
> BT
>
Well, as I hope I've pointed out, it isn't really a question of "why is
this considered good" as a question of which are the successful Judds
and de Marias (and works by Morris Louis, Larry Poons, Elsworth Kelly...)
and which are the failures and how do we determine which are which.
And thanks again for joining the discussion.
Mark
Molly Fide
webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU says...
>Well, as I hope I've pointed out, it isn't really a question of "why is
>this considered good" as a question of which are the successful Judds
>and de Marias (and works by Morris Louis, Larry Poons, Elsworth Kelly...)
>and which are the failures and how do we determine which are which.
I have a really hard time relating to any discussion of
good versus great or great vs masterpiece. When you
think of all the art works that have gone before, and the
few on which a consensus can be reached as to which
are masterpieces, they all have stood some test of
time in order to have garnered that consensus opinion.
So Judd and DeMaria and their ilk will have to stand
that same test along with all the other artists of this
century, I feel. Maybe we can communicate our input
from wherever we are when they are the ones being
recalled in the art books of the next century. Molly F.
mark webber
Molly,
Are you saying we should withhold criticism of all work under a certain
age?
When I show my work, I leave out the less successful pieces. I often
destroy work (my own, that is) that I don't think is very good. When
people I know ask for help selecting work for exhibits, we are involved in
a critical process that seems pretty important to me, and doesn't
necessitate coming to an absolute concensus.
Don't you think there are some Picassos or Matisses that are stronger than
others?
Mark
mark webber
After posting the below, I remembered that I wanted to include works like
those of David Salle in the discussion because, after all, this thread has
now made its way into alt.postmodern.
Molly Fide
webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU says...
>Are you saying we should withhold criticism of all work under a certain
>age?
Nope. Not what I said at all. I merely was saying that if you
try today to seek consensus opinions on what constitutes
MASTERPIECES of the 20th century vs what constitutes
masterpieces throughout the ages, you'll find a divergence
of opinions and little consensus. I don't think you'll get
much argument about historical masterpieces being objects
like the Mona Lisa, Michelangelo's Pieta in St. Peters, etc.
OTOH...
>Don't you think there are some Picassos or Matisses that are stronger than
>others?
With the exception of Guernica, I don't think you'll find too
much consensus on what constitutes masterpieces from
either of these artists. And to answer your specific question,
of course I think there are works by either of these artists
that are stronger than others but that is a purely subjective
personal viewpoint and not one that is echoing the 'consensus
opinion' of art historians. Again, Guernica excepted. Molly F.
Molly Fide
>those of David Salle in the discussion because, after all, this thread has
>now made its way into alt.postmodern.
OMIGOD! You dare mention him in the same forum with
Picasso and Matisse! For shame. Molly F.
mark webber
On 10 Jul 1998, Molly Fide wrote:
> In article <Pine.PMDF.3.95.9807100...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>,
> webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU says...
>
> >Are you saying we should withhold criticism of all work under a certain
> >age?
>
> Nope. Not what I said at all. I merely was saying that if you
> try today to seek consensus opinions on what constitutes
> MASTERPIECES of the 20th century vs what constitutes
> masterpieces throughout the ages, you'll find a divergence
> of opinions and little consensus.
I'm *not* trying "to seek consensus opinions on masterpieces of the 20th
century."
I am trying to understand whether or not there can be examples of
Minimalist, Conceptualist and "Postmodern" art which could be considered
less good than other examples. I understand your point, and will gladly
discuss with you the varied means of determining what goes into The Canon,
if you like, but do you see that I never used the word masterpiece?
I'll put it this way: I'm not comparing Judd to Caravaggio (not at the
moment, anyway) - I'm asking if we can compare one Judd to another, and
find one superior to the other.
> I don't think you'll get
> much argument about historical masterpieces being objects
> like the Mona Lisa, Michelangelo's Pieta in St. Peters, etc.
>
> OTOH...
>
> >Don't you think there are some Picassos or Matisses that are stronger than
> >others?
>
> With the exception of Guernica, I don't think you'll find too
> much consensus on what constitutes masterpieces from
> either of these artists. And to answer your specific question,
> of course I think there are works by either of these artists
> that are stronger than others but that is a purely subjective
> personal viewpoint and not one that is echoing the 'consensus
> opinion' of art historians. Again, Guernica excepted. Molly F.
We do agree that the consensus is a combination of the purely subjective
viewpoints, don't we? These art historians are looking at works and
determining some to be of better quality than others. Its the same process
I speak of in my previous posts. Does this process work for Walter de
Maria? Does he have some criteria by which he comes to the conclusion that
the Lightning Field is "better" than the Earth Room?
enjoying your points,
Mark
mark webber
On 10 Jul 1998, Molly Fide wrote:
> In article <Pine.PMDF.3.95.9807100...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>,
> webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU says...
> >
> >
> >After posting the below, I remembered that I wanted to include works like
> >those of David Salle in the discussion because, after all, this thread has
> >now made its way into alt.postmodern.
>
> OMIGOD! You dare mention him in the same forum with
> Picasso and Matisse! For shame. Molly F.
And watch this:
Brahms, Mozart, Debussy and ANDREW LLOYD WEBBER!
Hitchcock, Welles, Chaplin and JAMES CAMERON!
Armstrong, Monk, Parker and KENNY G!
Can you forgive me?
Molly Fide
webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU says...
>Can you forgive me?
Nothing to forgive. Forget maybe. Anyhow,
I see your points and was trying to make a
distinction and I think you understand it.
And I thought I answered the direct question
on 'enjoying' or 'appreciating' a body of work
by any given artist and saying 'that ONE is his
or her BEST work.' But would you and I agree
which of the works in a given body were the
best? And if a vote were taken of everyone who
ever saw that artist's complete oeuvre, would
there be a consensus on the "best" piece. I
think not -- at least not until the test of time has
worked its magic. I just wish I could come back
in a century or so and see if those who had their
15 minutes of fame in this century are even KNOWN
in the next one. Ah well.... Maybe you and I
can test our angel wings and conspire to have a
little conference next century. Molly F.
G*rd*n
Komar & Melamid's recent project of designing art according
to the results of polls. While they were applying their
method only to traditional painting, I don't see why it
couldn't apply to other arts as well.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Note: This mailbox generally cannot be reached from
sites which permit origination or relaying of junk mail.
mark webber
On 11 Jul 1998, Molly Fide wrote:
>
> Nothing to forgive. Forget maybe. Anyhow,
> I see your points and was trying to make a
> distinction and I think you understand it.
> And I thought I answered the direct question
> on 'enjoying' or 'appreciating' a body of work
> by any given artist and saying 'that ONE is his
> or her BEST work.'
Well, that wasn't my question. But that's ok Molly.
> But would you and I agree
> which of the works in a given body were the
> best?
I kind of doubt it, don't you?
> And if a vote were taken of everyone who
> ever saw that artist's complete oeuvre, would
> there be a consensus on the "best" piece. I
> think not -- at least not until the test of time has
> worked its magic.
God, even if the test of time lasted magically long there would be
disagreement on this type of question.
> I just wish I could come back
> in a century or so and see if those who had their
> 15 minutes of fame in this century are even KNOWN
> in the next one.
Yes, that would be amusing.
> Ah well.... Maybe you and I
> can test our angel wings and conspire to have a
> little conference next century. Molly F.
>
Uh, sure. In the mean time though, there is still that funny little
question hangin' out there about editing one's own work. That sure would
be hard to do a century later, wouldn't it?
Mark
Ingrid
favoured subject matter for painting?
G*rd*n wrote:
Ingrid
--
The Perfect Purple People Eaterâ„¢
G*rd*n
| This is a little off the topic,
| but do people regard Rothko's works as modern or postmodern in epoch?
| Personally, I would like to think of them as modern works in the
| framework that they are abstractions, but I entered into a discussion
| with someone recently who said that he was a postmodern artist because
| of the way in which Rothko tries to transcend abstraction in an
| intellectual nihilism.
|
| Who knows?
Did your interlocutor go so far as to get into any detail
on just _how_ Rothko "tries to transcend abstraction in an
intellectual nihilism"? I don't see anything particularly
nihilistic in his work, unless one regards ab-ex as
nihilistic from the start.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{ http://www.etaoin.com }"{
G*rd*n
| > I'm surprised this discussion went by without mentioning
| > Komar & Melamid's recent project of designing art according
| Is this the study where the results stated that landscapes were the
| favoured subject matter for painting?
Sort of. They took polls in various nations and then
painted pictures according to the polls. They had a web
site with a rant about what they were doing on it, and
space for discussion. It doesn't seem to be there any
more. I thought their rationale was rather supercilious
and wrote a sharp criticism of them on the discussion
group, making fun of them as petit-bourgeois wannabes who
had adopted the methods of supermarket managers. I pointed
out that real _people's_ art, e.g. thrift store and flea
market material, was often pretty weird. I don't remember
if they ever responded. Some of the folks were rather
heated in condemnation of the project, others liked it. It
was pretty boring compared to their send- up of Socialist
Realism or their installation a few years ago with the
700-odd Lenin busts.
Ingrid
Hmmm....
Amongst other things I do, I volunteer at gallery in Toronto which rents
art to film and tv crews for set decoration... after noticing that most
of the rentals were for "landscapes" and hearing about this ersatz
study, we've been poking fun at their (the study's) precepts... it
reminds me of focus group marketing, where new ideas and concepts in
selling wares are occluded by the fact that Mrs. Singh and Mr. Smith are
more comfy with the "tried and true" rather than showing an evolution of
culture... (and the colour green is not to be used ANYWHERE, so they
say).
Thrift shops, flea markets, boot sales all show more about the true
culture and its oddities, its eccentricities and its evolutions than any
poll. Truly all art, craft, creation is based on the collective
UNconscious rather than on collective conscious - and what happens after
the spark of idea can be then wrung through the art theory gristmills
and public reaction as it may.
Gee, do I just sound like I'm agreeing with what you say??? Perhaps I
should have just quoted you and said "me too". :-) And are we now off
topic yet?
bt
http://www.diacenter.org/km/index.html
It seems to me that the absurdly homogenized results of K and M's surveys
are an intentional component of this work. I think the point is to raise
questions about the relationship of art (and taste) to consumerist
mercantile democracy, which doesn't seem to have been addressed in the
brief criticisms here from Ingrid and G*rd*n.
.
bt
Atul Kuver <rc...@redback.co.rmit.edu.au> wrote
> | This is a little off the topic,
> | but do people regard Rothko's works as modern or postmodern in epoch?
Then g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
[...]I don't see anything particularly
> nihilistic in his work, unless one regards ab-ex as
> nihilistic from the start.
I'm with you on this one , G*rd*n. If Rothko isn't a modernist, I don't
know who is. The combination of formal reductionism and romantic
individualism is textbook modernism, at least of the Greenbergian kind.
mdeli
>This is a little off the topic,
>but do people regard Rothko's works as modern or postmodern in epoch?
>Personally, I would like to think of them as modern works in the
>framework that they are abstractions, but I entered into a discussion
>with someone recently who said that he was a postmodern artist because
>of the way in which Rothko tries to transcend abstraction in an
>intellectual nihilism.
>
>Who knows?
Rothko is definatly Modern.
The category is Modern Bullshitism.
The only art Rothko ever performed was the art of convincing
artzy-fartzy curators and critics to accept his huge schmiers rather
than all the other examples of practically-nothing-art created by that
mass of failures doing much the same thing.
I regard any painting which exhibits a bunch of stripes or a few
color patches, no matter how big, whatever its shape or color or the
repute of its maker, which needs a load of bullshit to proclaim it art
(what you imagine is philosophy) as an utterly stupid, repeatable
object having no more aesthetic value than a towel or bedsheet. In
most cases usually less.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
Alfred Glass
>Atul Kuver <rc...@redback.co.rmit.edu.au>:
>| This is a little off the topic,
>| but do people regard Rothko's works as modern or postmodern in epoch?
>| Personally, I would like to think of them as modern works in the
>| framework that they are abstractions, but I entered into a discussion
>| with someone recently who said that he was a postmodern artist because
>| of the way in which Rothko tries to transcend abstraction in an
>| intellectual nihilism.
>|
>| Who knows?
>
>intellectual nihilism"? I don't see anything particularly
>nihilistic in his work, unless one regards ab-ex as
>nihilistic from the start.
Well, Rothko held some strong opinions about the power of colour.. he
believed people didnt realize how violent it could be. In some of his
works featuring large, "flat" areas of stained canvas, he may well be
expressing nihilism in his combinations of colour.
Steve G
mark webber
to see where this thread went while I was away.
On Tue, 14 Jul 1998, bt wrote:
>
>
> Atul Kuver <rc...@redback.co.rmit.edu.au> wrote
> > | This is a little off the topic,
> > | but do people regard Rothko's works as modern or postmodern in epoch?
>
> Then g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> [...]I don't see anything particularly
> > nihilistic in his work, unless one regards ab-ex as
> > nihilistic from the start.
>
> I'm with you on this one , G*rd*n. If Rothko isn't a modernist, I don't
> know who is. The combination of formal reductionism and romantic
> individualism is textbook modernism, at least of the Greenbergian kind.
>
>
First, I'd like to point out that terms like Post-modern, Modern, Baroque
and Romantic might be applied to works out side of their epochs (to draw
parallels, etc.) but even if everyone can agree that Rothko was Nihilistic
that wouldn't *make* him a post-modernist, because pomo didn't exist until
after his death.
I know a rather insipid art history professor who teaches Poussin with
Jacques Louis David and Ingres because there is a classical element to
Poussin's work.
Well of course this boob is completely missing the point about the
individuality of the Baroque era, the value of comparing Poussin to
Vermeer, Rembrandt, Caravaggio et al, and the fact that the Neo-Classicism
of Ingres and David comes a century and a half later.
Not to mention the fact that hordes of students walk out of his classroom
with this misinfomation.
Secondly, there is the above remark of Bt's:
" The combination of formal reductionism and romantic individualism is
textbook modernism, at least of the Greenbergian kind."
The interesting element to me here is the reductionist one.
This is certainly true as long as Greenberg is the definer of Modernism.
Unfortunately for Mr. Greenberg, the best moments of Modernism are not
about reduction. When people look at Matisse, Picasso, Gorky or Pollock
and see reductionism, I don't think they're seeing the important part of
the work.
(I think that noticing what's missing - the tonal color in Fauvism, the
intense color or deep space in Cubism, the subject matter
or deep space in AbEx - at the expense of seeing what *is* done with
sensibility, is a pity.)
Greenberg never said "This particular Pollock is one of the best" because
you can't say that when your criteria for Art vs. Kitsch is Flatness.
Mark
mark webber
On 15 Jul 1998, Alfred Glass wrote:
> g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> >Atul Kuver <rc...@redback.co.rmit.edu.au>:
> >| This is a little off the topic,
> >| but do people regard Rothko's works as modern or postmodern in epoch?
> >| Personally, I would like to think of them as modern works in the
> >| framework that they are abstractions, but I entered into a discussion
> >| with someone recently who said that he was a postmodern artist because
> >| of the way in which Rothko tries to transcend abstraction in an
> >| intellectual nihilism.
> >|
> >| Who knows?
> >
> >Did your interlocutor go so far as to get into any detail
> >on just _how_ Rothko "tries to transcend abstraction in an
> >intellectual nihilism"? I don't see anything particularly
> >nihilistic in his work, unless one regards ab-ex as
> >nihilistic from the start.
>
> Well, Rothko held some strong opinions about the power of colour.. he
> believed people didnt realize how violent it could be. In some of his
> works featuring large, "flat" areas of stained canvas, he may well be
> expressing nihilism in his combinations of colour.
>
> Steve G
It certainly seems to be true that Rothko held these opinions, and it may
be argued that he was expressing nihilism, but this still wouldn't make
him a post-modernist because he worked within the time period and
sensibility of Modernism and because nihilism is not the exclusive
intellectual property of post-modernism.
Mark
Jim Humphreys
> Atul Kuver <rc...@redback.co.rmit.edu.au> wrote:
> >This is a little off the topic,
> >but do people regard Rothko's works as modern or postmodern in epoch?
> >Personally, I would like to think of them as modern works in the
> >framework that they are abstractions, but I entered into a discussion
> >with someone recently who said that he was a postmodern artist because
> >of the way in which Rothko tries to transcend abstraction in an
> >intellectual nihilism.
> >Who knows?
> Rothko is definatly Modern.
> The category is Modern Bullshitism.
> The only art Rothko ever performed was the art of convincing
> artzy-fartzy curators and critics to accept his huge schmiers rather
> than all the other examples of practically-nothing-art created by that
> mass of failures doing much the same thing.
> I regard any painting which exhibits a bunch of stripes or a few
> color patches, no matter how big, whatever its shape or color or the
> repute of its maker, which needs a load of bullshit to proclaim it art
> (what you imagine is philosophy) as an utterly stupid, repeatable
> object having no more aesthetic value than a towel or bedsheet. In
> most cases usually less.
I have to say that I find much of what you have written here simply
incoherent. What, for example, are we supposed to understand by a
painting's being a "stupid object"? Similarly there is a reference
above to abstract art's being "repeatable"? What is this supposed to
mean? Is it only abstract art that is repeatable? Why? I would
suggest that you read some contemporary art criticism which might help
you to aquire a more considered aesthetic vocabulary.
Jim Humphreys
Jim Humphreys
> >Did your interlocutor go so far as to get into any detail
> >on just _how_ Rothko "tries to transcend abstraction in an
> >intellectual nihilism"? I don't see anything particularly
> >nihilistic in his work, unless one regards ab-ex as
> >nihilistic from the start.
> Well, Rothko held some strong opinions about the power of colour.. he
> believed people didnt realize how violent it could be. In some of his
> works featuring large, "flat" areas of stained canvas, he may well be
> expressing nihilism in his combinations of colour.
Just how does one express nihilism in "combinations of colour"?
Jim Humphreys
Jim Humphreys
> > Well, Rothko held some strong opinions about the power of colour.. he
> > believed people didnt realize how violent it could be. In some of his
> > works featuring large, "flat" areas of stained canvas, he may well be
> > expressing nihilism in his combinations of colour.
> > Steve G
> It certainly seems to be true that Rothko held these opinions, and it may
> be argued that he was expressing nihilism, but this still wouldn't make
> him a post-modernist because he worked within the time period and
> sensibility of Modernism and because nihilism is not the exclusive
> intellectual property of post-modernism.
This quest to pin down Rothko as a Modernist or Post- Modernist seems
to me a mistaken one. Neither of these terms have precisely defined
meanings for one thing - nor must they be seen as disjuncts. To speak
of nihilism as a kind of "property" residing in some sense within the
painting also seems to me mistaken.
Jim Humphreys
Unknown
[> | This is a little off the topic,
[> | but do people regard Rothko's works as modern or postmodern in epoch?
[> | Personally, I would like to think of them as modern works in the
[> | framework that they are abstractions, but I entered into a discussion
[> | with someone recently who said that he was a postmodern artist because
[> | intellectual nihilism.
[> |
[> | Who knows?
[>
[> Did your interlocutor go so far as to get into any detail
[> on just _how_ Rothko "tries to transcend abstraction in an
[> intellectual nihilism"? I don't see anything particularly
[> nihilistic in his work, unless one regards ab-ex as
[> nihilistic from the start.
[> --
[> }"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{ http://www.etaoin.com }"
Rothko's painting is not nihilistic in that it fits into the developments
of 20th century painting. Russian abstract painters, immediately after
the revolution, had produced works of absolute abstraction; the ultimate
work being a plain white canvas. How expressive of the new beginning
in the Soviet Union, although one might have expected red rather than
white. The tendency, pioneered by Gaugin, towards large areas of flat
colour was developed further by Matisse. Paintings such as the Red Studio
established the use of a wide area of a single colour as the dominant
theme of a painting. This was carried futher in Matisse's Portrait of the
English Girl, and culminates, at the end of his life, in the large collages.
The vibrant effect of a single colour area, sometimes muted by the counter
vibration of a darker tone, is the principle means by which Rothko affects
the viewers sensibilities. All this is a logical development of presenting
the means of painting, ie the unadorned paint itself, as transcending the
subject. The insistent presence of large paintings is a statement of their
own reality as objects in their own right as opposed to the usual deceptive
alternative reality presented by an evocative painting with a subject defined
by the viewers imagination.
The later pop-artists, having nowhere else to go in the direction of abstraction,
reintroduced the subject but retained the plain areas of colour, adding back
the purified line derived from the comic book print. Andy Warhole and
David Hockney then took us back to representation, retaining the strength of all
that had been learned from the journey through abstraction. Rothko's work
was part of this journey.
G*rd*n
| ... Andy Warhole and
| that had been learned from the journey through abstraction. Rothko's work
| was part of this journey.
So Andy's work is now "deep" after all. I used to think
that each time an object was looked at, a thin layer of
meaning was removed from it, until it finally became
meaningless (for example, the Statue of Liberty); but here
a thin layer of meaning has been added by each visitor to
the gallery, until the paintings, once light as a feather,
have become heavy indeed.
"It's what you see. There's _nothing_ behind it." -- Andy
Warhol, on being asked what was "behind" his work. Little
did he know.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{ http://www.etaoin.com }"{
mark webber
Welcome to the discussion.
On Sun, 19 Jul 1998, Jim Humphreys wrote:
> mark webber wrote:
>
> > > Well, Rothko held some strong opinions about the power of colour.. he
> > > believed people didnt realize how violent it could be. In some of his
> > > works featuring large, "flat" areas of stained canvas, he may well be
> > > expressing nihilism in his combinations of colour.
> > > Steve G
>
> > It certainly seems to be true that Rothko held these opinions, and it may
> > be argued that he was expressing nihilism, but this still wouldn't make
> > him a post-modernist because he worked within the time period and
> > sensibility of Modernism and because nihilism is not the exclusive
> > intellectual property of post-modernism.
>
> This quest to pin down Rothko as a Modernist or Post- Modernist seems
> to me a mistaken one.
It may look like a quest from your point of view, but I think if the
thread is read in order it looks like one person asking if Rothko can be
considered a Pomo artist, and several saying no. Questions of this sort
turn up here often, and often result in interesting discussions.
> Neither of these terms have precisely defined
> meanings for one thing - nor must they be seen as disjuncts.
There may not be precisely defined meanings, but I think the words
"post-modern' imply something in opposition to "modern".
It seems difficult to me how one could be both.
> To speak
> of nihilism as a kind of "property" residing in some sense within the
> painting also seems to me mistaken.
>
I don't believe that was ever stated. I did say that I don't think we can
think of Nihilism as exclusively post-modern. I didn't say anything about
nihilism residing in a painting, paintings or anywhere else.
But I'm glad you decided to join the discussion.
Mark
Jim Humphreys
> > > > Well, Rothko held some strong opinions about the power of colour.. he
> > > > believed people didnt realize how violent it could be. In some of his
> > > > works featuring large, "flat" areas of stained canvas, he may well be
> > > > expressing nihilism in his combinations of colour.
> > > > Steve G
> > > It certainly seems to be true that Rothko held these opinions, and it may
> > > be argued that he was expressing nihilism, but this still wouldn't make
> > > him a post-modernist because he worked within the time period and
> > > sensibility of Modernism and because nihilism is not the exclusive
> > > intellectual property of post-modernism.
> > This quest to pin down Rothko as a Modernist or Post- Modernist seems
> > to me a mistaken one.
> It may look like a quest from your point of view, but I think if the
> thread is read in order it looks like one person asking if Rothko can be
> considered a Pomo artist, and several saying no. Questions of this sort
> turn up here often, and often result in interesting discussions.
But before we can decide here we need a *definition* of a pomo artist.
especially given the myriad meanings that this term has.
> > Neither of these terms have precisely defined
> > meanings for one thing - nor must they be seen as disjuncts.
> There may not be precisely defined meanings, but I think the words
> "post-modern' imply something in opposition to "modern".
> It seems difficult to me how one could be both.
Again this is a matter of how one defines those terms.
> > To speak
> > of nihilism as a kind of "property" residing in some sense within the
> > painting also seems to me mistaken.
> I don't believe that was ever stated. I did say that I don't think we can
> think of Nihilism as exclusively post-modern. I didn't say anything about
> nihilism residing in a painting, paintings or anywhere else.
Well I was thinking more of Steve G's comments here than your own. He talks
about "expressing nihilism in his [Rothko's] combinations of colour".
This would suggest that nihilism is some quality which we can identify
when we look at the painting -that it is produced by certain combinations
of colour on the surface of the painting. This seems to me extremely
dubious.
Jim Humphreys
Paul D. Lanier
Rothko is definatly Modern.
The category is Modern Bullshitism.
The only art Rothko ever performed was the art of convincing
artzy-fartzy curators and critics to accept his huge schmiers rather
than all the other examples of practically-nothing-art created by that
mass of failures doing much the same thing.
I regard any painting which exhibits a bunch of stripes or a few
color patches, no matter how big, whatever its shape or color or the
repute of its maker, which needs a load of bullshit to proclaim it art
(what you imagine is philosophy) as an utterly stupid, repeatable
object having no more aesthetic value than a towel or bedsheet. In
most cases usually less.
I have to say that I find much of what you have written here simply
incoherent. What, for example, are we supposed to understand by a
painting's being a "stupid object"? Similarly there is a reference
above to abstract art's being "repeatable"? What is this supposed to
mean? Is it only abstract art that is repeatable? Why? I would
suggest that you read some contemporary art criticism which might help
you to aquire a more considered aesthetic vocabulary.
Jim Humphreys
I don't know that art can't be stupid. However, a less condescending
attitude of art might easily be found in the secular humanist Arthur
Danto's work _Transfiguration of the Commonplace_. There is a terrible
lack of belief in any actual reasoning or understanding behind art and
philosophy in this guy's speech, and that's all too common thread of
taking subjectivism to an extreme and turning it all to "bullshit". I
don't think Rothko is "bullshiting", but mayhap his explanations and many
of the contemporary expressions of what art is and does are behind this
kind of cultural philistinism.
Paul Lanier
Paul D. Lanier
Such an ambigous and vexing statement. There's nothing behind the work,
as no agendas, no programmes, no walls. Just what you see. That's a lot.
Just what you see. Really. Vermeer could have said somethings similar.
Rembrandt too.
Regards,
Paul Lanier
mark webber
On Mon, 20 Jul 1998, Jim Humphreys wrote:
(snip)
> mark webber wrote:
>
> > It may look like a quest from your point of view, but I think if the
> > thread is read in order it looks like one person asking if Rothko can be
> > considered a Pomo artist, and several saying no. Questions of this sort
> > turn up here often, and often result in interesting discussions.
>
> But before we can decide here we need a *definition* of a pomo artist.
> especially given the myriad meanings that this term has.
You may have that pleasure - that is, if it really needs more defining
than "after modern."
>
> > > Neither of these terms have precisely defined
> > > meanings for one thing - nor must they be seen as disjuncts.
> > There may not be precisely defined meanings, but I think the words
> > "post-modern' imply something in opposition to "modern".
> > It seems difficult to me how one could be both.
>
> Again this is a matter of how one defines those terms.
Perhaps - but I'd really like to see any reasonable definitions that do
not imply opposition.
>
> > > To speak
> > > of nihilism as a kind of "property" residing in some sense within the
> > > painting also seems to me mistaken.
>
> > I don't believe that was ever stated. I did say that I don't think we can
> > think of Nihilism as exclusively post-modern. I didn't say anything about
> > nihilism residing in a painting, paintings or anywhere else.
>
> Well I was thinking more of Steve G's comments here than your own. He talks
> about "expressing nihilism in his [Rothko's] combinations of colour".
> This would suggest that nihilism is some quality which we can identify
> when we look at the painting -that it is produced by certain combinations
> of colour on the surface of the painting. This seems to me extremely
> dubious.
Perhaps it depends on how one defines nihilism?
Actually, I think I agree with you here.
Mark
mark webber
On Mon, 20 Jul 1998, Jim Humphreys wrote:
(snip)
> mark webber wrote:
> > It may look like a quest from your point of view, but I think if the
> > thread is read in order it looks like one person asking if Rothko can be
> > considered a Pomo artist, and several saying no. Questions of this sort
> > turn up here often, and often result in interesting discussions.
>
> But before we can decide here we need a *definition* of a pomo artist.
> especially given the myriad meanings that this term has.
I'l leave that pleasure to you -that is, if we need more defining than
"after modern."
>
> > > Neither of these terms have precisely defined
> > > meanings for one thing - nor must they be seen as disjuncts.
> > There may not be precisely defined meanings, but I think the words
> > "post-modern' imply something in opposition to "modern".
> > It seems difficult to me how one could be both.
>
> Again this is a matter of how one defines those terms.
Perhaps, but I'd really like to see reasonable definitions that don't
imply opposition.
>
> > > To speak
> > > of nihilism as a kind of "property" residing in some sense within the
> > > painting also seems to me mistaken.
>
> > I don't believe that was ever stated. I did say that I don't think we can
> > think of Nihilism as exclusively post-modern. I didn't say anything about
> > nihilism residing in a painting, paintings or anywhere else.
>
> Well I was thinking more of Steve G's comments here than your own. He talks
> about "expressing nihilism in his [Rothko's] combinations of colour".
> This would suggest that nihilism is some quality which we can identify
> when we look at the painting -that it is produced by certain combinations
> of colour on the surface of the painting. This seems to me extremely
> dubious.
Perhaps it depends on how one defines nihilism.
Actually, I tend to agree withyou on this.
Mark
mdeli
<jimh...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>mdeli wrote:
>
>> Atul Kuver <rc...@redback.co.rmit.edu.au> wrote:
>
>> >This is a little off the topic,
>> >but do people regard Rothko's works as modern or postmodern in epoch?
>> >Personally, I would like to think of them as modern works in the
>> >framework that they are abstractions, but I entered into a discussion
>> >with someone recently who said that he was a postmodern artist because
>> >of the way in which Rothko tries to transcend abstraction in an
>> >intellectual nihilism.
>> >Who knows?
>> Rothko is definatly Modern.
>> The category is Modern Bullshitism.
>> The only art Rothko ever performed was the art of convincing
>> artzy-fartzy curators and critics to accept his huge schmiers rather
>> than all the other examples of practically-nothing-art created by that
>> mass of failures doing much the same thing.
>> I regard any painting which exhibits a bunch of stripes or a few
>> color patches, no matter how big, whatever its shape or color or the
>> repute of its maker, which needs a load of bullshit to proclaim it art
>> (what you imagine is philosophy) as an utterly stupid, repeatable
>> object having no more aesthetic value than a towel or bedsheet. In
>> most cases usually less.
>
>I have to say that I find much of what you have written here simply
>incoherent. What, for example, are we supposed to understand by a
>painting's being a "stupid object"? Similarly there is a reference
>above to abstract art's being "repeatable"? What is this supposed to
>mean? Is it only abstract art that is repeatable? Why? I would
>suggest that you read some contemporary art criticism which might help
>you to aquire a more considered aesthetic vocabulary.
>
>Jim Humphreys
If you don't agree with me you might say why, If you can't understand
what I wrote I suggest you learn to read English.
Jim Humphreys
> > > It may look like a quest from your point of view, but I think if the
> > > thread is read in order it looks like one person asking if Rothko can be
> > > considered a Pomo artist, and several saying no. Questions of this sort
> > > turn up here often, and often result in interesting discussions.
> > But before we can decide here we need a *definition* of a pomo artist.
> > especially given the myriad meanings that this term has.
> You may have that pleasure - that is, if it really needs more defining
> than "after modern."
It doesn't really matter what the definition used is, provided that it
is understood by both parties. If we stipulate postmodern as "after modern"
we then have still to define "modern" ( other than as "before post-modern"}.
> > > > Neither of these terms have precisely defined
> > > > meanings for one thing - nor must they be seen as disjuncts.
> > > There may not be precisely defined meanings, but I think the words
> > > "post-modern' imply something in opposition to "modern".
> > > It seems difficult to me how one could be both.
> > Again this is a matter of how one defines those terms.
> Perhaps - but I'd really like to see any reasonable definitions that do
> not imply opposition.
But even if the terms are in opposition ( and I don't think that is implied
by a definition of postmodern as "after modern" - why couldn't postmodernism
, for example, be interpreted simply as a *relaxing* of modernism?) that
still leaves us with the difficulty that Rothko's work might in some
respects be modern and in others postmodern.
Jim Humphreys
Kristian Mark Twombly
The discussion has gone something like:
<Pomo vs. Modernism...defining each, etc...good discussion on another
thread?>
: But even if the terms are in opposition ( and I don't think that is implied
: by a definition of postmodern as "after modern" - why couldn't
: postmodernism, for example, be interpreted simply as a *relaxing* of
: modernism?) that still leaves us with the difficulty that Rothko's work
: might in some respects be modern and in others postmodern.
: Jim Humphreys
I've always been led to believe that -isms in general are terms used by
Historians to label "movements"...Impressionism, Expressionism, and
Modernism come to mind. Post Modernism was/is a different beast, at least
to me. Pomo was defined early on and it seems, IMHO, that a number of
artists/thinkers, latched on and called themselves Post Modernists in
REACTION to Modernism. To me, this is both "after" Modernism, and
"versus" Modernism. The problem then becomes defining Modernism!
It has been a few years since my Post 1945 Art History class, but I
distinctly remember discussing Modernism WITHOUT EVER talking about
specific examples! We certainly talked about AbEx and David Smith at the
same time, but our class never came out and declared any artist as a
Modernist. We followed that discussion with PoMo, but it sure seemed to
me like a lot of the PoMo artists incorporated Modernist ideals. Only
through the artists writings did I discover classic PoMo traits. (Later
art was much more blatant in thumbing its nose at Modernism...Roy
Lichtenstein's meticulous drips come to mind)
Anyway, what my rambling is boiling down to are two key points.
1) We will never precisely define either Modernism or PoMo. There are
just too many exceptions to any concievable rule, and shoehorning artists
into categories that they just don't really fit in elimantes a lot of what
that artist is about and oversimplfies a life's work.
2) For me, a serviceable definition of Modernism reflects an
attitude...not necessarily a particular trait easily recognizable in the
output of a Modernist artist, but instantly recognizable in writings.
This attitude is an extreme self-confidence and "art above the common man"
line of though and "an art that has a history"...history. Rothko would be
a Modernist. Post Modernism (again, to me) is a rejection of a holier
art and therefore, "after" or "anti" Modernism (hence the term Post).
Interestingly enough, even in this highly generalized definition, I have
seen many exceptions. Once, while I was viewing the Rothko Room in the
Phillips Collection, a small child entered with her father, crying. As
soon as she saw the large murals, she stopped crying and became enthralled
with the paintings. It sure seemed to me like she "figured out" the
works, without any of the grand tradition of the masters or whatever it is
that we need to know before we "understand" a Rothko.
The most important definition is your own. The terms serve as handy
labels so that we can discuss art and focus our discussion quickly
without having to constantly define each term we use, but so much recent
art is trying to redefine -ism, creating isms, etc. that we are just going
to end up spending a vast majority of our time just explaining ourselves
(case in point...this thread!)
This trend to create a new niche is not really a good thing...an argument
could easily be made that a lot of art/artists just need to worry less
about finding a new niche and more about creating within one's OWN niche.
By this I mean that an artist can quickly try to become something that
s/he isn't...corrupting what could be a good thing!
Well, now I've gone and made a big mess of this Rothko/nihilism thing.
Bottom line:
Rothko = Modernist
Happy?
Please reply to:
Kristian Twombly
twom...@eng.umd.edu
mdeli
>Verdigris <>:
>| ... Andy Warhole and
>| David Hockney then took us back to representation, retaining the strength of all
>| that had been learned from the journey through abstraction. Rothko's work
>| was part of this journey.
>
>So Andy's work is now "deep" after all. I used to think
>that each time an object was looked at, a thin layer of
>meaning was removed from it, until it finally became
>meaningless (for example, the Statue of Liberty);
The Statue of Liberty really does become more and more meaningless
for POMO nitwits.
> but here
>a thin layer of meaning has been added by each visitor to
>the gallery, until the paintings, once light as a feather,
>have become heavy indeed.
Do tell us about five "meanings" you have discovered from Warhol.
Even light ones will do.
>
>"It's what you see. There's _nothing_ behind it." -- Andy
>Warhol, on being asked what was "behind" his work. Little
>did he know.
...and I suspect you know even less.
G*rd*n
| >| ... Andy Warhole and
| >| David Hockney then took us back to representation, retaining the strength of all
| >| that had been learned from the journey through abstraction. Rothko's work
| >| was part of this journey.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| >So Andy's work is now "deep" after all. I used to think
| >that each time an object was looked at, a thin layer of
| >meaning was removed from it, until it finally became
| >meaningless (for example, the Statue of Liberty); but here
| >a thin layer of meaning has been added by each visitor to
| >the gallery, until the paintings, once light as a feather,
| >have become heavy indeed.
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli):
| Do tell us about five "meanings" you have discovered from Warhol.
| Even light ones will do.
I prefer them weightless. However, I've seen books with
many pages of carrying-on about what the Marilyn and
electric chair pictures "mean." Multiply those pages by a
decent press run on glossy paper, and you could get twenty
or thirty pounds of meaning right there. Rolled up into
tight cylinders and applied to various parts of your
anatomy, they could make quite an impression. It's up to
you and your masseur.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| >"It's what you see. There's _nothing_ behind it." -- Andy
| >Warhol, on being asked what was "behind" his work. Little
| >did he know.
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli):
| ...and I suspect you know even less.
Where there's nothing to know, he who knows least knows
best -- something I recommend you ponder and take to heart.
Iian Neill
> >> The category is Modern Bullshitism.
Unfortunately, that's a very, very, very large category ...
> >> The only art Rothko ever performed was the art of convincing
> >> artzy-fartzy curators and critics to accept his huge schmiers rather
> >> than all the other examples of practically-nothing-art created by that
> >> mass of failures doing much the same thing.
Rothko had critics behind him, as did most of the early Moderns. Tom Wolfe's "The Painted Word" is a good book for the
behind-the-scenes 1930/50s art scene.
> >> I regard any painting which exhibits a bunch of stripes or a few
> >> color patches, no matter how big, whatever its shape or color or the
> >> repute of its maker, which needs a load of bullshit to proclaim it art
> >> (what you imagine is philosophy) as an utterly stupid, repeatable
> >> object having no more aesthetic value than a towel or bedsheet. In
> >> most cases usually less.
> >
> >I have to say that I find much of what you have written here simply
> >incoherent. What, for example, are we supposed to understand by a
> >painting's being a "stupid object"?
First of all, I am not Mani, so anything I write in response to your questions (because I think they deserve answering) is
not to be counted as authorized by him - unless he chooses to do so at a further date. With that out of the way ...
By "stupid object" I imagine that Mani is insulting either the intelligence of the painter (Rothko), the sophistication of
the art work (the 'lines') or the people who buy the prints - or all of the above.
Paintings, like books, can be "stupid". If the work is trite, illogically organised, inept, clumsy, awkwardly grotesque,
and so forth, one might be right to consider the work "stupid". Art is a product of human thought, creativity, etc., and
so reflects the nature of the artist.
> >Similarly there is a reference
> >above to abstract art's being "repeatable"? What is this supposed to
> >mean? Is it only abstract art that is repeatable? Why?
I think he means "repeatable" in the sense that a five-year-old with a dripping paint brush can whip up a Rothko in six
minutes - and will that be fries and a coke with your painting, sir? What I believe Mani to be getting at is that such
painting requires negligible artistic skill; although the artist must have a silver tongue. Now, a painting such as "The
Turkish Bath" by J.A.D. Ingres is nowhere near as "repeatable" as a Pollock regurgitation or an abstract miasma.
Certainly, you can reproduce the work photographically, digitally, and so forth, but this doesn't make it "repeatable" in
the creative sense. I'd wager that there are very few artists living right now who could duplicate Ingres' "Turkish Bath"
to perfection. Thousands could manage crude, inept copies, certainly - and such artists would find it child's play (in
more ways than one) to "repeat" the works of our oh-so-revolutionary abstract painters.
> >I would
> >suggest that you read some contemporary art criticism which might help
> >you to aquire a more considered aesthetic vocabulary.
Post-modernist vocabulary is usually obscure, and the phraseology inevitably dry, academic and tedious. Far better to
write in a clear, natural style that expresses what you want to say without having to convert it into jargonese.
Cheers,
Iian Neill.
mark webber
On Tue, 21 Jul 1998, Jim Humphreys wrote:
>
> > > But before we can decide here we need a *definition* of a pomo artist.
> > > especially given the myriad meanings that this term has.
> > You may have that pleasure - that is, if it really needs more defining
> > than "after modern."
> It doesn't really matter what the definition used is, provided that it
> is understood by both parties. If we stipulate postmodern as "after modern"
> we then have still to define "modern" ( other than as "before post-modern"}.
>
If it doesn't really matter, then lets say modernism is non-subject matter
oriented art made during Rothko's lifetime.
That would mean post-modern comes after Rothko, and he could have no part
in it.
> > > > > Neither of these terms have precisely defined
> > > > > meanings for one thing - nor must they be seen as disjuncts.
> > > > There may not be precisely defined meanings, but I think the words
> > > > "post-modern' imply something in opposition to "modern".
> > > > It seems difficult to me how one could be both.
>
> > > Again this is a matter of how one defines those terms.
> > Perhaps - but I'd really like to see any reasonable definitions that do
> > not imply opposition.
>
> But even if the terms are in opposition ( and I don't think that is implied
> by a definition of postmodern as "after modern" - why couldn't postmodernism
> , for example, be interpreted simply as a *relaxing* of modernism?) that
> still leaves us with the difficulty that Rothko's work might in some
> respects be modern and in others postmodern.
>
> Jim Humphreys
Well, a *relaxing of modernism* sounds like a form of opposition to me,
but at this point I'd really like to hear reasonable definitions that do
not imply opposition.
You're giving us a lot of theoretical possibility depending on definition
- let's see it in action.
In the mean time, I have no difficulty excluding the possibility that
Rothko was a pomo. With or without any definitions at all, it still seems
silly to suggest it.
Mark
mark webber
On Wed, 22 Jul 1998, Iian Neill wrote:
> ... and will that be fries and a coke with your painting, sir? What I
> believe Mani to be getting at is that such painting requires negligible
> artistic skill; although the artist must have a silver tongue. Now, a
> painting such as "The Turkish Bath" by J.A.D. Ingres is nowhere near
> as "repeatable" as a Pollock regurgitation or an abstract miasma.
> Certainly, you can reproduce the work photographically, digitally, and
> so forth, but this doesn't make it "repeatable" in the creative sense.
> I'd wager that there are very few artists living right now who could
> duplicate Ingres' "Turkish Bath" to perfection. Thousands could manage
> crude, inept copies, certainly - and such artists would find it child's
> play (in more ways than one) to "repeat" the works of our
> oh-so-revolutionary abstract painters.
>
> > >I would
> > >suggest that you read some contemporary art criticism which might help
> > >you to aquire a more considered aesthetic vocabulary.
>
> Post-modernist vocabulary is usually obscure, and the phraseology
> inevitably dry, academic and tedious. Far better to write in a clear,
> natural style that expresses what you want to say without having to
> convert it into jargonese.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Iian Neill.
Iian,
Dry, academic and tedious...these are things to avoid being. You won't
avoid them by being close-minded to art that doesn't fit into some
pre-conceived, naive notion of skill, romance or classicism.
You became annoyed with someone awhile back because of what you perceived
as an ageist comment, but do you still admire the same art and music now
that you did 15 years ago? Is it possible that you will, as you mature,
see art as something more than technical illustration?
Is it possible that a painter like Rothko or Dekooning has more in common
with Ingres than you currently realise?
Is it possible for any art form which to be so quickly understood that a
student can consider himself an expert, to have comprehended it all?
Naturally you are welcome to continue along your track, but I'll point out
that Ingres was not a great painter because of his technical skill. And
while he and Delacroix vied with each other for most of their lives, in
the end they respected each other a great deal.
You've told us that you are around 20 years old. Isn't it possible that
within 5 or 10 years you could be really embarrassed to have trashed
artists that people who are in their 30s, 40s and beyond really love?
Is it possible that you didn't finish our discussion of your "Rant"
because you simply don't understand enough yet?
Is it possible that you need to open your mind and your eyes?
Sincerely,
Mark
Jim Humphreys
> >I have to say that I find much of what you have written here simply
> >incoherent. What, for example, are we supposed to understand by a
> >painting's being a "stupid object"? Similarly there is a reference
> >above to abstract art's being "repeatable"? What is this supposed to
> >mean? Is it only abstract art that is repeatable? Why? I would
> >suggest that you read some contemporary art criticism which might help
> >you to aquire a more considered aesthetic vocabulary.
> If you don't agree with me you might say why, If you can't understand
> what I wrote I suggest you learn to read English.
> Mani DeLi
I suggest that you formulate in a coherent manner your response to my post.
Jim Humphreys
ja...@iname.com
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
> The only art Rothko ever performed was the art of convincing
> artzy-fartzy curators and critics to accept his huge schmiers rather
FYI, I believe the phrase above is spelled "artsy-fartsy." Just letting
you know--after all, you wouldn't want to embarrass yourself.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Iian Neill
> > > >suggest that you read some contemporary art criticism which might help
> > > >you to aquire a more considered aesthetic vocabulary.
> >
> > inevitably dry, academic and tedious. Far better to write in a clear,
> > natural style that expresses what you want to say without having to
> > convert it into jargonese.
>
>
> Dry, academic and tedious...these are things to avoid being. You won't
> avoid them by being close-minded to art that doesn't fit into some
> pre-conceived, naive notion of skill, romance or classicism.
Pre-conceived - perhaps so. Naive? I would have to ask you to go into that in
more detail before I can agree.
> You became annoyed with someone awhile back because of what you perceived
> as an ageist comment, but do you still admire the same art and music now
> that you did 15 years ago?
15 years ago I hardly knew that art existed, being hardly more than an infant.
Ironically, some of my detractors might claim I haven't come so far since then,
but let's leave that aside for the moment. Yes, sure, there is the chance that
the artists I will admire 15 years hence will be distinctly different from
those at present - but so radically different that I will find myself wincing
at the memory of ever having disparaged them? This I am not so sure about, and
would not dare to hazard what the future will hold in that regard.
> Is it possible that you will, as you mature,
> see art as something more than technical illustration?
I already see great art as being more than 'technical illustration' - but
before we pursue this line of inquiry, perhaps you could explain to me what you
see as 'technical illustration' in art. I find the works of Norman Rockwell,
Ted Nasmith, John Howe, et cetera, to be 'technical illustration' (generally
speaking). How do you see the term?
> Is it possible that a painter like Rothko or Dekooning has more in common
> with Ingres than you currently realise?
It's certainly possible, but for me it is a very remote possibility. Again,
perhaps you could point out to me what these similarities are.
> Is it possible for any art form which to be so quickly understood that a
> student can consider himself an expert, to have comprehended it all?
I have never claimed to be an expert on any matter. I am all too aware of the
limitations in my understanding of art - I feel it keenly every time I look at
a great work of art, and to know that I cannot create such things with my own
hands. Even so ... I am not afraid to comment on or discuss art within these
limitations, even at the risk of appearing foolish. And when it comes to
expertise in the Arts ... I find it immensely difficult to respect some of our
'expert' critics, particularly when most of them have probably never wielded a
brush skilfully or with panache. What makes them qualified then? Well, it must
be study - study of the works, study of the artists' lives, their writings, and
perhaps most influentially, the study of the writings of OTHER critics.
> Naturally you are welcome to continue along your track, but I'll point out
> that Ingres was not a great painter because of his technical skill.
The enormous technical skill that Ingres undoubtedly possessed allowed him to
give expression to his beliefs, ideas and so forth on art. If he had been an
inept painter, perhaps he would not be so well-remembered today - except,
ironically, as a 'forerunner' of a twentieth century movement.
> And
> while he and Delacroix vied with each other for most of their lives, in
> the end they respected each other a great deal.
I have heard the same. Although Delacroix's technique was 'looser' than Ingres'
own, he was no incompetent.
> You've told us that you are around 20 years old. Isn't it possible that
> within 5 or 10 years you could be really embarrassed to have trashed
> artists that people who are in their 30s, 40s and beyond really love?
Perhaps so. But in the meantime all I can do is apply myself to art and art
appreciation with as much vigour, enthusiasm and intelligence as I can muster.
> Is it possible that you didn't finish our discussion of your "Rant"
> because you simply don't understand enough yet?
For that I must apologize. I allowed my exams to intercede in my participation
in that thread, and then a subsequent interstate holiday (to be re-united with
family) prolonged this hiatus weeks more. Thank you for bring the matter to my
attention - I will go through my records, find the letter in question, and
respond to it ASAP.
> Is it possible that you need to open your mind and your eyes?
An open mind is always desirable, and this is what I hope that I am doing. But
an open mind needs to be tempered with a critical appreciation of the subject
in question, otherwise what is good in art becomes obscured in a mass of
mediocrity. There can be no real critical appreciation unless there are some
criteria that can be objectively examined - this is probably a 'no-no' in the
art world at present ; I am not sure. People are continually told to open up to
all new forms of art ; but there is a difference between the 'opening up of
standards' and the 'dissolving of standards'.
Yours sincerely,
Iian Neill.
Lee Goddard Collective
article <35B5DAE6...@student.uq.edu.au> to alt.postmodern:
> > >> Rothko is definatly Modern.
> > >> The category is Modern Bullshitism.
> Unfortunately, that's a very, very, very large category ...
Ah, you know about this stuff.
> > >> The only art Rothko ever performed was the art of convincing
> > >> artzy-fartzy curators and critics to accept his huge schmiers rather
> > >> than all the other examples of practically-nothing-art created by that
> > >> mass of failures doing much the same thing.
> Rothko had critics behind him, as did most of the early Moderns. Tom Wolfe's "The Painted Word" is a good book for the
> behind-the-scenes 1930/50s art scene.
The majority of early Moderns had critics behind them? You should read more
than the evangelical Wolfe before you voice with such authority. But I'll not
rip the shit out of you just yet: let's just say 'Impressionism' was a term of
derision; the Dadaists were frequently imprisoned/shot in Germany; Surrealism
was laughed out of court. But hell, these aren't even early Moderns: the term
usually refers to the period of the Italian Renaissance.
Failure is as subjective a term as aquaintance.
> > >> I regard any painting which exhibits a bunch of stripes or a few
> > >> color patches, no matter how big, whatever its shape or color or the
> > >> repute of its maker, which needs a load of bullshit to proclaim it art
> > >> (what you imagine is philosophy) as an utterly stupid, repeatable
> > >> object having no more aesthetic value than a towel or bedsheet. In
> > >> most cases usually less.
> > >
> > >I have to say that I find much of what you have written here simply
> > >incoherent. What, for example, are we supposed to understand by a
> > >painting's being a "stupid object"?
> First of all, I am not Mani, so anything I write in response to your questions (because I think they deserve answering) is
> not to be counted as authorized by him - unless he chooses to do so at a further date. With that out of the way ...
> By "stupid object" I imagine that Mani is insulting either the intelligence of the painter (Rothko), the sophistication of
> the art work (the 'lines') or the people who buy the prints - or all of the above.
> Paintings, like books, can be "stupid". If the work is trite, illogically organised, inept, clumsy, awkwardly grotesque,
> and so forth, one might be right to consider the work "stupid". Art is a product of human thought, creativity, etc., and
> so reflects the nature of the artist.
> > >Similarly there is a reference
> > >above to abstract art's being "repeatable"? What is this supposed to
> > >mean? Is it only abstract art that is repeatable? Why?
> I think he means "repeatable" in the sense that a five-year-old with a dripping paint brush can whip up a Rothko in six
> minutes - and will that be fries and a coke with your painting, sir? What I believe Mani to be getting at is that such
> painting requires negligible artistic skill; although the artist must have a silver tongue. Now, a painting such as "The
> Turkish Bath" by J.A.D. Ingres is nowhere near as "repeatable" as a Pollock regurgitation or an abstract miasma.
> Certainly, you can reproduce the work photographically, digitally, and so forth, but this doesn't make it "repeatable" in
> the creative sense. I'd wager that there are very few artists living right now who could duplicate Ingres' "Turkish Bath"
> to perfection. Thousands could manage crude, inept copies, certainly - and such artists would find it child's play (in
> more ways than one) to "repeat" the works of our oh-so-revolutionary abstract painters.
> > >I would
> > >suggest that you read some contemporary art criticism which might help
> > >you to aquire a more considered aesthetic vocabulary.
> Post-modernist vocabulary is usually obscure, and the phraseology inevitably dry, academic and tedious. Far better to
> write in a clear, natural style that expresses what you want to say without having to convert it into jargonese.
Mr Neill, would you care to define the post-modernism which you speak of with
such self-importance? And cross reference that with irony? Hmm?
You are a twit.
Lee Goddard
Jim Humphreys
>Paintings, like books, can be "stupid". If the work is trite, illogically organised, inept,
>clumsy, awkwardly grotesque, and so forth, one might be right to consider the work
>"stupid".
It would seem appropriate under these circumstances to describe the *artist* rather
than the painting as stupid. My point was simply that the term "stupid" as applied to
a painting is crude and inaccurate.
>Art is a product of human thought, creativity, etc., and so reflects the nature of the
>artist.
This is a fallacy. Because a work may be the product of human thought etc.
it does not follow that it must reflect the "nature" of the artist.
> >Similarly there is a reference
> >above to abstract art's being "repeatable"? What is this supposed to
> >mean? Is it only abstract art that is repeatable? Why?
>I think he means "repeatable" in the sense that a five-year-old with a dripping paint
>brush can whip up a Rothko in six minutes
I would dispute this. Rothko's work is extremely subtle in terms of its colour
proportion etc. It is unlikely that anyone would produce paintings like
his by accident. The claim here sounds similar to the claims that are sometimes made
about composers like Stockhausen, Boulez etc - that "anyone could make a
noise like that". Of course they could not and do not.
>- and will that be fries and a coke with your painting, sir? What I believe Mani to be
>getting at is that such painting requires negligible artistic skill; although the artist must
>have a silver tongue. Now, a painting such as "The
>Turkish Bath" by J.A.D. Ingres is nowhere near as "repeatable" as a Pollock
>regurgitation or an abstract miasma.
Again I think this is incorrect. If we had a monkey, and let it loose with a tin
of paint, I see no reason to suppose that an exact copy of a Pollock painting
would appear sooner than an Ingres.
Jim Humphreys
Jim Humphreys
On Tue, 21 Jul 1998, Jim Humphreys wrote:
> > > But before we can decide here we need a *definition* of a pomo artist.
> > > especially given the myriad meanings that this term has.
> > You may have that pleasure - that is, if it really needs more defining
> > than "after modern."
> It doesn't really matter what the definition used is, provided that it
> is understood by both parties. If we stipulate postmodern as "after modern"
> we then have still to define "modern" ( other than as "before post-modern"}.
If it doesn't really matter, then lets say modernism is non-subject matter
oriented art made during Rothko's lifetime.
That would mean post-modern comes after Rothko, and he could have no part
in it.
The it would be true by definition that Rothko is a modernist.
When I said that it doesn't really matter what the definition is, I
meant any of the currently accepted definitions. If we use a definition
like the one above ("modernism as art produced during Rothko's lifetime")
then the definition is a stipulated ( not to say highly unsatisfactory) one.
> > > > > Neither of these terms have precisely defined
> > > > > meanings for one thing - nor must they be seen as disjuncts.
> > > > There may not be precisely defined meanings, but I think the words
> > > > "post-modern' imply something in opposition to "modern".
> > > > It seems difficult to me how one could be both.
>
> > > Again this is a matter of how one defines those terms.
> > Perhaps - but I'd really like to see any reasonable definitions that do
> > not imply opposition.
> But even if the terms are in opposition ( and I don't think that is implied
> by a definition of postmodern as "after modern" - why couldn't postmodernism
> , for example, be interpreted simply as a *relaxing* of modernism?) that
> still leaves us with the difficulty that Rothko's work might in some
> respects be modern and in others postmodern.
Well, a *relaxing of modernism* sounds like a form of opposition to me,
but at this point I'd really like to hear reasonable definitions that do
not imply opposition.
I don't think that opposition is implied by relaxing of modernism. I
don't see wht modernism has to be seen in opposition to postmodernism-
it seems reasonable to imagine that an art work might include modernist
and postmodernist elements and that there might be transitionary figures.
You're giving us a lot of theoretical possibility depending on definition
- let's see it in action.
In the mean time, I have no difficulty excluding the possibility that
Rothko was a pomo. With or without any definitions at all, it still seems
silly to suggest it.
Why?
Jim Humphreys
mark webber
I'd like to point out first that your replies are confusing who says what.
Please use some form of distinction between what I say and what you say.
On Thu, 23 Jul 1998, Jim Humphreys wrote:
> mark webber wrote:
>
> On Tue, 21 Jul 1998, Jim Humphreys wrote:
>
> > > > But before we can decide here we need a *definition* of a pomo artist.
> > > > especially given the myriad meanings that this term has.
>
(I replied)
> > > You may have that pleasure - that is, if it really needs more defining
> > > than "after modern."
(Jim)
> > It doesn't really matter what the definition used is, provided that it
> > is understood by both parties. If we stipulate postmodern as "after modern"
> > we then have still to define "modern" ( other than as "before post-modern"}.
>
> If it doesn't really matter, then lets say modernism is non-subject matter
> oriented art made during Rothko's lifetime.
> That would mean post-modern comes after Rothko, and he could have no part
> in it.
>
Then Jim replied:
> The it would be true by definition that Rothko is amodernist.
> When I said that it doesn't really matter what the definition is, I
> meant any of the currently accepted definitions. If we use a definition
> like the one above ("modernism as art produced during Rothko's lifetime")
> then the definition is a stipulated ( not to say highly unsatisfactory) one.
>
Yes, it is highly unsatisfactory. But it is more definition than you
provide.
(Jim originally wrote)
> > > > > > Neither of these terms have precisely defined
> > > > > > meanings for one thing - nor must they be seen as disjuncts.
>
(and I replied)
> > > > > There may not be precisely defined meanings, but I think the words
> > > > > "post-modern' imply something in opposition to "modern".
>
> > > > > It seems difficult to me how one could be both.
> >
> > > > Again this is a matter of how one defines those terms.
>
> > > Perhaps - but I'd really like to see any reasonable definitions that do
> > > not imply opposition.
>
> > But even if the terms are in opposition ( and I don't think that is implied
> > by a definition of postmodern as "after modern" - why couldn't postmodernism
> > , for example, be interpreted simply as a *relaxing* of modernism?) that
> > still leaves us with the difficulty that Rothko's work might in some
> > respects be modern and in others postmodern.
>
(and I replied, hoping to hear some definitions that would actually
support the argument)
> Well, a *relaxing of modernism* sounds like a form of opposition to me,
> but at this point I'd really like to hear reasonable definitions that do
> not imply opposition.
>
(and Jim replied, restating again, without offering definitions)
> I don't think that opposition is implied by relaxing of modernism. I
> don't see wht modernism has to be seen in opposition to postmodernism-
> it seems reasonable to imagine that an art work might include modernist
> and postmodernist elements and that there might be transitionary figures.
>
>
>
(Again I request a sampling of how reasonable definitions might include
Rothko in Pomo)
> You're giving us a lot of theoretical possibility depending on definition
> - let's see it in action.
>
> In the mean time, I have no difficulty excluding the possibility that
> Rothko was a pomo. With or without any definitions at all, it still seems
> silly to suggest it.
>
(and Jim asks)
> Why?
>
> Jim Humphreys
>
>
Jim, I'll make a deal with you: You give me reasonable examples of
definitions of pomo and modernism and I'll tell you why I think its silly
to include Rothko in pomo.
Mark
Unknown
[> to see where this thread went while I was away.
[>
[> On Tue, 14 Jul 1998, bt wrote:
> I know a rather insipid art history professor who teaches Poussin with
> Jacques Louis David and Ingres because there is a classical element to
> Poussin's work.
>
> Well of course this boob is completely missing the point about the
> individuality of the Baroque era, the value of comparing Poussin to
> Vermeer, Rembrandt, Caravaggio et al, and the fact that the Neo-Classicism
> of Ingres and David comes a century and a half later.
>
> Not to mention the fact that hordes of students walk out of his classroom
> with this misinfomation.
I think the insipid professor was right.
Generally, the term neo-classical refers to any new slant on the "classical"
writers or artists of ancient Greece or Rome. For example, Plotinus is a
neo-classical philosopher relative to Plato.
Claude-Lorraine and Poussin were neo-classical painters insofar as they
were inspired by their idea of classical times. Ingres and Delacroix were
contemporaries but although the work of the former included some classical
themes the spirit of his work is clearly romantic and "painterly" compared
to the linearity and austerity of Ingres. Most 19th and early 20th century
"academies" were neo-classical in spirit because of the prevailing reverence
for the cultures of ancient Greece and Rome. Lord Leighton's painting is
a good exaple of this last gasp of pure neo-classicism.
Clearly, the influence of the classical, whether first of second hand, is
a matter of degree and arises at any point in history. Painters tend to be
catholic in their sources of inspiration, so the label neo-classical comes
to depend on the use of; classical subjects, austere linearity, restrained
colour, an intellectual rather than an emotional approach etc.
In the case of music, the term "classical" indicates the continuation of
a musical tradition from about the 16th century to the present day. In short,
it is a very broad label which means different things in different arts
and to different people.
The final test is the extent to which an artist has absorbed and subsequently
reproduced something of the spirit and artistic feeling of classical
times.
mark webber
Hi Iian,
You know, after I posted that last article to you, I was thinking it was
more condescending in tone than I would have liked, and I admire your not
being too offended by it. It came off a little rude, which we agreed not
to be awhile back. (I was a little annoyed that you didn't continue what
we began.)
Anyway, I hope you will, through your own records or dejanews, pick up
where we left off, because to me it was just getting interesting.
On Thu, 23 Jul 1998, Iian Neill wrote:
>
> > Is it possible that you will, as you mature,
> > see art as something more than technical illustration?
>
> I already see great art as being more than 'technical illustration' - but
> before we pursue this line of inquiry, perhaps you could explain to me what you
> see as 'technical illustration' in art. I find the works of Norman Rockwell,
> Ted Nasmith, John Howe, et cetera, to be 'technical illustration' (generally
> speaking). How do you see the term?
>
This was in direct response to your remarks about "reproducing Ingres", a
notion that I think Ingres would have found silly. Ingres wasn't
reproducing anyone else. The technical skill involved in Ingres may be
admirable (and I think that is what you are refering to when you speak of
reproducing his work) but plenty of lesser painters had and have that
degree of proficiency at depiction. Very few can see past the subject
matter and see the painting as a whole.
> > Is it possible that a painter like Rothko or Dekooning has more in common
> > with Ingres than you currently realise?
>
> It's certainly possible, but for me it is a very remote possibility. Again,
> perhaps you could point out to me what these similarities are.
>
Dekooning in particular shares a great deal with Ingres, and if you look
at two widely reproduced drawings he made, one of his wife, and the other
another woman, from the 1930s, you'll see he is specificly evoking Ingres,
(with a great deal of the same sort of subtlety and detail.)
Not only do Dekooning and Ingres share a very high degree of awareness of
the relationships between the parts of the painting, they both have an
interest in distorting the anatomy to suit their similar purposes.
Ingres "Grand Odalisque" has notoriously too many vertibrae and arms that
would dangle to her knees. I don't say this as criticism - not at all.
There's an Ingres in the Frick collection in NYC in which the woman
portrayed enjoys the unusual anatomical aberation of a shoulder emerging
from her middle ribcage. But we don't question or even notice it, most of
the time. He has successfully sacrificed an "external truth" for the sake
of a pictorial one. In other words, the picture looks better. It moves
better. The shapes agree with each other more.
This is really a 19th century step toward the liberties taken by
Dekooning.
> > Is it possible for any art form which to be so quickly understood that a
> > student can consider himself an expert, to have comprehended it all?
>
> I have never claimed to be an expert on any matter. I am all too aware of the
> limitations in my understanding of art - I feel it keenly every time I look at
> a great work of art, and to know that I cannot create such things with my own
> hands. Even so ... I am not afraid to comment on or discuss art within these
> limitations, even at the risk of appearing foolish. And when it comes to
> expertise in the Arts ... I find it immensely difficult to respect some of our
> 'expert' critics, particularly when most of them have probably never wielded a
> brush skilfully or with panache.
Personally, I've always viewed panache as useful for swordplay, not
painting. When I "wield" a brush, it's with a lot of hesitation.
I think, however, you owe it to all of us to name just two or three
critics whom you've read and found to be unqualified.
In another thread, someone mentioned Jed Perl, a contemporary critic (who
it seems to me, has little time for slick, gimmick-oriented art - a point
of view I think you'll appreciate.) A somewhat recent book of his,
"Gallery Going (Four Seasons in the Art World)" is, I think, a must for
art students.
> What makes them qualified then? Well, it must
> be study - study of the works, study of the artists' lives, their writings, and
> perhaps most influentially, the study of the writings of OTHER critics.
>
There are some good critics and a lot of silly ones, and there are some
good painters and a lot of silly ones. That's the way its been for at
least a litle while, and it won't get any better. But trashing them all
won't help you.
> > Naturally you are welcome to continue along your track, but I'll point out
> > that Ingres was not a great painter because of his technical skill.
>
> The enormous technical skill that Ingres undoubtedly possessed allowed him to
> give expression to his beliefs, ideas and so forth on art. If he had been an
> inept painter, perhaps he would not be so well-remembered today - except,
> ironically, as a 'forerunner' of a twentieth century movement.
>
Enormous technical skill is not the basis for Ingres success. It is that
simple.
What Ingres shares with all other great painters is sensibility and an eye
for formal relationships. (I'm really spelling it out here, and expect
some flames for this, but until someone can prove otherwise, I'm sticking
with it.)
His poetry; the measured, classical rhythms and movements of his
shapemaking - this isn't the result of a high degree of skill at
rendering. It is the ability to see *past* the rendering into the
rectangle and make it whole.
> > And
> > while he and Delacroix vied with each other for most of their lives, in
> > the end they respected each other a great deal.
>
> I have heard the same. Although Delacroix's technique was 'looser' than Ingres'
> own, he was no incompetent.
>
Well, that's progress.
> > You've told us that you are around 20 years old. Isn't it possible that
> > within 5 or 10 years you could be really embarrassed to have trashed
> > artists that people who are in their 30s, 40s and beyond really love?
>
> Perhaps so. But in the meantime all I can do is apply myself to art and art
> appreciation with as much vigour, enthusiasm and intelligence as I can muster.
>
Well, (and I say this not as an insult, but a caution) there is something
distinctly UNvigorous - intellectually lazy - and not very intelligent
sounding about dismissing that which you haven't fully experienced. All
the enthusiasm you can muster isn't enough to condemn some (not all)
modernism, without proving that your youthful personal taste is limited.
> > Is it possible that you didn't finish our discussion of your "Rant"
> > because you simply don't understand enough yet?
>
> For that I must apologize. I allowed my exams to intercede in my participation
> in that thread, and then a subsequent interstate holiday (to be re-united with
> family) prolonged this hiatus weeks more. Thank you for bring the matter to my
> attention - I will go through my records, find the letter in question, and
> respond to it ASAP.
>
Thanks, Iian, I'm pleased.
> > Is it possible that you need to open your mind and your eyes?
>
> An open mind is always desirable, and this is what I hope that I am doing. But
> an open mind needs to be tempered with a critical appreciation of the subject
> in question, otherwise what is good in art becomes obscured in a mass of
> mediocrity.
I agree 100 percent.
> There can be no real critical appreciation unless there are some
> criteria that can be objectively examined - this is probably a 'no-no' in the
> art world at present ; I am not sure.
I think you are right, but screw them. We can talk criteria, if you want
to.
> People are continually told to open up to
> all new forms of art ; but there is a difference between the 'opening up of
> standards' and the 'dissolving of standards'.
>
Again, I completly agree.
Look forward to hearing more from you.
Mark
mark webber
On 23 Jul 1998, it was written:
> [mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> writes: > I've been very off-line in the Adirondacks for a week, and its fascinating
> [> to see where this thread went while I was away.
> [>
> [> On Tue, 14 Jul 1998, bt wrote:
> > I know a rather insipid art history professor who teaches Poussin with
> > Jacques Louis David and Ingres because there is a classical element to
> > Poussin's work.
> >
> > Well of course this boob is completely missing the point about the
> > individuality of the Baroque era, the value of comparing Poussin to
> > Vermeer, Rembrandt, Caravaggio et al, and the fact that the Neo-Classicism
> > of Ingres and David comes a century and a half later.
> >
> > Not to mention the fact that hordes of students walk out of his classroom
> > with this misinfomation.
>
>
> I think the insipid professor was right.
> Generally, the term neo-classical refers to any new slant on the "classical"
> writers or artists of ancient Greece or Rome. For example, Plotinus is a
> neo-classical philosopher relative to Plato.
>
> Claude-Lorraine and Poussin were neo-classical painters insofar as they
> were inspired by their idea of classical times. Ingres and Delacroix were
> contemporaries but although the work of the former included some classical
> themes the spirit of his work is clearly romantic and "painterly" compared
> to the linearity and austerity of Ingres. Most 19th and early 20th century
> "academies" were neo-classical in spirit because of the prevailing reverence
> for the cultures of ancient Greece and Rome. Lord Leighton's painting is
> a good exaple of this last gasp of pure neo-classicism.
So if you and the insipid professor are right, why not take *all* the
classical or classically influenced art, from the vases of Euphronious to
Picasso's work of the 20's,(and maybe some later things like a few
Dekoonings and Lichtensteins) - take them all out of their historical
period and teach them together, ignoring the other art made at the same
time.
Who needs to compare Poussin to Caravaggio or Vermeer? He's classical, so
we'll teach him with other classicists!
>
> Clearly, the influence of the classical, whether first of second hand, is
> a matter of degree and arises at any point in history.
But we'll forget about *when* in history, right?
> Painters tend to be
> catholic in their sources of inspiration, so the label neo-classical comes
> to depend on the use of; classical subjects, austere linearity, restrained
> colour, an intellectual rather than an emotional approach etc.
>
> In the case of music, the term "classical" indicates the continuation of
> a musical tradition from about the 16th century to the present day. In short,
> it is a very broad label which means different things in different arts
> and to different people.
Well, I think its fine that you can define the elements of classicism. But
don't you find that contrasting them with dissimilar elements might be
useful to students? And some sense of History, wouldn't that be useful
too?
I mean, I'm saying, fine, Poussin is a classicist, but he's painting in
the 1600s and comparing him to other painters of the 1600s seems much more
valuable than presenting him as a 19th century artist.
> The final test is the extent to which an artist has absorbed and
> subsequently reproduced something of the spirit and artistic feeling
> of classical times.
>
The final test of what? Are you saying this is the ultimate goal of
Poussin?
Unknown
[> | ... Andy Warhole and
[> | David Hockney then took us back to representation, retaining the strength of all
[> | that had been learned from the journey through abstraction. Rothko's work
[> | was part of this journey.
[> So Andy's work is now "deep" after all. I used to think
[> that each time an object was looked at, a thin layer of
[> meaning was removed from it, until it finally became
[> meaningless (for example, the Statue of Liberty); but here
[> a thin layer of meaning has been added by each visitor to
[> the gallery, until the paintings, once light as a feather,
[> have become heavy indeed.
[> "It's what you see. There's _nothing_ behind it." -- Andy
[> Warhol, on being asked what was "behind" his work. Little
[> did he know.
Ars longa vita brevis. There are many aspects to the phenomenon of
painters and painting. The cocoon of the silkworm is of inestimable
value to the silkworm until the grub cuts its way out. The cocoon
was once of great value to mankind, but the grub had to die before
it broke the thread.
Like the grub, we value the artist only while he spins out his work;
what we value lies in the work itself and our response to it.
Unlike Marx, the art lover largely discounts the labours of
the artist, that sacrifice of life for art, as unimportant when
compared with the work itself.
If we were able to ask the grub "why do you spin?" the reply might
be "I spin for my life and the new creature that I will become".
The painter too, acts out of necessity and interacts with the work
as if it mattered how it turned out. The painter is concerned with
the process of creation, a process whose organising principle is
the, as yet, unknown creation.
Suppose we make an odious comparison, between (say) (A) Bosch's Garden of
Worldly Delights and (B) Warhol's Campbell's Soup Can. Can we say that the
men who created these works were doing the same kind of thing? Did they
produce the same kind of object?. In saying "It's what you see.
There's nothing behind it." Warhol does not seem to mean that the value
of his life to himself depends on his work and possibly on the fame and
prosperity which followed from it. I don't think we can presume to know
what artists think or intend during the act of creation, unless they
make great efforts to honestly tell us what it is they think they are
doing. This level of self awareness and analysis may be possible for some
but may be inhibiting to others who rely on the unconscious "mystery" of
the process.
Painting (B) clearly has enough depth to drown most people. For the
serious critic there is just too much that could be said, a whole world
to learn before anything useful can be ventured.
Painting (B) is a much less complex construction. Turner and Monet were
both successful in depicting the beauty of steam powered machines.
How well they integrated these beasts with nature. Whistler and Derain
did their bit as well to express the visual worth of the mundane.
Despite this, many painters had difficulty in using the world of trade
and industry as a source of inspiration. Although the 19th century was
steeped in the business of the dark satanic mills, its products held little
charm for the artists of the period. No doubt Bosch would have expressed
the horrors of the Bessemer converter and the cotton mill rather than just
the flowers and the flesh so beloved by the impressionists.
What, then, are we to make of the soup can painting. Norman Rockwell
had already done a good job of showing America what it looked like,
through the moral lenses that most Americans wore. Coke bottles and
possibly soup cans got depicted on the way. Magazine and TV advertising
had already saturated the sensibilities of the masses with product icons.
The significance of painting (B) is that it transported a representative
icon of this kind into the art gallery and legitimised it as "Art".
Although the painting is very boring and insists on showing us the kind
of sight we went into the art gallery to avoid, it does tell us something
about the world as it is, rather than as we, or Norman Rockwell, would
like it to be.
We need not bother whether Warhol was a witless grub or a Zen sage, the
remark "It's what you see. There's nothing behind it." is a salutary one.
Painting is, after all, an art of deception. The ultimate deception is
to tell it like it is.
Unknown
Not unless we drownin the soup.
Painting (A) clearly has enough depth to drown most people. For the
Kristian Mark Twombly
<snip>
: In the case of music, the term "classical" indicates the continuation of
: a musical tradition from about the 16th century to the present day. In short,
: it is a very broad label which means different things in different arts
: and to different people.
Actually, (and I don't mean to burst anyone's bubble..) "classical" music
as a descriptive label refers to about a 30 year period or so. We're
talking Beethoven, Mozart, Hadyn here. You've got yer Baroque, then the
Classical, finally the Romantic Periods. I always get a kick out of
listening to "Classical" music stations that rarely play "Classical"
music.
You could say Orchestral or maybe Art Music.....
Kristian Twombly
Composer
Jim Humphreys
> > > > >[jh]But before we can decide here we need a *definition* of a pomo artist.
> > > > > especially given the myriad meanings that this term has.
> > > >[mw] You may have that pleasure - that is, if it really needs more defining
> > > > than "after modern."
> > >[jh] It doesn't really matter what the definition used is, provided that it
> > > is understood by both parties. If we stipulate postmodern as "after modern"
> > > we then have still to define "modern" ( other than as "before post-modern"}.
> >[mw] If it doesn't really matter, then lets say modernism is non-subject matter
> > oriented art made during Rothko's lifetime.
> > That would mean post-modern comes after Rothko, and he could have no part
> > in it.
> >[jh]Then it would be true by definition that Rothko is a modernist.
> > When I said that it doesn't really matter what the definition is, I
> > meant any of the currently accepted definitions. If we use a definition
> > like the one above ("modernism as art produced during Rothko's lifetime")
> > then the definition is a stipulated ( not to say highly unsatisfactory) one.
>[mw] Yes, it is highly unsatisfactory. But it is more definition than you
> provide.
Lets use Lyotard's definition: " incredulity towards meta-narratives" for
the sake of argument.
> > > > > > >[jh] Neither of these terms have precisely defined
> > > > > > > meanings for one thing - nor must they be seen as disjuncts.
> > > > > >[mw] There may not be precisely defined meanings, but I think the words
> > > > > > "post-modern' imply something in opposition to "modern".
> > > > > > It seems difficult to me how one could be both.
> > > > >[jh] Again this is a matter of how one defines those terms.
> > > >[mw]Perhaps - but I'd really like to see any reasonable definitions that do
> > > > not imply opposition.
> > >[jh] But even if the terms are in opposition ( and I don't think that is implied
> > > by a definition of postmodern as "after modern" - why couldn't postmodernism
> > > , for example, be interpreted simply as a *relaxing* of modernism?) that
> > > still leaves us with the difficulty that Rothko's work might in some
> > > respects be modern and in others postmodern.
>[mw] (and I replied, hoping to hear some definitions that would actually
> support the argument)
> > Well, a *relaxing of modernism* sounds like a form of opposition to me,
> > but at this point I'd really like to hear reasonable definitions that do
> > not imply opposition.
> (and Jim replied, restating again, without offering definitions)
> > I don't think that opposition is implied by relaxing of modernism. I
> > don't see wht modernism has to be seen in opposition to postmodernism-
> > it seems reasonable to imagine that an art work might include modernist
> > and postmodernist elements and that there might be transitionary figures.
> >[mw](Again I request a sampling of how reasonable definitions might include
> > Rothko in Pomo)
> > You're giving us a lot of theoretical possibility depending on definition
> > - let's see it in action.
> > In the mean time, I have no difficulty excluding the possibility that
> > Rothko was a pomo. With or without any definitions at all, it still seems
> > silly to suggest it.
> >[jh] Why?
> >[mw] Jim, I'll make a deal with you: You give me reasonable examples of
> definitions of pomo and modernism and I'll tell you why I think its silly
> to include Rothko in pomo.
I've suggested the Lyotard definition above. I should say that I don't think
that this definition implies of itself that an artist must be classified
exclusively as modernist or pomo. I don't understand the basis for your
claim that it is "silly to include Rothko in pomo".
Jim Humphreys
Iian Neill
> : a musical tradition from about the 16th century to the present day. In short,
> : it is a very broad label which means different things in different arts
> : and to different people.
>
> Actually, (and I don't mean to burst anyone's bubble..) "classical" music
> as a descriptive label refers to about a 30 year period or so. We're
> talking Beethoven, Mozart, Hadyn here. You've got yer Baroque, then the
> Classical, finally the Romantic Periods. I always get a kick out of
> listening to "Classical" music stations that rarely play "Classical"
> music.
Hmm, what you've said is not quite technically correct. The term 'Classical' is
historically applied to the Greco-Roman period; so Classical statuary are
sculptures from that period; Classical frescos are paintings from that time; and
Classical music is the music of that era. I have a CD purporting to represent all
the music that has survived either through copies or original documents of the
music of that time - so, technically speaking, that CD is all the Classical Music
that this world currently posseses.
The reason why Mozart, Haydn, Salieri, C.P.E. Bach, et cetera, are deemed
"Classical" is simply because they were working around the same time as Houdon and
Canova, both sculptors who worked either near or directly in the Classical
tradition (so-called because it took its inspiration from the real Classical
period).
Ergo, the term "Classical Music" is an elegant misnomer which is so ingrained in
our respective cultures that it seems inconceivable to replace it with a more
historically accurate term.
Cheers,
Iian Neill.
Iian Neill
> Anyway, I hope you will, through your own records or dejanews, pick up
> where we left off, because to me it was just getting interesting.
I hope that you might be able to help me out a little here. I keep a record of every
article in any newsgroup that I find at all interesting, no matter what the opinion
or view expressed therein happens to me. So, needless to say, I do have records of
our correspondance. The problem is that I have a LOT of correspondance, so I wonder
if you can help me narrow down my search a little by giving me a more precise idea of
which letter I was due to respond to. Simply put, the sooner I can find it, the
sooner I can pick up the discussion where we left off.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
PS: I will be responding to your "Iian's Rant II" as well, but thought I ought to
post this message first.
mark webber
On Fri, 24 Jul 1998, Jim Humphreys wrote:
(snip)
> > >[jh]Then it would be true by definition that Rothko is a modernist.
> > > When I said that it doesn't really matter what the definition is, I
> > > meant any of the currently accepted definitions. If we use a definition
> > > like the one above ("modernism as art produced during Rothko's lifetime")
> > > then the definition is a stipulated ( not to say highly unsatisfactory) one.
>
> >[mw] Yes, it is highly unsatisfactory. But it is more definition than you
> > provide.
>
> Lets use Lyotard's definition: " incredulity towards meta-narratives" for
> the sake of argument.
>
(more snip)
>
> > >[mw](Again I request a sampling of how reasonable definitions might include
> > > Rothko in Pomo)
> > > You're giving us a lot of theoretical possibility depending on definition
> > > - let's see it in action.
> > > In the mean time, I have no difficulty excluding the possibility that
> > > Rothko was a pomo. With or without any definitions at all, it still seems
> > > silly to suggest it.
>
> > >[jh] Why?
>
> > >[mw] Jim, I'll make a deal with you: You give me reasonable examples of
> > definitions of pomo and modernism and I'll tell you why I think its silly
> > to include Rothko in pomo.
>
> I've suggested the Lyotard definition above. I should say that I don't think
> that this definition implies of itself that an artist must be classified
> exclusively as modernist or pomo. I don't understand the basis for your
> claim that it is "silly to include Rothko in pomo".
Unfortunately, the Lyotard definition works equally for both Modernism and
Post-Modernism. That kind of precludes showing why Rothko, or anyone else,
might be considered both, only one, or neither.
In short, I think it's silly to call Rothko a pomo because he died before
pomo was invented.
And I think (just personally) it's silly to try to afix to someone a label
that came into fashion post-mortem.
Perhaps he is post-mortem post-modern..
Ok, I will agree to the possibility of pomopomo.
If you want to say Rothko is pomopomo, I won't say that is silly.
Mark
Iian Neill
> You know, after I posted that last article to you, I was thinking it was
> more condescending in tone than I would have liked, and I admire your not
> being too offended by it. It came off a little rude, which we agreed not
> to be awhile back.
When speaking about topics dear to us, it is sometimes easy to come across more
forcefully than originally intended. I can see that you are genuinely interested in a
discussion, and that's what is important to me.
> (I was a little annoyed that you didn't continue what
> we began.)
I'm sorry about that. As soon as I locate the post in question, I will start on a
reply to it.
> Anyway, I hope you will, through your own records or dejanews, pick up
> where we left off, because to me it was just getting interesting.
Agreed.
> > I already see great art as being more than 'technical illustration' - but
> > before we pursue this line of inquiry, perhaps you could explain to me what you
> > see as 'technical illustration' in art. I find the works of Norman Rockwell,
> > Ted Nasmith, John Howe, et cetera, to be 'technical illustration' (generally
> > speaking). How do you see the term?
>
> This was in direct response to your remarks about "reproducing Ingres", a
> notion that I think Ingres would have found silly.
"Reproducing" work is probably not something that Ingres would have been above doing,
I'd wager, if he felt so inclined - in particular, copying from Old Master paintings
was a common academic exercise in the 19th century. However, this isn't really the
point, as I think we both agree. Having the technique to copy Ingres doesn't make you
an Ingres - or else every talented forger would be the equal of that Master. But
it is this notion of technical skill that I would like to emphasize as being a
fundamental building block in the artist's abilities. Today, it might seem strange or
retrogressive to talk about 'technical skill' or 'verisimiltude' with regards to
contemporary art practise, but people have no qualms at all in regarding literature
as having 'technical' standards. Before a book is to be held great, it must satisfy
at least one criterion : and that is to be written in a language that exists. An
obvious point certainly, but I make it to draw an analogy between literature and the
visual arts. No one questions that a writer needs to have a rudimentary grasp of
grammar, vocabulary, phraseology, et cetera, and the better the writer, the better
his use of such things in the pursuit of expression. One hundred years ago the
situation was the same in the visual arts. Painters, sculptors, draftsmen were all
expected to have mastered this essential "grammar" of the visual world, to have a
necessarily broad "vocabulary" to express themselves fully. Technical skill wasn't
seen as an impediment but as merely a tool to achieve an end : and that end was Art.
Over time, the standards of what constituted "skill" and "technique" were
successively diminished, and "diminished" in this sense means that artists turned
more and more away from reality and Nature and instead risked dwelling in the inner
spaces of the mind, bereft and scornful of external form as inhibiting.
Perhaps those pioneering Modernists had the skill to "play on either field". Pablo
Picasso could certainly draw adequately by academic standards when he put his mind to
it, but the fact is that he chose not to for his own reasons. R.H. Ives Gammell gives
an excellent analysis (much better than I could hope to equal) of the change in
artistic philosophies around the turn of the century, and how technique and skill
became so distorted in the conception of artists and critics that to speak of a
"modern" painting as being skilfull in any technical sense becomes ridiculous.
Does this mean that all artists should rush to develop a photographic technique
devoid of personal expression? I don't think so, and if you look at the work of
certain 19th C artists whose paintings have often been described as 'photographic' or
'photo-idealist' then you will find, I think, that a mechanical interpretation of the
visual world was furthest from their ambitions. If you look at Renaissance and
proto-Baroque theories of good art, you will also see that the uninterpretative
reproduction of reality on canvas was not even considered as art! - hence, this is
how some critics attacked Caravaggio. Besides, the photographic reproduction of
reality on canvas has already been tried, often with very cold results. They call it
"Photo-Realism", and is a good example of Man imitating Machine. The photograph does
not represent reality directly - it is a distorted interpretation, although an
extremely valuable one. Such painters as W.A. Bouguereau achieved their astonishing
verisimiltude (whilst heavily permeated by Classical principles) not through
mechanical devices but through direct observation of Nature. So, in this sense, the
"Photo-Realists" are 'second-handers' and are not copying reality but instead a copy
of reality.
Ingres wasn't
> reproducing anyone else. The technical skill involved in Ingres may be
> admirable (and I think that is what you are refering to when you speak of
> reproducing his work) but plenty of lesser painters had and have that
> degree of proficiency at depiction. Very few can see past the subject
> matter and see the painting as a whole.
I agree.
> > > Is it possible that a painter like Rothko or Dekooning has more in common
> > > with Ingres than you currently realise?
> >
> > It's certainly possible, but for me it is a very remote possibility. Again,
> > perhaps you could point out to me what these similarities are.
>
> Dekooning in particular shares a great deal with Ingres, and if you look
> at two widely reproduced drawings he made, one of his wife, and the other
> another woman, from the 1930s, you'll see he is specificly evoking Ingres,
> (with a great deal of the same sort of subtlety and detail.)
To be fair, I will need to see those drawings before I can further comment on this
section. Can you refer me to any particular book or site on the internet that
illustrates your point?
> Ingres "Grand Odalisque" has notoriously too many vertibrae and arms that
> would dangle to her knees. I don't say this as criticism - not at all.
>
> There's an Ingres in the Frick collection in NYC in which the woman
> portrayed enjoys the unusual anatomical aberation of a shoulder emerging
> from her middle ribcage. But we don't question or even notice it, most of
> the time. He has successfully sacrificed an "external truth" for the sake
> of a pictorial one. In other words, the picture looks better. It moves
> better. The shapes agree with each other more.
Absolutely. Ingres distorted reality to suit his artistic aims. And this was
completely acceptable in that period, although Ingres' own liberties with the human
form did raise a few eyebrows - and let's be honest, the distortion of Thetis' throat
in "Thetis Pleading Before Jupiter" is pretty obvious, even to those unlearned in
medical science. But the line is beautiful and sinuously expressive. Ingres has
subordinated strict reality to his artistic aim. That is what writers call 'poetic
license'.
> This is really a 19th century step toward the liberties taken by
> Dekooning.
And I think this might be a good example of 'poetic license' used to excuse 'poetic
anarchy'. Again, I will need to see those particular drawings, but if we are talking
about Modern abstract art in general (or even Modern figurative art that is
outrageously non-verisimiltudinous), then I'd argue that they've "thrown out the baby
with the bath-water". Taking liberties with reality is a delicate matter in visual
art - just as distorting grammar and sense in poetry is not a light matter in
literature. Yes, it must be done for artistic ends, but 'poetic license' should not
be used to excuse what is obviously a technically deficient work or one that is
technically competent but grotesquely malformed. Some people have said: "Yes, well
modern art might be trying to express that very malformity - and so it has then
succeeded, no?" I would propose in return: "Is this all that modern art is good for?"
- and now we come into areas beyond technical competence, areas which touch upon
VALUE in art, and perhaps even moral purpose. But more of this later, perhaps?
> > > Is it possible for any art form which to be so quickly understood that a
> > > student can consider himself an expert, to have comprehended it all?
> >
> > I have never claimed to be an expert on any matter. I am all too aware of the
> > limitations in my understanding of art - I feel it keenly every time I look at
> > a great work of art, and to know that I cannot create such things with my own
> > hands. Even so ... I am not afraid to comment on or discuss art within these
> > limitations, even at the risk of appearing foolish. And when it comes to
> > expertise in the Arts ... I find it immensely difficult to respect some of our
> > 'expert' critics, particularly when most of them have probably never wielded a
> > brush skilfully or with panache.
>
> Personally, I've always viewed panache as useful for swordplay, not
> painting. When I "wield" a brush, it's with a lot of hesitation.
Fair enough, we see the word a bit differently. I mean by "panache", in this context,
"stylishly", "tastefully", "elegantly", etc.
> I think, however, you owe it to all of us to name just two or three
> critics whom you've read and found to be unqualified.
I'll be happy to oblige, so long as you don't mind me not answering immediately.
> In another thread, someone mentioned Jed Perl, a contemporary critic (who
> it seems to me, has little time for slick, gimmick-oriented art - a point
> of view I think you'll appreciate.) A somewhat recent book of his,
> "Gallery Going (Four Seasons in the Art World)" is, I think, a must for
> art students.
My favourite contemporary art critic is Brian Sewell. I don't know how famous he is,
but some of his writings are compiled in an anthology called "The Reviews that Caused
the Rumpus". There are some very intelligent and witty essays in there.
> > What makes them qualified then? Well, it must
> > be study - study of the works, study of the artists' lives, their writings, and
> > perhaps most influentially, the study of the writings of OTHER critics.
>
> There are some good critics and a lot of silly ones, and there are some
> good painters and a lot of silly ones. That's the way its been for at
> least a litle while, and it won't get any better. But trashing them all
> won't help you.
I am only trashing the critics in this case because I feel that they helped demolish
the technical standards previously expected of all good art. By no means are all
critics worthless, and I wouldn't like to imply that either. But just as words have
the power to reveal, they also have the power to conceal and obfuscate, and a
blatantly ridiculous article written by an obviously scholarly critic can do much
harm, particularly if he is considered an 'authority'.
> Enormous technical skill is not the basis for Ingres success. It is that
> simple.
To me, 'technical skill' is as much a prerequisite for good art as breathing is for
living - it's essential, but its' not something we think a whole lot about while we
are living. It takes a long time to acquire competency in any art form, but once
achieved, I don't think that the artist should obsess himself over it to the point
where his work is cold or over-polished. Again, there will be others who disagree
with me; there will be those who value that very 'polishedness' as a virtue, and I
find it hard to enthusiastically denounce it as a defect - particularly in comparison
to its diametric opposite, which is rampant incompetence.
> What Ingres shares with all other great painters is sensibility and an eye
> for formal relationships. (I'm really spelling it out here, and expect
> some flames for this, but until someone can prove otherwise, I'm sticking
> with it.)
I don't see why you should be flamed for that. You're having a good bash at a very
hard topic.
> His poetry; the measured, classical rhythms and movements of his
> shapemaking - this isn't the result of a high degree of skill at
> rendering. It is the ability to see *past* the rendering into the
> rectangle and make it whole.
I think I agree with this - but what I get from your statement might be slightly
different from what you mean. This is, perhaps, inevitable in all discussions about
art.
> > > You've told us that you are around 20 years old. Isn't it possible that
> > > within 5 or 10 years you could be really embarrassed to have trashed
> > > artists that people who are in their 30s, 40s and beyond really love?
> >
> > Perhaps so. But in the meantime all I can do is apply myself to art and art
> > appreciation with as much vigour, enthusiasm and intelligence as I can muster.
> >
>
> Well, (and I say this not as an insult, but a caution) there is something
> distinctly UNvigorous - intellectually lazy - and not very intelligent
> sounding about dismissing that which you haven't fully experienced.
Experiencing the art of any time in its fullest measure is nigh impossible - for a
start, there is so MUCH of it, particularly in the present day when the standards
that delineate 'art' from 'non-art' and 'good art' from 'bad art' are outrageously
ill-defined and nebulous. I'm not sure that any one of us could claim to know all the
art of the 20th century in its entirety - all the art of Europe, of America, of the
Australasian region, and so forth. The best we can do, perhaps, is look at officially
designated 'representatives' of the periods in question - or, in short, the
'geniuses' of their epochs. Even this, however, is a mammoth task, particularly if we
expand it to include their famous contemporaries. So, what can we do? We end up
taking the path of the scientist when faced with similar natural phenomena : we
generalize, we abstract, we find similarities, we make comparisons, we construct
theories to explain things. Sometimes these theories are TOO generalized, TOO
abstracted and become inaccurate or misrepresentative of the finer points of art
history. But that's a risk all art historians take when even attempting to define
trends in art or to class a particular artist as the member of a movement. For
example, what right have we to call Caravaggio a Baroque painter? First of all, he
was working in the same period as Gian Lorenzo Bernini, the Caracci brothers and
Francesco Mochi. Secondly, Caravaggio's style is sharply distinct from the ones
preceeding it, although not so radical as to be alien to it. Sometimes an artist is
only categorized in a group after his death, after his contemporaries have passed out
of the very period he lived through. This is, of course, dependent on assumptions
that human civilization progresses culturally over time, that there is a gradual
maturation process.
To return to the topic in hand : all we can do is look at as much as we can with
as much sensitivity as we can muster.
> All
> the enthusiasm you can muster isn't enough to condemn some (not all)
> modernism, without proving that your youthful personal taste is limited.
Personal taste is always limited, whether it belongs to the old or the young.
> > There can be no real critical appreciation unless there are some
> > criteria that can be objectively examined - this is probably a 'no-no' in the
> > art world at present ; I am not sure.
>
> I think you are right, but screw them. We can talk criteria, if you want
> to.
I'm very glad you feel that way as it means that we have at least some common ground
on which to share views, opinions, etc.
> > People are continually told to open up to
> > all new forms of art ; but there is a difference between the 'opening up of
> > standards' and the 'dissolving of standards'.
>
> Again, I completly agree.
Then could it be said that we diverge when it comes to defining the finer points of
what those 'standards' are? We both agree that there is a real difference between
open mindedness and the dissolution of any rational judgement. It seems that we
differ as to exactly WHERE the line is to be drawn. You seem happy to include Rothko,
Dekooning, and so forth, in your canon of Art - whereas I am unhappy and unwilling to
include them in mine. We both think like this because our perceptions of 'technical
standards' in art must diverge at some point.
> Look forward to hearing more from you.
Likewise.
Best regards,
Iian Neill.
mark webber
On Fri, 24 Jul 1998, Iian Neill wrote:
> I hope that you might be able to help me out a little here. I keep a record of every
> article in any newsgroup that I find at all interesting, no matter what the opinion
> or view expressed therein happens to me. So, needless to say, I do have records of
> our correspondance. The problem is that I have a LOT of correspondance, so I wonder
> if you can help me narrow down my search a little by giving me a more precise idea of
> which letter I was due to respond to. Simply put, the sooner I can find it, the
> sooner I can pick up the discussion where we left off.
>
Iian,
Here's where we left off. I've done a little snipping, but I think the
important stuff is still there.
On Sat, 6 Jun 1998, Iian Neill wrote:
(Mark wrote)
>> By technique, I assume you mean an ability to render; of the sort we
>> see in Raphael, Ingres, Jacques-Louis David and of course Monsieur
>> Bouguereau.
>> An ability to render so that the brushwork is all but invisable.
>
> Rendering is a part of technique, but technique as much more
> encompassing
> than the word rendering might suggest. For example, the pianist Vladimir
> Horowitz had a blistering technic - but this did not mean he was a cold,
> calculating machine ...(snip)
> Technique is that which ennabled Michelangelo
> to paint the The Last Judgement. Without a
> strong technique these artists would have produced consistently feeble
> works that demonstrated no more than grandiose ideas.
Iian, when you speak of Michelangelo's and Da Vinci's technique as
being that which was responsible for their great works, let me point out
that they had no more technique than many other painters of this time and
place. I'll cite Morone, Caroto, Zelotti, Solario and Da Brescia for
example.
These are all painters with comparable technique but are they household
names, or even familiar to most art students? I don't believe so. The
reason is probably that they did not have the poetic command of visual
play, the sensibility.
There were literally hundreds of Italian painters of Madonnas contemporary
to Raphael, but those of Raphael are the ones that art historians present
time and again. Why? Not because he had more technique but because of his
sublime form.
(Again, this is tricky because I think your use of the word "form" is a
bit different than mine. My usage is akin to "visual play", which I
discuss below.)
>> Of course, there is a common thread running through the works of these
>> great masters, those in their circles and many more (including
>> Matisse, Bonnard, Mondrian, Soutine, DeKooning and Rauschenberg, to
>> name a few of the Modernists.)
>>
>> That common thread is the persistant awareness of the relationships
>> between the shapes and colors and the sensibility expressed in these
>> arrangements.
> A 'persistant awareness' is not enough to make art of a high calibre -
> especially if one's technique is not up to the challenge of greating
> such art. A persistant awareness is necessary, I grant you - it is the
> cornerstone of technique, which is in turn the cornerstone of all
> successful artistic expression. But with that awareness one must be able
> to draw competently. (Competent in this context means being able to
> represent in two-dimensions what one observes in the real world,
> reasonable accurately - and preferrably with 'flair'.)
This is the key misunderstanding in our discussion. You left out the
important part of my proposition. It isn't "persistant awareness" it is
"persistant awareness of the relationships between the shapes and colors"
and "the sensibility expressed in these arrangements."
And this is defined further in my next statement:
>> Form is understood to be the whole; the relationships between the
>> shapes and colors and the balancing of their contrasts; a sort of step
>> beyond composition.
>>
>> And it is this Formal concern which is present in the pottery of
>> Euphronius, the Laocoon, the frescos in the Mystery Villa in Pompeii,
>> the stained glass of Saint Chapelle, Michelangelo's ceiling, Titian's
>> "Entombment" and Caravaggio's "Calling of Saint Matthew."
> Indeed - there is a kind of symphonic balance in these works.
Now you are seeing!
(snip enthusiasms)
>> I would propose that this common thread of interest in the visual play
>> of visual art is the cornerstone of all art. All good art, that is.
> 'The visual play of art ...'? I have heard this phrase used before, but
> have never been quite sure whether people mean it seriously. I do not
> see Michelangelo Meris da iCaravaggio's "Calling of Saint Matthew", for
> example, as 'playful' in the sense that the word is normally applied.
All the painters I admire take it quite seriously, the concept at least.
"Play" (not necessarily "playful") as in "interaction".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iian, I think this is the important material from our last posts of early
June. You can go to www.dejanews.com, and do a search on your eponymous
thread for the whole thing.
The most important thing to me was the part where you misinterpreted what
I said about persistant awareness of the form - the relationships between
the shapes. Now, a lot of people these days don't think composition and
formal concerns are so important - but I'll tell you this:
If you love the great art of the past, you have to see this Form thing.
That is where the quality comes from.
If you aren't seeing the Form, you aren't loving the art - your loving the
content or the subject matter - or worse, the genre.
Sincerely,
Mark
Iian Neill
> Here's where we left off. I've done a little snipping, but I think the
> important stuff is still there.
Thank you very much for finding the letter. I'll get started on responding straight away
...
> Iian, when you speak of Michelangelo's and Da Vinci's technique as
> being that which was responsible for their great works, let me point out
> that they had no more technique than many other painters of this time and
> place. I'll cite Morone, Caroto, Zelotti, Solario and Da Brescia for
> example.
I'll have to admit that of that list of Michelangelo's contemporaries, only the name
"Solario" is of any familiarity to me. And I don't dispute that they must had had technical
ability, probably the equal of Leonardo - some of his pupils could wield a brush pretty
well. The distinction which separates them is what we call 'genius', and that's a terribly
hard thing to define. It's more than technical competence or even technical brilliance. I
am sure, though, that whatever 'genius' is, it is something that is built upon technical
competence as much as buildings are built upon the earth. Is it a coincidence that none of
the accepted 'greats' of previous centuries were not technically incompetent? (Or if there
are, I'm unaware of them.)
> These are all painters with comparable technique but are they household
> names, or even familiar to most art students? I don't believe so. The
> reason is probably that they did not have the poetic command of visual
> play, the sensibility.
Agreed.
> There were literally hundreds of Italian painters of Madonnas contemporary
> to Raphael, but those of Raphael are the ones that art historians present
> time and again. Why? Not because he had more technique but because of his
> sublime form.
I find myself in agreement again.
> >> Of course, there is a common thread running through the works of these
> >> great masters, those in their circles and many more (including
> >> Matisse, Bonnard, Mondrian, Soutine, DeKooning and Rauschenberg, to
> >> name a few of the Modernists.)
>
> >> That common thread is the persistant awareness of the relationships
> >> between the shapes and colors and the sensibility expressed in these
> >> arrangements.
How can we dare to make any objective statements about these painters, though, if we do not
admit there to be any objective standards? And if there are no objective standards, then
I'd say critics are pretty much out of work, because that which supposedly makes them
'experts' is a certain understanding of the fundamental criteria of art - or else he is
nothing more than a glorified historian, unfit to talk about the quality of work, only its
historical aspects (where it was made, by whom, out of what, etc.)
When visual reality is forsaken in preferrence for a deeply subjective interpretation,
any objective appraisal becomes seriously impaired. It is paradoxical to claim that "art is
subjective" while also attempting to determine what is good or bad art - which means, there
is really no point in hailing anyone as a genius, because any interpretation or judgement a
critic gives is so purely subjective as to be universally meaningless.
Now, what is at least one criterion in visual art that we CAN measure - which any man,
woman or child globally can analyze? - the REALISM of the art work, its verisimiltude. In
times past, for many centuries, it was understood that the good artist at least TRIES to
represent reality. Why? Is it because his teachers were stuffy old conservatives who
thought that putting the art student through years of gruelling work was fun, or good for
the 'moral backbone'? I don't think so. These teachers were serious and talented men who
realized that drawing from life brings the vitality into art. Time and time again history
shows that when artists abandoned reality for formulaic expression the art of the period
suffered. It became stiff, stilted, unconvincing, and could only be revived once again when
some genius turned back to Nature for inspiration.
But turning to Nature for inspiration is no easy task. To draw well is a lot of hard
work, over years - it was a dilettantish exercise or a hobby. "Drawing is the probity of
art", Ingres said, and speaking personally I feel that he is right. I'm not much of a one
to comment as my own "art" is very feeble indeed - I cringe at the thought of even calling
it "art" - but the practise of drawing has at least allowed to see that Ingres was speaking
the truth when he said this. Was it the whole truth? Perhaps not - there is probably a lot
more to say on that topic, but I don't feel competent enough to venture into it. Perhaps
some of the leaders of the Classical Realist school can have a go.
> A 'persistant awareness' is not enough to make art of a high calibre -
> > especially if one's technique is not up to the challenge of greating
> > such art. A persistant awareness is necessary, I grant you - it is the
> > cornerstone of technique, which is in turn the cornerstone of all
> > successful artistic expression. But with that awareness one must be able
> > to draw competently. (Competent in this context means being able to
> > represent in two-dimensions what one observes in the real world,
> > reasonable accurately - and preferrably with 'flair'.)
>
> This is the key misunderstanding in our discussion. You left out the
> important part of my proposition. It isn't "persistant awareness" it is
> "persistant awareness of the relationships between the shapes and colors"
> and "the sensibility expressed in these arrangements."
I don't disagree with this, but I don't see how it allows the works of Rothko, Dekooning,
Pollock (and so on) to be classed in the same category as Ingres, Delacroix or Constable. I
don't see the works of Pollock as even being art, and it seems that this is where we have a
serious disagreement. By my standards Pollock is not even remotely competent.
> >> I would propose that this common thread of interest in the visual play
> >> of visual art is the cornerstone of all art. All good art, that is.
>
> > 'The visual play of art ...'? I have heard this phrase used before, but
> > have never been quite sure whether people mean it seriously. I do not
> > see Michelangelo Meris da iCaravaggio's "Calling of Saint Matthew", for
> > example, as 'playful' in the sense that the word is normally applied.
>
> All the painters I admire take it quite seriously, the concept at least.
> "Play" (not necessarily "playful") as in "interaction".
I think I see what you are talking about now. It is part of the "symphonic" feeling present
in a Caravaggio of the Laocoon. It is playful in the sense that the dialogue between the
oboes and the clarinets in a Mozart symphony might be called 'playful'. It is a rebounding,
a reverberation, sometimes even an echo. It's interesting how musical and dance-terms are
so easily applicable to the visual arts!
> The most important thing to me was the part where you misinterpreted what
> I said about persistant awareness of the form - the relationships between
> the shapes.
I don't deny the importance of the form and the relationships previously mentioned. I just
question whether that's enough to delineate art from non-art.
> Now, a lot of people these days don't think composition and
> formal concerns are so important - but I'll tell you this:
> If you love the great art of the past, you have to see this Form thing.
> That is where the quality comes from.
I agree absolutely.
> If you aren't seeing the Form, you aren't loving the art - your loving the
> content or the subject matter - or worse, the genre.
Those other things, content and subject matter are relevant in other areas - for example,
the moral value of the work, its historical context, philosophical message, et cetera. They
aren't unimportant concerns by any means, but history has shown that art needs more than
that to survive - it needs that nearly inexpressible something that we have been trying to
formulate in words, and which you designate as Form. I agree that it is this Form that
makes art great, but we disagree as to some aspects of Form, it seems. Perhaps future
discussions will clarify our respective positions further?
Best regards,
Iian Neill.
Iian Neill
> > > >> artzy-fartzy curators and critics to accept his huge schmiers rather
> > > >> than all the other examples of practically-nothing-art created by that
> > > >> mass of failures doing much the same thing.
>
> > Rothko had critics behind him, as did most of the early Moderns. Tom Wolfe's "The Painted Word" is a good >book for the
> behind-the-scenes 1930/50s art scene.
>
> The majority of early Moderns had critics behind them? You should read more
> than the evangelical Wolfe before you voice with such authority. But I'll not
> rip the shit out of you just yet: let's just say 'Impressionism' was a term of
> derision; the Dadaists were frequently imprisoned/shot in Germany; Surrealism
> was laughed out of court.
Hitler was a genocidal maniac. His views on art cannot be considered as material for or against any kind of art. Some of the
points he brought up seemed logical enough, but who can possibly condone the burning of 20,000 modern art works?
> But hell, these aren't even early Moderns: the term
> usually refers to the period of the Italian Renaissance.
The Italian Renaissance biographers called their artists the 'moderns', certainly.
> Failure is as subjective a term as aquaintance.
Then there is really no point in calling anything successful either.
> > > >I would
> > > >suggest that you read some contemporary art criticism which might help
> > > >you to aquire a more considered aesthetic vocabulary.
>
> > Post-modernist vocabulary is usually obscure, and the phraseology inevitably dry, academic and tedious. Far >better to write
> in a clear, natural style that expresses what you want to say without having to convert it into >jargonese.
>
> Mr Neill, would you care to define the post-modernism which you speak of with
> such self-importance? And cross reference that with irony? Hmm?
Post-Modernism is a term even Post-Modernists find extremely hard to define with any clarity. Maybe I misunderstand its
intricasies - I've never claimed to have a perfect understanding of it. I'll welcome anyone's interpretations of what Post
Modernism means, and I would like to discuss it with them so long as we can express ourselves with sufficient clarity.
> You are a twit.
What do you hope to gain in making that comment?
Regards,
Iian Neill.
mark webber
On Fri, 24 Jul 1998, Iian Neill wrote:
> > > > >> The only art Rothko ever performed was the art of convincing
> > > > >> artzy-fartzy curators and critics to accept his huge schmiers rather
> > > > >> than all the other examples of practically-nothing-art created by that
> > > > >> mass of failures doing much the same thing.
> >
> > > Rothko had critics behind him, as did most of the early Moderns. Tom Wolfe's "The Painted Word" is a good >book for the
> > behind-the-scenes 1930/50s art scene.
> >
> > The majority of early Moderns had critics behind them? You should read more
> > than the evangelical Wolfe before you voice with such authority. But I'll not
> > rip the shit out of you just yet: let's just say 'Impressionism' was a term of
> > derision; the Dadaists were frequently imprisoned/shot in Germany; Surrealism
> > was laughed out of court.
>
> Hitler was a genocidal maniac. His views on art cannot be considered
> as material for or against any kind of art. Some of the points he
> brought up seemed logical enough, but who can possibly condone the
> burning of 20,000 modern art works?
Um, Iian - very quickly now, can you add to this? Maybe something like
"not to mention 6 million people," so we don't get the impression you *do*
condone this as one of the "logical enough" points?
Thanks,
Mark
Kristian Mark Twombly
: Hmm, what you've said is not quite technically correct. The term
: 'Classical' is historically applied to the Greco-Roman period; so
: Classical statuary are sculptures from that period; Classical frescos
: are paintings from that time; and Classical music is the music of that
: era. I have a CD purporting to represent all the music that has
: survived either through copies or original documents of the music of
: that time - so, technically speaking, that CD is all the Classical Music
: that this world currently posseses.
No.....Just because a historian deemed that period "Classical" in literary
terms doesn't mean that it is an all-encompassing label. Your logic is
somewhat misguided in that one must follow the other...Musicologists have
used the word "Classical" to describe the period inbetween the Baroque and
the Romantic periods. Beethoven anticipated the Romantic with works like
his 6th Symphony and the famous "Choral" 9th Symphony.
: The reason why Mozart, Haydn, Salieri, C.P.E. Bach, et cetera, are deemed
: "Classical" is simply because they were working around the same time as
: Houdon and Canova, both sculptors who worked either near or directly in
: the Classical tradition (so-called because it took its inspiration from
: the real Classical period).
: Ergo, the term "Classical Music" is an elegant misnomer which is so
: ingrained in our respective cultures that it seems inconceivable to
: replace it with a more
: historically accurate term.
I can't argue with you here, because I am unfamiliar with the divination
of the term...and it *is* a rather elegant term.
This discussion could easily have been averted if musicologists had used
another term to describe the works from that time...that music has little
to do with any Classical tradition! Newer works like Edgard Varese's
"Poeme Electronique", ones that use things like the Golden Mean as form
divining methods, are more closely related to Greco-Roman ideas than The
Choral Symphony.
Anyway, thanks for the discussion!
Kristian
Jim Humphreys
<snip>
> In short, I think it's silly to call Rothko a pomo because he died before
> pomo was invented.
Certainly the *term* postmodern was used before Rothko died. As far as
his dying "before postmodernism was invented" is concerned, I would say
that it is misleading to speak of postmodernism as some sort of thing or
entity which was created or brought about at soem specific moment in history.
If you don't want to use the Lyotard definition, we could describe
postmodernism as a term which describes certain cultural( and possibly other)
trends that became prominent (or perhaps just more noticeable) at certain
moments and in certain places.
> And I think (just personally) it's silly to try to afix to someone a label
> that came into fashion post-mortem.
I don't see why this should be at all. Surely if an artist or composer
,say during the early yeasr of this century,displayed certain elements
in their work ( perhaps a propensity towards quotation from other
painters/composers) we might ( and often do) want to describe them as
postmodernists, or at least as proto-postmodernists.
> Perhaps he is post-mortem post-modern..
> Ok, I will agree to the possibility of pomopomo.
> If you want to say Rothko is pomopomo, I won't say that is silly.
If we are as yet unclear about postmodernism , introducing
pomopomo doesn't seem like a good idea.
Jim
Lee Goddard Collective
article <35B886FF...@student.uq.edu.au> to alt.postmodern:
> > > > >> The only art Rothko ever performed was the art of convincing
> > > > >> artzy-fartzy curators and critics to accept his huge schmiers rather
> > > > >> than all the other examples of practically-nothing-art created by that
> > > > >> mass of failures doing much the same thing.
> >
> > > Rothko had critics behind him, as did most of the early Moderns. Tom Wolfe's "The Painted Word" is a good >book for the
> > behind-the-scenes 1930/50s art scene.
> >
> > The majority of early Moderns had critics behind them? You should read more
> > than the evangelical Wolfe before you voice with such authority. But I'll not
> > rip the shit out of you just yet: let's just say 'Impressionism' was a term of
> > derision; the Dadaists were frequently imprisoned/shot in Germany; Surrealism
> > was laughed out of court.
> Hitler was a genocidal maniac. His views on art cannot be considered as material for or
> against any kind of art. Some of the points he brought up seemed logical enough, but who
> can possibly condone the burning of 20,000 modern art works?
Or 6000000 Jewish people, and who knows how many Gypsies and others he didn't
like the llok of? On the other hand, he argued as well as mnay of the posters
to this group, who consider their opinions as Ultimate Authority, regardless of
accuracy.
> > But hell, these aren't even early Moderns: the term
> > usually refers to the period of the Italian Renaissance.
> The Italian Renaissance biographers called their artists the 'moderns', certainly.
Everyone calls anything contemporary modern. Most scholars of the European
Rensaissance now refer to the period as the Early Modern period. Yep, even art
historians, so you can see the confusion.
> > Failure is as subjective a term as aquaintance.
> Then there is really no point in calling anything successful either.
I disagree. The use of such judgemental terms without a reference point leaves
me with no understanding of anything except what the writer thinks. Yet, the
writer wrote of a subject as if relating an actuality, the way things *are* for
us all. If the writer had claimed that x failed *on its own terms* or succeeded
on its ownn terms, then I might have swallowed more. As it was, the statement
seemed priggish, to me.
> > > > >I would
> > > > >suggest that you read some contemporary art criticism which might help
> > > > >you to aquire a more considered aesthetic vocabulary.
> >
> > > Post-modernist vocabulary is usually obscure, and the phraseology inevitably dry, academic and tedious. Far >better to write
> > in a clear, natural style that expresses what you want to say without having to convert it into >jargonese.
> >
> > Mr Neill, would you care to define the post-modernism which you speak of with
> > such self-importance? And cross reference that with irony? Hmm?
> Post-Modernism is a term even Post-Modernists find extremely hard to define with any clarity
Thanks for the information.
>. Maybe I misunderstand its intricasies - I've never claimed to have a perfect understanding
> of it. I'll welcome anyone's interpretations of what Post Modernism means, and I would like
> to discuss it with them so long as we can express ourselves with sufficient clarity.
Me too. But, I welcomed your definition first, as it was you, not I, who used
the term. Please illucidate.
> > You are a twit.
> What do you hope to gain in making that comment?
Gain? Self-gratification. Banker, eh? Only at times of extreme frustration.
But really, you use a term which you admit is very, very difficult for anyone to
define or hold a definition of, and then tell me you've maybe got it wrong. So,
why use the word if it communicates nothing of what you had in mind?
Regards, Lee
Lee Goddard Collective
> This discussion could easily have been averted if musicologists had used
> another term to describe the works from that time...that music has little
> to do with any Classical tradition! Newer works like Edgard Varese's
> "Poeme Electronique", ones that use things like the Golden Mean as form
> divining methods, are more closely related to Greco-Roman ideas than The
> Choral Symphony.
There's always 'Gothic' and 'Baroque' -- these help avoid the 'Classical'
altogether...
Marilyn
>
> mark webber wrote:
>
> > > > thread is read in order it looks like one person asking if Rothko can be
> > > > considered a Pomo artist, and several saying no. Questions of this sort
> > > > turn up here often, and often result in interesting discussions.
>
> > > But before we can decide here we need a *definition* of a pomo artist.
> > > especially given the myriad meanings that this term has.
> > than "after modern."
>
> is understood by both parties. If we stipulate postmodern as "after modern"
> we then have still to define "modern" ( other than as "before post-modern"}.
>
> > > > > meanings for one thing - nor must they be seen as disjuncts.
> > > > "post-modern' imply something in opposition to "modern".
> > > > It seems difficult to me how one could be both.
>
> > not imply opposition.
>
> by a definition of postmodern as "after modern" - why couldn't postmodernism
> , for example, be interpreted simply as a *relaxing* of modernism?) that
> still leaves us with the difficulty that Rothko's work might in some
> respects be modern and in others postmodern.
>
And once you finally find where to place Rothko in an art historical
context, how will that affect your own art or the art world in general,
may I ask?
Marilyn
Marilyn
Mark Webber wrote:
so much verbiage.
and in the silence
I thought
Mark is trying to save Iian from Mani.
Can he do it?
or
Will Iian continue to use terms like "artsy-fartsy" or "artzy-fartzy."
Will Iian begin to use the term "schmiere.?"
Will Iian continue to adore Ingres as Mani does?
Will Mark reach Iian?
Tune in tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow
creeps in this petty pace from day to day...
Marilyn
mark webber
On Sat, 25 Jul 1998, Iian Neill wrote:
> > > Hitler was a genocidal maniac. His views on art cannot be considered
> > > as material for or against any kind of art. Some of the points he
> > > brought up seemed logical enough, but who can possibly condone the
> > > burning of 20,000 modern art works?
> >
> > Um, Iian - very quickly now, can you add to this? Maybe something like
> > "not to mention 6 million people," so we don't get the impression you *do*
> > condone this as one of the "logical enough" points?
>
> I don't condone any of Hitler's actions, nor his philosophies. Words are not really enough to express the monstrousness of his
> soul. When I mentioned some of the points "seemed logical enough", I was refering to an article he had written which my old art
> course had proscribed students to read. I think it was intended as a kind of 'boogeyman' exercise, in that they probably meant to
> scare anyone away from severely criticizing modern art (at its fundamentals). Of course, Hitler did just that, but he had his own
> agenda. The points he raised about certain works being meaningless and ugly did not seem too unreasonable, but he had his own
> slant on something one would imagine should really be a non-racial issue. He thought modern art was the work of Jews and
> Bolsheviks, and hence something to be despised. Of course, he was crazy - no, better yet, he was evil. The merits of art work have
> nothing at all to do with race or colour.
> In any case, even if Hitler had made one or two feasible points, it hardly justifies the wholesale destruction of modern art,
> or the imprisonment (or murder) of Dadaists.
>
> I hope I've clarified my point; but if there is still some doubt, I'll be happy to explain in more detail.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Iian Neill.
>
Iian,
Not necessary to elaborate, you did fine.
Mark
mark webber
On Fri, 24 Jul 1998, Jim Humphreys wrote:
> mark webber wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > In short, I think it's silly to call Rothko a pomo because he died before
> > pomo was invented.
>
> Certainly the *term* postmodern was used before Rothko died. As far as
> his dying "before postmodernism was invented" is concerned, I would say
> that it is misleading to speak of postmodernism as some sort of thing or
> entity which was created or brought about at soem specific moment in history.
> If you don't want to use the Lyotard definition, we could describe
> postmodernism as a term which describes certain cultural( and possibly other)
> trends that became prominent (or perhaps just more noticeable) at certain
> moments and in certain places.
OK, I surrender. I don't see how this last bit is any different than
"after modernism", but if you do then we have arrived at that wonderful
place where language is no longer useful and we are doing some kind
of trans-dimentional/meta-analytical tongue-jousting. I surrender.
>
> > And I think (just personally) it's silly to try to afix to someone a label
> > that came into fashion post-mortem.
>
> I don't see why this should be at all. Surely if an artist or composer
> ,say during the early yeasr of this century,displayed certain elements
> in their work ( perhaps a propensity towards quotation from other
> painters/composers) we might ( and often do) want to describe them as
> postmodernists, or at least as proto-postmodernists.
>
>
(Well, I did say "just personally" - you don't have to agree, especially
if we are in that place where our words look familiar, but their meanings
aren't.) PROTO-POSTMODERNISM?
You know, pomo looks very much like an anti-esthetic, multi-stimulus
pastiche of many/any styles, and for that reason, it looks like the
bastard child of dada - to me, anyway. Is Dada protopomo?
> > Perhaps he is post-mortem post-modern..
> > Ok, I will agree to the possibility of pomopomo.
> > If you want to say Rothko is pomopomo, I won't say that is silly.
>
> If we are as yet unclear about postmodernism , introducing
> pomopomo doesn't seem like a good idea.
>
> Jim
I was kind of kidding there. You know? Post-mortem postmodern....
It doesn't seem any less clear than protopomo or premo....
Mark
Bob C
>
>
> And I think this might be a good example of 'poetic license' used to excuse 'poetic
> anarchy'. Again, I will need to see those particular drawings, but if we are talking
> about Modern abstract art in general (or even Modern figurative art that is
> outrageously non-verisimiltudinous), then I'd argue that they've "thrown out the baby
> with the bath-water". Taking liberties with reality is a delicate matter in visual
> art - just as distorting grammar and sense in poetry is not a light matter in
> literature. Yes, it must be done for artistic ends, but 'poetic license' should not
> be used to excuse what is obviously a technically deficient work or one that is
> technically competent but grotesquely malformed. Some people have said: "Yes, well
> modern art might be trying to express that very malformity - and so it has then
> succeeded, no?" I would propose in return: "Is this all that modern art is good for?"
> - and now we come into areas beyond technical competence, areas which touch upon
> VALUE in art, and perhaps even moral purpose. But more of this later, perhaps?
>
You seem to assume that everyone sees modern art exactly as you do - a
technically deficient malformity - and that our appreciation is simply
in convincing ourselves that this is what we want. That is wrong.
I find paintings by Rothko, de Kooning, etc. to be beautiful and moving
simply because they are. Their directness and boldness gives them a
power and panache that traditional painting can rarely match. After
spending any amount of time looking at modern painting, my expectations
become such that traditional painting seen afterwards often looks like
nothing more than random dabs of muddied pigment (no flames please -
overall, I prefer traditional styles to the modern - but the feeling I'm
describing here can occur nevertheless).
I think you also do a disservice to their technical competence because
their development of craftmenship was not done along an entirely linear
path of progression nor was it comprised heavily of learning the skills
developed by those who came before them. Those skills may be very
valuable and very useful for expressing oneself in many powerful ways,
and this is why so many people continue to acquire them, but they are
not necessarily the skills which will lead everyone down the path to the
mode of expression which is proper for them.
Starting from scratch, Rothko would certainly be easier to copy than
Ingres (although not as trivial as you like to pretend). Rothko was not
always moving forward; he was constantly trying new things and different
directions. Rather than spending years learning the form and technique
of others, he was constantly trying to create the unique form and
technique that was right for him. The copier does not have to go down
any of those false paths and does not have to spend time creating any of
the techniques which Rothko has already created for them.
Furthermore, much of Rothko's development was in the expressiveness of
the form rather than material aspects of the technique. The same is true
for Ingres, of course, but by comparison I think the investigation of
the form would probably have taken up a much larger proportion of
Rothko's development as an artist. But someone copying the Rothko can
skip all of that development, because that's already been done for them.
And so to develop the skills to copy Rothko, all they have to do is find
the shortest path to that technique which Rothko finally settled on.
Having done that, however, they've achieved very little other than the
ability to duplicate Rothko's own personal mode of expression. If they
want to learn how to express their own thoughts, then they would have to
go back and follow the same tedious path which got Rothko to where he
wanted to be.
- Bob C.
mdeli
I wrote:
Rothko is definitely Modern.
The category is Modern Bullshitism.
The only art Rothko ever performed was the art of convincing
artzy-fartzy curators and critics to accept his huge schmiers rather
than all the other examples of practically-nothing-art created by
that mass of failures doing much the same thing.
I regard any painting which exhibits a bunch of stripes or a few
color patches, no matter how big, whatever its shape or color or the
repute of its maker, which needs a load of bullshit to proclaim it
art (what you imagine is philosophy) as an utterly stupid, repeatable
object having no more aesthetic value than a towel or bed sheet. In
most cases usually less.
>I don't know that art can't be stupid.
?
> However, a less condescending
>attitude of art might easily be found in the secular humanist Arthur
>Danto's work _Transfiguration of the Commonplace_. There is a terrible
>lack of belief in any actual reasoning or understanding behind art and
>philosophy in this guy's speech, and that's all too common thread of
>taking subjectivism to an extreme and turning it all to "bullshit".
Your taste isn't subjective I presume.
> I
>don't think Rothko is "bullshiting", but mayhap his explanations and many
>of the contemporary expressions of what art is and does are behind this
>kind of cultural philistinism.
In other words if you think a lot of incoherent Artspeak is Bullshit
you are, unlike the cultured Mr. Lanier a cultural Philistine. I
suspect the cultured Mr. Lanier teaches students who daren't
contradict him.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
mdeli
>| >So Andy's work is now "deep" after all. I used to think
>| >that each time an object was looked at, a thin layer of
>| >meaning was removed from it, until it finally became
>| >meaningless (for example, the Statue of Liberty); but here
>| >a thin layer of meaning has been added by each visitor to
>| >the gallery, until the paintings, once light as a feather,
>| >have become heavy indeed.
>
>hug...@interlog.com (mdeli):
>| Do tell us about five "meanings" you have discovered from Warhol.
>| Even light ones will do.
>
>I prefer them weightless.
You mean mindless.
>However, I've seen books with
>many pages of carrying-on about what the Marilyn and
>electric chair pictures "mean."
In other words you can't answer the question.
>Multiply those pages by a
>decent press run on glossy paper, and you could get twenty
>or thirty pounds of meaning right there. Rolled up into
>tight cylinders and applied to various parts of your
>anatomy, they could make quite an impression. It's up to
>you and your masseur.
Try treating your cerebral Hemorrhoids it might help your constipated
imagination.
>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>| >"It's what you see. There's _nothing_ behind it." -- Andy
>| >Warhol, on being asked what was "behind" his work. Little
>| >did he know.
>
>hug...@interlog.com (mdeli):
>| ...and I suspect you know even less.
>
>Where there's nothing to know, he who knows least knows
>best -- something I recommend you ponder and take to heart.
>
Is this a POMO plea for your sort of stupidity?
mdeli
>If it doesn't really matter, then lets say modernism is non-subject matter
>oriented art made during Rothko's lifetime.
>
I agree, as long as you include non-subjective wallpaper and bed
sheets.
mdeli
The usual Artspeak
>The vibrant effect of a single colour area, sometimes muted by the counter
>vibration of a darker tone,
What's a vibrant effect? Counter Vibrations?
>.. is the principle means by which Rothko affects
>the viewers sensibilities.
How is that more than a designer bed sheet?
> All this is a logical development of presenting
>the means of painting, ie the unadorned paint itself, as transcending the
>subject.
Logical development indeed.
> The insistent presence of large paintings is a statement of their
>own reality as objects in their own right as opposed to the usual deceptive
>alternative reality presented by an evocative painting with a subject defined
>by the viewers imagination.
Fairly good Artspeak. Can anyone here decode this blather.
Modernism: long-winded excuses (Artspeak) for producing incompetent
artwork.
Postmodernism: longer-winded excuses (Artspeak) for producing
incompetent artwork.
mdeli
<s36...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>> >> Rothko is definitely Modern.
>> >> The category is Modern Bullshitism.
>
>Unfortunately, that's a very, very, very large category ...
It is descriptive of most of the stuff that inhabits the Modern
sections of museums.
>> >> I regard any painting which exhibits a bunch of stripes or a few
>> >> color patches, no matter how big, whatever its shape or color or the
>> >> repute of its maker, which needs a load of bullshit to proclaim it art
>> >> (what you imagine is philosophy) as an utterly stupid, repeatable
>> >> object having no more aesthetic value than a towel or bed sheet. In
>> >> most cases usually less.
>
>By "stupid object" I imagine that Mani is insulting either the intelligence of the painter (Rothko), the sophistication of
>the art work (the 'lines') or the people who buy the prints - or all of the above.
You left out curators, critics and richy collectors.
>I think he means "repeatable" in the sense that a five-year-old with a dripping paint brush can whip up a Rothko in six
>minutes - and will that be fries and a coke with your painting, sir? What I believe Mani to be getting at is that such
>painting requires negligible artistic skill; although the artist must have a silver tongue. Now, a painting such as "The
>Turkish Bath" by J.A.D. Ingres is nowhere near as "repeatable" as a Pollock regurgitation or an abstract miasma.
>Certainly, you can reproduce the work photographically, digitally, and so forth, but this doesn't make it "repeatable" in
>the creative sense. I'd wager that there are very few artists living right now who could duplicate Ingres' "Turkish Bath"
>to perfection. Thousands could manage crude, inept copies, certainly - and such artists would find it child's play (in
>more ways than one) to "repeat" the works of our oh-so-revolutionary abstract painters.
This is correct however it is obvious. I suspect the guy you wrote it
for is playing POMO dumb.
mdeli
>
Iian Neill wrote:
>> Post-modernist vocabulary is usually obscure, and the phraseology
>> inevitably dry, academic and tedious. Far better to write in a clear,
>> natural style that expresses what you want to say without having to
>> convert it into jargonese.
>Dry, academic and tedious...these are things to avoid being. You won't
>avoid them by being close-minded to art that doesn't fit into some
>pre-conceived, naive notion of skill, romance or classicism.
If you read a bunch of cryptic POMO bullshit which no one claims to
understand and say it's that, than by Webber's standards you are close
minded etc.
>Is it possible that a painter like Rothko or Dekooning has more in common
>with Ingres than you currently realise?
There is indeed some similarity if you look at the back of the canvas.
>Is it possible for any art form which to be so quickly understood that a
>student can consider himself an expert, to have comprehended it all?
What does this question mean?
>
>Naturally you are welcome to continue along your track, but I'll point out
>that Ingres was not a great painter because of his technical skill.
No, but he had technical skill while Rothko had none.
To put it in POMO metaphore which you might understand; a painting
which exhibits no skill is like taking a bath with your socks on
(anyone can do it but its hard to get the fact publicized)
> And
>while he and Delacroix vied with each other for most of their lives, in
>the end they respected each other a great deal.
Wrong, Ingres never respected D.
>
>You've told us that you are around 20 years old. Isn't it possible that
>within 5 or 10 years you could be really embarrassed to have trashed
>artists that people who are in their 30s, 40s and beyond really love?
>Is it possible that you didn't finish our discussion of your "Rant"
>because you simply don't understand enough yet?
>Is it possible that you need to open your mind and your eyes?
>Sincerely,
>Mark
>
The usual patronizing bullshit from someone who has nothing to say.
However I might compliment the fact that he hasn't called you
neurotic. I suppose that's out of fashion.
Iian Neill
Jim Humphreys
> And once you finally find where to place Rothko in an art historical
> context, how will that affect your own art or the art world in general,
> may I ask?
I must confess that I am somewhat baffled by these questions. Firstly,
I am not an artist. Secondly, you have not specified what you
mean by the term "art world". If you mean by this artists, art dealers etc.
in general, then I would reply that I do not consider that discussions
about Rothko's placing in an art historical context need have as an objective
the influencing of the this world.
Jim Humphreys
Jim Humphreys
> >> >> Rothko is definitely Modern.
> >> >> The category is Modern Bullshitism.
> >Unfortunately, that's a very, very, very large category ...
> It is descriptive of most of the stuff that inhabits the Modern
> sections of museums.
What an absurd genaralization. You are expressing nothing more than
your own subjective reaction to modern art. Do you have anything
other than this sort of reaction to support your position?
<snip>
> >I think he means "repeatable" in the sense that a five-year-old
> >with a dripping paint brush can whip up a Rothko in six
> >minutes - and will that be fries and a coke with your painting, sir?
> >What I believe Mani to be getting at is that such
> >painting requires negligible artistic skill; although the artist must
> >have a silver tongue. Now, a painting such as "The
> >Turkish Bath" by J.A.D. Ingres is nowhere near as "repeatable" as a Pollock >
> > regurgitation or an abstract miasma.
> This is correct however it is obvious. I suspect the guy you wrote it
> for is playing POMO dumb.
As the individual to whom the reply was addressed, I replied that I did not
accept that a Rothko painting could be produced by simply letting a paint brush
"drip". I also contest the claim that a painting by Ingres is in some
way harder to "repeat" than a Pollock. I would imagine that it would be
extremely difficult produce an exact copy of a Pollock painting by hand.
Jim Humphreys
Lee Goddard Collective
<35b91487...@news.interlog.com> to alt.postmodern:
> , "Paul D. Lanier" <lan...@email.uah.edu> wrote:
> I wrote:
> Rothko is definitely Modern.
> The category is Modern Bullshitism.
> The only art Rothko ever performed was the art of convincing
> artzy-fartzy curators and critics to accept his huge schmiers rather
> than all the other examples of practically-nothing-art created by
> that mass of failures doing much the same thing.
> Check out my webpage to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
Is it as clevr, evocative and communicative as your criticism?
Iian Neill
> accept that a Rothko painting could be produced by simply letting a paint brush
> "drip". I also contest the claim that a painting by Ingres is in some
> way harder to "repeat" than a Pollock. I would imagine that it would be
> extremely difficult produce an exact copy of a Pollock painting by hand.
I have to admit that you do have a point. For human beings to accurately reproduce
paintings that are semi-random would be an arduous activity. But let us leave aside
PRECISE reproduction for the present and ponder whether it would be easier to paint
in the style of Pollock, or the style of Ingres.
I think we both know which of the two would be harder to equal.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
Iian Neill
>
> Everyone calls anything contemporary modern. Most scholars of the European
> Rensaissance now refer to the period as the Early Modern period. Yep, even art
> historians, so you can see the confusion.
The confusion is compounded by the general acceptance that 'Contemporary Art' refers chiefly to art of the 20th C. But the paintings of
J.W. Godward in the early decades of this century are hardly 'contemporary' - that period is more than 60 years past. There is also the
term 'Post-Modern' which is more than slightly ludicrous, at least on appearances. It's name states that it is 'after Modernism' - I
imagine, however, that there are plenty of art movements that came after Modernism, which all seem to be collected together under this
rather bizarre umbrella of sometimes contradictory philosophies and styles. Yet despite these paradoxes, those academics world-wide who
use the term Post-Modernism to describe themselves and their contemporaries have obviously failed to come up with an alternative that
satisfies them more; and so they are stuck with a movement that seems to mean "all things to all people".
> > > Failure is as subjective a term as aquaintance.
>
> > Then there is really no point in calling anything successful either.
>
> I disagree. The use of such judgemental terms without a reference point leaves
> me with no understanding of anything except what the writer thinks. Yet, the
> writer wrote of a subject as if relating an actuality, the way things *are* for
> us all. If the writer had claimed that x failed *on its own terms* or succeeded
> on its own terms, then I might have swallowed more. As it was, the statement
> seemed priggish, to me.
How can a painting fail "on its own terms" without there being some reference to an audience or an artist? Art is as much a social
activity as a private pursuit, and the former aspect of it cannot be casually ignored at the peril of missing the point altogether.
> > > Mr Neill, would you care to define the post-modernism which you speak of with
> > > such self-importance? And cross reference that with irony? Hmm?
>
> > Post-Modernism is a term even Post-Modernists find extremely hard to define with any clarity
>
> Thanks for the information.
Mani's recent post on PM is rather similar in essence to what my lecturers at University have said on the topic. Granted, they don't
call it mystical or anti-rational, but this is because they are supporters of it. They emphasize its multifaceted nature and the lack of
any one dominant viewpoint - which certainly seems uncannily similar to the definition Mani gave recently.
> > Maybe I misunderstand its intricasies - I've never claimed to have a perfect understanding
> > of it. I'll welcome anyone's interpretations of what Post Modernism means, and I would like
> > to discuss it with them so long as we can express ourselves with sufficient clarity.
>
> Me too. But, I welcomed your definition first, as it was you, not I, who used
> the term. Please illucidate.
We risk running into the very problem you mentioned whilst replying to Mani's thoughts on this topic. You called into question to
validity of relying on "one FAQ" (in essence, one source of knowledge, one viewpoint) when defining Post-Modernism. This pretty much
confirms that it does mean "anything to anyone", and any definition I could bring forth would probably only be accused of subjectivity.
An easy defense would become: "Well, that's not what I think - so come up with something else." If we are going to pursue this
seriously, perhaps the best thing to do is quote from different sources on the topic of Post-Modernism, as any one source (no matter how
reasonable and logical it is) will most likely be cast under suspicion. Speaking personally, I'm not sure if all that work is really
going to be worthwhile, and we could be hear beating our heads over it "till the cows come home".
> > > You are a twit.
>
> > What do you hope to gain in making that comment?
>
> Gain? Self-gratification. Banker, eh? Only at times of extreme frustration.
This kind of self-gratification has no value in a discussion.
> But really, you use a term which you admit is very, very difficult for anyone to
> define or hold a definition of, and then tell me you've maybe got it wrong. So,
> why use the word if it communicates nothing of what you had in mind?
No, I don't think that I've got it wrong - I am merely allowing for the very real possibility that I haven't interpreted all of PM's
facets correctly. When Post-Modern art seems to include everything from Photo-Realism to Neo-Expressionism (or any other contemporary
movement you might care to name) how can we seriously talk about it unless we find similarities between its disparate voices (the
"babble"). Otherwise no real certainty is achieved, and the discussion becomes pointless.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
Gerry Quinn
>
>As the individual to whom the reply was addressed, I replied that I did not
>accept that a Rothko painting could be produced by simply letting a paint brush
>"drip". I also contest the claim that a painting by Ingres is in some
>way harder to "repeat" than a Pollock. I would imagine that it would be
>extremely difficult produce an exact copy of a Pollock painting by hand.
>
I am not familiar with Rothko.
However, an exact copy only becomes an issue if the painting is such
that the particular design is relatively 'special'. Obviously, tiny
variations could be made in either an Ingres or a Rothko without
significantly altering its quality. However, it might be that great
variations could be made in a Rothko, so much that a large set of
easily-created random daubs, differing greatly in broad as well as
detail, could create the same impression as the original. In this
case, the criticism above would be valid - the painting itself is
nothing special. You be the judge...
I believe a computer was once programmed to create a set of
pseudo-Miros, by scattering rectangles according to various
parameters. Seemingly some of the computer's works were preferred to
the original. I don't know the details of the story, but mention it
in the hope of elucidating the 'repeatability' criterion.
Another test: how much does the 'name' of the work matter.
- Gerry
----------------------------------------------------------
ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn)
----------------------------------------------------------
G*rd*n
| >best -- something I recommend you ponder and take to heart.
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli):
| Is this a POMO plea for your sort of stupidity?
It's not a plea -- just common sense. Unless you like
being a caricature. After all, I said, more or less,
that Warhol didn't intend for his work to mean anything,
whereupon you challenged me to find five meanings in it,
as if I had said the work was deeply meaningful. You're
playing, not a philistine fool, but the satire of one.
But it's a cheap sort of satire. Better go back and read
_The_Painted_Word_ again, and shape up.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{ http://www.etaoin.com }"{
Lee Goddard Collective
article <35B9BC52...@student.uq.edu.au> to alt.postmodern:
> > > The Italian Renaissance biographers called their artists the 'moderns', certainly.
> >
> > Everyone calls anything contemporary modern. Most scholars of the European
> > Rensaissance now refer to the period as the Early Modern period. Yep, even art
> > historians, so you can see the confusion.
Iian ( - have you a really weird screen, Iian?)
The confusion is compounded by the general acceptance that 'Contemporary Art'
refers chiefly to art of the 20th C. But the paintings of J.W. Godward in the
early decades of this century are hardly 'contemporary' - that period is more
than 60 years past. There is also the term 'Post-Modern' which is more than
slightly ludicrous, at least on appearances. It's name states that it is 'after
Modernism' - I imagine, however, that there are plenty of art movements that
same after Modernism, which all seem to be collected together under this rather
bizarre umbrella of sometimes contradictory philosophies and styles. Yet despite
these paradoxes, those academics world-wide who use the term Post-Modernism to
describe themselves and their contemporaries have obviously failed to come up
with an alternative that satisfies them more; and so they are stuck with a
movement that seems to mean "all things to all people".
Lee:
Seems to me that if the word fails to communicate anything it fails as a word.
Sadly, it seems to be the only term by which to identify a forum for vaguely
radical ideas - even if those ideas are not new. For my own purposes, the term
post-modern is usually rendered postmodern, and is a synonymn for
post-Auschwitz. You can imagine the fun I have. I also tend towards the
opinion that Pomo is an umberella term for a collection of techniques, such as
deconstruction, techniques I was brought up with and generally feel happy with.
> > > > Failure is as subjective a term as aquaintance.
> >
> > > Then there is really no point in calling anything successful either.
Lee:
> > I disagree. The use of such judgemental terms without a reference point leaves
> > me with no understanding of anything except what the writer thinks. Yet, the
> > writer wrote of a subject as if relating an actuality, the way things *are* for
> > us all. If the writer had claimed that x failed *on its own terms* or succeeded
> > on its own terms, then I might have swallowed more. As it was, the statement
> > seemed priggish, to me.
Iian:
> How can a painting fail "on its own terms" without there being some reference to an audience or an artist? Art is as much a social activity as a private pursuit, and the former aspect of it cannot be casually ignored at the peril of missing the point altogether.
I tend to agree (dadadada) about the audience participation, if we agree that
the painting is intended to communicate something, or that the artist was
intending to communicate something through the painting. I'm not convinced that
this is always - or even usually - the case. But to follow that line would be a
bit daft of me. So, what might a painting communicate?
OK, I'm not going to claim to know the artist's intention, even if explicitly
stated. As we passed over Pomo earlier, please indulge for a paragraph the idea
that an artist might wish to convey a sense of 'otherness', or a fascination
with otherness. DH Lawrence and Picasso, for two, seemed fascinated with this
notion (I'm thinking of Lawrences direct references to the word, along with
'is-ness' and 'it-ness' which I presume are attempts at conveying German
expressions; also, Picasso's African scultpture's). I'm not sure, though, that
any work of either artist could be called a 'failure' for seeming familliar, in
its time or now.
But I'm pretty certain that an artist who purports to portray a subject in a
super- or photo-realistic manner, and misjudges the perspective, would consider
the work a failure. Then again, I'd probably find it quite interesting.
So, in defence of the point to which you responded, I'll have to paraphrase the
pig TS Eliot: art can be about exorcising the personality, though those without
depth to their personality would not be aware of this possibility. Well, I
guess you know what he meant, even if he was puffed with his usual pomp.
> > > > Mr Neill, would you care to define the post-modernism which you speak of with
> > > > such self-importance? And cross reference that with irony? Hmm?
> >
> > > Post-Modernism is a term even Post-Modernists find extremely hard to define with any clarity
> >
> > Thanks for the information.
Iian:
> Mani's recent post on PM is rather similar in essence to what my lecturers at
University have said on the topic. Granted, they don't > call it mystical or
anti-rational, but this is because they are supporters of it. They emphasize its
multifaceted nature and the lack of any one dominant viewpoint - which certainly
seems uncannily similar to the definition Mani gave recently.
Lee:
But doesn't 'multifaceted' and 'lack of any one dominant viewpoint' sound
familliar? Seems to me they gave a damn good definition of analytical Cubism,
but I fail to see it as a _definition_ of pomo. Which University is this?
Somewhere in Oxford? Here at Sussex, there's a group organised by Dr Peter Abb
(patronised by Yehudi Menuin (sp?) amongst others) whose manifesto states an
objection to, and movement against, the repetative irony and other irritating,
dehumanising aspects of Pomo. Sounds good, but they're antisocial bastards, who
produce sod all, and encourge as little. Shame.
> > > Maybe I misunderstand its intricasies - I've never claimed to have a perfect understanding
> > > of it. I'll welcome anyone's interpretations of what Post Modernism means, and I would like
> > > to discuss it with them so long as we can express ourselves with sufficient clarity.
> >
> > Me too. But, I welcomed your definition first, as it was you, not I, who used
> > the term. Please illucidate.
Iian:
> We risk running into the very problem you mentioned whilst replying to Mani's thoughts on
this topic. You called into question to validity of relying on "one FAQ" (in
essence, one source of knowledge, one viewpoint) when defining Post-Modernism.
This pretty much confirms that it does mean "anything to anyone", and any
definition I could bring forth would probably only be accused of subjectivity.
An easy defense would become: "Well, that's not what I think - so come up with
something else." If we are going to pursue this seriously, perhaps the best
thing to do is quote from different sources on the topic of Post-Modernism, as
any one source (no matter how reasonable and logical it is) will most likely be
cast under suspicion. Speaking personally, I'm not sure if all that work is
really going to be worthwhile, and we could be hear beating our heads over it
"till the cows come home".
Oo-ah. Quite agree. But if this group - alt.postmodern - has ever been any use
to me, it is through the multiple perspectives it offers on a shifting,
shimmering, ethreal (some would say non-existant) subject. So, go on, pleez, lay
it on me... I'm ont greatly interested in quoting, or listening to, more
Barthes, Derrida, de Man, Jameson or Lyotard. Sometimes, yes, but now, no.
More I'd like to hear what you think, as a viewer of visual art. Are there
Movements you can identify which appear different to the Modernism that most
take to include (Post-)Impressionism, Cubism, Dada, Surrealism, Expressionism,
Abrstract Expressionism, and all the rest? Could you predict the next movement?
Are you a part of it (and if so, can I manage you?).
> > > > You are a twit.
> >
> > > What do you hope to gain in making that comment?
> >
> > Gain? Self-gratification. Banker, eh? Only at times of extreme frustration.
> This kind of self-gratification has no value in a discussion.
Agreed: just an off day of too much coffee.
> > But really, you use a term which you admit is very, very difficult for anyone to
> > define or hold a definition of, and then tell me you've maybe got it wrong. So,
> > why use the word if it communicates nothing of what you had in mind?
> No, I don't think that I've got it wrong - I am merely allowing for the very real possibility
that I haven't interpreted all of PM's facets correctly. When Post-Modern art
seems to include everything from Photo-Realism to Neo-Expressionism (or any
other contemporary movement you might care to name) how can we seriously talk
about it unless we find similarities between its disparate voices (the
"babble"). Otherwise no real certainty is achieved, and the discussion becomes
pointless.
Such is Pomo, as it is generally agreed to be, it seems. It is not a subject in
itself, but an approach to subjects. This is, to me, its innate beauty. Few
would dispute Derrida's notion of deconstruction (or thinking, as I prefer to
call it) as a fundemental aspect of Pomo - yet as a subject it is (seemingly
intentionally) impossible to deconstruct.
Perhaps, if we wish to work towards a definition, we could consider the attack
on Logocentricism and Ethnocentricism (which Derrida mentions in the opening
pages of Of Grammatology, for what it's worth).
Such an attack has become 'the norm' in British Red Brick Universities, is the
foundation of the modern - oops! - contemporary canon, it is claimed as the
foundation of the values of the contemporary bourgeois hegemony. It is
essential if we are not to drown in the irrestistable wave of globalisation.
Regards,
Lee
Lee Goddard Collective
watching folk react to it.
If you've enjoyed this thread you might enjoy sitting in the middle of the
Rothco room at the Tate (when they're showing Rothco again).
Big, 20'x20'++ canvases, painted wonderful reds: and a million tiny folk
wandering amidst it all, scratch thier heads/arses/chins.
Hours of fun.
Puts everything in perspective.
Lee
Jim Humphreys
> > As the individual to whom the reply was addressed, I replied that I did not
> > accept that a Rothko painting could be produced by simply letting a paint brush
> > "drip". I also contest the claim that a painting by Ingres is in some
> > way harder to "repeat" than a Pollock. I would imagine that it would be
> > extremely difficult produce an exact copy of a Pollock painting by hand.
> paintings that are semi-random would be an arduous activity. But let us leave aside
> PRECISE reproduction for the present and ponder whether it would be easier to paint
> in the style of Pollock, or the style of Ingres.
> I think we both know which of the two would be harder to equal.
To which I reply that if you refer merely to reproducing the *style* of
a painting, then this establishes nothing about the artistic merits of
the original paintings. Suppose an art student produces a painting in the style
of Monet, what does this establish about Monet's work? - nothing. Any
merits or defects that the student's painting may have are not transferred
in some way to the original painting. Secondly the notion of being "in the style
of some painter or other" is too vague to be of use here. If I paint "
in the style of Monet" this implies nothing about my skills as an artist-
even the crudest painting by a non-artist could be "in the style of Monet"
if say there was some attempt at impressionism with Monet-like subject matter.
Jim Humphreys
Jim Humphreys
> >As the individual to whom the reply was addressed, I replied that I did not
> >accept that a Rothko painting could be produced by simply letting a paint brush
> >"drip". I also contest the claim that a painting by Ingres is in some
> >way harder to "repeat" than a Pollock. I would imagine that it would be
> >extremely difficult produce an exact copy of a Pollock painting by hand.
> I am not familiar with Rothko.
> However, an exact copy only becomes an issue if the painting is such
> that the particular design is relatively 'special'. Obviously, tiny
> variations could be made in either an Ingres or a Rothko without
> significantly altering its quality. However, it might be that great
> variations could be made in a Rothko, so much that a large set of
> easily-created random daubs, differing greatly in broad as well as
> detail, could create the same impression as the original.
But the impression which a work of art creates is a subjective matter.
Even if some individuals were to claim that the random painting produced
the same impression as the Rothko *for them*, this would not establish either
that the two paintings had some property or essence in common, nor that
the Rothko was an inferior work of art on account of this fact.
Jim Humphreys