Primary order
Dan Wilson
The intent or purpose of the work of art is based in and flows from the
conceptual. The creation of objects is a process of sublimation from the
conceptual to the physical. The conceptual can be defined as an
encapsulation of diverse perceptual stimuli. Encapsulation occurs as
meaning is resolved through the process of ordering. Order results from
the temporal separation of stimuli and subsequent attatchment to memory
pathways. Primary order, of course, is on - off. For example: See the
flashing insertion point? (Place insertion point here ) This is an
example of primary order. To more fully understand the nature of the
process of sublimation from the conceptual to the physical, please print
this document now.
mdeli
VISIT MY NEW WEB PAGE.
Some of my paintings and...
After eighty years of unchallenged praise for the most idiotic
examples of artwork passed off as great masterpieces, its time for a
bit of politically incorrect counter jargon along with some serious
criticism.
If you have any doubts about the greatness of Picasso, Matisse,
Pollock, de Kooning, Rothko, etc. and wish to hear a view from another
perspective, Visit my web-page at:
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
Mani DeLi
..no skill no art
Marilyn
mdeli wrote:
>
> VISIT MY NEW WEB PAGE.
>
>
>
>
> ..no skill no art
Oh! Your work is so skillful, it must be art.
Good web design.
Marilyn
[flaky]
In article <348ae900...@news.interlog.com>, hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>...no skill no art
\
\
`no fish no fart...
[flaky]
Erik Johnson
On Sun, 07 Dec 1997 18:42:28 GMT, hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>VISIT MY NEW WEB PAGE.
>Some of my paintings and...
>After eighty years of unchallenged praise for the most idiotic
>examples of artwork passed off as great masterpieces, its time for a
>bit of politically incorrect counter jargon along with some serious
>criticism.
>
>If you have any doubts about the greatness of Picasso, Matisse,
>Pollock, de Kooning, Rothko, etc. and wish to hear a view from another
>perspective, Visit my web-page at:
>
>http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
Wow, Mani posts his url... isn't that one of the signs that the end
of the world is upon us? It's good to finally see some of your
endeavors beyond newsgroup bantering... helps to flesh out a
bit more of the person behind your posts. Your artwork is
certainly intriguing..
A couple things about the actual web pages....
Some of your thumbnails (1st image, and last 4) href to
http://localhost/newweb/...
This only will work running on the same machine
as the web server. You shouldn't use absolute
urls for linking within your site (unless your site
is spread out on multiple servers), and *never*
use localhost.
Lose or change the background graphic...
it lowers text legibility and competes with your images.
I definately think the web is a better stage for your cause
than net-news, as you can illustrate your points much more
effectively.
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Erik Johnson erik@ phidias.colorado.edu
http://phidias.colorado.edu/ejvgallery
http://phidias.colorado.edu/phidias
Marilyn
What about the copyright?
We used Picasso reproductions in telecourses for educational purposes and
we had to get permission and it wasn't easy.
I guess copyright is a difficult thing to control on the
anarchy of the web.
Marilyn
Charles Eicher
In article <3496415c....@news.colorado.edu>,
er...@phidias.colorado.edu (Erik Johnson) wrote:
> I definately think the web is a better stage for your cause
> than net-news, as you can illustrate your points much more
> effectively.
Absolutely. I couldn't agree with you more. This clearly demonstrates
mani's "no skill no art" philosophy.
When using mere words posted usenet, the paucity of ideas in Mani's writing
is obvious. Certainly, the lack of "skill" and critical thinking he employs
to create his "critical writing" is evident. However, skillfully formatting
those same words on a web page adds much to their credibility. However,
when you read it, its just the same lame old crap he's been throwing around
r.a.f for years.
| Charles Eicher |
| -=- |
| cei...@inav.net |
Bob Cantor
Charles Eicher wrote:
>
>
> When using mere words posted usenet, the paucity of ideas in Mani's writing
> is obvious. Certainly, the lack of "skill" and critical thinking he employs
> to create his "critical writing" is evident. However, skillfully formatting
> those same words on a web page adds much to their credibility. However,
> when you read it, its just the same lame old crap he's been throwing around
> r.a.f for years.
>
A look at his Matisse analysis shows how well Mani makes the case
against himself, even though he is entirely unaware that he is doing it.
Notice how he says that a hand or a foot looks like a flipper. Mani
knows he is looking at a hand and a foot. At no time does Mani actually
believe that the hand or foot actually IS a flipper. He is therefore
admitting that Matisse has successfully represented a human figure with
human hands and feet.
So what does he do next? He crops the painting so as to show the hand or
foot in isolation and then points out how much it looks like a flipper.
Then he obsesses on the fact that they look like flippers and from this
point on he refuses to see anything else in the painting. Thus he
concludes that Matisse has not successfully represented a human figure
with human hands and feet.
art = art objects which MD likes
skill = the creation of art objects which MD likes
no skill no art = no art objects which MD likes without the creation of
art objects which MD likes
I guess I can't argue with that!
- Bob C.
Erik Johnson
>Notice how he says that a hand or a foot looks like a flipper. Mani
>knows he is looking at a hand and a foot. At no time does Mani actually
>believe that the hand or foot actually IS a flipper. He is therefore
>admitting that Matisse has successfully represented a human figure with
>human hands and feet.
I'm not coming to Mani's defense here, but the reason one would know
or assume that it is actually a hand or a foot, is that is attached to
a form that is obviously derived from a human form. Perhaps if that
same foot was painted on a whale, you would immediately recognize
it as a skillfully rendered flipper. What if it was all by itself,
would you recognize it? We know that it is a foot by its context. Of
course, a foot doesn't always look like a foot, even in photographs...
so I'm not sure that I agree with Mani's critique (though must admit
that I find the piece in question rather horrid).
mdeli
On Tue, 09 Dec 1997 09:47:10 -0500, Bob Cantor <bob...@erols.com>
wrote:
>Charles Eicher wrote:
>> When using mere words posted usenet, the paucity of ideas in Mani's writing
>> is obvious. Certainly, the lack of "skill" and critical thinking he employs
>> to create his "critical writing" is evident. However, skillfully formatting
>> those same words on a web page adds much to their credibility. However,
>> when you read it, its just the same lame old crap he's been throwing around
>> r.a.f for years.
Mr. Eicher has been complaining on RAF for years. He rarely tackles a
point that disagrees with his. The only thing that would make him
happy is a conference called 'Modern Art Love In' with himself as
moderator. As to his complaints about critical thinking. Its a cop out
for the embarrassment he feels because he is unaccustomed to people
who disagree with him. He prefers an atmosphere of yes-men.
>A look at his Matisse analysis shows how well Mani makes the case
>against himself, even though he is entirely unaware that he is doing it.
The reader here might visit my web page and decide for himself.
>Notice how he says that a hand or a foot looks like a flipper. Mani
>knows he is looking at a hand and a foot. At no time does Mani actually
>believe that the hand or foot actually IS a flipper.
Amazing conclusion. Its also paint on canvas. As such it is a
representation of a foot, so what. Any idiot can paint a
representation of a foot but it takes skill to do it well.
> He is therefore
>admitting that Matisse has successfully represented a human figure with
>human hands and feet.
I admit it, I admit it. However it is a horrible incompetent
represention. As a victim of Picasso eye, I guess you are too dense to
gather that.
>So what does he do next? He crops the painting so as to show the hand or
>foot in isolation and then points out how much it looks like a flipper.
Well doesn't it? Did you ever look at a detail in your life?
>Then he obsesses on the fact that they look like flippers and from this
>point on he refuses to see anything else in the painting.
I described and illustrated what I see in the painting. I think I took
a better look then you did. There is indeed lots else in the painting;
quite horribly painted .
>Thus he
>concludes that Matisse has not successfully represented a human figure
>with human hands and feet.
And what do you conclude?
>art = art objects which MD likes
and art = art objects which Bob C. likes
Amazing isn't it.
>skill = the creation of art objects which MD likes
>no skill no art = no art objects which MD likes without the creation of
>art objects which MD likes
>
>I guess I can't argue with that!
You can't argue at all.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Bob Cantor
> >against himself, even though he is entirely unaware that he is doing it.
>
> The reader here might visit my web page and decide for himself.
>
Yes, see the page and see where you crop yet another detail from the
Matisse painting and ask the question "Where is that other thigh coming
from?"
Are you so completely ignorant of human anatomy that you don't know
where thighs come from? I think not. I think you know exactly where
thighs come from.
Nevertheless, you seem to place a very high value on the ability of a
painting to answer questions like this. Questions for which you already
know the answer.
Actually, I also place a high value on this. But not so high a value
that its absence makes all other values irrelevant.
Whether it is reasonable or not for you to take it to this extreme is
arguable. What is not reasonable, however, is your assertion that the
only way an artist can manifest their skill is by doing work which
adequately answers that very narrow selection of questions which you in
particular want answered.
> I described and illustrated what I see in the painting. I think I took
> a better look then you did. There is indeed lots else in the painting;
> quite horribly painted .
And yet your criticism is focused on the extent to which the painting
depicts the human figure with optical accuracy, something which is
entirely irrelevant to this particular painting. I think you're the one
who isn't taking a very good look.
>>art = art objects which MD likes
> and art = art objects which Bob C. likes
Not at all. In many cases, my own personal likes and dislikes contradict
my assessments of quality. Can you say the same?
- Bob C.
Marilyn
Mani De Li has missed her vocation. Her initials MD are a clue.
She should have been a medical artist, and then she could reproduce
the human figure with complete photographic realism to her heart's
content.
Marilyn
DFRussell
:) Judging from your post, Mani must be making a few debating
points.
..... if you can't attack the message -- attack the messenger?
--
Views expressed are personal and not necessarily shared by my employer.
Charles Eicher
In article <348e04e0...@news.interlog.com>, hug...@interlog.com
(mdeli) wrote:
> Mr. Eicher has been complaining on RAF for years. He rarely tackles a
> point that disagrees with his.
I prefer not to argue pointlessly with you. And arguing with YOU is always
pointless.
> And what do you conclude?
>
> >art = art objects which MD likes
>
> and art = art objects which Bob C. likes
>
> Amazing isn't it.
>
> >skill = the creation of art objects which MD likes
> >no skill no art = no art objects which MD likes without the creation of
> >art objects which MD likes
> >
> >I guess I can't argue with that!
>
> You can't argue at all.
>
> Mani DeLi
> ...no skill no art
ars est celare artem
| Charles Eicher |
| -=- |
| cei...@inav.net |
Marilyn
DFRussell wrote:
>
> In article <348EDC...@trash.bin>, Marilyn <sp...@trash.bin> writes:
> |> Mani De Li has missed her vocation. Her initials MD are a clue.
> |> She should have been a medical artist, and then she could reproduce
> |> the human figure with complete photographic realism to her heart's
> |> content.
>
> :) Judging from your post, Mani must be making a few debating
> points.
>
> ..... if you can't attack the message -- attack the messenger?
>
indulges in. Let everyone try to make art, why not? they could
be doing worse things.
Marilyn
mdeli
On Wed, 10 Dec 1997 08:55:36 -0500, Bob Cantor <bob...@erols.com>
wrote:
>mdeli wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 09 Dec 1997 09:47:10 -0500, Bob Cantor <bob...@erols.com>
>>
>> >A look at his Matisse analysis shows how well Mani makes the case
>> >against himself, even though he is entirely unaware that he is doing it.
>>
>> The reader here might visit my web page and decide for himself.
>>
>
>Yes, see the page and see where you crop yet another detail from the
>Matisse painting and ask the question "Where is that other thigh coming
>from?"
>
>Are you so completely ignorant of human anatomy that you don't know
>where thighs come from? I think not. I think you know exactly where
>thighs come from.
>
...and where is the thigh coming from Bob? Do tell us. And the blue
cloud?
I think its coming from the fact that Matisse can't draw. As to that
and the rest of the picture it is on a competence level of the worst
art-school inmate. The only value in the picture is the signature and
that is of monetary not artistic value.
The composition is juvenile the color stupid, and the technique a
series of futile corrections passed of as some sort of modern
experiment. The drawing exactly meets the criterion of Bougereau's
prediction when he told Matisse, "You will never learn how to draw.
Matisse followed his master's advice.
>
>Whether it is reasonable or not for you to take it to this extreme is
>arguable. What is not reasonable, however, is your assertion that the
>only way an artist can manifest their skill is by doing work which
>adequately answers that very narrow selection of questions which you in
>particular want answered.
>
I have no prescription about what an artist should paint. Whatever it
is he should do it well. Matisse never fulfills that criterion.
>And yet your criticism is focused on the extent to which the painting
>depicts the human figure with optical accuracy,
Nonsense.
> something which is
>entirely irrelevant to this particular painting.
The painting is irreverent in any and all aspects except for money.
mdeli
It is the job of the modern art critic by means of Artspeak to:
- make stupidity seem profound
- make incompetence seem philosophical
- excuse mediocrity by claiming it is something utterly new
Mani DeLI
...no skill no art
Brother Alphabet
On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, mdeli wrote:
> It is the job of the modern art critic by means of Artspeak to:
>
> - make stupidity seem profound
>
> - make incompetence seem philosophical
>
> - excuse mediocrity by claiming it is something utterly new
It is so strange to me that I share so many ideals with Mani de Li.
All of this makes sense, and is exactly what I think of the modern art
climate, but nearly every stylistic principle I embrace would be poo-pooed
by Mani de Li.
I tend to believe that talent and ability can be exhibited through
grotesque, outlandish, surreal or non-objective imagery. I believe that it
takes great skill to compose without reality as an anchor. I don't see why
M.de Li cannot separate the bad from the good in terms of the fringe.
When I practice, I stick to the fundamentals. My excersizes are
still-life, landscape, figure. I choose not to use those elements in my
formal imagery, but it is my relative mastery (I say this as humbly as
possible, for I've plenty of room to improve) of these in practice that
furthers my ability to explore abstract or imaginary forms.
Why, Mani de Li, can you not allow for the possibility of skill in
non-traditional styles? You used the Girls of Avignon as an example on
your web page. You should know more than others that Picasso did not just
fling that image onto the canvas. It was a very long and deliberate
compositional process. Picasso labored over the smallest detals in that
piece so that his desired effects would come across. You should also know
that if Picasso had wanted to represent the women realistically he would
have because he had a mastery of the human form at age 13, some 13 years
before he painted 'the girls..'. I dont claim that everything the man did
was the highest of the high arts, but you cannot credibly deny that the
man had artistic skill, talent and insight. A comparison of styles proves
nothing. If anything, your comparison shows us that Picasso's imagery is
alive, while whats-his-name's is buried in dead and decaying allegory.
Narrative painterly snapshots cease to have relevance over time. They
speak to history, but miss the soul. Picasso's work, while not always
'beautiful' is usually dramatic and moving.
Beauty is overrated anyway. Beauty rarely exists in reality. Truth,
whether ugly or pleasant, is always more valuable in the end.
M.de Li, you should consider ways to recognize traditional skill and
talent within the realm of the unseen.
Hutto
spino...@msn.com
>Subject: Re: Job of the Modern Art critic
>From: Brother Alphabet <ja...@isis.msstate.edu>
>On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, mdeli wrote:
>> It is the job of the modern art critic by means of Artspeak to:
>>
>> - make stupidity seem profound
>>
>> - make incompetence seem philosophical
>>
>> - excuse mediocrity by claiming it is something utterly new
>It is so strange to me that I share so many ideals with Mani de Li.
>All of this makes sense, and is exactly what I think of the modern art
>climate, but nearly every stylistic principle I embrace would be poo-pooed
>by Mani de Li.
Adorno's aesthetic was based on the near-impossibility of a Western art
after the Holocaust of the European Jews, which also swept up queers,
folk known as Romany or Gypsies, Reds, confessional Roman Catholics, and
the handicapped: the physically challenged.
It is not far from rejecting Matisse's 1907 Blue Nude because upon your
analysis she as a flipper, and putting a baby to sleep because it has a
flipper where there should be a hand.
Jason, I suggest that it is not enough to merely expand the criteria to
include Les Demoiselles d'Avignon (The Babes of Avgnon.) Mani happens to
be right in believing that more craftwork goes into Bouguereau. Alla
prima painting, in which transparency and translucency (svelatura et
sfumato) is unused, uses left craft and skill, making the language which
accepts it on traditional terms so general as to be empty.
If there is no connection between art and ethics than no problemo. But
if there is then artists have to reject this pre-WWII language of
"mediocrity" and talent precisely because, as Eva's post shows, this
language resulted in the Holocaust of the European Jews, queers, Romany
folk (known also as the "spouses" because of the importance of marriage
to die Siegourner), confessional Roman Catholics (et lux aeterna luceat),
Communists (arise ye prisoners of starvation and arise ye wretched of the
earth) and the handicapped.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Brother Alphabet
On Sun, 14 Dec 1997 spino...@msn.com wrote:
> ...artists have to reject this pre-WWII language of
> "mediocrity" and talent precisely because, as Eva's post shows, this
> language resulted in the Holocaust of the European Jews, queers, Romany
> folk (known also as the "spouses" because of the importance of marriage
> to die Siegourner), confessional Roman Catholics (et lux aeterna luceat),
> Communists (arise ye prisoners of starvation and arise ye wretched of the
> earth) and the handicapped.
Hmm. I can't decide if this is the most or the second most idiotic thing I
have ever heard. What the heck, let's have it tie for both.
I could, if I wished, remind you that the fevered quest for excellence and
a general refusal to accept medicrity also led to the establishment of the
United States of America, The Industrial Revolution, Allied victory over
those evil Nazis, the space race, the end of the Cold War...etc...but I
don't think I really need to remind you of that.
Because I demand that anything called 'Art' be made by those with the
capacity to adequately tranliterate ideas into objects through the
use of refined skill and innate ability does not mean that I also endorse
or favor the wholesale elimination of entire races, religions, genders or
groups of people with physical ailments or sexual preferences.
Your implications are intellectually offensive and personally disgusting.
If everyone were to follow your ideal of performance, no one would bother
to do well in school or on the job, no one would care to improve
themselves in any way. How dare anyone succeed when the very
act of doing well might result in another fascist holocaust!?
Why don't we all do the right thing and stop all this being good at what
we do. This country needs more dumbing-down, more lack-luster performace,
more sloth and apathy...The worse we all make ourselves the better. We
wouldn't want to harm the precious self-esteems of the amoral, the
criminally-inclined, the shiftless, and the insane by appearing to be
living well, or by having good jobs or by making good art.
We all should strive to do as little as possible. We all should strive to
be as bad as we can be at whatever we try to do. We have no right to excel
at something in the face of those who haven't the ability to do as well as
us.
I honestly cannot fathom how on earth people with these cockeyed ideas get
through a day without screaming "I actually BELIEVE this crap?"...
Hutto
mdeli
>Wow, Mani posts his url... isn't that one of the signs that the end
>of the world is upon us? It's good to finally see some of your
>endeavors beyond newsgroup bantering... helps to flesh out a
>bit more of the person behind your posts. Your artwork is
>certainly intriguing..
Thanks for the visit
>A couple things about the actual web pages....
>
>Some of your thumbnails (1st image, and last 4) href to
>http://localhost/newweb/...
>This only will work running on the same machine
>as the web server. You shouldn't use absolute
>urls for linking within your site (unless your site
>is spread out on multiple servers), and *never*
>use localhost.
Its fixed. Check it out. Also have added some paintings.
>I definately think the web is a better stage for your cause
>than net-news, as you can illustrate your points much more
>effectively.
Agreed, however I like writing its fun and RAF serves that purpose.
Thanks for the message
MD
mdeli
>
>On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, mdeli wrote:
>
>> It is the job of the modern art critic by means of Artspeak to:
>>
>> - make stupidity seem profound
>>
>> - make incompetence seem philosophical
>>
>> - excuse mediocrity by claiming it is something utterly new
>
>It is so strange to me that I share so many ideals with Mani de Li.
>All of this makes sense, and is exactly what I think of the modern art
>climate, but nearly every stylistic principle I embrace would be poo-pooed
>by Mani de Li.
>
>I tend to believe that talent and ability can be exhibited through
>grotesque, outlandish, surreal or non-objective imagery.
My work shows that I agree with this.
>I believe that it
>takes great skill to compose without reality as an anchor. I don't see why
>M.de Li cannot separate the bad from the good in terms of the fringe.
"In terms of the fringe?"
>Why, Mani de Li, can you not allow for the possibility of skill in
>non-traditional styles?
Are Dali, Escher. Disney, Rockwell traditional? No contemporary work
is really traditional.
>You used the Girls of Avignon as an example on
>your web page. You should know more than others that Picasso did not just
>fling that image onto the canvas. It was a very long and deliberate
>compositional process.
Deliberate or not the composition is pure crap and this includes the
drawing, the technique, the color and even the idea. The great "girls"
is a big hype put-on. I don't judge painting in terms of an artist's
labors etc. You can work your ass off and produce little more than
failure.
> Picasso labored over the smallest detals in that
>piece so that his desired effects would come across.
I have seen the original.There is no detail. Take a close look. The
whole thing is formless schmier, sloppy brushwork and overpaintings
correcting nothing.
> You should also know
>that if Picasso had wanted to represent the women realistically he would
>have because he had a mastery of the human form at age 13, some 13 years
>before he painted 'the girls..'.
That is the view of those who are exposed to little more than modern
academic art. Picasso was a nothing-special draftsman. The only thing
special about him is that he draws so much better than most any other
modern academic. No Picasso drawing comes close to that of even a
minor master.
> I dont claim that everything the man did
>was the highest of the high arts, but you cannot credibly deny that the
>man had artistic skill, talent and insight.
I deny it. I believe that Picasso is a critic manufactured fraud.
> A comparison of styles proves
>nothing. If anything, your comparison shows us that Picasso's imagery is
>alive, while whats-his-name's is buried in dead and decaying allegory.
Strange isn't it that Bouguereau after 90 years of critical
denigration sells well and is liked by people who don't even know the
name. His posters etc. are top sellers and the first books about him
are beginning to appear. For the first time he appears on lists of
artists which even include Pollock and Rothko. He keeps popping up and
annoying people like you. As to "dead and buried' look at old issues
of Art News and read the hundreds of back names of once
ultra-fashionable has-beens.
>Beauty is overrated anyway. Beauty rarely exists in reality. Truth,
>whether ugly or pleasant, is always more valuable in the end.
Oh, Picasso is more "truthful" than Bouguereau? Whatever that means.
Painting has very little to do with truth it has a lot more to do with
skill; of which Bouguereau has much and Picasso, very little.
Bouguereau's unique skill and technique made his insipid subject
matter beautiful and fascinating. Picasso's lack of skill and
technique makes his supposedly inspired subject matter, ugly and
boring.
while Picasso requires a steady torrent of Artspeak to remind the
public of his supposed greatness, 90 years of critical derision has
failed to quell Bouguereau's popularity.
>M.de Li, you should consider ways to recognize traditional skill and
>talent within the realm of the unseen.
Even my work isn't exactly about the 'seen.'
Mani DeLi http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
...no skill no art
Bob Cantor
mdeli wrote:
>
> Bouguereau's unique skill and technique made his insipid subject
> matter beautiful and fascinating. Picasso's lack of skill and
> technique makes his supposedly inspired subject matter, ugly and
> boring.
>
Bouguereau never did anything for his subject matter other than to use
it create beautiful and fascinating decorations. Picasso, on the other
hand, breathes life and character into his subject matter in a way that
you apparently will never be able to appreciate. Too bad for you.
- Bob C.
Brother Alphabet
On Sun, 21 Dec 1997, mdeli wrote:
> My work shows that I agree with this.
Your work shows that you'd like to.
> Are Dali, Escher. Disney, Rockwell traditional? No contemporary work
> is really traditional.
Please, let's not put Disney and Rockwell on the same level as Dali and
Escher.
In general, you have listed three illustrators and one painter.
Rockwell, while delighting grandmas across the land, has done very little
to advance fine art. While I might enjoy the occasional glimpse at a
candy-coated trouble-free America, I see very little reality or truth in
Rockwell's work. This is not abstraction as much as it is propagandized
nostalgia. No one lived life that way outside the Andy Griffith show. I
once was dragged to a Rockwell exhibit, and I must admit, that the man had
excellent technical abilities, but what has he done besides die and
deprive the Saturday Evening Post of popular cover art?
Disney has committed crimes against the national consciousness. He has
re-written world literature and made happy endings of nightmares. He has
allowed for the foundation of an evil empire of politically correct
cartoon revisionism that reeks of intellectual treason. He drew a mouse
wearing gloves with a neuteredly high-pitched voice. Big whopping deal.
Space mountain produces more modern art than he ever did.
Escher is one of my favorite graphic designer/illustrators. His work in
printmaking, visual paradox, and design is definitely of historic
importance. However, he was not a fine artist. Even in his own mind he was
not. Why would you wish to force the status upon him?
Dali. This is a hard criticism to make, because on the one hand, I admire
his work, while on the other I know that he was as much a clown and a
fraud as Picasso. He was not at all in line with the Surrealists, and only
joined at the signing of the second manifesto. A much better example would
be Magritte or Tanguy.
> I don't judge painting in terms of an artist's
> labors etc. You can work your ass off and produce little more than
> failure.
That much is true.
That much is also common of every artist, skilled or not. We all make
failures...More than we make successes.
> That is the view of those who are exposed to little more than modern
> academic art.
It is also the view of those who have had much broader exposures. I have
seen far more than 20th century artwork. About the only thing I haven't
seen represented in person are the prehistoric cave paintings and the
Cistine Chapel...I have seen examples from every major artistic school in
history, in person. I have done independent research on the development of
world art since 1800. I have done in-depth research on the Impressionists,
Post impressionists, particularly Lautrec and Van Gogh...I have done more
than a year's worth of work on Picasso and his contenporaries...which has
led me to my current investigations in to Surrealism over the last year
and a half. Tis research, by the by, has all occurred in my free personal
time and not under the guidance of modern academia. I found my academic
history education to be lacking and went about my own research to make up
for that.
You like to believe that no one else has done any work in building their
perspectives, don't you, M.D.?
Because I value the contributions of a 20th century painter does not mean
I have not been exposed to what came before. I just believe that
everything that came before 1860-80 is pretty much dead. We can take
technical lessons from those so-called masters, but that's about all. What
can we really expect Michelangelo to teach us about living in this age?
The 'old masters' are good for a few pointers on composition, and a few on
brushwork, and a few on color, maybe...but they didn't even have the
chemistry we use in art today...If I'm working in acrylics, what 'master'
can tell me anything? If my artform is printmaking, who before Lautrec can
really say much of importance? And, if I am exploring abstraction and
destruction, what can Bougereau teach me other than what not to do?
> Picasso was a nothing-special draftsman. The only thing
> special about him is that he draws so much better than most any other
> modern academic.
Anyone who has done any research into Picasso will instantly know you're
full of it. Why do you even bother with trying to tell people he couldn't
draw?
> No Picasso drawing comes close to that of even a
> minor master.
Depends upon who you recognize as a 'master', doesn't it? I've seen some
pretty bad Michelangelo drawings. Da Vinci couldn't paint either. Besides,
the guy only did 17 paintings his whole life. Not much of a career if you
ask me.
> I deny it. I believe that Picasso is a critic manufactured fraud.
Of course he was. He said so himself. He laughed about it. He thought it
was great that he could put ANYTHING down and get lots of money for it.
You need to do more reading on the man.
> Strange isn't it that Bouguereau after 90 years of critical
> denigration sells well and is liked by people who don't even know the
> name.
You should know as well as I that what people buy doesn't add up to jack.
You use the same arguments to try to down modernism. So are you saying now
that what people buy is automatically good? In that case, you have totally
flat-lined the last two years of your writing.
> His posters etc. are top sellers and the first books about him
> are beginning to appear.
Wow. The first books, just now...If this is another one of your gauges of
quality, go and see how many Picasso books exist. Some of them were
published during his lifetime...And you say it took 100 years for
Bougeureau's one book to show up? Yep. He's obviously a profound influence
on many many people.
> For the first time he appears on lists of
> artists which even include Pollock and Rothko.
Lists like what? Artists who killed themselves?
> He keeps popping up and
> annoying people like you.
He doesn't annoy me. What annoys me is that ou use his work againt
Picasso's. At least you could try a viable example of something better
than Picasso's work. Compare and contrast Picasso vs. Braque maybe, or
Picasso vs. Duchamp (har), or Picasso vs. Hutto.
> As to "dead and buried' look at old issues
> of Art News and read the hundreds of back names of once
> ultra-fashionable has-beens.
That's actually one of my favorite things to do when I'm at the Li-berry.
In terms of Picasso, though? I don't think he's an ArtNews has been.
> Oh, Picasso is more "truthful" than Bouguereau? Whatever that means.
> Painting has very little to do with truth...
Painting has little to do with truth, agreed, but ART has to do with
truth.
> it has a lot more to do with
> skill; of which Bouguereau has much and Picasso, very little.
You have yet to prove this, you only say it. I can list as many
reasons for why Bouguereau is nothing more than an ankle-grabbing
establishment painter as you could that Picasso was a non-talent.
Plain skill is worth nothing if you have nothing to say. Use, for example,
one of those savant kids who can draw realistically without effort or
training. Is the fluke skill of a savant equal to fine art? If that's all
it takes to be a fine artist, why not validate snapshot photography and
line-tracing, because anyone can do that.
> Bouguereau's unique skill and technique made his insipid subject
> matter beautiful and fascinating.
Maybe to some, but it puts me right to sleep.
Beauty is not static, nor universally defined. I find many things
beautiful that others find disgusting. I find glorified humanity and
round-assed lilting cherubs to be nauseating.
> Picasso's lack of skill and
> technique makes his supposedly inspired subject matter, ugly and
> boring.
It might be ugly, but it isn't boring. Ugly is interesting. Ugly, also,
was intentional for Picasso. He often made things more and more ugly just
to see what would happen, or to see what he could get away with.
> while Picasso requires a steady torrent of Artspeak to remind the
> public of his supposed greatness...
If you haven't noticed before, I don't tend to burden my words with
non-words like 'speakisms tend to be. I don't need ArtSpeak to tell you
why Picasso was a good painter. Furthermore, you don't need to be told at
all. You know already and for some reason you either can't stand, or
refuse to accept the fact.
> 90 years of critical derision has
> failed to quell Bouguereau's popularity.
I don't like him, never did. And YES, I was told I should like him in my
art history classes. (Oh MY, the academic system made a blunder and said
something positive about Bougereau). Why would you think someone would
have to endure 90 years of critical derision if he were indeed gifted?
Rembrandt had to undergo far worse critical treatment, but look what
became of his legacy. One would think that Bougereau would have had better
treatment by now...
> Even my work isn't exactly about the 'seen.'
I have avoided talking on the group about your work because I feel that you
have denied everyone the priveledge of viewing your actual compositions by
displaying detail shots instead of full images. Detail shots are useless.
Details are for hiding the screw ups in your work...And if there are
screw-ups in your details...well...
Hutto
Bryn Thomas Ayers
In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.971222...@Ra.MsState.Edu>,
Brother Alphabet <ja...@isis.msstate.edu> wrote:
>Rockwell, while delighting grandmas across the land, has done very little
>to advance fine art. While I might enjoy the occasional glimpse at a
>candy-coated trouble-free America, I see very little reality or truth in
>Rockwell's work.
reveal true representations while promoting what appears to be a fraud. I
don't think Rockwell's work is as bad as we might think but there is a
tendancy to promote fantasy nostalgia and sentimentality. I think it is
OK to be sentamental about real things but not about frauds. I don't think
the artist is capable of exposing the reality of all things without
metaphore - is this true?
>This is not abstraction as much as it is propagandized
>nostalgia. No one lived life that way outside the Andy Griffith show.
I think you believe this but I still think that people do
enjoy their own lives even in ways that can be portrayed as superficial
and sentimental. I think that in the contemporary culture we are
offered things that are in our worst interest as being happy and
sentimental. The most common allusions to happy family life that I
experience daily are either in reference to buying some product like a
car that cannot give birth or be called brother, or in asserting some
maniacal political agenda. Again the republican party is not my family
and no matter how many times they splurt out family values, it won't
change the fact that I am not the child of a political party. Neither
is anybody. Our good will has been stolen from us by the simple fact
that many things promoted as happy, sentimental, and decent is either
misguided or evil. Ideas of Beauty and happiness are even used to
hurt people(you will never be a supermodel, or rich so buy our
product type thing) which is ultimately the antithesis of these
things. I assume that many people reading this have a in part rejected
their cultures, and what I have said doesn't completly apply to them.
We do need to be cynical especially in these days because it is a kind
of narcotic but it doesn't mean that cynicism is a good thing only
better than a happy suicide machine. They say that the road to hell is
paved with good intentions it does not follow that the road to heaven is
paved with bad ones.
>
-snip- criticism of Dali deleted
>Painting has little to do with truth, agreed, but ART has to do with
>truth.
(BTW. I read the Hitler response, I have nothing to add besides I was
mainly wrong<I doubt that I've ever been right> but that this subject
is far too ambiguous and I know too little about history to continue
this- sorry I made you mad enough to delay dinner).
Bryn Thomas Ayers
mailto aye...@cs.purdue.edu
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/ayersbt/art/art.html
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
The Road to progress is paved with questions
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Bryn Thomas Ayers
In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.971222...@Ra.MsState.Edu>,
Brother Alphabet <ja...@isis.msstate.edu> wrote:
>Dali. This is a hard criticism to make, because on the one hand, I admire
>his work, while on the other I know that he was as much a clown and a
Are you sure about this. Humor is part of the human experience
as much as anything else. Dali's work also dealt heavily with modern
physics, and spirituality. I do think that some of his work is fraudulent.
All artist make kitch even if it is by accident or for money.
>fraud as Picasso. He was not at all in line with the Surrealists, and only
>joined at the signing of the second manifesto. A much better example would
>be Magritte or Tanguy.
>Painting has little to do with truth, agreed, but ART has to do with
>truth.
I think that truth is important but in Art there is a difference
between the artist discovering truth and revealing it(and yet another
problem of being certain of it). It seems that if I am to be a trancducer
of artistic truth that my work must contain the lies that bring people
in to the work. My own truth is that all of the fascination of art, the
mystery, and beauty can be found in the real world and that we are
artist for no other reason than to become hyper-aware of our own esthetic
and our own reality. If it will take a dayglow abortion skull-fucking
a cybernetic cow to get people to contemplate the beauty and mystery of
the landscape behind it then I will paint it. This is a lie and this is
also what I think Dali was doing.
Brother Alphabet
On 22 Dec 1997, Bryn Thomas Ayers wrote:
> (BTW. I read the Hitler response, I have nothing to add besides I was
> mainly wrong<I doubt that I've ever been right> but that this subject
> is far too ambiguous and I know too little about history to continue
> this- sorry I made you mad enough to delay dinner).
:) I don't know if you were wrong or not.
I write with color-commentary enabled...but I don't get mad, Ayers. (And
dinner isn't all that crucial)
Some of your points were correct, but taken a bit further than I
(personally) would take them. Plenty of people agree that Fascism and
Futurism were more closely tied than I (personally) think they were.
Remember that this is all personal opinion. I can't feasibly say you're
wrong without proof for my side. I was actually hoping for a lively
response from you on the subject :)
Discourse is the way I learn best...helps me think and develop
perspectives. I might make half the folks here mad by being
psuedo-flammable, but for the most part, a healthy head of steam is good
for discussion. If you were indeed concerned or distressed, I'm sorry.
I tend to lean toward the confrontational remarks because it tends to get
better response than asking questions. I like to hear passionate views
rather than studied and memorized answers I could find in a book.
You can bet that if I (personally) am taking pot-shots at your posts, I
find you to be an interesting person worth arguing/talking with. This
applies to everyone on the group except Marylin...(Just kidding).
Hutto
Marilyn
Brother Alphabet wrote:
> applies to everyone on the group except Marylin...(Just kidding).
>
> Hutto
There you go, taking my name in vain and mis-spelling it at that.
If you like discourse, here is a tip, leave out all name-calling
and you would be surprised how far you can carry the argument.
You also come off sounding/looking (whatever) like a gentleman/
scholar instead of a rude crude dude.
Oops, I think, I went against my own rule.
Merry Xmas or whatever.
Marilyn
Michele Sciam
> All artist make kitch even if it is by accident or for money.
Some artist, not all of them and I am afraid the ones who do make art for
money are not the ones who finally make the history of art.
Mondrian and Matisse, for istance.
> >Painting has little to do with truth, agreed, but ART has to do with
> >truth.
A real painter is always a real artist, what's the difference between
painting and art? A real painter always looks for the truth.. What the
truth is is another story...
If it will take a dayglow abortion skull-fucking
> a cybernetic cow to get people to contemplate the beauty and mystery of
> the landscape behind it then I will paint it. This is a lie and this is
> also what I think Dali was doing.
If your art needs such people then you may as well not care much about
beauty and truth..
You guys in northern america have a strange idea of art!
Greetings from the old world!
Michael Sciam
mdeli
On Mon, 22 Dec 1997 09:54:03 -0600, Brother Alphabet
<ja...@isis.msstate.edu> wrote:
>> Are Dali, Escher. Disney, Rockwell traditional? No contemporary work
>> is really traditional.
>
>Please, let's not put Disney and Rockwell on the same level as Dali and
>Escher.
>
>In general, you have listed three illustrators and one painter.
>
>Rockwell, while delighting grandmas across the land, has done very little
>to advance fine art.
Nobody "advances" fine art. I'm no grandma.
I
>I once was dragged to a Rockwell exhibit, and I must admit, that the man had
>excellent technical abilities, but what has he done besides die and
>deprive the Saturday Evening Post of popular cover art?
A lot more than Picasso.
>Escher is one of my favorite graphic designer/illustrators. His work in
>printmaking, visual paradox, and design is definitely of historic
>importance. However, he was not a fine artist. Even in his own mind he was
>not. Why would you wish to force the status upon him?
A fine artist is someone who creates pictures All those I mentioned
did that.
>Dali. This is a hard criticism to make, because on the one hand, I admire
>his work,
Gee, I guess technique and skill affects even you.
>while on the other I know that he was as much a clown and a
>fraud as Picasso.
Picasso is a fraud because of what is on the wall that is not the case
with Dali. Their lifestyles are of no interest when judging the merits
of what is on the wall.
>He was not at all in line with the Surrealists, and only
>joined at the signing of the second manifesto. A much better example would
>be Magritte or Tanguy.
Magritte is closer to what you call an illustrator. His ideas are good
but his technique is horrible (look at his originals.) I like Tanguy
even though he repeated the same theme and never changed. It was a
good theme and his technique is fine.
> I just believe that
>everything that came before 1860-80 is pretty much dead. We can take
>technical lessons from those so-called masters, but that's about all. What
>can we really expect Michelangelo to teach us about living in this age?
>The 'old masters' are good for a few pointers on composition, and a few on
>brushwork, and a few on color, maybe...but they didn't even have the
>chemistry we use in art today...If I'm working in acrylics, what 'master'
>can tell me anything? If my artform is printmaking, who before Lautrec can
>really say much of importance? And, if I am exploring abstraction and
>destruction, what can Bougereau teach me other than what not to do?
That says it all.
>Anyone who has done any research into Picasso will instantly know you're
>full of it. Why do you even bother with trying to tell people he couldn't
>draw?
Name three great drawings,
>> No Picasso drawing comes close to that of even a
>> minor master.
>
>Depends upon who you recognize as a 'master', doesn't it?
How about Rockwell.
>I've seen some
>pretty bad Michelangelo drawings. Da Vinci couldn't paint either. Besides,
>the guy only did 17 paintings his whole life. Not much of a career if you
>ask me.
>
Perhaps you should do some more "research."
>> Bouguereau keeps popping up and
>> annoying people like you.
>
>He doesn't annoy me. What annoys me is that ou use his work againt
>Picasso's.
Both bouguereau and Dali annoyed Picasso no end.
>At least you could try a viable example of something better
>than Picasso's work. Compare and contrast Picasso vs. Braque maybe, or
>Picasso vs. Duchamp (har), or Picasso vs. Hutto.
I do compare Picasso to modern bullshit. He's better than most. In
terms of art history however being the best of the worst is no big
deal.
>Painting has little to do with truth, agreed, but ART has to do with
>truth.
Even less.
>> it has a lot more to do with
>> skill; of which Bouguereau has much and Picasso, very little.
>Plain skill is worth nothing if you have nothing to say.
Picasso had very little skill, but do tell us what Picasso says that
is so important and unique. I've read no end of quotes and find most
rather stupid.
> If that's all
>it takes to be a fine artist, why not validate snapshot photography and
>line-tracing, because anyone can do that.
The old Modern Academic art Argument. All realism is just
photographic. I guess you would mistake an Ingres for a photograph.
>> Bouguereau's unique skill and technique made his insipid subject
>> matter beautiful and fascinating.
>
>Maybe to some, but it puts me right to sleep.
>Beauty is not static, nor universally defined. I find many things
>beautiful that others find disgusting. I find glorified humanity and
>round-assed lilting cherubs to be nauseating.
Try Pepto Bismol
>I have avoided talking on the group about your work because I feel that you
>have denied everyone the priveledge of viewing your actual compositions by
>displaying detail shots instead of full images. Detail shots are useless.
>Details are for hiding the screw ups in your work...And if there are
>screw-ups in your details...well...
Modern Artsy-fartsies abhor detail because Modern Academic Art
contains almost none. Details are useless to you because you can't
fathom more than broad sweeps of formless schmier, except where the
skill is so overwhelming that you can't help yourself like in Dali.
zi...@interport.net
Bob Cantor <bob...@erols.com> wrote:
>mdeli wrote:
>>
>> Bouguereau's unique skill and technique made his insipid subject
>> matter beautiful and fascinating. Picasso's lack of skill and
>> technique makes his supposedly inspired subject matter, ugly and
>> boring.
>>
>Bouguereau never did anything for his subject matter other than to use
>it create beautiful and fascinating decorations. Picasso, on the other
>hand, breathes life and character into his subject matter in a way that
>you apparently will never be able to appreciate. Too bad for you.
>- Bob C.
I would take this much exception to Bob, while agreeing with him in
the main. The more figurative Picasso, even after he learned how to
paint during cubism looks worse and worse with the passing years.
I am not talking about the serious attempt at Gertrude Stein, which
he, himself judged a failure and abandoned, but which is worthy of
serious respect. I am talking about the neoclassical period. He
simultaneously painted wonderful cubist still lifes, figures Etc.
during that period, but almost "whenever" he tries to do a
"classical" subject he looks banal and shallow nowadays. When I was a
kid the Minotauromachia print was adored by everyone. Now, when I look
at it, I don't know what the fuss was all about. I find I pick and
choose in Picasso. The still lifes through 1937 are extraordinary. He
even hit in a few neoclassic still lifes. But the late paintings seem
attempts to repeat the old verve and thought but merely living on the
interest, like a parvenu. The more realistic he gets the less he is in
command. He was trained as an academic painter. It is his academic
training getting in the way to the last. He probably loved Bouguereau
when he was a kid in Barcelona.
Gabriel
Brother Alphabet
Greetings ...
Here we have M. de Li, or whatever the goon's name is, totally
contradicting everything he has ever uttered. Furthermore, the fool makes
claims about my artwork, which he or she has obviously never even seen.
Where previously I had a mild respect for M. de Li, I have had to remove
all such respect from my consciousness.
> All produced artwork, All are artists.
Here, M. de Li claims that producing artwork INSTANTLY makes one an
artist...This is an attribute that suddenly, somehow, occurs outside the
scope of skill and talent. Quite a remarkable conclusion on the part of M.
de Li.
> Nobody "advances" fine art. I'm no grandma.
Here M. de Li lies. He or she IS a grandma, and individual artists DO
advance fine art.
Through their contributions to the collective, artists provide influence
to other artists which brings about gradual, and sometimes rapid change
to the collective. Any observance of history can show you this.
> A lot more than Picasso.
Has M. de Li harkened back to the glory days of third grade? What kind of
response is that? 'Oh yeah, well, I know you are but what am I?'
> A fine artist is someone who creates pictures All those I mentioned
> did that.
Here again, M. de Li totally nullifies his previously championed skill
requirements and states quite plainly that an artist only need to make
pictures to make fine art. M. de Li must have a cold.
> Gee, I guess technique and skill affects even you.
It has always been one of my prerequisties. You must have failed to read
my numerous posts, which, unlike yours, remain consistent.
> Picasso is a fraud because of what is on the wall that is not the case
> with Dali. Their lifestyles are of no interest when judging the merits
> of what is on the wall.
Their lifestyles are of particular interest. They were countrymen in
addition to both being members of the surrealist movement, Dali as a
second wave signee, and Picasso as honored mentor.
> Magritte is closer to what you call an illustrator. His ideas are good
> but his technique is horrible (look at his originals.)
Let us count, shall we M. de Li, exactly how many Magritte originals I
have seen. That would be 273. Now, what do you have to say, you snivelling
tightwad?
The detail you so cherish is all over the Magrittes.
> I like Tanguy
> even though he repeated the same theme and never changed. It was a
> good theme and his technique is fine.
I'm sure his ghost is glad you approve.
> > ...what can Bougereau teach me other than what not to do?
>
> That says it all.
Well, of course it does.
> Name three great drawings,
Three great Picasso Drawings?
The best ones are not titled, so I'll have to refer you to his
sketchbooks. He did not often do large-scale studies...It doesn't matter
which drawings I name, I realize, for you will fail to see anything by
looking at them.
> >Depends upon who you recognize as a 'master', doesn't it?
>
> How about Rockwell.
How about Rockwell? He's no master. He was an illustrator. He made cutesy
bullpoop that old ladies frame in their living rooms and bathrooms.
An American Master (in the traditonal sense): Andrew Wyeth.
Wyeth's paintings make Rockwell's crap look like cartoons, which they are.
Paul Lee, california illustrator...AKA Poly
Brent Funderburk, Bart Galloway, Chad Anderson...All better than Rockwell
ever even wanted to be.
Heard of them? I'd be impressed, but I doubt you have. They are the
future.
> Perhaps you should do some more "research."
On what topic? Unlike you, I'll actually look into things people suggest
so as to broaden my perspective.
> Both bouguereau and Dali annoyed Picasso no end.
Don't know about Bouguereau, but Dali and Picasso taunted each other for
fun. Dali often 'toasted' Picasso at Surrealist banquets. That is to say,
he would introduce him with insults and jokes at his expense, but these
were generally known not to be hostilities. It was a common part of the
'nonsense'
> I do compare Picasso to modern bullshit. He's better than most. In
> terms of art history however being the best of the worst is no big
> deal.
I guess you should know?
> >Painting has little to do with truth, agreed, but ART has to do with
> >truth.
>
> Even less.
So, to you, art is falsehood and posturing? That makes sense.
> Picasso had very little skill, but do tell us what Picasso says that
> is so important and unique. I've read no end of quotes and find most
> rather stupid.
Has it ever occurred to you that maybe you just aren't capable of true
vision? That maybe you just want it really bad, but can't have it, so in
turn you lash out at what you cannot comprehend?
It has occurred to me frequently that you suffer from this malady. For
your own good, please, accept the fact that you'll always be mediocre.
> The old Modern Academic art Argument. All realism is just
> photographic. I guess you would mistake an Ingres for a photograph.
Ingres work is not realistic. "...look at the originals..."
> >I find glorified humanity and
> >round-assed lilting cherubs to be nauseating.
>
> Try Pepto Bismol
What makes me feel better than Pepto is to claim the era to be dead and
gone. I bet you collect figurines.
> Modern Artsy-fartsies abhor detail because Modern Academic Art
> contains almost none.
Detail PHOTOGRAPHS, nitwit!
Little small section-shots of a painting called 'details'.
I don't 'abhor' details, I find detail shots of paintings useless in
determining whether or not the whole work has a good composition, which,
if you could actually use your brain, would make perfect friggin' sense.
> Details are useless to you because you can't
> fathom more than broad sweeps of formless schmier, except where the
> skill is so overwhelming that you can't help yourself like in Dali.
Derrruhhhh...yeah, george....
Dali fails to overwhelm me. Very very few painters can overwhelm me. I
know too much technique to be fooled by imagery, and I can usually look at
a painting and know how it was done. It is a mistake to assume that
everyone you reply to is a know-nothing. I have studied as much or more
art as you have, both within and outside of the academic system, and I
have put what I have learned into action again and again over years of
painting and drawing. I have studied art and read about artists and made
art since I was a kid. The studies I do are not formless schmier, but
are the classical excersizes...figure drawing, landscape, still life. You
don't know the first thing about me which is amazing, considering the fact
that I have an overly verbose nature.
The remarks I made in regard to your detail shots were meant to tell you
that we can't really get much information from them. It is easy for you to
pick out a half-decent composition from a loser of a painting and pretend
that the whole painting is of similar quality.
I made absolutely no comment about the quality or content of your
work...In fact I mentioned that such an act would have been unfair due to
my having been denied the opportunity to view the whole composition. If
you wish, I will go to your site again and critique all your detail shots,
but I am inclined to believe that you have prepared yourself for such a
possibility. If such criticism occurs, you will probably say something
about the fact that the criticism is unfounded due to the fact that the
shots on your site are details. I think you are unwilling to expose your
own lack of talent and skill by letting us see the whole images.
It is getting old, your memorized reply to commentary. Your statements are
incoherent and vague, and you make no logical claims to back up what you
say, and if all else fails you blame the formless schmier endorsed by
academia. I, on the other hand, repeatedly tell you that I was not exposed
to such nonsense in my academic training, yet you never have a response to
that fact. It is time to back yourself up, Mani de Li, or it is time to
button your flapping lip.
Your crowned ruler,
Hutto
-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-
"I paint what I think, not what I see..." - Pablo Picasso
"You're not the boss of me!..." - J. A. Hutto (Pre age 3)
http://www2.msstate.edu/~jah10 + ja...@ra.msstate.edu
mdeli
Brother Alphabet Soup writes
>Here we have M. de Li, or whatever the goon's name is, totally
>contradicting everything he has ever uttered. Furthermore, the fool makes
>claims about my artwork, which he or she has obviously never even seen.
>
accompanying babble, I think you should raise your prices and lengthen
your earth shattering statements. Your pretensions aren't bombastic
enough to make it as a Modern Academic Artist. Try teaching its your
only hope.
>> Gee, I guess technique and skill affects even you.
>
>It has always been one of my prerequisties. You must have failed to read
>my numerous posts, which, unlike yours, remain consistent.
Your drawings ain't exactly chocked-full-o-skill.
>> Picasso had very little skill, but do tell us what Picasso says that
>> is so important and unique. I've read no end of quotes and find most
>> rather stupid.
>
>Has it ever occurred to you that maybe you just aren't capable of true
>vision? That maybe you just want it really bad, but can't have it, so in
>turn you lash out at what you cannot comprehend?
Begging the question as usual.
>> Modern Artsy-fartsies abhor detail because Modern Academic Art
>> contains almost none.
And your work contains none.
> I can usually look at a painting and know how it was done.
I doubt it.
>I will go to your site again and critique all your detail shots,
Please do.
> If such criticism occurs, you will probably say something
>about the fact that the criticism is unfounded due to the fact that the
>shots on your site are details. I think you are unwilling to expose your
>own lack of talent and skill by letting us see the whole images.
There are complete paintings on my site and more are coming. I hope
they make you as sad and nauseous as Dali and Bougereau.
Check it out. http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
>Your crowned ruler,
>Hutto, Generalisimo of Failure
Gee I missed your coronation. Did anyone attend?
>"I paint what I think, not what I see..." - Pablo Picasso
Shows he couldn't think well.
Brother Alphabet
On Thu, 1 Jan 1998, mdeli wrote:
> Having looked at the crappy drawings on your home page and the
> accompanying babble, I think you should raise your prices and lengthen
> your earth shattering statements.
I actually have raised my prices slightly, but not on the stuff on my
website.
If I had more time, I would expand upon my statements, but at the moment,
I've had to put my research on the back burner.
It really makes me happy that you think my work is crappy...Hey, a
rhyme...I would expect any devotee of Rockwell and other limp artists such
as he to miss my work completely.
Your opinion validates the fact that I'm on the right track.
> Your pretensions aren't bombastic
> enough to make it as a Modern Academic Artist.
If you knew me better you would know how stupid you sound right there...
If anyone is lacking of pretense, it's me. The comments I included are
from research work I have been doing on and off for the last year and a
half, and they appear on my site by request.
I would take your above statement more seriously had I any faith in the
notion that you knew anything at all about either making it as, or being,
a fine artist, Modern Academic, Traditionalist, or otherwise.
> Try teaching its your only hope.
O.K. What would you like to learn first?
----------------------------- <-- (Blank for M.De Li's witty retort)
> Your drawings ain't exactly chocked-full-o-skill.
They ain't?
I wonder how they got on the paper, then.
I might not be the MOST skilled artist, but I did pay attention in class
enough to learn how to use a pen, and I have put said knowledge to use for
some years now, so you'll have to grant me at least the benefit
of the doubt in terms of the fundamentals...Whether or not you LIKE what
I've presented is both beyond my concern and irrelevant to my goal.
> >Has it ever occurred to you that maybe you just aren't capable of true
> >vision? That maybe you just want it really bad, but can't have it, so in
> >turn you lash out at what you cannot comprehend?
>
> Begging the question as usual.
A text-book M.De Li reply.
He has nothing to say that would not confirm the truth, something which he
wishes to continue to hide, so instead he does the blow-off move.
> >> Modern Artsy-fartsies abhor detail because Modern Academic Art
> >> contains almost none.
Yada, yada, yada, M.De Li still apparently has no idea that I was talking
about "detail" shots...(Photographs, you know, those things cameras make,
you know, cameras...(Or, I suppose, scans would do as well...))
> And your work contains none.
And now, M. De Li says that 18x24 ink drawings created with .1 mm nib pens
and a size 00 brush have no detail. I wonder how I pulled that trick off?
> > I can usually look at a painting and know how it was done.
>
> I doubt it.
Who cares?
If I saw your work in person I could tell you exactly what color crayolas
you used...Why's that so hard for you to believe? Half the time you can
still see the numbers where you missed a spot...
> >I will go to your site again and critique all your detail shots,
>
> Please do.
On my way, Rembrandt.
> There are complete paintings on my site and more are coming. I hope
> they make you as sad and nauseous as Dali and Bougereau.
I probably won't care enough about them to react physically, but I'll do
my best to puke on the screen.
> >Your crowned ruler,
> >Hutto, Generalisimo of Failure
?
Failure?
Hmm, all I can say is that it's better to attempt, fail, learn and
re-attempt than to rest on imaginary laurels and never try at all.
> Gee I missed your coronation.
You weren't invited.
> Did anyone attend?
A lot of artists and other people you can't relate to.
> >"I paint what I think, not what I see..." - Pablo Picasso
>
> Shows he couldn't think well.
Apparently, he had a couple of decent ideas...Skill or no, talent or no,
he's the only artist to have work in the Louvre during his
lifetime...Other than Jasper Johns, Picasso was also the wealthiest living
artist of all time. (Johns beat Picasso's record a couple of years before
he died.)
So, maybe he couldn't draw or paint or even think, but he's regarded as
one of if not THE most important artist of the 20th century, he's had a
couple thousand volumes published about his life and/or work, he's had
movies about him, feature him, or use his work...and so on and so on...
Hehe...I bet that really ignites your panties, M.De Li. Such a horrible
and unskilled pretender getting all that money and praise and critical
acclaim, and all the women and the houses, and the world-class status.
I can see how you'd expect all of us to be more like what you idealize
than like Pablo Picasso. Being like you is quite obviously far more
appealing.
Hutto, Generalisimo of Failure.
---
No Clue, Mani de Li