To be or Not to be
Dorothy Schneider
objectivity on your part as in defending your point by opening up a
gateway
to understanding why illustrators and commercial artists have been
ignored
besides the name calling and all that.
I don't like your work and I think that surrealism is crap, however I
can't
and won't deny it's importance in history. And I'm certainly not going
to
call you a "hack" nor will I accuse Surrealism of being "hack-oriented".
What is your definition of Modern Academic Art? What is your definition
of
Surrealism?
I'm looking for an objective answer, not an onslaught of name calling
and the
like. Please respond.
Thanks!
mdeli wrote:
> I wrote
> >> That is why I reject most Modern Academic Art. It contains not a
> >> modicum of craftsmanship. In other words it never got started. Most
is
> >> on a level with third rate bed sheet, towel and floor covering
design.
> >
> >=== Has it ever occurred to your dogmatic intellect that perhaps
certain
> >modern artists were rejecting your `craft' defintion of art ON
PURPOSE?!
>
> Has it ever occurred to your constipated intellect that If crap is
> created "ON PURPOSE" its still CRAP.
>
> >It may just be that they were trying to move art beyond the 1850's
> >"Ingres-esque" concept of `valid' art, and in the end, their 20th
> >century triumphs are testament to the triumph of Delacroix, who was
> >vastly superior, artistically speaking, to the lifeless parodies of
art
> >ascribed to that conformist academic, Ingres. All skill.....no art.
>
> Delacroix was one of the first great sloppies, still an artist, but a
> poor colorist and draftsman and a total conformist in the realm of
> ideas. His subject matter and conception are salon hack.
> There's nothing original in his work unless you chose it for its
> weakness and its appendage of critical nonsense. Even he eventually
> admitted that Ingres was a fine artist as he had better taste than
> you.
>
> Mani DeLi
> ...no skill no art
>
> A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
> check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
> http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
Dorothy Schneider
Webster's dictionary if possible) without all the rhetoric used ie:
"fashionably praised as masterpieces" and "third rate and ridiculous".
Because, believe you me, I could go on and on and on and on about what I
think of Surrealism and that schlock artist, Dali.
I didn't realize that Matisse was an Expressionist, I always thought that
he was a Fauvist.
Guernica was a response to the Spanish war. Many artists and writers
expressed their disdain for war and violence. Look at Kathe Kollowitz for
this one.
What are your thoughts on three dimensional pieces in museums? You seem
to concentrate more on painting and printmaking. I'm curious.
Thanks for your response, by the way.
mdeli wrote:
> Modern Academic Art comprises those Artworks which are fashionably
> praised as masterpieces but range between third rate and ridiculous on
> a technical level. It comprises about 95% of the stuff that presently
> hangs in the modern sections of museums.
>
> Listed below in are several main categories of MAA and some top
> artists who fit bill.
>
> no skill realism:
> Picasso's portraits, Bonnard, Cezanne, Marin, Rivers, Hockney, Katz
> and Expressionist schmierers, and its greatest exponent, Matisse.,
>
> Abstractified hack realism
> starting with cubism, Morandi, de Kooning, Picasso, Matisse, Leger
>
> Critically glorified second rate cartoons:
> Guernica and Picasso's attempts at drawing.
>
> Striped textile design
> Mondrian, Newman, Rothko
>
> Kindergarten design
> Kandinski, Albers, Twombley, Diebenkorn, Still
>
> Creative senility posing as childishness
> Matisse, Guston, Twombley, Johns
>
> talented chimpanzee competition
> Most Abstract expressionism, Kline, Pollock, de Kooning (detail)
Dorothy Schneider
carmen
than my opinion about your words.
Your works are even worse than that.
Sorry.
carmen
I wonder what do you think about Warhol, Klee, Duchamp...
mdeli wrote in message <36e1dead...@news.interlog.com>...
mdeli
gwen_...@cybergal.com
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
> Modern Academic Art comprises those Artworks which are fashionably
> praised as masterpieces but range between third rate and ridiculous on
> a technical level. It comprises about 95% of the stuff that presently
> hangs in the modern sections of museums.
>
> Listed below in are several main categories of MAA and some top
> artists who fit bill.
>
just trips off the tongue. Sad to say, though, repitition of it over and over
again simply becomes boring. I find it boring and I think that you do have
some good points. Marketing is a very imporant part of art.
I tell you what, Mdeli, if you want to be interesting, why not post about
good art, and why it is good. Why not talk about painters who you admire who
are painting today, so that we can look at them too. In particular I am
interested to see who you think paints technically excellent classical work
without falling into pastiche, cliche and kitsch. By asking this I am not
saying that there are not excellent contemporary artists who use technique
and composition to a standard that you would be happy with.
Gwen Jones
There is almost nothing Welsh women have not done.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
mdeli
<d.a.sc...@popmail.csuohio.edu> wrote:
>I was looking for a more clear definition (one more closely aligned with
>Webster's dictionary if possible) without all the rhetoric used ie:
>"fashionably praised as masterpieces" and "third rate and ridiculous".
Well look elswhere.
>Because, believe you me, I could go on and on and on and on about what I
>think of Surrealism and that schlock artist, Dali.
Please do.
>
>I didn't realize that Matisse was an Expressionist, I always thought that
>he was a Fauvist.
(my sentence was unclear) He was a no skill realist who never had an
idea in his life..
>Guernica was a response to the Spanish war. Many artists and writers
>expressed their disdain for war and violence. Look at Kathe Kollowitz for
>this one.
So what? I believe that de Koonings women were a responce to
indigestion.
>
>What are your thoughts on three dimensional pieces in museums? You seem
>to concentrate more on painting and printmaking. I'm curious.
Are you referring to things like the mega-turds of Henry Moore? The
scatological finish on Matisse's heads? Calder's amiboid cut-outs that
won't keep still?
Thanks for asking the Question(seriously) I never carefully defined
MAA. I hope to put what I wrote on my web page.
Ariane
On Sun, 7 Mar 1999 gwen_...@cybergal.com wrote:
(snip)
> I tell you what, Mdeli, if you want to be interesting, why not post about
> good art, and why it is good.
=== I second the motion.
A.
carmen
>>expressed their disdain for war and violence. Look at Kathe Kollowitz for
>>this one.
>
>So what? I believe that de Koonings women were a responce to
>indigestion.
I'm sure you don't know any of Picasso's first works,
I'm sure you have never seen his Guernica closer enough
I started to read some of the things you have in your web site.
You seem smart sometimes, and extremely sick other times.
You remain me that guy in the entrance of Reina Sofia Museum
in Madrid, just where "Guernica" is; he is there everyday trying
to tell people the "only truth" about Picasso's Guernica.
After so many times I saw him there, I decided to stop and
listen... you never know. He sounded like an evangelist
saving the world of its stupidity. A fool.
>>What are your thoughts on three dimensional pieces in museums? You seem
>>to concentrate more on painting and printmaking. I'm curious.
>
>Are you referring to things like the mega-turds of Henry Moore? The
>scatological finish on Matisse's heads? Calder's amiboid cut-outs that
>won't keep still?
>
Have you ever tought you are missing something?
or do you really thing you are right?
I'm curious too.
carmen
carmen
Ariane wrote in message ...
>
>
>
>On Sun, 7 Mar 1999 gwen_...@cybergal.com wrote:
>
>(snip)
>
>> I tell you what, Mdeli, if you want to be interesting, why not post about
>> good art, and why it is good.
>
>=== I second the motion.
>
>A.
>
me too
carmen
Peter H.M. Brooks
da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca "Ariane" writes:
>
>
>
> On Sun, 7 Mar 1999 gwen_...@cybergal.com wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> > I tell you what, Mdeli, if you want to be interesting, why not post about
> > good art, and why it is good.
>
> === I second the motion.
>
I think that I third it! I am also an optimist, a positive person and I
don't warm to constant carping. I would rather see what little beauty
there might be in a slum than go and complain about the faded patina
on a palace.
That is just me, I know some other people find the process of finding flaws
more satisfying - my view is that this is a reflection on the flaws they
feel in themselves. People who don't feel inferior don't spend their time
finding fault.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Marilyn
>
> On Sun, 7 Mar 1999 gwen_...@cybergal.com wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> > I tell you what, Mdeli, if you want to be interesting, why not post about
> > good art, and why it is good.
>
> === I second the motion.
>
>
> > Gwen Jones
> >
> >
> > There is almost nothing Welsh women have not done.
He does post about "good art" - his own.
M.
gwen_...@cybergal.com
pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
> That is just me, I know some other people find the process of finding flaws
> more satisfying - my view is that this is a reflection on the flaws they
> feel in themselves. People who don't feel inferior don't spend their time
> finding fault.
>
boiler just last week! I agree that, being a perpetual fault finder is a
different matter. Are you sure that it is not just a pessimistic trait?
For some projects you need a fault finder - proof reading, for example, does
not work if you are not a very good nit picker.
Gwen
--
There is almost nothing Welsh women have not done.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Peter H.M. Brooks
> In article <920881...@psyche.demon.co.uk>,
> pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk wrote:
> >
> > That is just me, I know some other people find the process of finding flaws
> > more satisfying - my view is that this is a reflection on the flaws they
> > feel in themselves. People who don't feel inferior don't spend their time
> > finding fault.
> >
> We all find faults with things from time to time - I found fault with the
> boiler just last week! I agree that, being a perpetual fault finder is a
> different matter. Are you sure that it is not just a pessimistic trait?
>
> For some projects you need a fault finder - proof reading, for example, does
> not work if you are not a very good nit picker.
>
Ok, I stand corrected! Only up to a point, though. I think that the attention
to detail that close work, and proof reading, require is an aspect of a
fastidious personality - not the sort of person I am talking about.
I don't even mean a walking wet blanket - like Eyore in 'Winnie the Pooh'. They
can be depressing if you let them get to you, but I find them quite fun. I know
a few and sometimes I go and chat to them, offering them a few silver linings
to see exactly what sort of cloud they find to wrap around them.
No, I mean the sort of adolescent carping and finding fault - often with an
assumed air of superiority, like a child who cries 'I am the king of the
castle' from the top of a small rock. I am sure that most people have done
it, it is, after all, part of growing up to realise that the established
authority can be questioned. Some people fall into the trap of keeping this
'worldweary' cynicism up long after they should have moved on, grown up
and found enthusiasm for something.
It is a very easy pose to adopt, and takes such little effort that it can
become a habit. I have met quite a few journalists who suffer from just
this. They pretend that they are so jaded that nothing can please them -
which they think gives them a suave and sophisticated air. Then they wake
up, depressed and empty to find that they are indeed jaded and there is
no delight in their life.
I am sure that other people can put this far better than I. I would recommend
reading Ecclesiastes who did and saw everything under the sun and came out
of the experience with wisdom, not trite criticism.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Ariane
On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
=== An excellent, excellent little chapter full, as you so aptly put it,
of wisdom.
"But delicacy that's what I love,
and this love has made of the sun's brightness
and beauty my fortune"
-Sappho of Lesbos (600bc.)
mdeli
praised as masterpieces but range between third rate and ridiculous on
a technical level. It comprises about 95% of the stuff that presently
hangs in the modern sections of museums.
Listed below in are several main categories of MAA and some top
artists who fit bill.
no skill realism:
Picasso's portraits, Bonnard, Cezanne, Marin, Rivers, Hockney, Katz
and Expressionist schmierers, and its greatest exponent, Matisse.,
Abstractified hack realism
starting with cubism, Morandi, de Kooning, Picasso, Matisse, Leger
Critically glorified second rate cartoons:
Guernica and Picasso's attempts at drawing.
Striped textile design
Mondrian, Newman, Rothko
Kindergarten design
Kandinski, Albers, Twombley, Diebenkorn, Still
Creative senility posing as childishness
Matisse, Guston, Twombley, Johns
talented chimpanzee competition
Most Abstract expressionism, Kline, Pollock, de Kooning (detail)
Peter H.M. Brooks
hug...@interlog.com "mdeli" writes:
> Creative senility posing as childishness
>
You know, Mani, this is about the fifth time I have seen this identical
posting from you. You don't, by any chance, suffer from 'Creative senility'
your self do you?
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
mdeli
>Ariane wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 7 Mar 1999 gwen_...@cybergal.com wrote:
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>> > I tell you what, Mdeli, if you want to be interesting, why not post about
>> > good art, and why it is good.
>>
>> === I second the motion.
>>
>> A.
Full of crap as usual
>
>He does post about "good art" - his own.
Yes Make believe I never mentioned Dutch still life painting,
Leonardo, Ingres, Bouguereau and many other 19th century painters, 20
century illustrators, Dali, Ingres, Tamara etc,
Furthermore you can check my web site for a longer list.
In fact why don't you talk about some painters more often and cool it
on the Artspeak, ism detection and arguing over criticism of your
convoluted verbiage and incoherent theoretical and philosophical
pronouncements.
Kay Kane
>In fact why don't you talk about some painters more often and cool it
>on the Artspeak, ism detection and arguing over criticism of your
>convoluted verbiage and incoherent theoretical and philosophical
>pronouncements.
>
>
>Mani DeLi
>...no skill no art
>
>A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
>check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
> http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
In this matter, I am in 100% agreement! But, I tried it once and it was a
failure. In addition, I am beginning to believe that many posters here hang
on to their Deridas & Cadmuses & never look or learn about the actual
artists that have and do exist. There is nothing wrong with "The work was
awesome..." or "It blew me away..." and we don't need to
justify/validate/categorize every single work ever made when most don't have
much of a selection of artists to talk about because they aren't keeping up
with the artists and what is happening in "art".. The old saying (no
reference) that you can't serve 2 masters, to me, means that we have x
numbers of hours that we are able to learn x facts about x. If I spend my
entire allocated time studying nuclear physics, I will be an expert on that
(eventually), but know little else.
As Mother Night said, "Will the last one out please close the door?" How
appropriate.
Kay