Bouguereau
Mani Deli
finest I have ever seen. When I visited Paris in the 70's he was not
to be seen. This show had his greatest large pieces. They are unique,
entirely original, and technically unmatched by anybody.
What you see of B's work on the web or in books is a mere indication
of the quality of his work. Unfortunately looking at detail is out of
fashion. If books or the net showed detail one would get some sense of
the painterly quality in his and much of the best 19th cent. work.
The best of B. is in his amazing detail. Nobody, and this can only be
seen in the original, painted flesh like B. Not Rubens, Ingres, David,
Raphael, or any 19 cent. academician, etc..
Look at his masterly drawings or the preliminary studies for his
paintings (many are pure impressionism) Compare them to Picasso and
Matisse.
The student of modern art learns to rant about the awfulness of B. and
19th cent academic art by seeing a slide and listening to some utter
nonsense about academic evil and the lurking dangers of kitsch in
politically correct art history courses. Few can name ten academic
painters or have ever seen any of their work. About all they learn is
that it was evil and the Impressionists revolted against it and held
separate shows. Little known to artzy fartzies is that many academics
also took up Impressionism and exhibited it in the in the salons.
As I indicate in my book, the present view of nineteenth cent. art
history carefully avoids mentioning about 98% of its artists. It is as
if a history of the 20th century contained one paragraph each about
Hitler and Stalin and only got into detail about America's triumphs
over communism.
It is no wonder Picasso and Matisse hated B. By the way a load of
Academic paintings were found among Picasso's art collection. Dali
also owned a B. and admired the finest of 19th cent. technique.
There are hundreds of very fine Academic painters. Among the best are
Gerome, Bonheur, Meissonier, Bargue. Vibert. Detaille, Fortuney. There
are so many more. They are hidden away and are as hard to find as
originals by Norman Rockwell or Leyendecker's are in any museum. The
artzy fartzy curators of most major museums keep these artists out of
eyes reach lest the viewer stray from Modern Academic Art or
Impressionism.
B. is a kind of immortal zombie of modern art. He keeps popping up.
Book covers, post cards, puzzles, posters, etc.; (On stuff that sells)
and an occasional a well attended show. He is popular without a well
known name. His paintings haven't earned a Modern critic's word in his
favor. They don't need one.
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page
augart
Richard
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:06:03 -0400, Mani Deli <mani...@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
>B. is a kind of immortal zombie of modern art. He keeps popping up.
>Book covers, post cards, puzzles, posters, etc.; (On stuff that sells)
>and an occasional a well attended show. He is popular without a well
>known name. His paintings haven't earned a Modern critic's word in his
>favor. They don't need one.
I'm going to speak up when I take Art History if they say negative
things about Bouguereau. If they fail to say much about the 19th
century academic painters, I'm going to ask to be allowed to make my
own presentation, with a lecture and slide show. And I'm going to tell
everyone that this stuff about the academics being evil and holding
back other painters is pure baloney.
I've seen one of the art history teachers, and she's a very nice
blonde lady. I think she'll be open to Bouguereau if she doesn't know
much about him.
One word that describes Bouguereau's paintings is Olympian, because
they're so grand, majestic, and awe-inspiring. He's like the Olympic
champion of portrait painting.
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
augart
وزير الخارجية التركي السابق يحذر من كارثة متوقعة في الانتخابات المقبلة
وسط حصول الإسلاميين على شعبية متزايدة.
انضمام الصين لمعارضي ضرب العراق
الصين تنضم إلى التيار الدولي المعارض لضرب العراق، وتقول إن استخدام
القوة او التهديد باستخدامها لن يحلا القضية العراقية.
Mani Deli
mentioned. In Spain it was all modern schmier and no one cared for
Gaudi. The Sagrada Famililia had an English care taker and a small
group with no money called Friends of Gaudi. During the 1930s Dali
defended Gaudi against the onslaught of sterile modernism.
Now even the artzy fartzies concede. Creativity based on skill and
craft always survives in the long run.
From the NYTimes: (sections)
As recently as 15 years ago, a visitor to Barcelona was hard put to
locate Gaudí's buildings, with only poorly illustrated guidebooks and
rudimentary maps as an aid. There were a few established places to
visit: Sagrada Familia; Parc Guell, which he designed and which
contained his home (now the Gaudí Museum); and Palau Guell, the
mansion he designed for longtime patron, Eusebi Guell. But since then,
there has been a sustained effort to make more of his work available
to the public.
In 1992 the restoration of Palau Guell was completed, and in 1996 Casa
Mila was opened to the public, with a museum in its brick-vaulted
lofts under the roof terrace with Gaudí's glorious chimneys. This
year, Casa Battlo, a mature Gaudí work, is open to visitors for the
first time. The little known crypt of an incomplete church at Colonia
Guell, located northwest of Barcelona in Santa Coloma de Cervello, was
reopened in June after extensive exterior restoration. It was at that
church that Gaudí developed structural concepts that he later used at
Sagrada Familia, and many specialists consider it his key work.
Now there are Gaudí guides and books in many languages. Well-designed
brochures and clever street banners cater to tourists and locals
alike, while exhibition catalogs and monographs on individual
buildings detail various aspects of his work. There are also the
inevitable mugs and T-shirts, paper and mouse pads.
Gaudí scholarship has been hindered because his studio, located in the
crypt of Sagrada Familia, was destroyed during the Spanish Civil War.
All that survived were his many plaster models, which, though fire
resistant, were badly damaged. The range of current exhibitions is
nevertheless impressive. "Exploring Form" at the Museum of the History
of the City of Barcelona focuses on Gaudí's lesser-known fascination
with geometry and structure by showing how, through his extensive use
of study models, he was able to stretch the limits of structural form.
Other shows elucidate particular aspects of Gaudí's personality and
working method and also his furniture, iron work and glassmaking. In
"Gaudí's Universe," there are some of his few surviving drawings,
including a surprising Sagrada Familia-like project for a hotel in New
York.
...no skill no art!
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
as) - Grant Wood - John Sloan - Hopper - Marsh : (british) Stanley Spencer
:(canadian)- Varley - just to name a few - are more creative and skilful
than that great soft porn artist Bouguereau could ever be.
keith
PS I include the following Bouguereau for you to look at
http://www.tinmangallery.com/ManiPortrait.html
Richard <cool_a...@z.com> wrote in message
news:3ivqmusp3943i6csk...@4ax.com...
Mani Deli
Go to ARC. You will find more information then is presently found in
any art books.
Start by reading Fred Ross' article which has an honest overview of
19th century art as opposed to the slanted art history found in
present writing.
http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/Philosophy/philosophy1.asp
You can also see the best reproductions of B.s work available
anywhere. This will adequately counter the boobs here who never saw
B.s work and think that he painted nothing but nudes.
Take a look at :
http://www.artrenewal.org/images/artists/b/Bouguereau_William/large/The_Flagellation_of_Christ.jpg
It is in high resolution and you can see B. at his best and the
amazing painting and composition of every detail.
"It is reported that Degas and Monet were approached by a newspaper
reporter who asked who, in their opinion, would most likely be
considered the greatest 19th century French artist in the year 2000
... both agreed on one man William Bouguereau."
...no skill no art!
John Ng
> If we stick to so called representational style painting (americans such
> as) - Grant Wood - John Sloan - Hopper - Marsh : (british) Stanley Spencer
> :(canadian)- Varley - just to name a few - are more creative and skilful
> than that great soft porn artist Bouguereau could ever be.
Yeah, Dali too, and so is Courbet, and so is Ingres, and so is Grueze
and so is Boucher, and so is Rubens... my God, there are so many
perverts.
I know one person who is not. Keith! Because he could only draw
stick figures and that is very unlikely to turn anyone on. The modern
interpretation of Art is that Art is suppose to present "feelings".
Is erotism not one? If you are able to bring out that feeling, than I
think you have succeeded. And if your nudes can't do that, then you
might as well join Keith's gallery.
ART RENEWAL ADVOCATE
http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
position that the role of the human nude in art is not confined to that of
eroticism. You argue that the sole role of the human nude in art is
eroticism.
I disagree with your position.
keith
John Ng <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1bb492a.02090...@posting.google.com...
John Ng
> position that the role of the human nude in art is not confined to that of
> eroticism. You argue that the sole role of the human nude in art is eroticism.
No, I never did argue that. I believe it was you who argue that
Bouguereau's nudes are SOLEly for eroticism. How can you be so sure
of that? How can you be sure that Ruben’s or Michelangelo's
nudes are not SOLEly for eroticism? (The only difference between
these artists is the period of time. FACT: Michelangelo's nudes were
too erotic for the Sistine Chapel and had to be covered up in some
areas).
Anyway, even if it was the artists' intent, what is wrong with
eroticism or passion?
John Ng
WILLIAM PALMER
"Mani Deli" <mani...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:ua7qmu85mnajsem4l...@4ax.com...
> I saw the Bouguereau show in Montreal many years ago. It was among the
> finest I have ever seen. When I visited Paris in the 70's he was not
> to be seen. This show had his greatest large pieces. They are unique,
> entirely original, and technically unmatched by anybody.
>
> What you see of B's work on the web or in books is a mere indication
> of the quality of his work. Unfortunately looking at detail is out of
> fashion. If books or the net showed detail one would get some sense of
> the painterly quality in his and much of the best 19th cent. work.
>
> The best of B. is in his amazing detail. Nobody, and this can only be
> seen in the original, painted flesh like B. Not Rubens, Ingres, David,
> Raphael, or any 19 cent. academician, etc..
>
> Look at his masterly drawings or the preliminary studies for his
> paintings (many are pure impressionism) Compare them to Picasso and
> Matisse.
>
> The student of modern art learns to rant about the awfulness of B. and
> 19th cent academic art by seeing a slide and listening to some utter
> nonsense about academic evil and the lurking dangers of kitsch in
> politically correct art history courses. Few can name ten academic
> painters or have ever seen any of their work. About all they learn is
> that it was evil and the Impressionists revolted against it and held
> separate shows. Little known to artzy fartzies is that many academics
> also took up Impressionism and exhibited it in the in the salons.
Mani, I think you know I agree with you in many respects
regarding Bouguereau, and I certainly applaud your long-running
crusade. However, I would like to point out that the critics'
vast enthusiam for Impression also led to the Symbolists being
almost entirely neglected. In fact, most people whose knowledge
of art history comes from one textbook or one course will have
never head of the Symbolists at all.
As I pointed out my eassay (see Google for "Symbolism:
A Century of Neglect"), Symbolism was neglected in
favor of Impresson because many people find Symbolism
disturbing. Impression is safe and sane art. Most of it
would be right at home gracing the waiting room of any
dentist. Much symbolist art, by contrast, would perplex,
disturb, and perhaps even terrify our hypothetical dentist's
patients! Further, that disturbing effect brings its own
commercial ramifications. I am sure that dealers found
Impressionist art generally far more saleable than Symbolist
art. Not that this involves some dark consipracy, then.
Instead, my suspicion is that far more people want to be
soothed and relaxed by art, than want to be challenged by
it and made to think about questions concerning eternal
verities. Even so, critics and art historians are supposed
to be above being influenced by the sort of thing, so I see
a certain hypocrisy in their unreasonable neglect of the
Symbolists...
As far as the academics, the problem with the lesser of
them is that they had great technical skills but second
rate imaginations. A great artist needs an imagination
to match his or her tecnical skills. Bouguereau is great
not only because of his superb technical skills, but
because of his superb imaginatiion.
Many of the Symbolists had technical skills aproaching
that of Bourguereau.. However, in general, they had
far different thematic concerns. One of the things
they share is the fact that they (the Academic painters
and the Symbolists) have both been neglected in
favor of Impressionism
alt.genius.bill-palmer
wil...@ix.netcom.com
Leigh
NYTimes entitled "Invasion of the Nude Victorians (In the Name of Art, of
Course)"
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/06/arts/design/06KIMM.html?todaysheadlines
If you haven't already, it will be necessary to register (first time only)
in order to read the article. It's free and easy and well worth the effort
in order to read whatever interests you whenever you wish.
L.
"John Ng" <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1bb492a.02090...@posting.google.com...
WILLIAM PALMER
> If we stick to so called representational style painting (americans such
> as) - Grant Wood - John Sloan - Hopper - Marsh : (british) Stanley
Spencer
> :(canadian)- Varley - just to name a few - are more creative and skilful
> than that great soft porn artist Bouguereau could ever be.
Not necessarily, in my opinion. You have given us a rather mixed
bag containing people who are all outstanding American artists
in their own right. However, in general I find the Western art of
Maynard Dixon more enjoyable than the work of any of them
(and I only mention that because Dixon is also something of a
"realist," and is of the same vintage as some of the above).
Anyway, some people on this thread and others related to it
have referred to Bouguereau as being "boring." Boredom,
like beauty, is in the eye of beholder. For my money, I
could easily list a few dozen well-known artists I find far
more boring than Bourguereau, whose tremendous skills
and rich imagination make his work quite exciting, as far
as I am concerned (and I feel generally the same way
about very NON-boring artists Lord Leighton and
Alma-Tadema, I might add).
Even so, I confess that I don't share Mani's enthusiasm
for the French Academic school in general, because
some of Bouguereau's contemporaries in that group
lacked Bouguereau's imagination, though they
may have possessed something close to his skill
as a painter. As a group, I find the Symbolists
far more interesting than the Academicians. As a
matter of fact, a number of the great Symbolists
trained under French Academy artists. (In another
recent post I have already pointed out the way both
the Academecians and the European Symbolists
have been unreasonably neglected in favor of the
Impressionists.) In addition to Bouguereau,
another Academy painter I find very exciting
is Gerome (1824-1904) who is sometimes called
an Orientalist, because of his thematic concerns.
alt.genius.bill-palmer
wil...@ix.netcom.com
WILLIAM PALMER
"keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com" <scot...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:1byb9.132088$8aG1....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> as) - Grant Wood - John Sloan - Hopper - Marsh : (british) Stanley
Spencer
> :(canadian)- Varley - just to name a few - are more creative and skilful
> than that great soft porn artist Bouguereau could ever be.
>
> keith
>
> PS I include the following Bouguereau for you to look at
>
> http://www.tinmangallery.com/ManiPortrait.html
>
> Richard <cool_a...@z.com> wrote in message
> news:3ivqmusp3943i6csk...@4ax.com...
> > *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
> >
> > On Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:06:03 -0400, Mani Deli <mani...@sympatico.ca>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >B. is a kind of immortal zombie of modern art. He keeps popping up.
> > >Book covers, post cards, puzzles, posters, etc.; (On stuff that sells)
> > >and an occasional a well attended show. He is popular without a well
> > >known name. His paintings haven't earned a Modern critic's word in his
> > >favor.
THEN SHAME ON YOUR "MODERN CRITICS," SIR. People
whose heads are full of nonsense spouted by modern critics likely
have never even heard of Fernand Khnopff, Jean Delville or
Leon Spilliaert, either. (And I could easily add fifteen other
names of great Symbolists to those three. What is happening
to Western culture? How did we arrive at this sad state?
You know what it is? It is the shallow, cowardly mentality
of a herd that demands to be soothed when it needs to be
disturbed, forced to think deeply.)
[...]
> >
> > I'm going to speak up when I take Art History if they say negative
> > things about Bouguereau. If they fail to say much about the 19th
> > century academic painters, I'm going to ask to be allowed to make my
> > own presentation, with a lecture and slide show. And I'm going to tell
> > everyone that this stuff about the academics being evil and holding
> > back other painters is pure baloney.
I applaud your enthusiasm. Frankly, if I had a bit more ambition, I would
consider doing the same thing with the Symbolists, because students who
would likely find them fascinating come away from art history classes
knowing nothing about them.
alt.genius.bill-palmer
WILLIAM PALMER
"Dan Fox" <danf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20020906130218.270$x...@newsreader.com...
> My God, why do the kooks flock here? Or are there just that many kooks in
> the world, some of whom think they're art critics? This one has even got
> his own newsgroup to celebrate his self-proclaimed 'genius.'
Actually, alt.genius.bill-palmer has been around since 1995 and I had
nothing at all to do with its creation or its naming. Since that time it
has had around 28,000 THREADS (maybe 200,000 posts) and
is referred to in Google-archived conversations maybe 23,000
times. In other words, it is a well-established part of net cultural
history, not someone's rinky-dink little vanity group, as you
insinuate.
Now, as far as your calling me a "kook," there are a couple of
reasons that does not bother me much (except for your using
it as a red herring to detract from my sensible arguments in
rec.arts.fine). In the first place, just about anyone with original
ideas will be branded a kook at one time or another, most
especially if he is vigorous in defense of his assertions. In
the second place, a couple of my literary creations/entertainment
personas, such as the-funny-little-wilhelp-man and Twinkles,
the.alt.genius.dwarf, often entertain readers to alt.usenet.kooks.
Since I often hang out in the kitchen, I need to be able to laugh
off the heat, and I assure you I can.
Yet, why should the fact that that I wear many hats in the newsgroups
detract in any fashion from my reasoned comments in a serious
group like rec.arts.fine? The symbolists HAVE been unfairly
and reasonably shunned by the art establishment. Trying to
ridicule me and confuse readers about my many "hats" will not
alter that fact in any way. Put THAT in your artsty-fartsy pipe
and smoke it, Mr. Argumentum-ad-Hominem!
alt.genius.bill-palmer
wil...@ix.netcom.com
>
>
> "WILLIAM PALMER" <willia...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> > THEN SHAME ON YOUR "MODERN CRITICS," SIR. People
> > whose heads are full of nonsense spouted by modern critics likely
> > have never even heard of Fernand Khnopff, Jean Delville or
> > Leon Spilliaert, either. (And I could easily add fifteen other
> > names of great Symbolists to those three. What is happening
> > to Western culture? How did we arrive at this sad state?
> > You know what it is? It is the shallow, cowardly mentality
> > of a herd that demands to be soothed when it needs to be
> > disturbed, forced to think deeply for its own good.)
> >
> > [...]
>
> --
> Dan
> www.danfoxart.com
> "Art is what the Trust Fund Kids say it is."
Mani Deli
<willia...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>Mani, I think you know I agree with you in many respects
>regarding Bouguereau, and I certainly applaud your long-running
>crusade.
I'd just like to point out that I have no interest in any crusades. I
don't rally care whether or not someone likes B. or agrees with me. I
state my opinions here because it amuses me,
I even hope most here continue to draw as badly as Ziorjen and paint
Fox like drivel. The more artists who don't know their craft the more
work for those who do.
> However, I would like to point out that the critics'
>vast enthusiam for Impression also led to the Symbolists being
>almost entirely neglected.
Which symbolists?
> In fact, most people whose knowledge
>of art history comes from one textbook or one course will have
>never head of the Symbolists at all.
>
>As I pointed out my eassay (see Google for "Symbolism:
>A Century of Neglect"),
looked, found nothing.
...no skill no art!
Mani Deli
<willia...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>Even so, I confess that I don't share Mani's enthusiasm
>for the French Academic school in general, because
>some of Bouguereau's contemporaries in that group
>lacked Bouguereau's imagination, though they
>may have possessed something close to his skill
>as a painter.
It might surprise you to know that I don't have much "enthusiasm
for the French Academic school in general." I find most dull
repetitious and technically poor. Sure, technically the worst is
vastly superior to modern academic no-skill-realism, but its masters
stand with any of the past.
You can see very poor artwork on ARC along with the greats. Let the
viewer decide.
...no skill no art!
Mani Deli
<willia...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>THEN SHAME ON YOUR "MODERN CRITICS," SIR. People
>whose heads are full of nonsense spouted by modern critics likely
>have never even heard of
> Fernand Khnopff,
Drawing, painting technique, is nothing special
or
>Leon Spilliaert,
same. Take a look at many contemporaries who are far better in all
respects. Ernest Fuchs and the Vienna school.
There are lots of illustrators who are far better in all respects.
No comparison to B. in any respect.
...no skill no art!
WILLIAM PALMER
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:0fmqnukar02n3q2nj...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 06 Sep 2002 01:27:38 GMT, "WILLIAM PALMER"
> <willia...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> >Mani, I think you know I agree with you in many respects
> >regarding Bouguereau, and I certainly applaud your long-running
> >crusade.
>
> I'd just like to point out that I have no interest in any crusades. I
> don't rally care whether or not someone likes B. or agrees with me. I
> state my opinions here because it amuses me,
>
> I even hope most here continue to draw as badly as Ziorjen and paint
> Fox like drivel. The more artists who don't know their craft the more
> work for those who do.
>
>
> > However, I would like to point out that the critics'
> >vast enthusiam for Impression also led to the Symbolists being
> >almost entirely neglected.
>
> Which symbolists?
Fernand Khnopff. Charles Filiger. Alfred Kubin. Franz
Kupka, Jacek Malczewski. Leon Spilliaert. Franz von Stuck.
Lucien Levy-Dhurmer. Max Klinger. Ferdinand Keller.
Georges de Feure. Carlos Schwabe Arnold Bocklin.
To name a very few of the many great Symbolists. Where
the heck have you been, Mani? Frankly, the reason I like
the Symbolists much better, generally speaking, than the
Academecians, is that the Symbolists are much more cerebral
in their concerns. They dealt with the great questions of human
life and death. As I said in another post, it was not so
much that they provided answers, but that they ask
profound questions, and in so doing challenged the
viewer, instead of soothing him. I defy anyone to
tell me that "Death and the Gravedigger," by Carlos
Schwabe is not a deeply disturbing painting. Now
THAT is one you will never see a reproduction of
at your dentist's office. You won't see it on my
wall either, since I have no wish to have anything
that terrifying on the wall. Yet, Carlos Schwabe
is at least close to being as masterful a painter
than Bouguereau, but he deals with far more
profound matters than Bouguereau did. But
that is the thing about Symbolism: it is disturbing art,
sometimes deeply disturbing art. Some people
can't handle that. All they want are soothing,
beauteous pictures. And, as far as skill, Fernand
Khnopff is close to being the equal of Bouguereau,
but I find Khnopff far more fascinating because he
dealt with the eternal mysteries. That's why he
has fallen into obscurity--his art is troubling, perplexing.
It does not give the viewer the illusion that he knows
everything important. Ironically (and I am sure you
will appreciate this, Mani) Khnopff was called "the
Bouguereau of painting," which was meant as
a putdown!
>
> > In fact, most people whose knowledge
> >of art history comes from one textbook or one course will have
> >never head of the Symbolists at all.
> >
> >As I pointed out my eassay (see Google for "Symbolism:
> >A Century of Neglect"),
>
> looked, found nothing.
> ...no skill no art!
You lost me there Mani. I can't believe in a million years that
you would be saying "No skill, no art!" of Fernand Knopff,
or, in fact, any of the others I mentioned, so you have
mystified me, frankly. I hope it is not a case of your
being so obsessed with Bouguereau, that your eyes
are closed to other great artists, most of a generation
or two after Bouguereau.. Every person I mentioned
above was a master of painting, and most were products
of the finest schools in Europe, and had studied under
renowned masters themselves. I hope you don't hold the
fact that they sought to do much more than paint "pretty
pictures" against them. If you bother to look any of these
artists up, you will be ashamed of your "no skill no art,"
comment, because you will see how shallow and unseemly
it is. And if you ever see Carlos Schwabe's "Death
and the Gravedigger," Mani, that will definitely make
you feel guilty about your callous remark. I think you
need the Symbolists, Mani. You are becoming
superficial in your values.
alt.genius.bill-palmer
(Temporary office: rec.arts.prose)
wil...@ix.netcom.com
WILLIAM PALMER
> On Fri, 06 Sep 2002 16:18:32 GMT, "WILLIAM PALMER"
> <willia...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> >THEN SHAME ON YOUR "MODERN CRITICS," SIR. People
> >whose heads are full of nonsense spouted by modern critics likely
> >have never even heard of
>
> > Fernand Khnopff,
>
> Drawing, painting technique, is nothing special
Now, look, Mani. I came into this conversation basically in
support of some things you said. In the first place, I DO think
that Bouguereau is a great--and currently vastly underated--
artist. On that, I don't have any quarrel with you at all, though
I think Lord Leighton and Alma Tadema are equally great
and almost equally-undervalued by the critical establishment
of our day. Furthermore, I have never been particularly
enamoured of the "throw a bucket of paint on the canvas
and call it art," school of modern art, though I certainly
think many modern artists, from Stuart Davis to
Salvador Dali to Lichtenstein, are well worth
enjoying.
Putting it bluntly, when you start tearing willy-nilly into the
Symbolists, you begin sounding like some weird case of
arrested development, Mani. Maybe your aunt showed you
a print of a Bouguereau painting when you were seven years
old and you fixated on it and never got beyond that stage
of art appreciation. Frankly, I have met cognitive oddities
like that in literature, such as someone who thinks that
Charles Dickens was the world's greatest author (and
you can certainly argue that point) and that no writer
who came after Dickens is worth reading (which is a
rather foolish notion). You run into the same sort of
arrested-development cases in poetry too, such as the
chap who thinks no one has written a line of poetry
worth reading since Tennyson died! I am beginning to
suspect you are the same sort of "thinker," Mani, my fine
feathered friend.
Your put-down of Knopff, was glib and insulting. Actually,
Knopff had immense technical skills as a painter, but I am
certainly not going to argue that he possessed all the
technical skills that Bouguereau had. However, part
of your arrested development shows in your shallow
assumption that technical skill is everything, as if you
can measure the technical skills of all artists and put
the one with the greatest technical skills at the top.
and reasonably call him the greatest. You can't,
though perhaps a child might think that way.
In reality, nothing would be more absurd than even
TRYING to rank artists like that. Art is far more
than facility with the brushes, though maybe your
fixation on Bourguereau has caused you to miss that.
(I mentioned in my other post that Fernand Knopff
was actually criticized--most unfairly, I would argue--
as being "the Bouguereau of painting"!)
While many of the Symbolist painters--certainly
including Fernand Knopff--were artists of immense
technical skill, the reason they are much greater than
Bourguereau is that their thematic concerns went
far beyond surface appearances. And when you
think about that, it makes perfect sense--what are
often called the eternal human questions exist today
in our scientific age as much as they always did.
There is no reason to think that people will not
be concerned with such mysteries hundreds,
or thousands, of years in the future. That is
the sort of thing that fascinated the great
Symbolist artists. In other words, Mani, while
any one deserving to be called a great painter
must have immense technical skills, there is
far more involved than simply, "who can draw
the most realistic human body," or whatever.
Thematic concerns are equally important.
A Bouguereau painting would be at home on
any middle-class wall, right along with, say,
a Landseer painting of a puppy. But a
Knopff painting would likely NOT be
well received in such a place, because Knopff
disturbs, asks questions instead of giving a
comfortable illusion of the viewer having all the
answers.
>
> or
>
> >Leon Spilliaert,
Spilliaert is a truly great artist who so far has been
underrated because he demands that the viewer
of his pictures THINK. You will not find any
of his paintings disturbing or terrifying the patients of
at our hypothetical dentist's office, either, I assure
you.
>
> same. Take a look at many contemporaries who are far better in all
> respects. Ernest Fuchs and the Vienna school.
>
> There are lots of illustrators who are far better in all respects.
Not at all. It seems to me the people you rave about are
all painters of surface things, comfortable painters, relaxing
painters, painters of essentially middle-class preoccupations
and values. Comfortable middle class painters for the
comfortable middle classes. Most of them would--right
along with the Impressionists--be right at home on the
walls of any dentist's office, Mani. Maybe that is your
"aesthetic." Perhaps your test of artist's worth involves
the question, would the paintings of this artist look
appropriate on my dentist's waiting-room wall?
>
> No comparison to B. in any respect.
> ...no skill no art!
I am definitely beginning to think you are a case of
arrested development, Mani. More and more
you beginning to resemble--as I suggested above--
the chap who would not even consider reading a
novel written after Dickens' time.
It is hoped you can broaden your horizons, but I
supposed your intellect and your aesthetic are
more or less encrusted in cement by now, so to
speak. I had seen some things you had written,
but I had no idea you were so incredibly narrow
and limited in your appreciation of art. Sad.
alt.genius.bill-palmer
(Temporary office: rec.arts.prose)
wil...@ix.netcom.com
(
Richard
Bouguereau's paintings are the most breathtaking, spectacular, magical
artwork I have ever seen. It captures the most beautiful and magical
aspect of humanity like no one else has ever managed to do. If God
painted, his paintings would look like Bouguereau's.
I also respect skilled surrealists like HR Giger and Salvador Dali.
And I admire the fantasy artists like the ones who get published in
Dragon magazine. There are many other skilled artists I respect, but I
don't want to spend all day listing them.
I have only contempt for people who just splatter or smear paint on
canvas in such a way that any retarded child with no training could
duplicate easily. These people are just pranksters playing a big joke
on society. The pieces of trash they make don't have intelligent
thought behind them, even though they claim that these are the most
intelligent and meaningful pieces of art of all. It's all a big fraud
and it insults my intelligence.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
WILLIAM PALMER
> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
>
>
> Bouguereau's paintings are the most breathtaking, spectacular, magical
> artwork I have ever seen. It captures the most beautiful and magical
> aspect of humanity like no one else has ever managed to do. If God
> painted, his paintings would look like Bouguereau's.
>
> I also respect skilled surrealists like HR Giger and Salvador Dali.
> And I admire the fantasy artists like the ones who get published in
> Dragon magazine. There are many other skilled artists I respect, but I
> don't want to spend all day listing them.
>
> I have only contempt for people who just splatter or smear paint on
> canvas in such a way that any retarded child with no training could
> duplicate easily. These people are just pranksters playing a big joke
> on society. The pieces of trash they make don't have intelligent
> thought behind them, even though they claim that these are the most
> intelligent and meaningful pieces of art of all. It's all a big fraud
> and it insults my intelligence.
>
L. A., I see all too many examples of the way some of the big
name galleries ignore talented artists in favor of third-rate
abstract artists whose work looks just about the way you
describe it above. That being said, I do in fact have an axe
to grind with Mr. Mani Deli for a disparaging remark he made
about the greatest Symbolists being so inferior to his beloved
Bouguereau. Let me assure you: No one ever accused Fernand
Khnopff of "splattering or smearing paint on a canvas." In fact,
Khnopff certainly ranked close to Bouguereau when it came to
facility with the paint brushes. On the other hand, what Mani
Deli cannot seem to grasp is that Khnopff is really a far greater
artist than Bouguereau, because Khnopff had the courage to
explore much more profound matters than Bouguereau ever
felt inclined to tackle. And I do mean "courage," because by
choosing such strange (for his day) subjects, Khnopff greatly
restricted the potential market for his paintings. That's not to
suggest he was a starving artist, because he fortunately had
inherited money, but, even so, in his day it took a great deal of
bravery for an artist to cut loose from the thematic concerns
that were promulgated by academies and masters of an
earlier generation. I think Mani Deli owes an apology,
not to me, but to the memory of Fernand Khnopff.
alt.genius.bill-palmer
(Temporary office headquarters: rec.arts.prose)
wil...@ix.netcom.com
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
must be struggling for air.
But what about you sir? I sense that you use words to deny your own feelings
of hurt. Your words have become a shell from behind which you peek out at
the world. You are Willam Palmer: the turtle.
keith
WILLIAM PALMER <willia...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:jb6e9.101$Ak4.4...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
WILLIAM PALMER
"keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com" <scott4...@rogers.com> wrote in
message news:48wh9.41419$U_.1...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Your wave of words definitely describe yourself in glowing terms. Poor Dan
> must be struggling for air.
>
> But what about you sir? I sense that you use words to deny your own
feelings
> of hurt.
Funny. Considering that I have posted a few million words
to Usenet, including the many hundreds of entirely original
"stand-alones" (such as my very latest "Ugly? Beautiful?
Schwabe's Mysterious Symbolist Masterpiece") that have
made me so well-known on the net, that is quite the theory
[By the way, here's something else for you to smoke in your pipe.
Do you happen to remember last week when another poster made
comments suggesting that everything significant about art has been
talked to pieces in rec.arts.fine, or words to that general effect,
I mean?. What a hoot THAT was. Well, yesterday, after I
posted my stand-alone aimed at getting people to think deeper
about beauty and ugliness in art, I did a Google GROUP search
on Carlos Schwabe, just to see who beside myself had postded
on this great artist previously. Well, to my shock there were
only NINE Google GEMS for "Carlos Schwabe"! On top of
that, about half them were mine, because of past comments
I had made about Schwabe in my postings on European
Symbolism. Most of the remaining few were in FRENCH.
Okay, so here we have a truly great artist, a man of immense
skill AND of powerfual imagination in his thematic concerns,
and in the entire history of Usenet, almost nobody has even
mentioned Schwabe other than myself and some French-
language folks. And YOU (not you, personally, but the guilty
parties) have the utter gall to tell me that you have talked
about everything significant in the art world! How
incredibly limited and narrow can smug, fatuous, artsy-
fartsy daubers and cud-chewers get, anyway? You are
common-herd people, so remember my motto, "I don't run
with the herd, I FLAME the herd." Artists like Carlos
Schwabe did not paint for common-herd people like you.
They did not do their paintings with the goal of getting them
on the walls of dentists' offices...]
Your words have become a shell from behind which you peek out at
> the world. You are Willam Palmer: the turtle.
Interesting. Basically, though, Usenet itself is a world of words.
It is a world of people, but here the people present themselves
through their words, so I don't really know why I am any more
of a "turtle," than tens of thousands of other posters. And at
least I post under my real name. For many posters, the very
name they poster under is in itself a shell.
The thing I wonder is this: If you did not agree with my comments
on Bouguereau, why did you not show the intellectual backbone to
confront whatever it is about my assertions that so rankled you?
Rather than confronting my ideas, you took the coward's route
of personal attack, clearly aimed at trying to divert reader
attention from my arguments against Mr. Mani. As of now, those
arguments stand unrefuted in their entirety, but if you want to
grow a spine and try to tackle them, fine. Your opinion on
who and is not a turtle has nothing at all to do with the
issue of who is greater, Bouguereau or Khnopff.
\
I sait it, and I proudly stand by it one-hundred percent. Of course,
the fact that I made myself famous as a net writer by wearing many
different "hats" in many different newsgroups has nothing whatsoever
to with the fact that any assertions I made in rec.arts.fine about art
are seriously put forth, essentially coherent, well-reasoned, and easily
defendable. Just how is it that you think you can divert readers from
all that with out-of-context reposting of statements I made regarding
other matters?
> >
> >
> > alt.genius.bill-palmer
> > wil...@ix.netcom.com
> > >
> > >
> > > "WILLIAM PALMER" <willia...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> > > > THEN SHAME ON YOUR "MODERN CRITICS," SIR. People
> > > > whose heads are full of nonsense spouted by modern critics likely
> > > > have never even heard of Fernand Khnopff, Jean Delville or
> > > > Leon Spilliaert, either. (And I could easily add fifteen other
> > > > names of great Symbolists
[Such as Carlos Schwabe, for one.]
>>>>>to those three. What is happening
> > > > to Western culture? How did we arrive at this sad state?
> > > > You know what it is? It is the shallow, cowardly mentality
> > > > of a herd that demands to be soothed when it needs to be
> > >> disturbed, forced to think deeply for its own good.)
I said it. I proudly stand by it one-hundred percent.
WILLIAM PALMER
> Whooee! Kook CENTRAL!!
What is it about "I write in different styles and upon different subjects
depending on the newsgroup audience," that you have such a hard
time grasping, Fox? Is it that your powers of cognition are so feeble
that you can't comprehend someone doing "kooky" humor pieces
in alt.usenet.kooks or dream-inspired articles in alt.surrealism, but then
putting on a very different hat and writing original, thought-provoking
posts in a serious group like rec.arts.fine? I guess I will let readers
decide whether you are too stupid to grasp that some posters do
entirely different types of writing for disimilar newsgroups--or
whether you are only PRETENDING to be that stupid in order
to post personal attacks in lieu of any ability to mount an effective
challenge to my assertions about Symbolist art, Fox. And by
the way, I just posted an original stand-alone, trying to inspire
our readers to take a fresh look at the question of what is
ugly and what is beautiful in art. In order to pose those age
old questions in a new way, I encouraged rec.arts.fine readers
to revisit the matter of beauty versus ugliness with regard
to a terrifying painting by Carlos Schwabe. You, I would imagine,
would run from that challenge--and probably run from Schwab's
painting too, because you lack any genuine understanding
of the courage and intellect of an artist who could paint
such a profound work of art as "Death and the Grave-digger."
Symbolist art is intellectual art, a disturbing art that makes
viewers ask questions. Superficial folks very much like you
assured that Symbolist art would be neglected for a century
in favor of impressionism, which is more cheerful art--and far
less intellectually-challenging art too. Plainly, you are a
shallow twit, Fox.
>
> Mani and Alison, look to your laurels - this guy is a heavyweight.
>
>
> "WILLIAM PALMER" <willia...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >>
> > Funny. Considering that I have posted a few million words
> > to Usenet, including the many hundreds of entirely original
> > "stand-alones" (such as my very latest "Ugly? Beautiful?
> > Schwabe's Mysterious Symbolist Masterpiece") that have
> > made me so well-known on the net, that is quite the theory
>
> [. . . ]etc., ad nauseum
Nonsense. You took it upon yourself to mischaracterize
me to our readers, Fox. Why is wrong about my trying
to clear the air of your absurd horsefeathers? If you had
even a nubbin of what is sometimes called intellectual spine,
you would confront whatever it is that upsets you about
my views on art, and you would not take your coward's
refuge in silly personal attack.
alt.genius.bill-palmer
(Temporary office headquarters: rec.arts.prose)
wil...@ix.netcom.com
>
Luna Tuna
willia...@prodigy.net says...
>In order to pose those age
>old questions in a new way, I encouraged rec.arts.fine readers
>to revisit the matter of beauty versus ugliness with regard
>to a terrifying painting by Carlos Schwabe.
You fail to convince because you fail to
give any references for where readers of
your post can access reproductions of the
subject art work...
Thomas Ziorjen
Google search reveals:
http://www.illusionsgallery.com/gravedigger.html
Thomas
online portfolio:
http://www.user.dccnet.com/thomas_ziorjen
WILLIAM PALMER
"Luna Tuna" <lu...@noemailever.com> wrote in message
news:3d888...@oracle.zianet.com...
You DO know how to use Yahoo, I presume?
After reading your post, I did a search in Yahoo
(Keywords: "Carlos Schwabe" and gravedigger)
and I immediately found two sites offering a
reproduction of the painting. I'm sure there
were more, but I did not want to spend a lot
of time looking, since I have an excellent
reproduction in THE SYMBOLISTS by
Philippe Jullian Phaidon Press, London, 1974.
ISBN 0-7148-1590-x. I'm sure this book
is long out of print, but perhaps readers with
access to an excellent university library can
find a copy.
I might that the reproductions I found on the
net really did not do justice to Schwabe's
painting. In one case, at least, the website
owner is selling reproductions of the painting.
Maybe they did not want to provide a high
quality image free, for fear of cutting into
their sales. Don't get me wrong. I think
the company is providing an outstanding
service, by making the Carlos Schwabe
reproductions available so that more people
can discover the work of this Symbolist
master.
Luna Tuna
willia...@prodigy.net says...
>> You fail to convince because you fail to
>> give any references for where readers of
>> your post can access reproductions of the
>> subject art work...
>
>You DO know how to use Yahoo, I presume?
Sorry, but I use GOOGLE! And I was speaking
in general about people who offer what appear
to be scholarly tomes without citing references.
FYI, I find the image to be trite and genre-bound.
I see nothing frightening about it. On the other
hand, I wouldn't hang it at the head of my bed!
But there are MANY more images out there that
are far more disturbing to me - take Goya's
black (literally and figuratively) works as one
example. Even THE SCREAM is more disturbing - to me.