Idiots of Modern Art
Mani Deli
WD> Mani Deli, I enjoyed your critique on Mondrian, and on Hughes, I
WD> agree with much of it. I find the tone quite fitting. I do disagree
WD> however with your assessment that Mondrian was without talent, I feel
WD> he was a failed talent, like so many of his generation who got sucked
WD> into the market trends of the early 20th Century. I like his early
WD> landscapes and think they show a great talent and possibility which
WD> his later work betrays. Any way thanks for your entertaining
WD> comments. - William --
I comment on M's landscapes and talent.
Talent is common in art. What counts is whether it is developed. Did M. have
raw talent? I will only go so far as to say perhaps. The point is that his
early work is no better than that of millions of students. Most students become
"failed talents." In the Hughe's review the "Red Mill at Dowburg" is
reproduced. I don't think this painting represents any talent whatever.
The full output of M's landscapes can be seen in a slew of thick Mondrian
books. These are thick with Artspeak praise and rather thin on paintings.
My criterion for judgment in this and other M. paintings starts with a few
quick and dirty questions. I initially ask these questions of all art work. The
next time you are faced with a questionable you might ask yourself.
Would you purchase this work if it were for sale in a flee market in Paraguay?
If it was signed Joe Schmo and you saw it hanging in a furniture store would
you give it a second glance?
Is there another "talent" in the family who you think can do better?
The fact that someone might have produced a few pleasant paintings is no reason
for the excessive praise. Remember that M. is considered a master of Modern
Academic Art. He is considered by our holiest critics to represent a pinnacle
of culture. I believe he represents a pinnacle of commercial charlatanism.
I might add that like many other so called Modern Masters Mondrian had a lot to
say. I recommend that those who are more influenced by talk than by skill read
some of Mondrian's writing. Most is even more stupid then his paintings.
Mani DeLi
.. If it needs a long sermon to claim its art its probably bullshit.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
William DeRaymond
>
> -=> Quoting William Deraymond to All <=-
>
> WD> Mani Deli, I enjoyed your critique on Mondrian, and on Hughes, I
> WD> agree with much of it. I find the tone quite fitting. I do
disagree
> WD> however with your assessment that Mondrian was without talent, I
feel
> WD> he was a failed talent, like so many of his generation who got
sucked
> WD> into the market trends of the early 20th Century. I like his early
> WD> landscapes and think they show a great talent and possibility which
> WD> his later work betrays. Any way thanks for your entertaining
> WD> comments. - William --
>
> I comment on M's landscapes and talent.
>
> Talent is common in art. What counts is whether it is developed. Did M.
have
> raw talent? I will only go so far as to say perhaps. The point is that his
> early work is no better than that of millions of students.
that being if it doesn't appear technically proficient 'conceptually', in
other words the image doesn't conform to your idea of what an image should
be, it lacks skill. His early works ie. the landscapes I enjoy are fine
expressions of brush, motif and color and composition. He shows himself to
be in relationship to the landscape, in the moment and deeply absorbed in
the medium. I certainly have not seen millions of students coming close!
If only more would try. Dali never painted as well. I do believe however
millions of students could do his later 'abstractions'. I must also
reitterate, that I am no great fan of Mondrian. I wish he had kept looking
at the world and painting what he saw with his own feelings.
Most students become
> "failed talents." In the Hughe's review the "Red Mill at Dowburg" is
> reproduced. I don't think this painting represents any talent whatever.
> The full output of M's landscapes can be seen in a slew of thick Mondrian
> books. These are thick with Artspeak praise and rather thin on paintings.
>
> My criterion for judgment in this and other M. paintings starts with a few
> quick and dirty questions. I initially ask these questions of all art
work. The
> next time you are faced with a questionable you might ask yourself.
>
> Would you purchase this work if it were for sale in a flee market in
Paraguay?
>
> If it was signed Joe Schmo and you saw it hanging in a furniture store
would
> you give it a second glance?
>
> Is there another "talent" in the family who you think can do better?
>
> The fact that someone might have produced a few pleasant paintings is no
reason
> for the excessive praise. Remember that M. is considered a master of
Modern
> Academic Art. He is considered by our holiest critics to represent a
pinnacle
> of culture. I believe he represents a pinnacle of commercial charlatanism.
I basically have to agree with you here.
> I might add that like many other so called Modern Masters Mondrian had a
lot to
> say. I recommend that those who are more influenced by talk than by skill
read
> some of Mondrian's writing. Most is even more stupid then his paintings.
>
> Mani DeLi
> .. If it needs a long sermon to claim its art its probably bullshit.
> ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
Basically , I agree with you. The problems with art and the academy are
more conceptually oriented in my opinion however, than technically oriented.
Ultimately Mondrian sacrifices both technique and art to the concepts of
abstraction. Great skill does not great art make. It is important but as
Delacroix said of Ingre's work...'It is the complete expression of an
incomplete intelligence.'
With devotion to the art, William
--
William DeRaymond/Artist
WorldLightProductions
http://www.worldlightproductions.com/~draymond/
'The abstract nature of reality is the source of beauty.'- William
William DeRaymond
unable to draw or drew poorly is totally absurd. Your idea of skill is based
on a conceptual level of what appears to YOU as proficient and I that seems
to be the ability to be literal as opposed to intelligently aesthetic. Let
me put it this way, if the artist merely dominates the medium as Dali or
Ingre did, there are things that get missed in expression, like the language
of the brush, like the inherent values of the medium. Delacroix's best work
expresses the medium ,the brush, the color, and his own feeling and thought
equally. He was in union with all these and his work expresses the quality
of his consciousness with regards to the art form. Ingre does express his
consciousness also, and that5 however was not his primary purpose. His
primary purpose was to express his technical muscles at the expense of the
medium, at the expense of the brush and it's possibilities, and ultimately at
the expense of his own feeling...thus Delacroix's comment, 'it is the
are more conceptually oriented in my opinion however, than technically
Simply, it is how one manifests their skill that is important.
Is it a question of showing off their technique? or is it to serve the
greater process of art as a contemplative journey? This is determined by the
individual and what they understand of the possibilities for themselves
with regards to self expression. In other words, do you sing or give
longwinded lectures, does your image dominate you or do express yourself
through the medium, the brush, the color, the motif, spontaneously and beyond
concept?
It is my teaching that one can and maybe even must be an artist first, from
the beginning, be committed to the joy of self-expression, then as one
practices this joy, technique will purify itself. Some guidance is
neccessary I think, but the real teacher is one's own relationship to the
medium and the motif (the world or nature).
Of course much can be said, but this feels like enough at the moment.
Mani Deli, Thanks for your intelligence and thoughtful posts. - William
Viva Dali
compare him with Dali, the divine photographer of thought, is
blasphemous. Of all the artists of the 20th century, Dali was the most
able to do what he wanted!
Mani Deli
WD> Just some thoughts in response to your last post. To say Delacroix
WD> was unable to draw or drew poorly is totally absurd.
I didn't say he couldn't draw. I think that compared to an average 19th cent.
painter he was a poor draftsman. This a far cry from Mondrian, de Kooning,
Pollock and Klein etc. who couldn't draw.
Your idea of
WD> skill is based on a conceptual level of what appears to YOU as
WD> proficient and I that seems to be the ability to be literal as opposed
WD> to intelligently aesthetic.
By "literal" I presume you refer to subject matter. What "intelligently
aesthetic" means puzzles me.
WD> Let me put it this way, if the artist
WD> merely dominates the medium as Dali or Ingre did, there are things
WD> that get missed in expression, like the language of the brush, like
WD> the inherent values of the medium.
I think your getting into Artspeak here. What does "merely dominates the
medium," "language of the brush" and "inherent values of the medium" mean.
I suspect you mean to say that you don't like the way Ingres or Dali painted.
Delacroix's best work expresses
WD> the medium ,the brush, the color, and his own feeling and thought
WD> equally.
Well I'll put it my way. Delacriox's impasto handling of paint does not express
the forms very well. This is especially apparant in his handeling of hands,
feet and drapery. Some people think this has something to do with feeling and
thought. I see it as an ordinary lack of skill. El Greco, Hals, Rembrant
Parrish, Rockwell and Dali (in his early works) could handle impasto painting
and express form. D's subject matter is conventional 19th century
illustration. I do not see this as a fault but feel that it denies the
conventional critical claims of D's paintings are especially original. As to
D's famous color, it is abominable. Brown sauce; exactly what ignorant critics
claim dominates academic painting. Added to this his color scheme rarely
changes. I don't claim that D. was that bad an artist, only that he is over-
rated.
As to Ingres, his color schemes vary with his works. No one could imitate his
portraits or nudes. None of his paintings in the original look anything like
photographs and no one would mistake them for a photograph. Even Picasso, who
didn't waste much time imitating Delacroix tried hard to imitate Ingre's
drawing.
WD> He was in union with all these and his work expresses the
WD> quality of his consciousness with regards to the art form. Ingre does
WD> express his consciousness also, and that5 however was not his primary
WD> purpose. His primary purpose was to express his technical muscles at
WD> the expense of the medium, at the expense of the brush and it's
WD> possibilities, and ultimately at the expense of his own feeling...thus
WD> Delacroix's comment, 'it is the complete expression of an incomplete
WD> intelligence.'
I don't know exactly any artist wants to express. As to technique, both artists
used their "technical muscles."
WD> With regards to this comment---: ' The problems with art and the
WD> academy are more conceptually oriented in my opinion however, than
WD> technically oriented.'
The problem with art and the academy, if you are referring to 19th century
academies, is that the average artist, student and teacher doesn't know a
damned thing about it. I doubt that any of these can even name ten academic
painters or has ever seen a Bouguereau or Meissonier in the original.
WD> Simply, it is how one manifests their skill that is
WD> important. Is it a question of showing off their technique? or is it
Modern Academic Art is concerned with showing off a total ignorance of
technique and creating lengthly verbal excuses for this. This is only good for
art teachers who know that they have to have some excuse for their lack of
knowledge and total inability to enhance anyone's skill. The artist who lacks
skills can only become an academic, be impoverished, or try his hand at winning
the Modern Art lottery.
WD> to serve the greater process of art as a contemplative journey? This
WD> is determined by the individual and what they understand of the
WD> possibilities for themselves with regards to self expression.
Tell us what is wrong with showing off ones skill.
In
WD> other words, do you sing or give longwinded lectures, does your image
WD> dominate you or do express yourself through the medium, the brush, the
WD> color, the motif, spontaneously and beyond concept?
Sing, express yourself? All this requires a foundation of skill.
WD> It is my teaching that one can and maybe even must be an artist
WD> first, from the beginning, be committed to the joy of self-expression,
WD> then as one practices this joy, technique will purify itself.
Perhaps, the last thing one should worry about is whether one is an artist
first. That, whether one likes it or not, is always left for others to decide.
The world is filled with impoverished failures "Committed to the joy of
self-expression," (who isn't?) who are waiting for their technique to "purify
itself."
Art is indeed what occurs after the mastery of technique. Whether one expresses
oneself more or less abstractly, is only of interest if one possesses superior
skill and technique. Those who achieve little more than what many other can
achieve can never be great artists.
Mani DeLi
.. No skill no art.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
Charles W Haxthausen
Maybe, maybe not. But what he wanted to do was so unintersting, so
little worth doing.
"The divine photographer of thought." Sounds like something out of
Vasari. Yes, perhaps that's the problem,
that's why it is uninteresting. It's not really about seeing, it's
not really about extending vision, it's ultimately about empty
virtuosity and profoundly literary. Art for people who don't really
like art. Rather like M. C. Escher.
Mark Haxthausen
"No art, no skill."
er...@phidias.colorado.edu
> compare him with Dali, the divine photographer of thought, is
> blasphemous. Of all the artists of the 20th century, Dali was the
> most able to do what he wanted!
'Viva Dali' it would appear that you are somewhat biased. Sure Dali
did some good stuff, and is surely one of my favorite artists. To
call him the divine photographer of thought... that seems a bit
extreme. To say that he was most able to do what he wanted... that
seems a bit extreme as well. You speak of the 20th century as if it
is in the past (well it almost is)... I have seen many people go far
beyond Dali, people who are continuing to define what art in the 20th
century is. Dali just died first. People always seem to have
trouble seeing the art of their contemporaries. Had Dali lived now,
and were he my age, he would likely be mostly unknown and seen as a
follower of whatever dead surreal artist from an earlier part of the
century.
Though I like Dali's work for the most part, my impression of him is
as a pompous ass who for the most part used his standard kit of parts
to create his paintings. I don't see a great photographer of thought.
Now please, don't get me wrong, I really do like some of his pieces,
BUT I don't feel it necessary to practically diefy him.
BTW, I feel that I am more able to do what I want than Dali. That
says less about me than the times I live in (still 20th century),
where I can choose to argue about a potentially meaningless point
with a stranger who may be halfway around the world who I will likely
never meet. I can then invite that unseen stranger to visit my
gallery where they can peruse hundreds of pieces of my artwork
without ever leaving their seat. Should you choose to bend to my
will, you will find much of interest to view and explore at
http://phidias.colorado.edu/vgallery.htm.
-Erik Johnson
er...@phidias.colorado.edu
Mani Deli
Sa> Mondrian, the puritan, the aesthetic anorexic, did not "paint." To
Sa> compare him with Dali, the divine photographer of thought, is
Sa> blasphemous. Of all the artists of the 20th century, Dali was the
Sa> most able to do what he wanted!
A most interesting criticism made by Modern Academic Art practitioners is that
photography has made the three dimensional realistic image obsolete. I remind
them that only someone with a bad case of Picasso eye would mistake a Dali for
a photograph.
On the other side of the Modern Academic Art spectrum we now also have a set of
Postmodern realist idiots like Rivers, Katz and Hockney to contend with. They
don't even have the ability to trace a photograph. Instead they schmier over
projected images with an innocent incompetence worthy of the worst possible
genuine oil on canvas commercial import. Of course they never forget to add a
politically correct sprinkle of abstraction here and there in order to pacify
even the most antiquated critic.
The effect of this schmiery realism on our holiest Postmodern critics who have
been exposed to nothing more than abstraction all these years, is blinding. It
causes them to instantly come in their pants and emit vast torrents of orgasmic
praise.
Frankly, I much prefer Mondrian to any Postmodern Realists because he was at
lest a reasonably competent beach towel designer. I even admit that Mondrian's
work is as pleasant to look at as any average necktie. As to his composition,
color and subject matter, there is none. So we can't knock that. One can't give
our Postmodern realists anywhere near as much credit.
Madame M
postmodern painting has been kind of interesting. In my own life as
well, I have noticed a marked difference in the reactions of artists and
non-artists to painters such as DeKooning, Klein, Mondrian, et. al.
While I think that there is a lot of artspeak used to justify lack of
talent, I also think there is something to be gleaned from most movements
and artists, even if it is from what they say and not from what they do.
Why should art be so heirarchically ordered?? I look at art like I look
at religion-- some movements strike a more personal chord to me than
others, and there is something to be learned from each and every one. I
think we need ecumenism in art as well as in culture and religion. Why,
how Marxist of me... I just really think that while Mondrian may look
like nothing at all to us now, what he did and why was somehthing
completely new and groundbreaking at the time. You really have to take
these things within their historical and geographical context in order to
evaluate them. I think the Dali vs. Mondrian argument is meaningless.
Apples and Oranges, man... The talk of "art burning" in one of the posts,
though meant in jest, isnt funny at all. The Nazi's didnt like modern art
either and they certainly burned a few things... Damn scary, eh??
--Madame M
Claudia Mesch
I think the Dali vs. Mondrian argument is meaningless.
>Apples and Oranges, man... The talk of "art burning" in one of the posts,
>though meant in jest, isnt funny at all. The Nazi's didnt like modern art
>either and they certainly burned a few things... Damn scary, eh??
Funny you should bring up the Nazis. I was going to recommend to "Viva Dali" that s/he should check out the kind of art they support=
ed, since it sounds right up your reactionary alley. You might start with _Art in the Third Reich_. (BTW Dali flirted with the fasc=
ists too--just so you know.)
claudia
Doug Quarnstrom
: Your idea of
: WD> skill is based on a conceptual level of what appears to YOU as
: WD> proficient and I that seems to be the ability to be literal as opposed
: WD> to intelligently aesthetic.
: By "literal" I presume you refer to subject matter. What "intelligently
: aesthetic" means puzzles me.
It means intentional distortions of nature to conform to an aesthetic
value rather than a naturally dictated value.
doug
Doug Quarnstrom
: -=> Quoting SalveRe
: Sa> Mondrian, the puritan, the aesthetic anorexic, did not "paint." To
: Sa> compare him with Dali, the divine photographer of thought, is
: Sa> blasphemous. Of all the artists of the 20th century, Dali was the
: Sa> most able to do what he wanted!
: A most interesting criticism made by Modern Academic Art practitioners is that
: photography has made the three dimensional realistic image obsolete. I remind
: them that only someone with a bad case of Picasso eye would mistake a Dali for
: a photograph.
Only a flibbertegibbet would suggest that the word realistic can
be omitted arbitrarily from the claim without distorting the claim.
doug
Viva Dali
Dali" that s/he should check out the kind of art they support=
> ed, since it sounds right up your reactionary alley. You might start
with _Art in the Third Reich_. (BTW Dali flirted with the fasc=
> ists too--just so you know.)
>
> claudia
Dear Claudia. Dali has been maligned by Marxist art critics. He did not
flirt with Hitler. He was merely fascinated by Hitler's soft fat
backside, but certainly no more than with Lenin's long buttock. Dali
himself said the Nazis, if ever in power, would exterminate him first.
You should go to the original sources on this. Politically driven Andre
Breton, the communist, could not make room in his surrealist movement for
Dali, of for Magritte, for that matter.
Mark Seaman
> Mondrian's wallpaper patterns interesting? Go to your nearest Sherwin
>Williams store for some supreme examples of truly great wallpaper with out
>the ArtSpeak.
Well I don't know much about the history of wallpaper. But I wonder if
Mondrian's paintings didn't open the eyes of a lot of wallpaper designers, and
that some of the designs we have today were influenced by his creations.
One can argue (endlessly) about the artistic merit of modern art, but I think
the creators of this art have had a noticeable impact on our
culture. Just as we can see all around us the influence of
classical Greek sculpture and architecture (e.g., the reliefs on City Hall
here in Manhattan), so can we see the influence of modern
artists, in print and television advertising, in cartoons, and
more.
Mark Seaman (mar...@bway.net)
Wray Kephart
X I have seen many people go far
X beyond Dali, people who are continuing to define what art in the 20th
X century is. Dali just died first. People always seem to have
X trouble seeing the art of their contemporaries. Had Dali lived now,
X and were he my age, he would likely be mostly unknown and seen as a
X follower of whatever dead surreal artist from an earlier part of the
X century.
Point is; an established surrealist 'school' or tradition didnt exist in
Dalis time, he helped to define it for later generations. I cant think of
too many dead surrealists he may have been influenced by, Bosch or mebe
a Mannerist or two. DeChirico and Magritte were contemporaries.
Kephart
William DeRaymond
>
> ` -=> Quoting William Deraymond to All <=-
> WD> Just some thoughts in response to your last post. To say Delacroix
> WD> was unable to draw or drew poorly is totally absurd.
>
cent.
MD> painter he was a poor draftsman.
I simply have to disagree. The drawings I've seen are magnificent and
spontaneous. I have to assume we don't see drawing in the same light. Given
the nature of Ingre's drawing, which are much more staid and conservative,
though certainly masterly, I think I can discern the differences in our
understanding. I was told a story of Degas leading some young students
through the Louvre and as they went by some paintings by Ingre, he said 'take
off your hats, but look away.'
>
> Your idea of
> WD> skill is based on a conceptual level of what appears to YOU as
> WD> proficient and I that seems to be the ability to be literal as opposed
> WD> to intelligently aesthetic.
>
MD> aesthetic" means puzzles me.
Literal means to describe the subject matter in terms of it's 'literal'
presence in the physical, rather than transposing into an aesthetic sphere
based on your exploration of the medium, ie. color, brush, motif, and self.
Intelligently aesthetic, like Cezanne, Gauguin, Degas, Rembrandt, Titian,
Hopper, etc. Instead of literal, like Ingre, Dali, Rockwell, etc.
Which brings to mind, there was agreat revolution in art 100 to 150 years ago
in which artist's like Monet, Sisley, Cezanne,etc. struggled against the
aesthetic of neo-classicism which you seem to espouse. Remember? Was that
just some kind of strange period struggle which has no relationship to us
today? I think it was a real evolution of the art form, for many reasons.
> WD> Let me put it this way, if the artist
> WD> merely dominates the medium as Dali or Ingre did, there are things
> WD> that get missed in expression, like the language of the brush, like
> WD> the inherent values of the medium.
>
MD> I think your getting into Artspeak here. What does "merely dominates the
MD> medium," "language of the brush" and "inherent values of the medium"
MD>mean.
>
MD> I suspect you mean to say that you don't like the way Ingres or Dali
painted.
'merely dominates the medium' means the technical proficiency is used to
simply express the motif. The brush and the inherent surreal values of the
brush when used with paint is totally ignored or not even understood or
appreciated, 'the language of the brush', you know like Van Gogh or Cezanne,
or Monet or Pissarro, or Titian, and Michelangelo, Rembrandt, they were aware
of this language and used it, Painting. The 'inherent values of the medium'
are those values which arise when the artist is willing to show the entirety
of the process, allows the rythm of the brush to be visible, takes risks with
the color, is in the moment , spontaneous, and conscious of the moment to
moment movement of energy in relationship to the motif.
If skill is ruled by the art, then great. - William
--
Ross Green
> BTW, Dali flirted with the fascists too
sa...@starfish.net (Viva Dali) wrote:
> Dear Claudia. Dali has been maligned by Marxist
> art critics. He did not flirt with Hitler.
You obviously don't know very much about your great hero;
Dali had sexual fantasies about Hitler:
"I often dreamed of Hitler as a woman. His flesh, which I
had imagined whiter than white, ravished me. [...] There was no
reason for me to stop telling one and all that to me Hitler
embodied the perfect image of the great masochist who would
unleash a world war solely for the pleasure of losing and burying
himself beneath the rubble of an empire: the gratuitous action
par excellence that should indeed have warranted the admiration
of the Surrealists."
> Dali himself said the Nazis, if ever in power, would exterminate
> him first.
Dali fell out of love with Hitler, but his admiration for another
Fascist dictator, Francisco Franco, endured.
> You should go to the original sources on this.
And so should you! Dali was infamous for his many idiotic,
fascistic statements.
If you'd like me to post some more of them, just ask.
-Ross
Viva Dali
> fascistic statements.
> If you'd like me to post some more of them, just ask.
> -Ross
Dear Ross. I would love for you to post all of them. Dali was fascinated
by all sorts of monsters, including starfish, spiders, sea-urchins,
rhinoceri. But tell me why the art-left always recalls his fascination
with Hitler's soft flesh and not Lenin's long buttock. (If your Dali
library is not complete and you need titles for these specific paintings,
I will gladly supply them.) No one ever accuses him of being fascinated
with Lenin.
Mani Deli
MM> Reading this dialogue on the validity or lack thereof of modern and
MM> postmodern painting has been kind of interesting. In my own life as
MM> well, I have noticed a marked difference in the reactions of artists
MM> and non-artists to painters such as DeKooning, Klein, Mondrian, et.
MM> al. While I think that there is a lot of artspeak used to justify
MM> lack of talent, I also think there is something to be gleaned from
MM> most movements and artists, even if it is from what they say and not
MM> from what they do.
I completely agree. My interest in these artists is sociological and also as an
economic phenomenon. There is also a personal interest as I have lived among
the lot and admire them in a certain sense as one would a lottery winner who
you personally know. Added to this I also know a lot of losers. I have nothing
against any of the lot. What I object to, is calling there work great art and
teaching that attitude to talented students.
Why should art be so heirarchically ordered??
Because some artists paint better than others. Because the very greatest
classical painters, those who even my opponents will see as that, are superior
to many fine lessor painters. The human mind constantly compares things, even
apples and oranges.
I
MM> look at art like I look at religion-- some movements strike a more
MM> personal chord to me than others, and there is something to be learned
MM> from each and every one. I think we need ecumenism in art as well as
MM> in culture and religion. Why, how Marxist of me... I just really
MM> think that while Mondrian may look like nothing at all to us now, what
MM> he did and why was somehthing completely new and groundbreaking at the
MM> time. You really have to take these things within their historical
MM> and geographical context in order to evaluate them.
You are quite mistaken. Mondrian was preceded by the Scottish art Nouveau
American architects and the Russian Supremitists. However, even if it were
entirely original it is still entirely banal and the excessive praise it
attracts is silly. The fact that something is new doesn't necessarily make it
good. The present ecstasy over anything that's considered new is a sociological
phenomenon. In art is used as a justification for "anything goes." It may be
interesting. It may be fashionable. But it is almost never even minor art. It
will have little lasting interest.
I think the Dali
MM> vs. Mondrian argument is meaningless. Apples and Oranges, man... The
MM> talk of "art burning" in one of the posts, though meant in jest, isnt
MM> funny at all. The Nazi's didnt like modern art either and they
MM> certainly burned a few things... Damn scary, eh??
MM> --Madame M
Low life appears anywhere. The desire to burn art is probably inspired by a
persons mediocrity. Historically people who have vandalized and mutilated art
turn out to be lonely nobodies who crave a moment of notoriety. Often they were
abused as children.
William DeRaymond
>
> In article <30B7FB...@worldlightproductions.com>,
> William DeRaymond <dray...@worldlightproductions.com> wrote: Dali Quote
>
> >My struggle is the
> >battle of Messonier and art, against Cezanne and congenital
> >awkwardness.'
>
> part of another Dali quote about the almighty Cezanne,
> "...cut off his two clumsy hands as we have just done, for in truth
> everything that he "realized" he could have just as well achived with his
> feet.
>
> From the looks of those awful bather series paintings I believe he did
> paint with his feet.
>
> CAT
All this shows is your lack of understanding, and Dali's further stupidity.
You could learn an lot about painting, if you truly opened yourself to what
Cezanne achieved. I suppose you think just as little of Monet, who praised
Cezanne as a Master. Rodin honored Cezanne. Degas loved his drawings! He
was admired by Cassatt, Gauguin, Bernard, Van Gogh,etc.... Were all these
fools? I'm afraid your sensibility could use some fine tuning.-- Seriously,
William
Mani Deli
>>
>> ` -=> Quoting William Deraymond to All <=-
>> WD> Just some thoughts in response to your last post. To say Delacroix
>> WD> was unable to draw or drew poorly is totally absurd.
>>
>MD> I didn't say he couldn't draw. I think that compared to an average 19th
>I simply have to disagree. The drawings I've seen are magnificent and
>spontaneous. I have to assume we don't see drawing in the same light. Given
>the nature of Ingres’ drawing, which are much more staid and conservative,
>though certainly masterly, I think I can discern the differences in our
>understanding. I was told a story of Degas leading some young students
>through the Louvre and as they went by some paintings by Ingre, he said 'take
>off your hats, but look away.'
Degas was a great admirer of Ingres. His work is closer to Ingres than to D.
You might also note that Degas worked from photographs. Heresy in the eyes of
today’s academics. Neither Bouguereau or Ingres, as far as I know worked from
photographs.
>>
>> Your idea of
>> WD> skill is based on a conceptual level of what appears to YOU as
>> WD> proficient and I that seems to be the ability to be literal as opposed
>> WD> to intelligently aesthetic.
>>
Is Dali or Disney or Vargas literal?
>MD> By "literal" I presume you refer to subject matter. What "intelligently
>MD> aesthetic" means puzzles me.
>
>Literal means to describe the subject matter in terms of it's 'literal'
>presence in the physical, rather than transposing into an aesthetic sphere
>based on your exploration of the medium, ie. color, brush, motif, and self.
Intellige>ntly aesthetic, like Cezanne, Gauguin, Degas, Rembrandt, Titian,
>Hopper, etc. Instead of literal, like Ingre, Dali, Rockwell, etc.
>
Almost every artist including Ingres Transposes (the word you use, I would
uses the word distorted) reality
Rembrandt’s brushwork expresses 3 dimensions very accurately. That is why it
is so interesting. Delacroix tried to imitate Rembrandt’s technique but I
don’t see the accuracy. I see error, not distortion. Cezanne and Gauguin did
not attempt realism of any sort. Dali’s subject matter is certainly not
literal.
>Which brings to mind, there was great revolution in art 100 to 150 years ago
>in which artist's like Monet, Sisley, Cezanne,etc. struggled against the
>aesthetic of neo-classicism which you seem to espouse.
I don’t espouse any style. Any style needs as a foundation a modicum of skill.
As to the great anti-classical struggle, much is just distorted historical
nonsense. As I mentioned the average artist doesn’t know a damned thing about
what you call neo-classicism. Styles constantly change. The great revolution
is more talk than revolution. The artzy movements existed side by side with
Art Nouveau and Art Deco which are really the influential movements of this
century. These are certainly are “just realism.”
Remember? Was that
>just some kind of strange period struggle which has no relationship to us
>today? I think it was a real evolution of the art form, for many reasons.
>> WD> Let me put it this way, if the artist
>> WD> merely dominates the medium as Dali or Ingre did, there are things
>> WD> that get missed in expression, like the language of the brush, like
>> WD> the inherent values of the medium.
>>
By “merely dominates the medium you seem to mean he draws well in terms of,
modeling light and shade etc.. I think Dali and Ingres achieved a bit more.
Both had surrealistic ideas. If you just want mediocre realism Delacroix is a
good example.
>MD> I think your getting into Artspeak here. What does "merely dominates the
>MD> medium," "language of the brush" and "inherent values of the medium"
>MD>mean.
>>
>MD> I suspect you mean to say that you don't like the way Ingres or Dali
>painted.
>
>'merely dominates the medium' means the technical proficiency is used to
>simply express the motif.
That is understandable
The brush and the inherent surreal values of the
>brush when used with paint is totally ignored or not even understood or
>appreciated, 'the language of the brush', you know like Van Gogh or Cezanne,
>or Monet or Pissarro, or Titian, and Michelangelo, Rembrandt, they were aware
>of this language and used it, Painting. The 'inherent values of the medium'
>are those values which arise when the artist is willing to show the entirety
>of the process, allows the rythm of the brush to be visible, takes risks with
>the color, is in the moment , spontaneous, and conscious of the moment to
>moment movement of energy in relationship to the motif.
> If skill is ruled by the art, then great. - William
>
>What you are talking about is impasto painting and a loose more sketchy
style. In classical painting this was often relegated to the background. and
some of the artists you mention took this to the foreground. You will find
impressionist technique in the foreground and Backgrounds of Bouguereau ,
Meissonier , Rockwell and Parrish. Dali ‘s earlier surrealistic work is full
of impasto passages. You also find impressionist style in working drawings
and sketches for complex 19th century painting (something the average artist
has never even seen).
>
Today’s Modern Academic artists and students are unaware of about 90% of art
history. Their concerns center around fashion and attempting any eccentricity
which they believe will make them winners in the modern art lottery. Most
couldn’t make a living doing artwork because they haven’t the skill to do
artwork.
What they create is of little interest outside of a sixty mile radius of New
York and some other major capitals and inbred university art departments
Mani Deli.
Mani Deli
writes:
>
>> Mondrian's wallpaper patterns interesting? Go to your nearest Sherwin
>>Williams store for some supreme examples of truly great wallpaper with out
>>the ArtSpeak.
>
>
>Well I don't know much about the history of wallpaper. But I wonder if
>Mondrian's paintings didn't open the eyes of a lot of wallpaper designers,
and
>that some of the designs we have today were influenced by his creations.
I doubt that any graphic artist sits down and studies a Mondrian before
starting on a design.
>One can argue (endlessly) about the artistic merit of modern art, but I think
>the creators of this art have had a noticeable impact on our
>culture.
They certainly do, but it has nothing to do with arguing about artistic merit
or that they have good taste.
> Just as we can see all around us the influence of
>classical Greek sculpture and architecture (e.g., the reliefs on City Hall
>here in Manhattan), so can we see the influence of modern
>artists, in print and television advertising, in cartoons, and
>more.
>
>What we see is the influence of particular styles in architecture and design.
I see hardly any influence of the Modern academic Painters in any of the arts
you mention. This idea is a myth spread by art schools. A modern style did
evolve from the works of masses of artists who conformed art Nouveau and Deco
tenets. Even Bauhaus is not nearly as original as critics claim.
I imagine you might dissagree here. So I will ask you to show where Mondrian,
Picasso, Matisse or an Ab. Expressionist influenced Disney Max Fleicher, or
any cartoonist of note, an industrial designer, an architect.? Perhaps you
could point out an example or two, but the great mass of art today has nothing
to do with these artists. they are confined to the modern art sections of
museums. Most people think the are great because they have been told this.
They certainly are not popular.
Mani Deli
>
>X I have seen many people go far
>X beyond Dali, people who are continuing to define what art in the 20th
>X century is. Dali just died first.
Name some.
People always seem to have
>X trouble seeing the art of their contemporaries. Had Dali lived now,
>X and were he my age, he would likely be mostly unknown and seen as a
>X follower of whatever dead surreal artist from an earlier part of the
>X century.
>
>Point is; an established surrealist 'school' or tradition didnt exist in
>Dalis time, he helped to define it for later generations. I cant think of
>too many dead surrealists he may have been influenced by, Bosch or mebe
>a Mannerist or two. DeChirico and Magritte were contemporaries.
>
How about Ingres,Vermeer, Leonardo, Raphael, and Meissonier, instead of Puvis,
Picasso, Mondrian Cezanne and Matisse.
Mani Deli
.no skill no art
>Kephart
>
Mani Deli
>> Dali himself said the Nazis, if ever in power, would exterminate
>> him first.
>
>Dali fell out of love with Hitler, but his admiration for another
>Fascist dictator, Francisco Franco, endured.
>
>> You should go to the original sources on this.
>
>fascistic statements.
>
>If you'd like me to post some more of them, just ask.
>
>
Dali goofed on Hitler and communism.The Nazis destroyed some of his paintings.
He tolorated Franco and accepted his honors.I doubt that he was a faschist
because he always claimed he was a monarchist. He even prided himself for
predicting the return of monarchy to Spain. I know of no complaints by him of
the return of democracy in Spain.
In my opinion Dali always spoke tongue in cheek. He was a suprestitious and
padantic nut. I don't judge an artists work by his political opinions or his
eccentricities. Picasso was a communist that does not affect my judgment of
his works.
Mani DeLi
Madame M
Modern Artists are popular and are left to the modern art sections of
museums. So if it's not popular it's not worth anything?? Ummm..
whatever. Do you also believe the converse to be true (that a thing's
popularity is a sign of it's worth??) I really would question that given
the sheer idiocy of many things deemed popular in our culture...
er...@phidias.colorado.edu
> fascistic statements.
All people make idiotic political statements (usually the more
political, the more idiotic). Artists too. That has very little
bearing on the merits of their artwork. All these statements do is help
one to get a clearer picture of the man who was Dali, but not much
clearer.
carl warnick
consider is at least 100 years old. Perhaps you relegate the history of the
last 30 years to the statis of fashion, that might explain a few things. It is
also interesting to try to figure out what you mean by "skill", I suppose you
mean painting skills which also explains a few things. If you wish to discuss
contemporary art perhaps you sould take some classes and learn what is
involved, or better yet talk to some artists.
carl warnick