Iian's Rant
Andrew Werby
Recently Iian Neill posted a fairly eloquent rant on the decline of modern art.
While his tone may have been a tad intemperate, what he had to say certainly
mirrors the views of many other people, who are not necessarily art-haters, but
who look to art for more than shock value or dry intellectual exercises. He
seemed to despair of ever finding a way to learn the techniques of classical
representation, which to him seemed to be essential tools for expressing the
vision he felt inside. His list of the artists he admired seemed to lack any
living people, which was too bad. There are artists out there who use classical
techniques to explore new territory; the age of any particular technique does
not limit the themes it can cover. Perhaps we could come up with a list of
artists for Iian to check out, so he can take a slightly less jaundiced view of
present-day art? I'd head the list with Ernst Fuchs, founder of the Vienna
School of Fantastic Realism. I looked on the web, didn't find much on him- but
here's a start: http://members.magnet.at/p.fischer/html/prof._ernst_fuchs.html
I think the basic problem Iian is reacting to comes from the nature of
publicity. Artists cannot hope to compete with the multi-million dollar
campaigns that vie for the attention of the public these days; their only hope
is to gain some free publicity by becoming a news item. The ways to accomplish
this are few, and merely creating excellent work is not on the list. The game
that worked in the past- inventing new styles of art or definitions of what art
may be- has been played out, and no new style or definition seems to be
newsworthy. Hence we see increasingly desperate ploys to catch the attention of
the increasingly jaded media- sado-masochism still sells papers, but one must
achieve something new in this line to be shocking. Dismembered animals (and
people, for that matter) are old hat. I'm afraid in the future, artists will
turn to terrorism, since that is the only taboo that has yet to be breached in
the name of art. Or are the fashionable galleries in Berlin exhibiting the art
of the Bader-Meinhof group already?
Iian wrote:
>>I am a 20 year old art student who fervently wishes to paint in the
>>realistic manner typical of such Masters as Gerome, Meissonier,
>>Bouguereau, Tadema, Leighton, and so forth. Unfortunately, this was
not
>>perhaps the best century to be born in, when the stand on art
education
I will be happy with Post-Modernism when universities and art colleges
offer students classes styled along the ateliers of last century; one
wouldn't expect servile immitation of course, which crushes all
individual expression. But I see the situation analoguous to the
training of musicians; in our times no-one questions the validity of
concert pianists studying and practising in a manner somewhat consistent
with traditional practises - we all understand that the pianist's
technique should be ready at his fingertips, in the service of
expression and artistry. The situation, however, is quite different in
the Visual Arts. Contemporary painters and sculptors, by and large, are
not expected to have a tithe of the technical training that their 19th
century academic predecessors had at their disposal. By no means do I
claim that this scenario is exclusively dominant; illustrators, for
example, are expected to have some mastery of life-drawing and
decoration. When it comes to the so-called 'fine arts', however, little
that was universally understood to be skill or talent is these days
taught, or even endorsed in contemporary practise.
Oftentimes people misinterpret me when I say that I would like to be as
much a master of painting as Alma-Tadema, Leighton, Meissonier, and
Gerome were. They automatically assume that I wish to copy these
Masters, and intend on adding no ideas of my own. Nothing could be
further from the truth. I have some very personal and unusual ideas that
I would one day like to paint and sculpt - but I am also aware that I'll
never be able to realise these 'visions' if I do not have at my disposal
a fluent technique; otherwise my work will be painfully clumsy and
inept.
Some 2,000 years of art has shown us that people respond most
immediately to art that is realistic; this is not to deny the power of
decoration or architecture, but paintings and sculpture generally convey
a clearer message than either of the previous two. Perhaps it is
something intimately related to how the brain is structured, or some
aspect of psychology; I do not know for certain. But a realistic
painting has an immediate rapport with its audience as it speaks the
universal language of sight. This connexion is deepened in paintings
that 'tell a story', ones that show an interplay of thought and emotion
between the characters in the painting - Post-Modernists would call this
"establishing a dialogue between the art-work and the audience".
Now of what use is a garbled dialogue, or an incomprehensible one? All
art is some form of this dialogue, this "soul communication" between the
artist and the rest of Mankind. The dialogue is disrupted and obscured
when the images themselves are obscured or hard to visually read. This
is where composition saves the day - image-elements are ordered,
organized - this is the 'grammar' of art.
What happens, then, if an orator gives a speech to contemporary
America in ancient Greek? None but an extremely remote circle of some
elite would have any chance of understanding him. This is what happens
if art-work strays too far from the roots of its universal visual
language (ie., 'realism') - it risks speaking a language so foreign, so
alien that it only makes any 'sense' to the one who invented it in the
first place, the artist. Furthermore, it risks becoming non-art - for
what can be said to be art if only one or two people 'understand' it? If
this is not the case, then one could claim anything to be art; a
situation as blatantly dishonest as calling a building a cigar.
I do not want a return to the past - I merely ask for a return to
artistic quality.
All great art of all eras attempted this connexion to contemporary
society; as should the art-work of our times. Unfortunately, more often
than not, "modern" art succeeds only in aliennating an indifferent
public. Perhaps that is the saddest out-come of the modern movements -
they have made the public indifferent to contemporary art. People were
far from indifferent to the art of their time, in other centuries. 19th
century Salons were well attended events, whose decline today can be
justifiably blamed on television, radio, cinema and "modern" art. The
visual/audio media of our times have in many senses replaced the Salon
as a temple of contemporary culture; more and more people turn to the
movies than they would to an art gallery.
Yet "modern" art has made the situation immeasurably worse. In the
past people had some enthusiasm for art - even if they were passionately
opposed to whatever artist was the darling of the day. What do we find
in our time? - a widespread indifference to contemporary art, which many
artists often complain of. Fauvism, Cubism, Dadaism, Futurism, Abstract
Expressionism, et cetera, have all served to widen the gulf between art
and culture. This situation will not heal until artists again return to
the roots of art; they will have to stop hanging up flayed pig carcasses
in Munich museums, abandon performing sado-masochistic acts and claiming
them as art, and they will need to try and establish some sane rapport
with the modern world, which they seemed to have successfully ignored
for the past ninety years.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
UNITED ARTWORKS- Sculpture, Jewelry, and other art stuff
http://unitedartworks.com
Useful Resources, Technical Tips, and Art in Various Media
mark webber
On 2 Jun 1998, Andrew Werby wrote:
> Recently Iian Neill posted a fairly eloquent rant on the
> decline of modern art.
> While his tone may have been a tad intemperate, what he had to say certainly
> mirrors the views of many other people, who are not necessarily art-haters,
> but who look to art for more than shock value or dry intellectual
> exercises.
(snippage)
I'm not so sure that is what I read. It reads to me as though Iian feels
Modernism is this bad thing that happened - here's a quote from below:
"Fauvism, Cubism, Dadaism, Futurism, Abstract Expressionism, et cetera,
have all served to widen the gulf between art and culture. This situation
will not heal until artists again return to the roots of art...."
Plenty of people who, in your words, Andrew, "... look to art for more
than shock value or dry intellectual exercises" find plenty of rewarding
experiences in the work of many modernists, including Picasso, Braque,
Matisse, Soutine, Derain, Bonnard - well, I'm sure you know the roll call.
This is not to say that there isn't work of this century that is made for
purely shock value and without regard to sensibility. That of course began
with the Dadaists, and has become the more publicized range of work in
recent years ( I see Salle and Schnabel as successors to the tradition of
Duchamp and Johns, although I doubt many would agree with me.)
My point here is that if Iian thinks "the roots of art" (his term) are
to be found in the sort of representation he enjoys in Bougereau, he may
be well served by looking at some of the art made <prior> to the 19th
century. The roots of art are, of course, much older than tight, fanciful
representation.
In addition, I don't think its possible to say that "Fauvism, Cubism,
Dadaism, Futurism, Abstract Expressionism, et cetera, have all served to
widen the gulf between art and culture." Perhaps "the gulf between art and
common man", or "art and dilettantes". But whether or not one likes
Modernism, it is part of our culture.
I think there is a great deal more in Iian's post that is very debatable,
but perhaps another day.
Mark
_________________________________________________________________________
Remainder of posts by Andrew Werby and Iian:
inadream
Whatever the roots of arts are- to anyone;
There is a gap- at the moment between what artists create and what the
audience can deal with;
Many artists create works that are difficult to appreciate, because the work
is highly intellectual, because the artist wishes to alienate his audience
deliberately or because the artist hasn't learnt on artschool what he wants
to do , and creates work lacking quality.
Mark said:"But whether or not one likes Modernism, it is part of our
culture."
I say that's true BUT- it's not holy, it is debatable what makes modern art
, the reputations of artists must be debated. They will be in the next few
hundred years. I,for instance don't like Picasso, am I ignorant?I see his
talent, I like a FEW works by him , I can appreciate Mondriaan, I'm not
against modern art;
but many will consider me ignorant for not liking Picasso to the extent an
art-interested person 'should'. I think Guernica was a failure as a work of
art.
whatever;
It stopped raining, I'm going for a walk...;-)
peter
s36...@student.uq.edu.au
> > While his tone may have been a tad intemperate, what he had to say certainly
> > mirrors the views of many other people, who are not necessarily art-haters,
> > but who look to art for more than shock value or dry intellectual
> > exercises.
>
> (snippage)
>
> I'm not so sure that is what I read. It reads to me as though Iian feels
> Modernism is this bad thing that happened - here's a quote from below:
Yes, I believe that Modernism is a destructive influence in regards to
artistic technique, which I consider the cornerstone of all art.
> Plenty of people who, in your words, Andrew, "... look to art for more
> than shock value or dry intellectual exercises" find plenty of rewarding
> experiences in the work of many modernists, including Picasso, Braque,
> Matisse, Soutine, Derain, Bonnard - well, I'm sure you know the roll call.
I do not dispute the fact that there are those out there who like the
aforementioned artists. What I do take umbrage to is the appalling state
of affairs regarding art education in our times. Maybe these men had no
intention of weakening the foundations of art - perhaps they were being
purely experimental and revelled in the joy of that. Each case is
unique. But who can deny that the end result has led to a university
(and art college) system where technique and form come a poor second,
compared to the esteem they were held in last century (and the
preceeding eras)?
> This is not to say that there isn't work of this century that is made for
> purely shock value and without regard to sensibility. That of course began
> with the Dadaists, and has become the more publicized range of work in
> recent years ( I see Salle and Schnabel as successors to the tradition of
> Duchamp and Johns, although I doubt many would agree with me.)
Indeed, such groups as the Dadaists or even the Futurists took a
deliberately reactionary stance against the traditional art of their
times.
> My point here is that if Iian thinks "the roots of art" (his term) are
> to be found in the sort of representation he enjoys in Bougereau, he may
> be well served by looking at some of the art made <prior> to the 19th
> century. The roots of art are, of course, much older than tight, fanciful
> representation.
I do not believe that good art is to be found merely in Bougueruea - and
even in his case, his work is often a bit slick and soulless for me. I
prefer the full-bloaded vitality of Rubens, Bernini, Caravaggio,
Carpeaux, Rodin, Duret, Dalou, Gericault - I could go on with my own
roll call, but needless to say I have great respect for certain
painters, sculptors, architects asnd illustrators right down to this
very day.
If you require some proof of this, I will be happy to give you a fuller
list of those artists I admire, as well as pictures of their work on my
comptuer to confirm that interest.
> In addition, I don't think its possible to say that "Fauvism, Cubism,
> Dadaism, Futurism, Abstract Expressionism, et cetera, have all served to
> widen the gulf between art and culture." Perhaps "the gulf between art and
> common man", or "art and dilettantes". But whether or not one likes
> Modernism, it is part of our culture.
I see your point.
> I think there is a great deal more in Iian's post that is very debatable,
> but perhaps another day.
I look forward to future discussions.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
s36...@student.uq.edu.au
Greetings,
> There are artists out there who use classical
> techniques to explore new territory; the age of any particular technique does
> not limit the themes it can cover.
You are indeed correct. The American Society for Classical Realism is
such a group. I am told that the ASCR has set up a number of ateliers
modelled on 19th century examples, but injected with the inevitable new
ideas and techniques that must arise as time passes. As much as I would
like to attend this School, I do not have the means - it is in America,
and I am in Australia.
There are, of course, other great contemporary artists who are little
known. I apologise to any if I have omitted their names - and it is not
out of maliciousness or for want of trying to find them.
I will gives just a very brief list of some of our century's greats:
Pietro Annigoni, Ives Gammell, John William Godward, William MacGregor
Paxton, George Frampton, various Art Nouveau sculptors, Jeffrey Jones
and last (but certainly not least), that wonderful Texan, Nelson Shanks.
Shanks is one of the few men alive today who could dare stand in the
company of Bougueruea when it comes to sheer technique. What I have seen
of his works, however, are not very similar to that French master in
subject matter. His choices are perhaps more 'contemporary'. In any
case, Shanks has a site on the web, and I urge any one who likes good
art to give it a glance (the URL escapes me at present - just type
"Nelson Shanks" at your favourite search engine).
> Perhaps we could come up with a list of
> artists for Iian to check out, so he can take a slightly less jaundiced view of
> present-day art?
I would be very grateful if you could furnish such a list. I assure you
that I search diligently for such artists every day.
> I'd head the list with Ernst Fuchs, founder of the Vienna
> School of Fantastic Realism. I looked on the web, didn't find much on him- but
> here's a start: http://members.magnet.at/p.fischer/html/prof._ernst_fuchs.html
I had trouble navigating the site due to it being written in German.
However, the painting on the first page looked quite promsing...
> I think the basic problem Iian is reacting to comes from the nature of
> publicity. Artists cannot hope to compete with the multi-million dollar
> campaigns that vie for the attention of the public these days; their only hope
> is to gain some free publicity by becoming a news item.
I wonder whether those 'artists' who feel compelled to indulge in such
shock value or media antics really deserve the title ...
> The ways to accomplish
> this are few, and merely creating excellent work is not on the list. The game
> that worked in the past- inventing new styles of art or definitions of what art
> may be- has been played out, and no new style or definition seems to be
> newsworthy. Hence we see increasingly desperate ploys to catch the attention of
> the increasingly jaded media- sado-masochism still sells papers, but one must
> achieve something new in this line to be shocking.
Perhaps it is a sign of our culture that sado-masochism does sell so
well...
> Dismembered animals (and
> people, for that matter) are old hat.
It's a sad state of affairs when we can say that with resignation and
not horror. Such cadaverous abominations should never had entered any
building that aspires to call itself a gallery - a slaugherhouse, maybe
...
> I'm afraid in the future, artists will
> turn to terrorism, since that is the only taboo that has yet to be breached in
> the name of art. Or are the fashionable galleries in Berlin exhibiting the art
> of the Bader-Meinhof group already?
Crime as art? It's already been done - unless universities, curators and
critics start injecting a healthy dose of sanity and technical standards
back into the Art World we will no doubt see an escalation of these
antics.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
mark webber
Iian,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Below you invite further discussion, and
since you seem to mean it, and don't appear ready to ignite a torch war,
I'll try to be as reasonable as you seem to be. Let me say, however, that
I don't expect to change any opinions and I feel everyone has a right to
their personal taste. For me, this is a just a public exercise. So
if this begins to turn nasty, you'll understand why I back away.
I get so bored with name calling, don't you?
On Thu, 4 Jun 1998 s36...@student.uq.edu.au (Iian) wrote:
(snip much of previous text)
(I wrote:)
> > I'm not so sure that is what I read. It reads to me as though Iian feels
> > Modernism is this bad thing that happened - here's a quote from below:
(Iian wrote:)
> Yes, I believe that Modernism is a destructive influence in regards to
> artistic technique, which I consider the cornerstone of all art.
>
By technique, I assume you mean an ability to render; of the sort we see
in Raphael, Ingres, Jacques-Louis David and of course Monsieur Bouguereau.
An ability to render so that the brushwork is all but invisable.
I understand that this may be the cornerstone of all the art you love, but
unless you find technique to be the cornerstone of Giotto, Massaccio,
Piero, Titian, Rembrandt, Watteau, Delacroix, Corot, Monet, Cezanne, etc,
you of course can't mean "all art."
Of course, there is a common thread running through the works of these
great masters, those in their circles and many more (including Matisse,
Bonnard, Mondrian, Soutine, DeKooning and Rauschenberg, to name a few of
the Modernists.)
That common thread is the persistant awareness of the relationships
between the shapes and colors and the sensibility expressed in these
arrangements.
This happens when the artist is seeing the thing (the picture, sculpture,
etc.) as a whole, and not just the depiction of the subject matter.
That is why we have this set of distinctions known as Form and Content.
Form is understood to be the whole; the relationships between the shapes
and colors and the balancing of their contrasts; a sort of step beyond
composition.
And it is this Formal concern which is present in the pottery of
Euphronius, the Laocoon, the frescos in the Mystery Villa in Pompeii,
the stained glass of Saint Chapelle, Michelangelo's ceiling, Titian's
"Entombment" and Caravaggio's "Calling of Saint Matthew."
It is this same sort of matured sensibility that achieved the beautiful
harmonies and rhythms in Vermeer, de la Tour, Fragonard, as well as in
Balthus, Gorky and even at times, Picasso.
I would propose that this common thread of interest in the visual play of
visual art is the cornerstone of all art. All good art, that is.
It's here, perhaps, that I may draw fire.
>
> > This is not to say that there isn't work of this century that is made for
> > purely shock value and without regard to sensibility. That of course began
> > with the Dadaists, and has become the more publicized range of work in
> > recent years ( I see Salle and Schnabel as successors to the tradition of
> > Duchamp and Johns, although I doubt many would agree with me.)
>
> Indeed, such groups as the Dadaists or even the Futurists took a
> deliberately reactionary stance against the traditional art of their
> times.
And somehow, given the current events, I don't blame them - not the
individuals. It was a little while before I figured out I wasn't supposed
to be looking for the relationship between the Bicycle Wheel and the Stool
it is attached to.
(A teacher had to say "that's not the point, moron!")
It was a little while before I realized that Duchamp's private jokes just
weren't at the same creative level as some of Derain's late still lifes.
And I don't blame anyone's annoyance with art historians who can't make
that distinction for their students.
Well, this is getting pretty long.
More another day, maybe?
Mark
__________________________________________________________________________
remainder of post
> > My point here is that if Iian thinks "the roots of art" (his term) are
> > to be found in the sort of representation he enjoys in Bougereau, he may
> > be well served by looking at some of the art made <prior> to the 19th
> > century. The roots of art are, of course, much older than tight, fanciful
> > representation.
>
> I do not believe that good art is to be found merely in Bougueruea - and
> even in his case, his work is often a bit slick and soulless for me. I
> prefer the full-bloaded vitality of Rubens, Bernini, Caravaggio,
> Carpeaux, Rodin, Duret, Dalou, Gericault - I could go on with my own
> roll call, but needless to say I have great respect for certain
> painters, sculptors, architects asnd illustrators right down to this
> very day.
>
> If you require some proof of this, I will be happy to give you a fuller
> list of those artists I admire, as well as pictures of their work on my
> comptuer to confirm that interest.
>
> > In addition, I don't think its possible to say that "Fauvism, Cubism,
> > Dadaism, Futurism, Abstract Expressionism, et cetera, have all served to
> > widen the gulf between art and culture." Perhaps "the gulf between art and
> > common man", or "art and dilettantes". But whether or not one likes
> > Modernism, it is part of our culture.
>
> I see your point.
>
> > I think there is a great deal more in Iian's post that is very debatable,
> > but perhaps another day.
>
JCMandel
Mark Webber said (re: Duchamp):
<< It was a little while before I figured out I wasn't supposed
to be looking for the relationship between the Bicycle Wheel and the Stool it
is attached to.
(A teacher had to say "that's not the point, moron!") >>
Mark,
This moron doesn't get the point either... can you elucidate? I must have
missed the part when we were taught what we were supposed to be looking for...
mark webber
On 4 Jun 1998, JCMandel wrote:
> Mark Webber said (re: Duchamp):
>
> << It was a little while before I figured out I wasn't supposed
> to be looking for the relationship between the Bicycle Wheel and the Stool it
> is attached to.
>
> (A teacher had to say "that's not the point, moron!") >>
>
> Mark,
>
> This moron doesn't get the point either... can you elucidate? I must have
> missed the part when we were taught what we were supposed to be looking for...
>
>
JC (hope that's an appropriate way to address you),
Dada, according to those who first practiced it, was anti-art.
Anti-sensibility, anti-esthetics. And Duchamp was a professed joker. This
is not to say that there wasn't creative thought at work. But it wasn't
visual art in the "Grand Tradition", so to speak.
We aren't supposed to look for anything. It's the idea that counts.
And the idea is, briefly, that we can redefine art by simple presentation.
Sort of like, "If it is in a gallery, it must be art."
It's only one idea, and personally I think the more it's used, the more
tired it becomes. A bit too cynical for me these days.
I mean, what's so archaic about trying to make something that looks good?
Is that really less in fashion than dada?
Hope this is useful,
Mark
JCMandel
Thanks, Mark, for your comments. You said:
<< JC (hope that's an appropriate way to address you) >>
That's fine. :-)
<<It was a little while before I figured out I wasn't supposed to be looking
for the relationship between the Bicycle Wheel and the Stool it is attached to.
(A teacher had to say "that's not the point, moron!") >> and
<< Dada, according to those who first practiced it, was anti-art.
Anti-sensibility, anti-esthetics. And Duchamp was a professed joker... >>
Indeed... and I think that's why it's perfectly valid to look at the
relationship between the wheel and stool in "Bicycle Wheel" and giggle over the
visual pun. It's not moronic at all...
<< This is not to say that there wasn't creative thought at work. But it wasn't
visual art in the "Grand Tradition", so to speak.>>
Um, I think I discerned that concept pretty well... "Bicycle Wheel" doesn't
look at all like them Eye-talian pitchers with all the Madonnas, Jesuses,
flying babies and stuff...
<< I mean, what's so archaic about trying to make something that looks good? Is
that really less in fashion than dada?>>
I didn't realize they were mutually exclusive. I love aesthetically beautiful
paintings in the "Grand Tradition," but, silly me, I get a real kick out of
Dada and other modern work, too. *If* there is a point... My personal
judgments (what's good, what's "bad") are usually based on epistemology rather
than aesthetics. Are you implying that convention says that you must be an
advocate of one style or the other? I'm not being facetious; I need to know if
I am violating some unwritten rule of art appreciation here.
N
One of you wrote:
> > This moron doesn't get the point either... can you elucidate? I must have
> > missed the part when we were taught what we were supposed to be looking
> We aren't supposed to look for anything. It's the idea that counts.
The image and idea inhere in one another. Duchamp was never only a
thinker. He was an artist and made visual works. The LARGE GLASS in my
opinion is one of the most riveting works of art of all time. FOUNTAIN
pressed the issues of art, creativity, originality, meaning, etc....and
inform our reception and looking at Derain as well.
On art education.
These grossly vague attacks on contemporary education are unfounded. I
studied in the 1980's in NYC, and feel I got a sound education. As far as
technique goes: I routinely hang out with an ex-college master metalshop
technician (who worked at my school and just left after 10 years). His
shop and his person oozes technical understanding. You need to know about
physics, chemistry, tools, for example, if you are going to weld...you
need to understand your materials and how they are effected by physical
processes...technique. This is taught in a satisfactory manner in all
fields of art. WHAT you make with these materials falls under aesthetics.
He never taught sculpting figures specifically, although as a tech, he
would teach you all you needed to know about bronze casting, if that was
your goal.
At my school, you could study the figure if you wanted (including
attending autopsies at hospitals, which BTW, I did) or do work of another
nature. I studied the figure but have little interest now in using it in
art. I do not at all think it a necessary and required field of study for
art. It is up to the individual student.
Additionally, if for whatever reason one decides they wish to paint in a
manner of mid 19th century salon painting, this is easily learned...this
is not magic. Firstly, there are museums filled with artworks, indeed the
very same old master works that those 19th century artists admired and
copied. Just copying drawings and paintings will take you far. By benefit
of photography, we even have an advantage over those artists in reference
materials (and don't forget: we cannot imagine how those artists actually
saw their own work in that era before photography made headway into the
culture and altered our culture's tropes for re-presentation...anything
here is pure speculation. Do your scholarship and present your thesis, and
contribute your efforts it to the hundreds already extant).
A basic book on technique will teach you much. There is nothing
magic-secret-miraculous about materials, all can be approximated with
modern materials which are more stable in most instances. Find a living
painter you admire and approach him as a student. And finally don't forget
that you can go all the way being self-taught as well, and at its best,
formal education is only a drop in the bucket, as you will be studying
your entire life if you wish to continue growing as an artist (those
'masters' in western art did excactly that: they pressed beyond the
perceived limitations of their teachers to make the art that expressed
their individuality and their cultural facts)...school often sensitizes
you and gets you familair with that process so you can think and criticize
for yourself, giving you the skills to go out on your own and approach the
rest of your lifetime of learning...but a close minded student can foil
their own development. The student has the largest responsibility in their
education, and abilities here are uneven.
As far as aesthetics go: to like figurative art, be it naturalism,
realism, classicism or some other such manifestation is one thing-- to
claim it to be the TRUE and NATURAL expression of art, I think that is an
uninformed position, and one that short circuits critical any aesthetic
facilities.
There is NOTHING at all natural in those art forms: they are products of
cultural conventions, and as such are dependent on cultural ideology for
their mandate, meaning, and pertinance. If such forms of art were
'natural' the prospective art student wouldn't need to bother about
finding an atelier or a teacher in order to produce the art...the student
would need only to be alone (no art or museums either) and let 'nature'
take its course (as instinct) and the paintings and techniques would
miraculously arise in the student without outside agents (like growing a
beard). Of course this never happens...one needs to gain aculturation...to
even LOOK at the paintings. One art form has no inherent privilidge over
the other...when one invokes 'nature' (itself a cultural construct,
interpretation dependent upon cultural ideolology) as a defense of art,
one is on shakey ground.
Regarding the traditions of classicism and realism in the 19th century:
much of the ideological thrust behind that art was developed later in the
work of the impressionists and after them, the abstract artists in the
20th century..as well as conceptual art. Discerning how that happpened
demands a more thorough study of the aforementioned art...there are plenty
of cultural resources from which to gain this education (a library or
contemporary artschool are 2 possibilities). Tropes have changed in
painting for capturing a likeness, a moment of time, perception, rendering
these attributes (even the definitions of what these attributes MEAN in
late 19th century, modern and contemporary culture respectively demands
some scholarship), persuing presence, color and optical effects,
re-presentation and all that is summoned up when re-presenting a moment or
image inclusive of the new cultural facts, techniques, sciences, and
ideologies...have all expanded the field, techniques, and forms of these
pursuits as an EXTENSION and DEVELOPMENT of western art's concern with
those aesthetic issues that fired 19th century art and previous art. It is
not at all that the 20th century represents a 'break' with
tradition....how could that be? The 20 century is an extension of the
pardigms, ideologies, facts, and interests of western civilization and
culture, building upon its own past. Everything that takes place now, in
'postmodern' 1990's is an extenion of this culture and its heritage.
I am currently busy (including prep for an art residency in 2 weeks so I
can craft my own pole of the dialogue)...so unfortunately can't delve
deeper into some of the topics addressed here in earlier posts...if time
allows I will attempt a more thorough and direct response to some of those
postings.
Cheers,
-N.
--
N
To reach me, remove _xxx from my address.
mark webber
On Fri, 5 Jun 1998, N wrote:
> One of you wrote:
>
> > > This moron doesn't get the point either... can you elucidate? I must have
> > > missed the part when we were taught what we were supposed to be looking
> > We aren't supposed to look for anything. It's the idea that counts.
>
> The image and idea inhere in one another. Duchamp was never only a
> thinker. He was an artist and made visual works. The LARGE GLASS in my
> opinion is one of the most riveting works of art of all time. FOUNTAIN
> pressed the issues of art, creativity, originality, meaning, etc....and
> inform our reception and looking at Derain as well.
I agree (not only with the above, but also with everything below) although
I have to say that I find the Large Glass more amusing than riveting - in
part because it is such an eloquent statement about anti-eloquence.
Randomness was the substitute for sensibility (according to Duchamp, and
Arp as well, although I don't really believe them...), but in spite of the
reputed randomness the thing has beauty (to me.)
Let me add, though, that Duchamp's paintings, like "Nude Descending a
Staircase" are pretty dry and not nearly as interesting (Braque and
Picasso's imagery should have been left to them, I think), and for this
reason Duchamp feels a bit more like an idea guy to me.
>
> On art education.
> These grossly vague attacks on contemporary education are unfounded. I
> studied in the 1980's in NYC, and feel I got a sound education.
(huge snippage)
I'm glad someone else has come forward with an admission of a satisfying
educational experience.
To me it's numbing that some people don't realize an artist's most
important *skill* is self-criticism. This is a very difficult skill to
learn if one feels one already knows everything.
Art school will be useless to the student who is there to demonstrate what
he/she already knows rather than learn.
>
> As far as aesthetics go: to like figurative art, be it naturalism,
> realism, classicism or some other such manifestation is one thing-- to
> claim it to be the TRUE and NATURAL expression of art, I think that is an
> uninformed position, and one that short circuits critical any aesthetic
> facilities.
Absolutely, and I think this is the kernal of these discussions.
I would say this is very well put.
> I am currently busy (including prep for an art residency in 2 weeks so I
> can craft my own pole of the dialogue)...so unfortunately can't delve
> deeper into some of the topics addressed here in earlier posts...if time
> allows I will attempt a more thorough and direct response to some of those
> postings.
>
> Cheers,
> -N.
>
Best of luck, and thanks for an excellent post.
Mark
mark webber
On 5 Jun 1998, JCMandel wrote:
>
> Indeed... and I think that's why it's perfectly valid to look at the
> relationship between the wheel and stool in "Bicycle Wheel" and giggle over the
> visual pun. It's not moronic at all...
Yes, I don't disagree - but it wasn't me calling anyone a moron - it was
that tough teacher of mine....
> << This is not to say that there wasn't creative thought at work. But it wasn't
> visual art in the "Grand Tradition", so to speak.>>
>
> Um, I think I discerned that concept pretty well... "Bicycle Wheel" doesn't
> look at all like them Eye-talian pitchers with all the Madonnas, Jesuses,
> flying babies and stuff...
Naturally, but when I say "Grand Tradition" I'm speaking of Matisse and
Dekooning as well.
>
> << I mean, what's so archaic about trying to make something that looks good? Is
> that really less in fashion than dada?>>
>
> I didn't realize they were mutually exclusive.
Didn't mean to imply they were
> I love aesthetically beautiful
> paintings in the "Grand Tradition," but, silly me, I get a real kick out of
> Dada and other modern work, too.
Same for me.
> *If* there is a point... My personal
> judgments (what's good, what's "bad") are usually based on epistemology rather
> than aesthetics. Are you implying that convention says that you must be an
> advocate of one style or the other? I'm not being facetious; I need to know if
> I am violating some unwritten rule of art appreciation here.
The last thing I would want to imply is that there are rules of art
appreciation. I would never say to an artist "You shouldn't make art that
way" or to anyone else "You shouldn't like that."
I enjoy too many different styles to be an advocate of one over another.
However, one's critical faculties might atrophy if one didn't discern
between good and less good art.
I'm a little suspicious of art for which there is no criteria.
Mark
J-Bird
In article <Pine.PMDF.3.95.9806041...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>,
webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU says...
>I would propose that this common thread of interest in the visual play of
>visual art is the cornerstone of all art. All good art, that is.
Pardon my jumping into this two-way discussion.
I would condense all you have to say into the above
paragraph and expand on it with my own view: that
all 'important' or 'good' or 'valued' art is judged
for its visceral impression on the viewer(s)
irregardless of education, social or cultural standing.
J'Bird.
Alfred Glass
*probable huge snippage*
>
>The last thing I would want to imply is that there are rules of art
>appreciation. I would never say to an artist "You shouldn't make art that
>way" or to anyone else "You shouldn't like that."
>
>I enjoy too many different styles to be an advocate of one over another.
>
>However, one's critical faculties might atrophy if one didn't discern
>between good and less good art.
>
>I'm a little suspicious of art for which there is no criteria.
>
>Mark
>
>
communication. Just as one could write prose or poetry to say something,
one could also create a visual way to express the sentiment.
So, for me, the only criteria for art would be how well the artist is
communicating. An Arthur Streeton to me communicates, it says "This is a
beautiful landscape". Same thing for Duchamp's Bicycle Wheel. It says
"Art has become too inflexible."
I've got nothing against these contemporary artists who film themselves
smashing car windows with flowers (exhibiting at AGNSW now) But if the
message is not clear, then it is inneffective art.
SG.
mdeli
, mark webber wrote:
>
>By technique, I assume you mean an ability to render; of the sort we see
>in Raphael, Ingres, Jacques-Louis David and of course Monsieur Bouguereau.
>An ability to render so that the brushwork is all but invisable.
This is the sort of nonsense taught in most art schools at present.
Technique involves all manner of making art not just rendering.
Learning to render, in a strict sense is a science like the scales in
music. Technique includes what you do with this information.
As to brushwork, Bouguereau uses a lot of impasto in many of his
painting. Its invisible to someone like you who has never seen these
works. Go look at the detail in Ingres and you will see how loosely
painted some of the detail is..
>I understand that this may be the cornerstone of all the art you love,
You don't understand.
>Of course, there is a common thread running through the works of these
>great masters, those in their circles and many more (including Matisse,
>Bonnard, Mondrian, Soutine, DeKooning and Rauschenberg, to name a few of
>the Modernists.)
>
>That common thread is the persistant awareness of the relationships
>between the shapes and colors and the sensibility expressed in these
>arrangements.
It runs through graphic art, towel design, floor covering and patch
quilts. It is not what makes great art
>This happens when the artist is seeing the thing (the picture, sculpture,
>etc.) as a whole, and not just the depiction of the subject matter.
An Ingres portrait is no more "just a depiction of subject matter"
than Guernica.
>I would propose that this common thread of interest in the visual play of
>visual art is the cornerstone of all art. All good art, that is.
And much "nothing particular art" is also that. In other words you are
not saying very much.
>And somehow, given the current events, I don't blame them - not the
>individuals. It was a little while before I figured out I wasn't supposed
>to be looking for the relationship between the Bicycle Wheel and the Stool
>it is attached to.
>
>(A teacher had to say "that's not the point, moron!")
>
>It was a little while before I realized that Duchamp's private jokes just
>weren't at the same creative level as some of Derain's late still lifes.
I'm sure that this utterly important astounding revelation brought you
much joy.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
Iian Neill
Dear Mark,
> Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
You're quite welcome.
> Below you invite further discussion, and
> since you seem to mean it, and don't appear ready to ignite a torch war,
> I'll try to be as reasonable as you seem to be.
I prefer civil discussions to flame-wars. No one wins in a flame war - we all
lose.
> Let me say, however, that
> I don't expect to change any opinions and I feel everyone has a right to
> their personal taste.
I agree. What you like and dislike is entirely up to you.
> For me, this is a just a public exercise. So
> if this begins to turn nasty, you'll understand why I back away.
I see no reason why it should turn nasty. If I say something controversial I would
expect others to question it so that I might clarify the point, or retract it if
it turns out I was wrong. Likewise, if you (or another) made a contentious
statement, I would be motivated to question it so that I might understand what you
are saying, more clearly.
> I get so bored with name calling, don't you?
Indeed.
> > Yes, I believe that Modernism is a destructive influence in regards to
> > artistic technique, which I consider the cornerstone of all art.
>
> By technique, I assume you mean an ability to render; of the sort we see
> in Raphael, Ingres, Jacques-Louis David and of course Monsieur Bouguereau.
> An ability to render so that the brushwork is all but invisable.
Rendering is a part of technique, but technique as much more encompassing than the
word rendering might suggest. For example, the pianist Vladimir Horowitz had a
blistering technic - but this did not mean he was a cold, calculating machine out
to woo those impressed by pretty paintings of sailor ships and fluffy dogs with
ribbons around their necks; the same applies to Ingres, Raphael and, of course,
Bouguereau. Technique is that which enables the artist to realize his vision in a
manner comprehensible to others, in the most effective manner. If an artist is
possessed of a sloppy technique, the public becomes more aware of his defects than
his strengths. Technique is that which ennabled Michelangelo to paint the The Last
Judgement, or da Vinci his Mona Lisa. Without a strong technique these artists
would have produced consistently feeble works that demonstrated no more than
grandiose ideas.
> I understand that this may be the cornerstone of all the art you love, but
> unless you find technique to be the cornerstone of Giotto, Massaccio,
> Piero, Titian, Rembrandt, Watteau, Delacroix, Corot, Monet, Cezanne, etc,
> you of course can't mean "all art."
Indeed, I consider that all of those above-mentioned artists possessed technique
in varying degrees. I do not even dispute that Picasso and Cezanne had it - I have
gone to the trouble to look through their work, and noticed that their 'early'
life-drawings sketches display a quite competent mastery of the form, which would
not have been entirely out of place in the studios of Gerome students. That
Picasso and Cezanne turned their back on their hard-won skills seems to me an
utter waste, and one which proved harmful to later students of art. I have yet,
though, to see any drawing by Henri Matisse that evinces a mastery of
representationalism - I would not have expected Cezanne to have a good hand at
life-drawing, but he did (at one stage) - so far as I know, Matisse was entirely
incompetent by academic standards. (Bouguereau threw him out of his atelier.)
> Of course, there is a common thread running through the works of these
> great masters, those in their circles and many more (including Matisse,
> Bonnard, Mondrian, Soutine, DeKooning and Rauschenberg, to name a few of
> the Modernists.)
>
> That common thread is the persistant awareness of the relationships
> between the shapes and colors and the sensibility expressed in these
> arrangements.
A 'persistant awareness' is not enough to make art of a high calibre - especially
if one's technique is not up to the challenge of greating such art. A persistant
awareness is necessary, I grant you - it is the cornerstone of technique, which is
in turn the cornerstone of all successful artistic expression. But with that
awareness one must be able to draw competently. (Competent in this context means
being able to represent in two-dimensions what one observes in the real world,
reasonable accurately - and preferrably with 'flair'.)
> Form is understood to be the whole; the relationships between the shapes
> and colors and the balancing of their contrasts; a sort of step beyond
> composition.
>
> And it is this Formal concern which is present in the pottery of
> Euphronius, the Laocoon, the frescos in the Mystery Villa in Pompeii,
> the stained glass of Saint Chapelle, Michelangelo's ceiling, Titian's
> "Entombment" and Caravaggio's "Calling of Saint Matthew."
Indeed - there is a kind of symphonic balance in these works.
> It is this same sort of matured sensibility that achieved the beautiful
> harmonies and rhythms in Vermeer, de la Tour, Fragonard, as well as in
> Balthus, Gorky and even at times, Picasso.
I am not sure I see these beautiful harmonies in Picasso's work. But then, it
might be better for you to tell me (and preferably supply with a URL for an
internet site) which works of Picasso display signs of such praiseworthy harmony.
> I would propose that this common thread of interest in the visual play of
> visual art is the cornerstone of all art. All good art, that is.
'The visual play of art ...'? I have heard this phrase used before, but have never
been quite sure whether people mean it seriously. I do not see Michelangelo Meris
da iCaravaggio's "Calling of Saint Matthew", for example, as 'playful' in the
sense that the word is normally applied.
> > Indeed, such groups as the Dadaists or even the Futurists took a
> > deliberately reactionary stance against the traditional art of their
> > times.
>
> And somehow, given the current events, I don't blame them - not the
> individuals.
Do you mean that you approve of those moments on a social level - as a revolt
against society? - or do you endorse their artistic revolt?
> It was a little while before I figured out I wasn't supposed
> to be looking for the relationship between the Bicycle Wheel and the Stool
> it is attached to.
>
> (A teacher had to say "that's not the point, moron!")
What a wonderful teacher you had - condescending AND arrogant simultaneously. I
could not respect any 'teacher' who went around calling their student a moron -
particularly at what seems to be a fair enough question.
> It was a little while before I realized that Duchamp's private jokes just
> weren't at the same creative level as some of Derain's late still lifes.
Personally, I believe that Duchamp's private jokes should have remained that way.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
mark webber
On 5 Jun 1998, J-Bird wrote:
> In article <Pine.PMDF.3.95.9806041...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>,
> webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU says...
>
> >I would propose that this common thread of interest in the visual play of
> >visual art is the cornerstone of all art. All good art, that is.
>
> Pardon my jumping into this two-way discussion.
> I would condense all you have to say into the above
> paragraph and expand on it with my own view: that
> all 'important' or 'good' or 'valued' art is judged
> for its visceral impression on the viewer(s)
> irregardless of education, social or cultural standing.
>
> J'Bird.
As you like it. (Sorry if I was too wordy - I often see demands in usenet
for supporting arguments.)
My only reservation about your expansion would be that we should allow for
more than only splanchnic response. There is the Apollonian as well as the
Dionysian.
Mark
mark webber
I'm in agreemant.
Mark
mark webber
Dear Iian,
I'm pleased to see how this has developed. It might be too much to hope
that it sets an example (of polite discourse if nothing else) for another
gent in this group.
I'll do a bit of snipping, but I'll try to maintain the integrity of the
thread.
On Sat, 6 Jun 1998, Iian Neill wrote:
> >
> > By technique, I assume you mean an ability to render; of the sort we see
> > in Raphael, Ingres, Jacques-Louis David and of course Monsieur Bouguereau.
> > An ability to render so that the brushwork is all but invisable.
>
> Rendering is a part of technique, but technique as much more encompassing
> than the word rendering might suggest. For example, the pianist Vladimir
> Horowitz had a blistering technic - but this did not mean he was a cold,
> calculating machine out to woo those impressed by pretty paintings of
> sailor ships and fluffy dogs with ribbons around their necks; the same
> applies to Ingres, Raphael and, of course, Bouguereau. Technique is
> that which enables the artist to realize his vision in a manner
> comprehensible to others, in the most effective manner. If an artist is
> possessed of a sloppy technique, the public becomes more aware of his
> defects than his strengths. Technique is that which ennabled Michelangelo
> to paint the The Last Judgement, or da Vinci his Mona Lisa. Without a
> strong technique these artists would have produced consistently feeble
> works that demonstrated no more than grandiose ideas.
I stand corrected as to your definition of technique - it is certainly
broader than I thought.
However, I'm afraid there are some minor points here we need to look at.
First, it might only be appropriate to site those Horowitz performances of
his own compositions.
More importantly, when you speak of the Michelangelo's and Da Vinci's
technique as being that which was responsible for their great works, let
me point out that they had no more technique than many other painters of
this time and place. I'll cite Morone, Caroto, Zelotti, Solario and
Da Brescia for example. These are all painters with comparable technique
but are they household names, or even familiar to most art students? I
don't believe so. The reason is probably that they did not have the poetic
command of visual play, the sensibility.
There were literally hundreds of Italian painters of Madonnas contemporary
to Raphael, but those of Raphael are the ones that art historians present
time and again. Why? Not because he had more technique but because of his
sublime form.
(Again, this is tricky because I think your use of the word "form" is a
bit different than mine. My usage is akin to "visual play", which I
discuss below.)
>
> > I understand that this may be the cornerstone of all the art you love, but
> > unless you find technique to be the cornerstone of Giotto, Massaccio,
> > Piero, Titian, Rembrandt, Watteau, Delacroix, Corot, Monet, Cezanne, etc,
> > you of course can't mean "all art."
>
> Indeed, I consider that all of those above-mentioned artists possessed
> technique in varying degrees. I do not even dispute that Picasso and
> Cezanne had it - I have gone to the trouble to look through their work,
> and noticed that their 'early' life-drawings sketches display a quite
> competent mastery of the form, which would not have been entirely out of
> place in the studios of Gerome students. That Picasso and Cezanne turned
> their back on their hard-won skills seems to me an utter waste, and one
> which proved harmful to later students of art. I have yet, though, to
> see any drawing by Henri Matisse that evinces a mastery of
> representationalism - I would not have expected Cezanne to have a good
> hand at life-drawing, but he did (at one stage) - so far as I know,
> Matisse was entirely incompetent by academic standards. (Bouguereau
> threw him out of his atelier.)
>
I don't mean this at all sarcastically, but if any of the above
(modernists) had died before they went on to do the work you reject, we
never would have heard of them.
I can only say that to me (and to many others) they didn't leave out
anything important. Rather, they found a way to paint in which they
eliminated just those things that are *not* essential to great art.
> > Of course, there is a common thread running through the works of these
> > great masters, those in their circles and many more (including Matisse,
> > Bonnard, Mondrian, Soutine, DeKooning and Rauschenberg, to name a few of
> > the Modernists.)
> >
> > That common thread is the persistant awareness of the relationships
> > between the shapes and colors and the sensibility expressed in these
> > arrangements.
>
> A 'persistant awareness' is not enough to make art of a high calibre -
> especially if one's technique is not up to the challenge of greating
> such art. A persistant awareness is necessary, I grant you - it is the
> cornerstone of technique, which is in turn the cornerstone of all
> successful artistic expression. But with that awareness one must be able
> to draw competently. (Competent in this context means being able to
> represent in two-dimensions what one observes in the real world,
> reasonable accurately - and preferrably with 'flair'.)
This is the key misunderstanding in our discussion. You left out the
important part of my proposition. It isn't "persistant awareness" it is
"persistant awareness of the relationships between the shapes and colors"
and "the sensibility expressed in these arrangements."
And this is defined further in my next statement:
>
> > Form is understood to be the whole; the relationships between the shapes
> > and colors and the balancing of their contrasts; a sort of step beyond
> > composition.
> >
> > And it is this Formal concern which is present in the pottery of
> > Euphronius, the Laocoon, the frescos in the Mystery Villa in Pompeii,
> > the stained glass of Saint Chapelle, Michelangelo's ceiling, Titian's
> > "Entombment" and Caravaggio's "Calling of Saint Matthew."
>
> Indeed - there is a kind of symphonic balance in these works.
Now you are seeing!
>
> > It is this same sort of matured sensibility that achieved the beautiful
> > harmonies and rhythms in Vermeer, de la Tour, Fragonard, as well as in
> > Balthus, Gorky and even at times, Picasso.
>
> I am not sure I see these beautiful harmonies in Picasso's work. But then, it
> might be better for you to tell me (and preferably supply with a URL for an
> internet site) which works of Picasso display signs of such praiseworthy harmony.
>
I'm sorry, I'm very old fashioned and don't look at art on the web. But I
will say that Picasso's "Accordionist" (1911, Guggenheim Museum, NYC),
his collage "Guitar, Sheet music, and Wine Glass" (1912, McNay Art
Institute, San Antonio, Texas) and his "Seated Woman" (1920, Musee
Picasso, Paris) are examples of the sort of harmonies he is capable of.
But remember, these harmonies can only be experienced when you look at the
picture as a whole. If you only go to Picassos with a desire to see
technique, you may miss the beauty of them....
> > I would propose that this common thread of interest in the visual play of
> > visual art is the cornerstone of all art. All good art, that is.
>
> 'The visual play of art ...'? I have heard this phrase used before, but
> have never been quite sure whether people mean it seriously. I do not
> see Michelangelo Meris da iCaravaggio's "Calling of Saint Matthew", for
> example, as 'playful' in the sense that the word is normally applied.
All the painters I admire take it quite seriously, the concept at least.
"Play", (not necessarily "playful") as in "interaction".
> > > Indeed, such groups as the Dadaists or even the Futurists took a
> > > deliberately reactionary stance against the traditional art of their
> > > times.
> >
> > And somehow, given the current events, I don't blame them - not the
> > individuals.
>
> Do you mean that you approve of those moments on a social level - as a revolt
> against society? - or do you endorse their artistic revolt?
I don't know if I endorse it - I was never asked to endorse it.
Fortunately, neither was I asked to participate. I'm certainly not upset
by it. I also don't love it the way I love the work of Titian and Bonnard.
>
> > It was a little while before I figured out I wasn't supposed
> > to be looking for the relationship between the Bicycle Wheel and the Stool
> > it is attached to.
> >
> > (A teacher had to say "that's not the point, moron!")
>
> What a wonderful teacher you had - condescending AND arrogant simultaneously. I
> could not respect any 'teacher' who went around calling their student a moron -
> particularly at what seems to be a fair enough question.
He was only one of a variety of teachers I had. He smiled at me when he
said it. I'm pretty sure I smiled back. He had more to offer than I
realized at the time.
>
> > It was a little while before I realized that Duchamp's private jokes just
> > weren't at the same creative level as some of Derain's late still lifes.
>
> Personally, I believe that Duchamp's private jokes should have remained
> that way.
>
I think there is plenty of room for Duchamp's jokes. They couldn't begin
to sap the integrity of the art we love, so let's not be so bothered by
him.
Sincerely,
Mark
N
In article <Pine.PMDF.3.95.9806050...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>,
mark webber did indeed write:
> I'm a little suspicious of art for which there is no criteria.
I'm even more curious as to what such an art could be (if it could be?).
N
In article <6la0hu$c8i$1...@toto.tig.com.au>, Alfred Glass
<agl...@tig.com.au> wrote:
<<delicate snip>>
> I've got nothing against these contemporary artists who film themselves
> smashing car windows with flowers (exhibiting at AGNSW now) But if the
> message is not clear, then it is inneffective art.
I'm not convinced that much of the art of the past is and/or was
experienced as fleckless and clear as we often assume it to be. I am much
more of the opinion that making painting, for example, was in the distant
past and continues to be in the present, an enterprise that is often
problematic: frought with energies, desires, needs, applications,
politics, ideologies, and audiences that complicate and trouble any
completely clear ideal aesthetic transaction...elements that tend to
thicken the stew. A cursory trip down through painting's past (and by
sticking merely to surface cultural events) provides sufficient evidence
of conflict, discord,, censure, inappreciation, servile flattery, criminal
penalty, mockery....and on and on and on.
A simplistic ideal of a transparent and stentorian artistic past peopled
by monumental landmarks and seemless aesthetics is entirely unfounded.
A cautionary note: before condemning the contemporary art scene one would
do well to delve into our collective cultural past and note the
similarities that artists of all generations have shared and confronted.
The human community kicked up in the dust surrounding aesthetic practices
has nearly always been served with as much conflict as clarity.
Cheers to the fleckless present,
N
Hi Alfred.
In article <6la0hu$c8i$1...@toto.tig.com.au>, Alfred Glass
<agl...@tig.com.au> wrote:
> I've got nothing against these contemporary artists who film themselves
> smashing car windows with flowers (exhibiting at AGNSW now) But if the
> message is not clear, then it is inneffective art.
[Here's a brief addendum]
'Clarity' in art is a matter of interpretation. If art is reduced to a
message (tricky to do...what do we turn it into?), then a definition of
clarity (and in your proposition, effectiveness) is relative to the
viewer's position...aesthetics, ideology, and politics.
Judgement in these matters reveals not a universal criterion of value, but
rather, an individual's biases, conscious or not.
Cheers,
N
Hi ya Iian,
In article <35792B71...@student.uq.edu.au>, Iian Neill
<s36...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
<<snip>>
A persistant
> awareness is necessary, I grant you - it is the cornerstone of
technique, which is
> in turn the cornerstone of all successful artistic expression.
and then...
But with that
> awareness one must be able to draw competently. (Competent in this context
> means being able to represent in two-dimensions what one observes in the
real world,
> reasonable accurately - and preferrably with 'flair'.)
That is one theory.
There are many others.
Indeed, by closely defining each word in the above sentence, one will
arrive at their particular ideology:
-'competent'
-'represent'
-'context'
-'two dimensions'
-'observe'
-'real world'
-'acccurately'
-'flair'
Early modernists took issue with the ideologies and theories relating to
those terms and held the conviction that their aesthetic answer was a
finer product with more flair, engaing the 'real world'.
What excactly is the 'real world', by the way?
Marilyn
mark webber wrote:
>
> On Fri, 5 Jun 1998, N wrote:
>
> >
> > > > This moron doesn't get the point either... can you elucidate? I must have
> > > > missed the part when we were taught what we were supposed to be looking
> > > We aren't supposed to look for anything. It's the idea that counts.
> >
> > The image and idea inhere in one another. Duchamp was never only a
> > thinker. He was an artist and made visual works. The LARGE GLASS in my
> > opinion is one of the most riveting works of art of all time. FOUNTAIN
> > pressed the issues of art, creativity, originality, meaning, etc....and
> > inform our reception and looking at Derain as well.
>
> I have to say that I find the Large Glass more amusing than riveting - in
> part because it is such an eloquent statement about anti-eloquence.
>
> Randomness was the substitute for sensibility (according to Duchamp, and
> Arp as well, although I don't really believe them...), but in spite of the
> reputed randomness the thing has beauty (to me.)
>
> Let me add, though, that Duchamp's paintings, like "Nude Descending a
> Staircase" are pretty dry and not nearly as interesting (Braque and
> Picasso's imagery should have been left to them, I think), and for this
> reason Duchamp feels a bit more like an idea guy to me.
>
> >
> > These grossly vague attacks on contemporary education are unfounded. I
> > studied in the 1980's in NYC, and feel I got a sound education.
>
>
> I'm glad someone else has come forward with an admission of a satisfying
> educational experience.
>
> To me it's numbing that some people don't realize an artist's most
> important *skill* is self-criticism. This is a very difficult skill to
> learn if one feels one already knows everything.
>
> Art school will be useless to the student who is there to demonstrate what
> he/she already knows rather than learn.
>
>
> >
> > realism, classicism or some other such manifestation is one thing-- to
> > claim it to be the TRUE and NATURAL expression of art, I think that is an
> > uninformed position, and one that short circuits critical any aesthetic
> > facilities.
>
>
>
> > can craft my own pole of the dialogue)...so unfortunately can't delve
> > deeper into some of the topics addressed here in earlier posts...if time
> > allows I will attempt a more thorough and direct response to some of those
> > postings.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -N.
> >
>
>
> Mark
I agree with Mark.
To me
N posted a well-expressed summation of futile
agruments back and forth from people with cemented ideas about
what they think is true art, and maybe why they think as they do.
He also urges them not to be closed-minded thereby shutting out so much
interesting work from their lives.
Marilyn
J-Bird
In article <Pine.PMDF.3.95.9806061...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>,
webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU says...
>As you like it. (Sorry if I was too wordy - I often see demands in usenet
>for supporting arguments.)
No need for apologies. It's the 'short and sweet' that
often leads to misinterpretation, as you so succinctly
point out. J'Bird.
mark webber
On Sun, 7 Jun 1998, N wrote:
> In article <Pine.PMDF.3.95.9806050...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>,
> mark webber did indeed write:
>
> > I'm a little suspicious of art for which there is no criteria.
>
> I'm even more curious as to what such an art could be (if it could be?).
>
> Cheers,
> -N.
There is a pretty fine little anecdote about Dekooning being asked by a
critic how he felt about the many painters working in his style. He is
supposed to have replied along the lines of this: They may be able to
imitate my successes, but not my failures.
A curious remark, to me, because I would think it the other way around.
But more important is the implication of chance-taking, criteria and
failure.
Now I'm not trolling here, but since you ask, N, I'm wondering: by what
criteria do we judge a Donald Judd?
Is everything Richard Serra does equally great, or does he have some
failures? And if so, how are these identified?
I'm not implying that Minimalism is not art, I just find it to be the best
example of several isms that I have a little difficulty with. I also want
to say that my first encounters with work by Carl Andre, Judd and others,
was pleasing, but I've grown a tiny bit bored with it since.
I haven't grown bored with Dekooning or Watteau....
Mark
Bob C
Iian Neill wrote:
> >
> > That common thread is the persistant awareness of the relationships
> > between the shapes and colors and the sensibility expressed in these
> > arrangements.
>
> A 'persistant awareness' is not enough to make art of a high calibre - especially
> if one's technique is not up to the challenge of greating such art. A persistant
> awareness is necessary, I grant you - it is the cornerstone of technique, which is
> in turn the cornerstone of all successful artistic expression. But with that
> awareness one must be able to draw competently. (Competent in this context means
> being able to represent in two-dimensions what one observes in the real world,
> reasonable accurately - and preferrably with 'flair'.)
>
I don't see what the magic is of that one particular skill - the ability
to render in 2D optically accurate depictions of what we see in the
world. After all, we don't see the world in 2D. Our optic nerves may
deliver 2D images to our brain, but by the time we're done processing
it, that image is long gone (at least for most of us) and the only way
to get it back is to reconstruct it from what knowledge we do have of
what we are seeing. This is one particular skill and does not
necessarily have anything to do with an artists ability to achieve
mastery in the manipulation of their materials.
I agree that competence in 2D representation is a very useful skill to
have and is particularly useful for a developing artist because it can
so easily be measured in an objective manner while at the same time
combining most of the skills which we consider technique. On the other
hand, each of us brings a different level of both natural ability and
desire to master that one particular skill and each of us has to decide
when we've taken it far enough for our own purposes.
I think someone like Matisse realized early on that rendering optically
accurate two-dimensional representations was something that he was
neither particularly good at nor something which he had a great desire
to accomplish, and therefore never made a great effort to develop that
skill. As I recall, he recognized this as being something unique to
himself and something which he did not recommend for his students. But I
don't think this had any effect on his ability to create the
relationships in form which he desired.
I would say something similarly for Cezanne. I've seen some of his early
figure drawings and as far as accurate two-dimensional renderings go, I
was not at all impressed. He did, however, show a great deal of
sensitivity in the handling of his materials to create beautiful form
and texture.
Certainly, there have been many times and cultures where accurate 2D
representations had nothing at all to do with the determination of an
artists skill.
Or am I just missing some narrowing of subject matter which may have
been stated earlier on in this thread and was lost by the time we got to
the messages included above?
- Bob C.
Iian Neill
> > To me it's numbing that some people don't realize an artist's most
> > important *skill* is self-criticism. This is a very difficult skill to
> > learn if one feels one already knows everything.
> >
> > Art school will be useless to the student who is there to demonstrate what
> > he/she already knows rather than learn.
A student attends an art school to learn something new - otherwise he has no business
in being there. If the school purports to teach him art, and if the student works hard
and is not entirely talentless, but still emerges without even the glimmer of artistic
ability, who does one blame? In one case, probably the student. But what if we have
hundreds of thousands of schools, and millions of students, and a fair portion of them
graduating with a barely primitive command of realism - a parody of it, even. Who do
we blame? There comes a point when we must blame the educators - or the people who
instituted them in their positions.
> > > As far as aesthetics go: to like figurative art, be it naturalism,
> > > realism, classicism or some other such manifestation is one thing-- to
> > > claim it to be the TRUE and NATURAL expression of art, I think that is an
> > > uninformed position, and one that short circuits critical any aesthetic
> > > facilities.
> >
> > Absolutely, and I think this is the kernal of these discussions.
Naturalism, Classicism, Realism, Romanticism - all of these movements spring out of
the love of nature and harmony. They expressed themselves in different ways, but
fundamentally they were all based on the mastery of the essentials of technique - then
they parted ways further up the track. There are certain movements in art, though,
that went places even the Impressionists would not have gone. I wonder if Cezanne were
alive today whether he would turn away in disgust at what has gone on in the name of
art. Cezanne at least had a technique at the beginning. Who of today's modern artists
could boast the same?
> > > There is NOTHING at all natural in those art forms: they are products of
> > > cultural conventions, and as such are dependent on cultural ideology for
> > > their mandate, meaning, and pertinance. If such forms of art were
> > > 'natural' the prospective art student wouldn't need to bother about
> > > finding an atelier or a teacher in order to produce the art...the student
> > > would need only to be alone (no art or museums either) and let 'nature'
> > > take its course (as instinct) and the paintings and techniques would
> > > miraculously arise in the student without outside agents (like growing a
> > > beard).
Who has ever claimed that to paint well you need no teaching and no practise? In fact,
most of the greats have said the opposite of that. The mind needs to be trained to see
the world in an artistic way - just as the musician needs to practise to perfect his
perception of sound and layers of melody, etcetera.
> > > even LOOK at the paintings. One art form has no inherent privilidge over
> > > the other...when one invokes 'nature' (itself a cultural construct,
> > > interpretation dependent upon cultural ideolology) as a defense of art,
> > > one is on shakey ground.
Since when has objective reality been a cultural construct? Since the Renaissance to
the end of the 19th century, reality has been the foundation upon which painting and
sculpture were based - just as words are the foundation of an author when he or she
writes. There is nothing creative or clever about writing gibberish.
> > > Regarding the traditions of classicism and realism in the 19th century:
> > > much of the ideological thrust behind that art was developed later in the
> > > work of the impressionists and after them, the abstract artists in the
> > > 20th century..as well as conceptual art.
You will need to be specific. If these ideological thrusts were taken up by the
Abstract Expressionists, then why is the work of many 19th century artists reviled and
still despised by modern artists and critics? Surely if there were a true similarity,
they would feel a kinship and not hatred. It seems to me that there is nothing but
the most tenuous link between the art of Ingres, Gerome, Delaroche, Carpeaux and any
of the major 20th century art movements.
> > > It is
> > > not at all that the 20th century represents a 'break' with
> > > tradition....how could that be? The 20 century is an extension of the
> > > pardigms, ideologies, facts, and interests of western civilization and
> > > culture, building upon its own past. Everything that takes place now, in
> > > 'postmodern' 1990's is an extenion of this culture and its heritage.
Many of these modern artists who you say were part of the 19th century culture were in
fact against its aesthetic expression. How is Matisse the descendant of Bouguereau?
How is Picasso the son of Ingres? The art that the moderns stood for was only
tenuously rooted in the traditions of the past - each artist is individual, though, of
course. As time passed, modern art become more and more remote from the philosophies
of the 19th century - until we can honestly say today that if there is even a
semblance of a link, it is merely though satire or parody of the preceeding
generations.
> > > I am currently busy (including prep for an art residency in 2 weeks so I
> > > can craft my own pole of the dialogue)...
There is part of the problem in art today - there is no 'dialogue' of only one person
is speaking. And it doesn't look like the public is speaking back, so I wonder who
artists are talking too ...
Regards,
Iian Neill.
mdeli
, Bob C < wrote:
>I don't see what the magic is of that one particular skill - the ability
>to render in 2D optically accurate depictions of what we see in the
>world.
>I think someone like Matisse realized early on that rendering optically
>accurate two-dimensional representations was something that he was
>neither particularly good at nor something which he had a great desire
>to accomplish, and therefore never made a great effort to develop that
>skill.
Then why did he continually try to render recognizable images?
>As I recall, he recognized this as being something unique to
>himself and something which he did not recommend for his students. But I
>don't think this had any effect on his ability to create the
>relationships in form which he desired.
Can one avoid creating relationships between forms?
>I would say something similarly for Cezanne. I've seen some of his early
>figure drawings and as far as accurate two-dimensional renderings go, I
>was not at all impressed.
Gee, I was always appalled.
>He did, however, show a great deal of
>sensitivity in the handling of his materials to create beautiful form
>and texture.
Like where? His technique is abominable. Take a close look at his
nudes.
mark webber
On Sun, 7 Jun 1998, Bob C wrote:
> Iian Neill wrote:
> > >
> > > That common thread is the persistant awareness of the relationships
> > > between the shapes and colors and the sensibility expressed in these
> > > arrangements.
> >
> > A 'persistant awareness' is not enough to make art of a high calibre - especially
> > if one's technique is not up to the challenge of greating such art. A persistant
> > awareness is necessary, I grant you - it is the cornerstone of technique, which is
> > in turn the cornerstone of all successful artistic expression. But with that
> > awareness one must be able to draw competently. (Competent in this context means
> > being able to represent in two-dimensions what one observes in the real world,
> > reasonable accurately - and preferrably with 'flair'.)
> >
>
> I don't see what the magic is of that one particular skill - the ability
> to render in 2D optically accurate depictions of what we see in the
> world. After all, we don't see the world in 2D.. Our optic nerves may
> deliver 2D images to our brain, but by the time we're done processing
> it, that image is long gone (at least for most of us) and the only way
> to get it back is to reconstruct it from what knowledge we do have of
> what we are seeing. This is one particular skill and does not
> necessarily have anything to do with an artists ability to achieve
> mastery in the manipulation of their materials.
>
> I agree that competence in 2D representation is a very useful skill to
> have and is particularly useful for a developing artist because it can
> so easily be measured in an objective manner while at the same time
> combining most of the skills which we consider technique. On the other
> hand, each of us brings a different level of both natural ability and
> desire to master that one particular skill and each of us has to decide
> when we've taken it far enough for our own purposes.
>
> I think someone like Matisse realized early on that rendering optically
> accurate two-dimensional representations was something that he was
> neither particularly good at nor something which he had a great desire
> to accomplish, and therefore never made a great effort to develop that
> skill. As I recall, he recognized this as being something unique to
> himself and something which he did not recommend for his students. But I
> don't think this had any effect on his ability to create the
> relationships in form which he desired.
>
> I would say something similarly for Cezanne. I've seen some of his early
> figure drawings and as far as accurate two-dimensional renderings go, I
> was not at all impressed. He did, however, show a great deal of
> sensitivity in the handling of his materials to create beautiful form
> and texture.
>
> Certainly, there have been many times and cultures where accurate 2D
> representations had nothing at all to do with the determination of an
> artists skill.
>
> Or am I just missing some narrowing of subject matter which may have
> been stated earlier on in this thread and was lost by the time we got to
> the messages included above?
>
> - Bob C.
>
>
Bob (and Iian,)
Your points are clear to me, but the problem as I see it is that Iian has
only quoted me in part. It isn't "persistant awareness" it is "persistant
awareness of the relationships between the shapes and colors" and "the
sensibility expressed in these arrangements". I tried to make this point
in my last post in this thread. If it hasn't shown up, let me know, and
I'll repost.
But to paraphrase, the key is to respond to the evolving picture; the
composition, not that which is depicted.
Iian, I'm hoping you haven't bailed out on me, and I look forward to your
reply.
Regards,
Mark
mark webber
Sorry, Iian, didn't mean to rush you.
regards,
Mark
On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, Iian Neill wrote:
> > Bob (and Iian,)
> >
> > Your points are clear to me, but the problem as I see it is that Iian has
> > only quoted me in part. It isn't "persistant awareness" it is "persistant
> > awareness of the relationships between the shapes and colors" and "the
> > sensibility expressed in these arrangements". I tried to make this point
> > in my last post in this thread. If it hasn't shown up, let me know, and
> > I'll repost.
>
> I will be posting a response to your letter in the next few days. I am sorry that I
> haven't gotten around to that yet, but will make sure I answer the questions raised
> previously.
>
> > But to paraphrase, the key is to respond to the evolving picture; the
> > composition, not that which is depicted.
> >
> > Iian, I'm hoping you haven't bailed out on me, and I look forward to your
> > reply.
>
> Sorry for the delay, Mark. I certainly haven't bailed out - I found your points quite
> interesting, as well as the discussion in general. Such points, however, require a
> thoughtful response, which is what I would like to give them - they deserve no less.
> Sometimes the weight of an entire arguement can rest of the fulcrum of one word; the word
> that turns the essay, as it were.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Iian Neill.
>
>
>
Bob C
mdeli wrote:
>
> , Bob C < wrote:
>
>
> >I think someone like Matisse realized early on that rendering optically
> >accurate two-dimensional representations was something that he was
> >neither particularly good at nor something which he had a great desire
> >to accomplish, and therefore never made a great effort to develop that
> >skill.
>
>
be recognizable, would they?
It's only in your mind that recognizable requires optically correct 2D
projections.
> >As I recall, he recognized this as being something unique to
> >himself and something which he did not recommend for his students. But I
> >don't think this had any effect on his ability to create the
> >relationships in form which he desired.
>
> Can one avoid creating relationships between forms?
No, but doing it exactly the way you want it to come out is a ... skill!
Something which must be learned.
>
> Like where? His technique is abominable. Take a close look at his
> nudes.
>
Abominable, eh? Here's a challenge for you: explain what is abominable
about any particular nude of his and do it without considering the
extent to which it is an accurate 2D projection or the extent to which
he is able to blend away all evidence of the hand of the artist. Do it
in a way which actually describes something about the work you are
talking about. If you can do this, it will be a first for you...
- Bob
J. J. Novotny
Iian Neill wrote:
> It seems to me that there is nothing but
> the most tenuous link between the art of Ingres, Gerome, Delaroche,
> Carpeaux and any
> of the major 20th century art movements.
There is a link between those artists and AE ... through Gorky, who
loved those artists, looked to them for inspiration (!), and shared his
knowledge of them with the rest of the New York School. Ingres, in
particular, was a major influence.
> Many of these modern artists who you say were part of the 19th century
> culture were in
> fact against its aesthetic expression. How is Matisse the descendant
> of Bouguereau?
Bouguereau was Matisse's teacher, at least for a while. That's why he's
considered a descendent. There's more of Bouguereau's influence in
Matisse's work than you might think. Matisse later found he liked
studying under the more easygoing Gustave Moreau, BTW.
Cheers;
J. j.
Iian Neill
> Bob (and Iian,)
>
> Your points are clear to me, but the problem as I see it is that Iian has
> awareness of the relationships between the shapes and colors" and "the
mdeli
On Mon, 08 Jun 1998 16:59:41 -0400, Bob C <bob...@erols.com> wrote:
>mdeli wrote:
>>
>> , Bob C < wrote:
>>
>>
>> >I think someone like Matisse realized early on that rendering optically
>> >accurate two-dimensional representations was something that he was
>> >neither particularly good at nor something which he had a great desire
>> >to accomplish, and therefore never made a great effort to develop that
>> >skill.
>>
>> Then why did he continually try to render recognizable images?
>>
>
>He had no problem rendering recognizable images, otherwise they wouldn't
>be recognizable, would they?
>
He had great problems rendering. As to recognizable images, children's
drawings contain recognizable images. Most are superior to Matisse.
>It's only in your mind that recognizable requires optically correct 2D
>projections.
>
>> >As I recall, he recognized this as being something unique to
>> >himself and something which he did not recommend for his students. But I
>> >don't think this had any effect on his ability to create the
>> >relationships in form which he desired.
>>
>> Can one avoid creating relationships between forms?
>
>No, but doing it exactly the way you want it to come out is a ... skill!
>Something which must be learned.
The point is that considering the relationships between forms is
common in all art and not unique to modern art.
>> Like where? His technique is abominable. Take a close look at his
>> nudes.
>>
>
>Abominable, eh? Here's a challenge for you: explain what is abominable
>about any particular nude of his and do it without considering the
>extent to which it is an accurate 2D projection or the extent to which
>he is able to blend away all evidence of the hand of the artist. Do it
>in a way which actually describes something about the work you are
>talking about. If you can do this, it will be a first for you...
I already did this here for Picasso's Gertrude Stein.
Take a look at my web page and my comments on Cezanne's "Bathers" and
you will get a good idea about my opinions on the matter. Last month I
did an anylisis of Matisse,s Blue Nude. The Cezanne is just as
abominible.
mark webber
On Mon, 8 Jun 1998, J. J. Novotny wrote:
> Iian Neill wrote:
>
> > It seems to me that there is nothing but
> > the most tenuous link between the art of Ingres, Gerome, Delaroche,
> > Carpeaux and any
> > of the major 20th century art movements.
>
> There is a link between those artists and AE ... through Gorky, who
> loved those artists, looked to them for inspiration (!), and shared his
> knowledge of them with the rest of the New York School. Ingres, in
> particular, was a major influence.
>
This is very true, and it is an example of the kind of observation
possible when one gets past the "rendering is all that matters" issue.
Gorky was also very much influenced by Veronese. If one takes the time to
make some side by side comparisons, you'll swear he was basing much of his
most abstract work on the compositions of this great Venetian painter.
In addition, Dekooning's work from the 40's was very much influeced by
Corot's portraits of women, and his abstractionions like "Attic" and
"Excavation" are much indebted to Poussin (particularly his "Rape of the
Sabine Women".)
And to be truthful, I never really *saw* Tintoretto until I began looking
at Pollack.
(Furthermore, Pollack studied under Thomas Hart Benton, who seems to have
had at least a passing awareness of El Greco (ever compare these two?) and
El Greco studied under our boy Tintoretto....)
Nice post, J. J.
Mark
Marilyn
N wrote:
> Indeed, by closely defining each word in the above sentence, one will
> arrive at their particular ideology:
>
> -'competent'
> -'represent'
> -'context'
> -'two dimensions'
> -'observe'
> -'real world'
> -'acccurately'
> -'flair'
Ah the Beauty of Language -
This reminds me of the sectarianISM in Ireland. One can tell by
the words one uses which side one is on.
Example:
The Unionists will say "famine" and the nationalists will say
"the great hunger" when referring to the starvation in Ireland of the mid
1800's. (I am non-sectarian so I choose "starvation.")
There are many other examples.
The problem is not the ideologies or the theories in themselves but
the taking of sides. The denial of the right to existence of the other
side.
> Early modernists took issue with the ideologies and theories relating t
>
> What excactly is the 'real world', by the way?
>
> Cheers,
> -N.
This is the most profound question asked yet.
My answer is a quote "We can create a universe in our minds."
And my sign off is my favourite quote:
"The world is so full of a number of things
We should all be as happy as kings."
Marilyn
>
>
Bob C
mdeli wrote:
>
> On Mon, 08 Jun 1998 16:59:41 -0400, Bob C <bob...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >mdeli wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Can one avoid creating relationships between forms?
> >
> >No, but doing it exactly the way you want it to come out is a ... skill!
> >Something which must be learned.
>
> The point is that considering the relationships between forms is
> common in all art and not unique to modern art.
>
The point is in your head. Noone ever said that relationships between
forms is unique to Modern art. Yet another silly strawman of your own
invention. All I said was that rendering the relationships in a
"skillful" manner is a skill. And for some strange reason, you aren't
even willing to agree to that!
Why do I continually rebut Mani? Because it's so easy!
> >
> >Abominable, eh? Here's a challenge for you: explain what is abominable
> >about any particular nude of his and do it without considering the
> >extent to which it is an accurate 2D projection or the extent to which
> >he is able to blend away all evidence of the hand of the artist. Do it
> >in a way which actually describes something about the work you are
> >talking about. If you can do this, it will be a first for you...
>
> I already did this here for Picasso's Gertrude Stein.
> Take a look at my web page and my comments on Cezanne's "Bathers" and
> you will get a good idea about my opinions on the matter. Last month I
> did an anylisis of Matisse,s Blue Nude. The Cezanne is just as
> abominible.
> --
You never did anything the least bit like that and you seem to be
admitting in your own replay! Your criticisms give us a good idea about
"your opinions on the matter" while completely avoiding any act of
description, interpretation, or evaluation against identified criteria.
In your 3 paragraph description of Cezanne, you have exactly 1 sentence
that actually comes close to do any of those things. You state that the
painting has "schmiery ultramarine sky, the tree stumps and the colored
wigs worn by the nudes".
So, what does schmiery mean? That the brushstrokes are not rendered so
as to be invisible from a normal viewing distance? Or does it mean that
you don't like it. As rendered on my computer, the sky in the Bouguereau
on your web page looks ultramine. If I decide I don't like the
Bouguereau (just a hypothetical) it would then be correct for me to say
that it has a schmiery ultramine sky. As far as the rest, just looking
at the painting makes it obvious that your observations are based
entirely on the lack of traditional naturalism in the painting. So what?
Cezanne wasn't trying to achieve that and those of us who like his
paintings don't require it. There is just so much else that can be
enjoyed in the painting, what do I care if the trees and hair look
photographically correct?
- Bob
Marilyn
Iian Neill wrote:
>
> > > What excactly is the 'real world', by the way?
>
> which 99% of people around the world can agree on. This is the environment in
> which we find ourselves every day - the universe of shapes, colours, sounds,
> textures and so forth.
Imagine! Being so confident as to tell us what the "real world" is.
That's youth for you, too bad it is wasted on the young.
Marilyn
Iian Neill
> > What excactly is the 'real world', by the way?
The 'real world' is, first and foremost, the objectively observable reality
which 99% of people around the world can agree on. This is the environment in
which we find ourselves every day - the universe of shapes, colours, sounds,
textures and so forth. You could fall prey to Descartes' Problem and say that
all of this is merely an illusion concocted by some malign force - but what
use is there in this? For all practical purposes, we may as well consider the
universe as reported to us by sense perceptions as being 'real'.
There are other, more subtely realities also. When historians label Courbet a
'Realist' what do they mean? Certainly, his paintings are based on
representationalism, but they are 'less' so than the work of the much-refered
to William Bouguereau. Yet Bouguereau is not usually considerered to be a
'Realist'. Perhaps a better term for Courbet is 'Social Realist', as he chose
to most often paint subjects closer to contemporary life instead of working
with mythological and/or religious subjects. Courbet therefore becomes,
perhaps, a kind of 'reporter', an artist who sees the society of his time and
reports it visually through paint. The Naturalist movement which followed was
also concerned with Courbetesque subjects. Labels, therefore, can often be
misleading, and one has to keep in mind that there are useful generalizations
of often large groups of individual artists who sometimes did not even
consider themselves at all similar. (Chopin, for example, detested being
called a Romantic. Yet is he not today called just that?)
The reason why the 'real world' has served as such a fount of inspiration to
so many thousands of artists through history is that we all immediately
respond to it. Yes, we also respond to abstract shapes as well, which allows
us to appreciate the beauty of a galaxy, or the terror of a violent ocean.
The 'abstract' in this sense becomes hard to define, and one might say that
the Old Masters were also supreme masters of the abstract elements which
permeates all great art. Composition, shades of colour, light and dark - art
is rarely a direct copy of life, and so we find the 'real world' filtered
through the seive of the human brain which cannot but help abstract from what
threatens to be the nonsensical chaos of overwhelming sense perceptions.
Words are a classic example of abstraction - the word 'green' does not refer
to any particular object; it denotes a quality.
While on the topic of abstraction and art, could one not say that
instrumental music is the highest and most successful form of abstraction? As
the 20th century progressed, one notices a gradual stripping of
representational elements (this is speaking broadly, of course) - this has
been justified as removing that which is excessive to capture the 'essence'
of the art beneath. Well, in instrumental music we find the highest
consummation of abstraction. Sound is utterly invisible - which is what
minimalist art seems to be striving for. Great music has an instant hold on
our emotions and can drive grown men and women to tears or jubilation - just
as those who support abstract painting claim it achieves (or tries to). So
here, in music, we have what is perhaps the goal of abstract art - a goal
realized many centuries before the world even saw Modernism and its
successors, and it was realized far more successfully, beautifully and
potently than (I imagine) any reductionist-based non-representationalist
movement could ever hope to achieve.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
mdeli
On Wed, 10 Jun 1998 06:59:34 -0400, Bob C <bob...@erols.com> wrote:
>mdeli wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 08 Jun 1998 16:59:41 -0400, Bob C <bob...@erols.com> wrote:
>>
>> >mdeli wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Can one avoid creating relationships between forms?
>> >
>> >No, but doing it exactly the way you want it to come out is a ... skill!
>> >Something which must be learned.
>>
>> The point is that considering the relationships between forms is
>> common in all art and not unique to modern art.
>>
>
>The point is in your head. Noone ever said that relationships between
>forms is unique to Modern art. Yet another silly strawman of your own
>invention. All I said was that rendering the relationships in a
>"skillful" manner is a skill.
I see. A skill is a skill. Perhaps you should embroider this amazing
fact in silk and hang it on your wall.
> Your criticisms give us a good idea about
>"your opinions on the matter" while completely avoiding any act of
>description,
My criticisms like yours are mostly opinions. When you have talked
about composition what you stated was also little more than opinions.
> interpretation, or evaluation against identified criteria.
>In your 3 paragraph description of Cezanne, you have exactly 1 sentence
>that actually comes close to do any of those things. You state that the
>painting has "schmiery ultramarine sky, the tree stumps and the colored
>wigs worn by the nudes".
I also stated what I think some of the images look like.
>So, what does schmiery mean?
It means that the paint remains paint and that there is no illusion of
form, pattern or sense of skill. (because Cezanne never learned how to
draw).
> That the brushstrokes are not rendered so
>as to be invisible from a normal viewing distance? Or does it mean that
>you don't like it.
Yes it certainly means that I don't like it.
To infer that all I prefer invisible brush strokes is
is a figment of your artzy fartzy prejudice.
> As rendered on my computer, the sky in the Bouguereau
>on your web page looks ultramine. If I decide I don't like the
>Bouguereau (just a hypothetical) it would then be correct for me to say
>that it has a schmiery ultramine sky.
Why not?
> As far as the rest, just looking
>at the painting makes it obvious that your observations are based
>entirely on the lack of traditional naturalism in the painting. So what?
Cezanne's subject is naturalistic and classical. It is considered an
artistic masterpiece. However, I have seen better work by art school
inmates. The painting is a parody on classical painting by an
incompetent which is now above criticism because Cezanne is a brand
name. If that painting were signed R. Mutt it would be bypassed in an
auction.
>Cezanne wasn't trying to achieve that and those of us who like his
>paintings don't require it.
I don't give a damn what Cezanne was trying to achieve. I doubt that
you and even Cezanne knew what he was TRYING to achieve. What counts
is what he has achieved. As the painting stands he achieved an
incompetent mess that no one would bother with if it wasn't in a
museum.
>There is just so much else that can be
>enjoyed in the painting, what do I care if the trees and hair look
>photographically correct?
I care because I find his detail imbecilic stupid and to imply that I
expect a photograph only revals stupidity on your part.
Iian Neill
> > > > What excactly is the 'real world', by the way?
> >
> > The 'real world' is, first and foremost, the objectively observable reality
> > which 99% of people around the world can agree on. This is the environment in
> > which we find ourselves every day - the universe of shapes, colours, sounds,
> > textures and so forth.
>
> That's youth for you, too bad it is wasted on the young.
A member of this group posed the question 'What exactly is the "real world"' - I
took it upon myself to try and formulate a sensible response. If you have another
suggestions, by all means, please share it with us. But are ageist comments really
appropriate?
Regards,
Iian Neill.
Marilyn
That was a quote, about "youth being wasted on the young" Oscar Wilde
or someone said it. It is simply an older person, envying the vigour
and strength of a younger person. All the older person is left with
is wisdom (we hope). Now, having youthful vigour AND wisdom that would be
great!
So it was not really an agist remark.
As for the "real world" that is subjective, and each individual looks out
at "objective reality" with his/her own perception. Therefore, no one
can really describe "the real world" to anyone else. Although we try,
maybe we even try to do so through literature, music, painting...
bye now
Marilyn
Philip Ayers
In article <358157...@islands.net>, Marilyn <anti...@islands.net> wrote:
: > That was a quote, about "youth being wasted on the young" Oscar Wilde
: > or someone said it. It is simply an older person, envying the vigour
: > and strength of a younger person. All the older person is left with
: > is wisdom (we hope). Now, having youthful vigour AND wisdom that would be
: > great!
: > So it was not really an agist remark.
: >
: > As for the "real world" that is subjective, and each individual looks out
: > at "objective reality" with his/her own perception. Therefore, no one
: > can really describe "the real world" to anyone else. Although we try,
: > maybe we even try to do so through literature, music, painting...
: >
: > bye now
: >
: > Marilyn
I take it by this statement that you don't believe in "universals"?
...those things which we can all "understand " to mean the same thing.
If so, then are we all aliens in a strange land?
Philip (never Phil) Ayers
http://www.mindspring.com/~p.ayers/
p.a...@mindspring.com.
Bob C
Philip Ayers wrote:
>
> In article <358157...@islands.net>, Marilyn <anti...@islands.net> wrote:
>
> : >
> : > at "objective reality" with his/her own perception. Therefore, no one
> : > can really describe "the real world" to anyone else. Although we try,
> : > maybe we even try to do so through literature, music, painting...
> : >
> : > bye now
> : >
> : > Marilyn
> I take it by this statement that you don't believe in "universals"?
> ...those things which we can all "understand " to mean the same thing.
> If so, then are we all aliens in a strange land?
>
That lack of universals does not follow from Marilyn's statement. As I
read it, all she is saying is that it is impossible for any person to
observe the real world in a completely objective way. Universals may
exist, but that doesn't mean we will always observe them in the same
way.
In the last 2 issues of Natural History, Stephen Jay Gould discusses
this very same issue and how it affected the observations of 2 otherwise
well respected scientists. In one of the cases, Galileo is observing
Saturn and is totally perplexed by what he sees. His telescope is strong
enough to show the rings, but not so strong that a person not expecting
to see rings would recognize them as such. Instead, he saw them as being
2 small companion planets on either side of Saturn and then argued
strongly that this was the case. His observations were proof enough;
he'd seen the 2 companion planets with his own eyes!
Still, I have to pretty much agree with Iian's statement about the "real
world" being basically the sum of the input to all of our senses.
Although our own state of mind may cause us to interpret this input in
different ways, it is hypothetically possible to objectively measure the
input itself. There is, however, no best way of depicting the "real
world" in the visual arts; that is completely subjective.
- Bob
Philip Ayers
In article <35819D...@erols.com>, bob...@erols.com wrote:
: > Philip Ayers wrote:
: > >
: > > In article <358157...@islands.net>, Marilyn
<anti...@islands.net> wrote:
: > >
: > > : >
: > > : > As for the "real world" that is subjective, and each individual
looks out
: > > : > at "objective reality" with his/her own perception. Therefore, no one
: > > : > can really describe "the real world" to anyone else. Although we try,
: > > : > maybe we even try to do so through literature, music, painting...
: > > : >
: > > : > bye now
: > > : >
: > > : > Marilyn
: > > I take it by this statement that you don't believe in "universals"?
: > > ...those things which we can all "understand " to mean the same thing.
: > > If so, then are we all aliens in a strange land?
: > Still, I have to pretty much agree with Iian's statement about the "real
: > world" being basically the sum of the input to all of our senses.
: > Although our own state of mind may cause us to interpret this input in
: > different ways, it is hypothetically possible to objectively measure the
: > input itself. There is, however, no best way of depicting the "real
: > world" in the visual arts; that is completely subjective.
: >
: > - Bob
I wasn't refering to the narrow measurements of the scientific method, but
since you bring it up, there is a biologists, Rupert Sheldrake who was on
a PBS TVseries a couple of years ago/ who was a highly respected
scientist/ who actually takes issue with this presumption that scientific
methods can be objective. Professor Gould's arrogance is unbearable to
the point that any mention of him makes me sick. He is -SO- sure of his
opinions that he may too lacks objectivity, IMHO. My point is that at
what point do we know we are talking about the same things. Babies get
born. We all can agree on this. Rain is a liquid. Is the sky blue. Yes,
but what is the color blue? Is blue to me blue to you. We can never know
if this is right or wrong. Most of the inviroment and we to ourselves are
phenomenal......we only carry on as if we feel we understand. We behave
according to the rules of..... It's storming and I have to get off....
later.
Andrew Werby
In article <357FF677...@student.uq.edu.au>, Iian Neill
<s36...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> > > What excactly is the 'real world', by the way?
>
> The 'real world' is, first and foremost, the objectively observable reality
> which 99% of people around the world can agree on.
[There is very little upon which 99% of everybody will agree. At least 20%
will always be "undecided". But what do you need all this agreement for?
Is there going to be a vote? If so, what happens if reality loses?]
This is the environment in
> which we find ourselves every day - the universe of shapes, colours, sounds,
> textures and so forth. You could fall prey to Descartes' Problem and say that
> all of this is merely an illusion concocted by some malign force - but what
> use is there in this? For all practical purposes, we may as well consider the
> universe as reported to us by sense perceptions as being 'real'.
[The trouble is, there is no such thing as pure sense perception- it is
all filtered through a brain. Different people, looking at the same thing,
will have different experiences. If six different people look at a rabbit,
for instance, the veterinarian will have a different perception than the
little girl, seeing its signs of health where she sees its cuddliness. The
hunter will notice the way it runs, but the furrier will concentrate on
the lay of its hair. And the painter will see a collection of tones while
the sculptor will see a series of forms. All these perceptions are "real",
but there is little in common between them.]
>
>{snip}
> The reason why the 'real world' has served as such a fount of inspiration to
> so many thousands of artists through history is that we all immediately
> respond to it.
[I'm not sure about this one either. We filter out most of what we see; if
we allowed ourselves to become lost in rapture every time we saw something
real, we wouldn't get a whole lot else done, would we? It takes a lot of
work on the part of an artist to get people to respond to something real;
the artist must bring something new to the material in order to circumvent
the usual identify-and-ignore pattern that is built in to the human
brain.]
Yes, we also respond to abstract shapes as well, which allows
> us to appreciate the beauty of a galaxy, or the terror of a violent ocean.
[Is this "terror" a result of the abstract forms involved, or the
associations one derives?]
> The 'abstract' in this sense becomes hard to define, and one might say that
> the Old Masters were also supreme masters of the abstract elements which
> permeates all great art. Composition, shades of colour, light and dark - art
> is rarely a direct copy of life, and so we find the 'real world' filtered
> through the seive of the human brain which cannot but help abstract from what
> threatens to be the nonsensical chaos of overwhelming sense perceptions.
> Words are a classic example of abstraction - the word 'green' does not refer
> to any particular object; it denotes a quality.
[I think we might be talking about the same thing here, but from different
sides of the fence. When I think of a form in the abstract, it is by no
means divorced from reality- it is a component of that reality that may be
expressed in countless ways. A striation, for example, can occur on many
scales, in various degrees of consistency and parallelism, in animals,
vegetables, minerals, and in artificial creations as well. There are many
more variations of form than words to describe them, but one can
systematize the apparently chaotic in different ways- radical
simplification being only one strategy. The great artists of the past
revelled in the complexity of their world, but worked out various styles
and approaches to make the order they found in it comprehensible to their
viewers.]
> While on the topic of abstraction and art, could one not say that
> instrumental music is the highest and most successful form of abstraction? As
> the 20th century progressed, one notices a gradual stripping of
> representational elements (this is speaking broadly, of course) - this has
> been justified as removing that which is excessive to capture the 'essence'
> of the art beneath. Well, in instrumental music we find the highest
> consummation of abstraction. Sound is utterly invisible - which is what
> minimalist art seems to be striving for. Great music has an instant hold on
> our emotions and can drive grown men and women to tears or jubilation - just
> as those who support abstract painting claim it achieves (or tries to). So
> here, in music, we have what is perhaps the goal of abstract art - a goal
> realized many centuries before the world even saw Modernism and its
> successors, and it was realized far more successfully, beautifully and
> potently than (I imagine) any reductionist-based non-representationalist
> movement could ever hope to achieve.
[I don't know any theoretical reason why abstract art can't achieve the
same heights as music has. Without subscribing to a reductionist
aesthetic, one can visualize a much more highly developed form of
abstraction, in which form is orchestrated as effectively as notes of
music. Remember that music has a head start at this- imagine if it had
been restricted to the imitation of "real" sounds for the last few
thousand years, until some brave soul in the early years of this century
decided it didn't really have to be "about" anything.
And I'm not sure that the evocation of primitive emotions ("tears or
jubilation") is the be-all and end-all of art either- aren't there other
human faculties capable of stimulation as well? Emotions aren't that
difficult to manipulate- show a movie featuring some sympathetic child's
desolation over a lost puppy and the audience will start to sniffle too,
but is this the highest goal of art?]
Andrew Werby
UNITED ARTWORKS- Sculpture, Jewelry, and other art stuff
http://unitedartworks.com
New- Artworks Computer Tools for 3d Design and Realization
N
> > > What excactly is the 'real world', by the way?
>
> The 'real world' is, first and foremost, the objectively observable reality
> which 99% of people around the world can agree on.
What could this be?
>This is the environment in
> which we find ourselves every day - the universe of shapes, colours, sounds,
> textures and so forth.
Is it?
Sounds like specific cultural information to me. ..not "objectively
observable reality which 99% of people around the world can agree on".
The Eskimos apparantly have from what our cultural vantage point is
excessively numerous classifications for what we refer to as 'snow'. The
information that they perceive and experience is very different than that
which we perceive and experience.
Tribes that live in the jungle have very different and numerous
classifications of plant life than we do...they percieve and experience a
reality that is unavailible to us..this is cultural difference.
I cannot imagine what your "objectively observable reality which 99% of
people around the world can agree on" can possibly be...it sounds
something like 19th Eurocentric cultural imperialism.
Color has been theorized to be a cultural phenomenon, i.e., there is no
universal color perception, that color peception is dependent upon culture
and language structures.
The writer Borges wrote of 'a certain Chinese encyclopaedia' in which it
is written that 'animals are divided into (a) belonging to the Emporer,
(b) embalmed, (c) tame, (d) sucking pigs, (e) sirens, (f) fabulous, (g)
stray dogs, (h) included in the present classification, (i) frenzied, (j)
innumerable, (k) drawn with a very fine camelhair brush, (l) et cetera,
(m) having just broken the water pitcher, (n) that from a far way off look
like flies'.
What you are seeing is a product of your cultural indoctrination, not
'objective reality'.
You could fall prey to Descartes' Problem and say that
> all of this is merely an illusion concocted by some malign force - but what
> use is there in this? For all practical purposes, we may as well consider the
> universe as reported to us by sense perceptions as being 'real'.
?
> There are other, more subtely realities also. When historians label Courbet a
> 'Realist' what do they mean? Certainly, his paintings are based on
> representationalism, but they are 'less' so than the work of the much-refered
> to William Bouguereau. Yet Bouguereau is not usually considerered to be a
> 'Realist'. Perhaps a better term for Courbet is 'Social Realist', as he chose
> to most often paint subjects closer to contemporary life instead of working
> with mythological and/or religious subjects. Courbet therefore becomes,
> perhaps, a kind of 'reporter', an artist who sees the society of his time and
> reports it visually through paint. The Naturalist movement which followed was
> also concerned with Courbetesque subjects. Labels, therefore, can often be
> misleading, and one has to keep in mind that there are useful generalizations
> of often large groups of individual artists who sometimes did not even
> consider themselves at all similar. (Chopin, for example, detested being
> called a Romantic. Yet is he not today called just that?)
What does any of this have to do with your notion of 'the real world'?
Your 'real world' is also a Re-presentation. What leads you to suggest
that either Courbet's or Bouguereau's re-presentations are any more 'real'
than any other form of re-presentation?
> The reason why the 'real world' has served as such a fount of inspiration to
> so many thousands of artists through history is that we all immediately
> respond to it.
More likely we respond to our re-presentations of the world.
Perhaps the immediacy and spontanaeity we imagine, is intelligable and
possible at all because the codes always already precede us...the opposite
of immediacy and spontenaety.
Yes, we also respond to abstract shapes as well, which allows
> us to appreciate the beauty of a galaxy, or the terror of a violent ocean.
> The 'abstract' in this sense becomes hard to define, and one might say that
> the Old Masters were also supreme masters of the abstract elements which
> permeates all great art.
Yes, hard to define because you are vague, and have not yet appraoched the
subject of abstract painting or abstract pictorialism.
We are here limiting our topic to abstract painting: you wish to address
abstract painting but instead prattle on about astronomy...or
galaxies...or the ocean....or for that matter, music. Better familairity
with the subject would have you writing about painting rather than
substituting vague musings upon the ocean.
Is this what passes as critical thinking where you hail from?
(Can you accomadate cabbages and kings in your diatribe as well?)
Anything can be mutilated and then re-presented as an abstraction...taking
a small section of a representational or figurative painting and excluding
the rest, for example. Rembrant was a figurative and representational
artist. He was in no way an abstract artist. If you are limiting your
pantheon of abstract artists to representatoinal artists, you are more
than a little far out on a thin limb.
<<snips>>
> While on the topic of abstraction and art, could one not say that
> instrumental music is the highest and most successful form of abstraction? As
> the 20th century progressed, one notices a gradual stripping of
> representational elements (this is speaking broadly, of course) - this has
> been justified as removing that which is excessive to capture the 'essence'
> of the art beneath. Well, in instrumental music we find the highest
> consummation of abstraction.
Sound is utterly invisible - which is what
> minimalist art seems to be striving for.
Not in the world I live in.
Great music has an instant hold on
> our emotions and can drive grown men and women to tears or jubilation - just
> as those who support abstract painting claim it achieves (or tries to).
So
> here, in music, we have what is perhaps the goal of abstract art -
Get real.
You are putting forth as criticism the ridiculous criterion that because
in your view abstract painting wishes to function like music (?) and that
people have been moved by music in the past, it therefore outperforms
current abstract painting? You are mixing a cripplingly limited and naive
understanding of abstract painting with a sentimental apprecciation of
music to support/dismiss (your eggregiously limited and naive concept) of
abstract painting.
I do not see as you have even broached the topic of abstract painting in
your posts...rather you substitute a cartoon parody for your lack of
experience with abstract painting. Such a vague and insubstantial
substitution will neither allow you entry into critical discource upon
abstract painting nor help you in being taken seriously by anyone even
remotely familair with abstract art and painting. Its buffoonery.
a goal
> realized many centuries before the world even saw Modernism and its
> successors, and it was realized far more successfully, beautifully and
> potently than (I imagine) any reductionist-based non-representationalist
> movement could ever hope to achieve.
Sentimetal rubbish.
Non of this is making any sense.
It is a vague simpering appologia for music in general and
representational painting in particular (respectfully).
Again: Is this what passes as critical thinking where you hail from?
Cheers,
-N.
P.S.
On the other hand, a good place for you to start might be Berenson, THE
CENTRAL ITALIAN PAINTERS OF THE RENAISSANCE.
To wit:
"space composition is the art which humanizes the void, making of it an
enclosed Eden, a domed mansion wherein our higher selves at last find an
abode."
"Space-composition...woos us away from our tight, painfully limited
selves, dissolves us into the space presented, until at last we seem to
have become its permeating, indwelling spirit....And now behold whither we
have come. The religious emotion...is produced by a feeling of
identification with the universe; this feeling, in its turn, can be
created by space-composition; it follows then that this art can directly
communicate religious emotion...And indeed I scarecly see by what other
means the religious emotion can be directly communicated by painting -
mark you, I do not say represented".
That there are thousands of crucifixion paintings of obstensible religious
content, but that they do not all evoke the same responses from us, can be
attributed to how well the abstract element of space composition is
realized. The awe and 'union with the universe' experienced in front of
great painting is more a function of space-composition than
imagery...nothing new, as the great painters of the past were great
space-composers. Certain manifestations of abstract painting have built
upon these and other traditions, (which you would be in a better position
to appreciate were you to learn more about painting, its history,
traditions, and current practice). Abstraction differs from representional
painting in that it can be small without being minature. Conversly,
representation when it gets very large, losses it's represtational
quality and becomes abstract. Color/light is freed to be manipulated for
best pictorial effect without concerns that are based on non-pictorial
needs. The list goes on and on. Space composition can soar: conservative,
static, and limiting space effects such as seen in classicism can be
bypassed: Bouguereau was not a great painter despite having achieved a
certain technical facility ...great painting demands more than facile
superficial effects. Bouguereau's works are pictorially weak (rendering
skills are no guarantee or measure of great painting: of coarse, there is
abstract painting that does not deliver the goods).
A better understanding of abstract painting will enhance your viewing of
all painting. Back to that example: the crucifix itself (as image or
symbol), no matter how well rendered, has little effect on the pictorial
power of the painting and its effect on us. The abstract pictorial
qualities of the painting are the meat of what directly moves us in
painting.
Bob C
N wrote:
>
> In article <357FF677...@student.uq.edu.au>, Iian Neill
> <s36...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > > > What excactly is the 'real world', by the way?
> >
> > The 'real world' is, first and foremost, the objectively observable reality
> > which 99% of people around the world can agree on.
>
> What could this be?
>
> >This is the environment in
> > which we find ourselves every day - the universe of shapes, colours, sounds,
> > textures and so forth.
>
> Is it?
> Sounds like specific cultural information to me. ..not "objectively
> observable reality which 99% of people around the world can agree on".
> The Eskimos apparantly have from what our cultural vantage point is
> excessively numerous classifications for what we refer to as 'snow'. The
> information that they perceive and experience is very different than that
> which we perceive and experience.
I've seen in multiple sources that the "many words for snow" thing is
just a myth. Most of the peoples who fall under the heading "eskimo"
typically have 3 or 4 words for different types of snow. There are,
however, many different peoples with different languages who fall under
the heading "eskimo", and this is where all the different words for snow
come from.
But as regards the subject of the real world, the snow is the same
regardless of what it is called. The sensory input provided by the snow
is the same regardless of how we perceive it. There is a real world and
I think there are relatively objective things we can observe. This is
basically the goal of scientific measurements; to create purely
objective methods of describing the real world. You can argue about how
objective it is, since even what we choose to measure is itself
subjective. Nevertheless, I think that much of scientific measurement is
objective, and in the cases where it isn't, it at least is able to apply
the biases in a consistent manner, even when different people are making
the measurements.
How does this relate to painting? Well, suppose we decided that being
"realistic" means being able to fool these scientific measuring devices,
at least as far as the visual aspect of the real world is concerned, and
being able to do it on a two-dimensional surface. If we assume that our
objective measuring device is a single point of observation with a fixed
focus lens (not an accurate description of the human eye but reasonably
close), then there is only one projection of three dimensional space
onto the two dimensional surface which can achieve this. We usually
require something close to this one projection in order for a painting
to fall into the category "realism".
It does not follow, however, that this is necessarily the
best/only/correct way of depicting the "real world". First of all, there
are many reasons why we can't duplicate the real world visual
information, never mind the fact the nobody perceives the real world as
a fixed viewpoint at a fixed moment in time. Also, the same sensory
input could possibly depict many different real worlds (see Gombrich's
"Art and Illusion" for an explaination of why a two dimensional
rendering could be depicting any infinite number of three dimensional
"real worlds") and the real world consists of many things which are not
providing sensory input at the moment in time being observed.
Finally, this approach assumes that the real world consists only of that
which is observed and ignores the observer entirely. Given this last
reason, depicting the real world becomes oxymoronic. In order to be
truly real, the same observer would have had to be at the correct
observation point of the location being depicted, at the correct moment
in time. Clearly this isn't something we expect from the people who see
our paintings. In order to truly depict the real world, we would have to
be able to depict the observer, that which is observed, and those parts
of the real world which cannot be observed.
Once we realize that we cannot depict the real world but only certain
selected aspects of any of those pieces, we realize that there can be no
single correct way of depicting the real world. Nor is there any reason
why that which we call "realistic" should provide any better real world
depiction than the "abstract" or even "non-representational" (assuming
non-representational refers only to the visual aspects of the real
world, which is its normal usage).
- Bob C.
N
In article <35892E...@erols.com>, bob...@erols.com wrote:
<<snip>>
> I've seen in multiple sources that the "many words for snow" thing is
> just a myth.
I would be interested in those sources...do you have them handy?
Most of the peoples who fall under the heading "eskimo"
> typically have 3 or 4 words for different types of snow. There are,
> however, many different peoples with different languages who fall under
> the heading "eskimo", and this is where all the different words for snow
> come from.
The anthropological and linguistic material I have read supports the
existence of wildly different taxonomies for different cultures and at
different periods of history.
> But as regards the subject of the real world, the snow is the same
> regardless of what it is called.
Again, I disagree. You are assuming a paradigm of singularity here, one
that turns the number ONE into a fetish.
Classification and language structures also determine what and how we
perceive. Duchamp is a good example of this in art.
>The sensory input provided by the snow
> is the same regardless of how we perceive it.
Yet perception is a filter to sensory imput...
There is a real world and
> I think there are relatively objective things we can observe.
This is more or less so dependent upon who the editorial "we" is. If it is
a classroom of similiarly indoctrinated and aculturated individuals, there
will be more similarities in ideology, and visa versa. This is however,
localized and cultural, not universal.
This is
> basically the goal of scientific measurements; to create purely
> objective methods of describing the real world.
I am of the opinion that the 'real' is a very problematic term (a well as
the 'true') among not only scientists, but philosophers, and artists.
'Pure' objectivity?
You can argue about how
> objective it is, since even what we choose to measure is itself
> subjective. Nevertheless, I think that much of scientific measurement is
> objective,
If one believes it to be....I don't.
> and in the cases where it isn't, it at least is able to apply
> the biases in a consistent manner, even when different people are making
> the measurements.
Again, a scientific paradigm of reality is not a universally experienced
reality...it is culturally specific to an ideology that privilidges the
discource of science above others...there is no universal reason for doing
so or to suggest that BELIEF in science or scientific method is to be in
possesion of the 'realist' of the real, or the objective universe. That is
simply a belief, one cosmology among many (which btw beleive that THEY
are the true and the real).
Again:
"I cannot imagine what your "objectively observable reality which 99% of
people around the world can agree on" can possibly be...it sounds
something like 19th Eurocentric cultural imperialism."
And still does.
> How does this relate to painting? Well, suppose we decided that being
> "realistic" means being able to fool these scientific measuring devices,
> at least as far as the visual aspect of the real world is concerned, and
> being able to do it on a two-dimensional surface. If we assume that our
> objective measuring device is a single point of observation with a fixed
> focus lens (not an accurate description of the human eye but reasonably
> close), then there is only one projection of three dimensional space
> onto the two dimensional surface which can achieve this. We usually
> require something close to this one projection in order for a painting
> to fall into the category "realism".
When does an art viewer ever mistake a painting for 'the real' rather than
as a re-presentation. Even the simpler conduct of our viewing paintings is
conditioned culturally with respect to looking at re-presentations (with
both eyes, from the front rather than behind).
There is that small glass work by Duchamp in MOMA entitled something like,
To Be Looked At From The Other Side Close To For An Hour.
> It does not follow, however, that this is necessarily the
> best/only/correct way of depicting the "real world".
<<snip>>
These are conventions in art. They have little to do with 'real' world or
'objectivity'. Single point perspective, monoscopic cameras, etc. are
simply examples of conventions of re-presentation. There are many such
conventions for both our culture (past and present) af other cultures.
<<snip>>
> Once we realize that we cannot depict the real world but only certain
> selected aspects of any of those pieces, we realize that there can be no
> single correct way of depicting the real world. Nor is there any reason
> why that which we call "realistic" should provide any better real world
> depiction than the "abstract" or even "non-representational" (assuming
> non-representational refers only to the visual aspects of the real
> world, which is its normal usage).
-N.
Bob C
N wrote:
>
>
> > But as regards the subject of the real world, the snow is the same
> > regardless of what it is called.
>
> Again, I disagree. You are assuming a paradigm of singularity here, one
> that turns the number ONE into a fetish.
> Classification and language structures also determine what and how we
> perceive.
I don't understand how the first part of this relates to my statement,
and as for the second part, I was specifically *not* talking about
perception, but about what is really there. Perhaps you could explain
>
> >The sensory input provided by the snow
> > is the same regardless of how we perceive it.
>
> Yet perception is a filter to sensory imput...
>
That's implied in my statement. What was your purpose in repeating the
implication?
>
> Again:
> "I cannot imagine what your "objectively observable reality which 99% of
> people around the world can agree on" can possibly be...it sounds
> something like 19th Eurocentric cultural imperialism."
> And still does.
I never stated that. Still, just how different do you think different
perceptions of the world are? Eskimos may have different words which
more specifically describe the type of snow they are looking at, but do
you really think that they don't have the same feeling of cold when they
pick it up, of slipperiness when they try to walk on it, of hardness
when it is compressed? Is snow something that doesn't fall from the sky,
accumulate on the ground, and melt when it gets warm?
(Yes, I know that Lucy van Pelt believes that snow falls up, not down,
but I think she's a rare exception...)
>
> You can argue about how
> > objective it is, since even what we choose to measure is itself
> > subjective. Nevertheless, I think that much of scientific measurement is
> > objective,
>
> If one believes it to be....I don't.
>
As far as scientific objectivity goes, I think it all boils down to the
basic question of whether you believe that our laws of mathematics and
physics are something which were invented or discovered. I believe that
they were discovered, and therefore really couldn't be anything other
than what they are. They might be stated in completely different ways by
different people but they would have to be functionally the same.
So explain to me - if I measure the pressure of the atmosphere relative
to the weight of a column of mercury in order to determine the relative
affect of gravity on both substances, how is this measurement
subjective? Certainly it is subjective that I choose to make such a
measurement and to make it in this particular way, but thats not the
measurement itself we're talking about. In what way is this not an
objective measurement of the force of gravity? Or do you belive that
gravity itself is something subjective and might not exist for all
cultures (is it only my cultural biases that prevent me from perceiving
the people happily floating all around me completely free from the
effects of gravity??).
>
> <<snip>>
> These are conventions in art. They have little to do with 'real' world or
> 'objectivity'. Single point perspective, monoscopic cameras, etc. are
> simply examples of conventions of re-presentation. There are many such
> conventions for both our culture (past and present) af other cultures.
>
Now you're playing word games. Re-presentation. What is it being
presented again? Isn't it frequently an attempt to re-present the visual
information as it would have come from the real world?
Many cultures do not place a great deal of value on re-presenting the
visual information exactly as it comes from the world. Still others,
possibly, because of the limitations of this presentation and the
strength of their own perceptual filters, may have found other types of
presentation to be more convincing in recreating the real world in their
minds. These are both true of certain types of modern art.
Single point perspective is a short cut for creating the 2D projection
of 3D space which most closely duplicates the visual information being
provided to us by the real world. You can use this to help create a
trompe l'oeil painting. A trompe l'oeil painting viewed under the proper
conditions looks like objects in the real world regardless of your
cultural background. This, ultimately, is because the visual information
as it exists when it hits our eyes is the same regardless of our
cultural background. That's the real world.
>
>
> > I've seen in multiple sources that the "many words for snow" thing is
> > just a myth.
>
> I would be interested in those sources...do you have them handy?
>
If I had them handy, I would have listed them (or at least one). Sorry
:)
- Bob
Norman Strand~
In a sort of off the subject note: Many years ago I invited a woman to my
trailer for dinner. After dinner I wanted to have some ice cream for desert.
I told her that I had to wash some bowls for ice cream. So I was there washing
the bowls and she said, Norman Look at me." Then she said what do you see? What
do I have in my hands. I looked in her hands and she had two tiny little bowls
that I used for sorting beads. I continued washing and drying the bowls for ice
cream, and I split a quart of ice cream between to two bowls that I had just
washed. She said I was a frustrating man.
Norman Strand
In article <358970...@erols.com>, Bob C <bob...@erols.com> writes:
|> N wrote:
|> >
|> >
|> > > But as regards the subject of the real world, the snow is the same
|> > > regardless of what it is called.
|> >
|> > Again, I disagree. You are assuming a paradigm of singularity here, one
|> > that turns the number ONE into a fetish.
|> > Classification and language structures also determine what and how we
|> > perceive.
|>
|> I don't understand how the first part of this relates to my statement,
|> and as for the second part, I was specifically *not* talking about
|> perception, but about what is really there. Perhaps you could explain
|>
|> >
|> > >The sensory input provided by the snow
|> > > is the same regardless of how we perceive it.
|> >
|> > Yet perception is a filter to sensory imput...
|> >
|>
|> That's implied in my statement. What was your purpose in repeating the
|> implication?
|>
|> >
|> > Again:
|> > "I cannot imagine what your "objectively observable reality which 99% of
|> > people around the world can agree on" can possibly be...it sounds
|> > something like 19th Eurocentric cultural imperialism."
--
Intel, Corp.
5000 W. Chandler Blvd.
Chandler, AZ 85226
N
Hey Ya Bob,
In article <358970...@erols.com>, you wrote:
> N wrote:
> >
> >
> > > But as regards the subject of the real world, the snow is the same
> > > regardless of what it is called.
> >
> > Again, I disagree. You are assuming a paradigm of singularity here, one
> > that turns the number ONE into a fetish.
> > Classification and language structures also determine what and how we
> > perceive.
>
> I don't understand how the first part of this relates to my statement,
> and as for the second part, I was specifically *not* talking about
> perception, but about what is really there. Perhaps you could explain
> > >The sensory input provided by the snow
> > > is the same regardless of how we perceive it.
> > Yet perception is a filter to sensory imput...
> >
>
> That's implied in my statement. What was your purpose in repeating the
> implication?
Above you have state you are not talking about perception, but what is
'really there'. I am suggesting (for our purposes here) that they inhere
in one another.
> > Again:
> > "I cannot imagine what your "objectively observable reality which 99% of
> > people around the world can agree on" can possibly be...it sounds
> > something like 19th Eurocentric cultural imperialism."
> > And still does.
>
> I never stated that.
Well, let's back up in the thread and refer to what I am responding to in
"Iian's Rant". The topic is 'real' world, "objectively observable reality
which 99% of the people in the world agree on", and by extension
universal aesthetic experience, which is the crux of the issue. I would
much rather we direct our examples and responses to the realm of
aesthetics...as that is where the Rant is directed, and where my interests
in this NG focuses.
>Still, just how different do you think different
> perceptions of the world are?
I think they are so different as to be at times at such great distance
from one another that they are incomprehensible to those
unaculturated...so incompatable that it neccesitates often the elimination
or extinction of one or the other culture. The difference is too great.
More difference than I can even begin to imagine.
Again: "The anthropological and linguistic material I have read supports the
existence of wildly different taxonomies for different cultures and at
different periods of history."
Eskimos may have different words which
> more specifically describe the type of snow they are looking at, but do
> you really think that they don't have the same feeling of cold when they
> pick it up, of slipperiness when they try to walk on it, of hardness
> when it is compressed? Is snow something that doesn't fall from the sky,
> accumulate on the ground, and melt when it gets warm?
I cannot know their experience. But I do not think that Eskimos
traditionally would relate to snow as a scientist would, and draw the same
perceptions, meanings, and conclusions from it that a physical scientist
would.
> (Yes, I know that Lucy van Pelt believes that snow falls up, not down,
> but I think she's a rare exception...)
?
> > You can argue about how
> > > objective it is, since even what we choose to measure is itself
> > > subjective. Nevertheless, I think that much of scientific measurement is
> > > objective,
> >
> > If one believes it to be....I don't.
> >
>
> As far as scientific objectivity goes, I think it all boils down to the
> basic question of whether you believe that our laws of mathematics and
> physics are something which were invented or discovered. I believe that
> they were discovered, and therefore really couldn't be anything other
> than what they are. They might be stated in completely different ways by
> different people but they would have to be functionally the same.
That is a theory.
If you place your faith in it, fair enough. I don't.
> So explain to me - if I measure the pressure of the atmosphere relative
> to the weight of a column of mercury in order to determine the relative
> affect of gravity on both substances, how is this measurement
> subjective? Certainly it is subjective that I choose to make such a
> measurement and to make it in this particular way, but thats not the
> measurement itself we're talking about. In what way is this not an
> objective measurement of the force of gravity? Or do you belive that
> gravity itself is something subjective and might not exist for all
> cultures (is it only my cultural biases that prevent me from perceiving
> the people happily floating all around me completely free from the
> effects of gravity??).
Gravity is a theory.
Other cultures have different theories and beliefs to explain phenomenon.
As did the world, including western culture, before Newton invented the
theory of gravity. Gravity did not exist before Newton invented the theory
of gravity...but the Greeks and Egyptians and other cultures had theories
of their own to explain what they perceived and their experience in the
world. I believe the Greeks had a theory of the disposition of the
essential elements earth, air, fire, and water as being responsible for
falling bodies, etc.
Surely gravity will not be the last theory, or cultural explanation on the
subject, although it may be a theory that to a degree fits a certain
culture in a certain historical period, and meets their provisory needs
for an explanation.
> > <<snip>>
> > These are conventions in art. They have little to do with 'real' world or
> > 'objectivity'. Single point perspective, monoscopic cameras, etc. are
> > simply examples of conventions of re-presentation. There are many such
> > conventions for both our culture (past and present) af other cultures.
> >
> Now you're playing word games. Re-presentation. What is it being
> presented again? Isn't it frequently an attempt to re-present the visual
> information as it would have come from the real world?
It seems to me that any reference to the 'real' world is itself a
re-presentation. One only has representation without a real world behind
it all.
To get semiological, this would be the 'referent' element of the sign.
> Many cultures do not place a great deal of value on re-presenting the
> visual information exactly as it comes from the world. Still others,
> possibly, because of the limitations of this presentation and the
> strength of their own perceptual filters, may have found other types of
> presentation to be more convincing in recreating the real world in their
> minds. These are both true of certain types of modern art.
>
> Single point perspective is a short cut for creating the 2D projection
> of 3D space which most closely duplicates the visual information being
> provided to us by the real world.
Again, I disagree. What proof do you have to support this? It depends upon
what you consider visual information. A mathematical grid that equalizes
and mathematises space closely resembles only its own conventions of
re-presentation and is not bestowed with the title of grandest and closest
duplication of the real world; if anything it only fits a certain
scientific paradigm for time/space.
And, are you suggesting that the 2D mathematical perspective grids that in
your words "most closely duplicates the visual information being provided
to us by the real world" holds true for 99% of the people around the
world"? Who is the editorial 'us' in your statement?
You can use this to help create a
> trompe l'oeil painting. A trompe l'oeil painting viewed under the proper
> conditions looks like objects in the real world regardless of your
> cultural background. This, ultimately, is because the visual information
> as it exists when it hits our eyes is the same regardless of our
> cultural background. That's the real world.
You are assuming much here.
The crux of the issue for me is that, conventions of 2D single point
perspective art are not any 'realer' than any other convention, within our
culture or any other. The conventions are relative to the culture.
The conditions for viewing the art are also part of these conventions. A
hypothesis:
Imagine one were to take a figure painting by Titian and bring it to a
tribe in the jungle which had never had contact with the West and its
conventions of representation and art, and also no contact with the West's
symbolic and iconic signs and traditions. Firstly how would they view the
painting? Just the simple activity of viewing the painting (i.e,
exhibiting it), is one we take for granted in the West (but not all of us
do: artists of the avant guarde have challanged and provoked these tropes
and conventions for quite some time)...this viewing is already a very
sophisticated activity dependent upon numerous conventions, and demands a
heavy and thorough indoctrination with those conventions for the codes to
work.
For example: where and how the painting is exhibited is always already
heavily determined in western culture...so much so that many take it for
granted and consider it 'natural' to exibit the painting in a gallery on
the wall. But what if in the jungle there are no art galleries or museums,
let alone any walls? What if the tribe has no geometric rectilinear forms
in its language? How would they experience this painting? How would they
view it? Would they hang it right side up? Would they hang it vertically
at all? Would they find the clean unbroken expanse of the linen on the
back of the painting more interesting, miraculous, and engaging than
anything happening with the paint? Tribes have been documented to have
received cans of food and boxes of cereal presented as gifts and neglected
any nutricion or food value and meaning invested in it by the West, and
instead experienced the food packaging as clothing: a cereal box as a
crown and status symbol of great power, soup cans hanging of of
necklesses...there are MANY diverse perceptions, cultures, and reality
principles in the world. Many codes, many paradigms.
Back to our scenario.
Would they lay the painting on the ground rather than install it
vertically? Would they bother to read the codified conventions of western
representation systems and instead use the painting as a carpet and sit on
it? Would they see the representation of a man at all if they have no
representational codes with which to read the painting (cades the west
took for granted for so long they thought they were 'natural' until the
impressionalists woke them up)? Would they use the painting a a rug, tear
it from its frame and use it as a blanket, shred it into small peices put
it into a pipe and smoke it in order to gain ancestrial communication?
Just the seemingly simple and seemingly natural act of finding a relation
to the artifact of the painting is an extremely complex enterprise, and to
view the painting within the codes, sign systems, and conventions of
western art are already, just in the orientation issue, an EXTREMELY
SOPHISTICATED CULTURAL PROCEEDURE, PREDICATED UPON A HEAVY AND LENGTHY
CULTURAL INDOCTRINATION. To get the tribe to view the artifact firstly as
art, and then to get them to view it within the paradigm of western art,
would demand that they be indoctrinated into our cultural conventions. And
visa versa.
> > > I've seen in multiple sources that the "many words for snow" thing is
> > > just a myth.
> >
> > I would be interested in those sources...do you have them handy?
> >
>
> If I had them handy, I would have listed them (or at least one). Sorry
> :)
Lucky your not a traditional Eskimo...your acculturation vis-a-vis snow
most likely wouldn't get you very far.
Cheers,
-N
BT
(N) wrote:
> > I've seen in multiple sources that the "many words for snow" thing is
> > just a myth.
>
> I would be interested in those sources...do you have them handy?
> The anthropological and linguistic material I have read supports the
> existence of wildly different taxonomies for different cultures and at
> different periods of history.
Look at Steven Pinker's "The Language Instinct," (Wm. Morrow, 1994)
p.64-65 for a discussion of "The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax." Here's an
excerpt:
"Speaking of anthropological canards, no discussion of language and
thought would be complete without The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax.
Contrary to popular belief, Eskimos do not have more words for snow than
do speakers of English. They do not have more than four hundred words for
snow as has been claimed in print, or two hundred, or one hundred, or
forty-eight, or even nine. One dictionary puts the figure at two.
Counting generously, experts can come up with about a dozen, but by such
standards English would not be far behind, with snow, sleet, blizzard,
avalanche, hail, hardpack, powder, flurry, dusting, and a coinage of
Boston's WBZ-TV meterorologist, Bruce Schwoegler, "snizzling." "
Pinker goes on to recount how this myth came into being, and his
bibliography lists additional sources.
Bob C
BT wrote:
>
>
> Look at Steven Pinker's "The Language Instinct," (Wm. Morrow, 1994)
> p.64-65 for a discussion of "The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax." Here's an
> excerpt:
>
> "Speaking of anthropological canards, no discussion of language and
> thought would be complete without The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax.
> Contrary to popular belief, Eskimos do not have more words for snow than
> do speakers of English. They do not have more than four hundred words for
> snow as has been claimed in print, or two hundred, or one hundred, or
> forty-eight, or even nine. One dictionary puts the figure at two.
> Counting generously, experts can come up with about a dozen, but by such
> standards English would not be far behind, with snow, sleet, blizzard,
> avalanche, hail, hardpack, powder, flurry, dusting, and a coinage of
> Boston's WBZ-TV meterorologist, Bruce Schwoegler, "snizzling." "
>
Maybe Eskimos do have hundreds of words for snow for all the different
types of snow in their world - hot snow, red snow, vanilla and chocolate
snow, 5 sided snow, cubical snow, etc. - but as soon as they come into
contact with non-Eskimos their world changes to one in which only one
kind of snow exists or ever existed, the kind which us eurocentric
know-it-alls claim is the *only* snow. You can't *prove* that this isn't
possible! ;)
- Bob
BT
In article bob...@erols.com wrote:
>
> Maybe Eskimos do have hundreds of words for snow for all the different
> types of snow in their world - hot snow, red snow, vanilla and chocolate
> snow, 5 sided snow, cubical snow, etc. - but as soon as they come into
> contact with non-Eskimos their world changes to one in which only one
> kind of snow exists or ever existed, the kind which us eurocentric
> know-it-alls claim is the *only* snow. You can't *prove* that this isn't
> possible! ;)
Actually, something like the reverse of that seems to be true.
Pinker goes on to discuss how, despite the anthropologists' respectful
intention of showing that nonliterate cultures were as complex as European
cultures (this idea animated the western study of Eskimo linguistic
complexity) "the supposedly mind-broadening anecdotes owe their appeal to
a patronizing willingness to treat other cultures' psychologies as weird
and exotic compared to our own." In other words, even if it were true
that Eskimos had a highly specialized vocabulary for snow, it would be
intellectually no more remarkable than printers having many different
terms for fonts: it is only the "exotic" context that causes such stories
to proliferate.
Iian Neill
> > > > What excactly is the 'real world', by the way?
> >
> > The 'real world' is, first and foremost, the objectively observable reality
> > which 99% of people around the world can agree on.
>
> What could this be?
Open your eyes and you will find out. Or to put it another way, refer to your sense
perceptions. This is root of our experiences.
> >This is the environment in
> > which we find ourselves every day - the universe of shapes, colours, sounds,
> > textures and so forth.
>
> Is it?
This is the physical universe, yes. Which, when we get down to it, is what most of
us call 'reality'. It may be that later on our definitions of 'real' diverge from
the purely scientific and branch to include the 'supernatural'; but whether that be
the case or not, if you put an orange in from of most people, they will agree that
they are seeing an orange. In fact, if they DON'T see any orange when it is certain
to the rest of society that there is indeed an orange there, they may be considered
to have either optical or mental problems.
> Sounds like specific cultural information to me. ..not "objectively
> observable reality which 99% of people around the world can agree on".
> The Eskimos apparantly have from what our cultural vantage point is
> excessively numerous classifications for what we refer to as 'snow'. The
> information that they perceive and experience is very different than that
> which we perceive and experience.
The Eskimos may have seven different names for snow (and I have read that example
you give is anecdotal at best - according to linguists at any rate), but that does
not change the physical reality of the snow. It doesn't make the snow into grass,
for example. The snow is still snow. Just as a rose is still a flower even though
an orchid is also a flower. Having a number of sub-categories does not render the
category incorrect.
> Tribes that live in the jungle have very different and numerous
> classifications of plant life than we do...they percieve and experience a
> reality that is unavailible to us..this is cultural difference.
I do not deny that these tribes might experience something more than what
Occidental society perceives as being real. What I am saying is that there is a
very fair chance if we put those natives in front of an orange, they will still
call it an orange (in whatever language they use) - the fact remains that oranges
are still oranges. Saying that there are objectively observable facts around us is
not "19th Eurocentric imperialism" - to say that is just a load of nonsense. It is
common sense - and common sense to the hundreds of cultures around the world at
present and through history. They understood what oranges were, even if they did
(or did not) perceive more to them than is immediately apparent.
My statement that there is an objectively observable reality is what is accepted
by scientists all around the world. Now, you might contest the point of whether
ghosts, demons or angels are 'real' - but this does not alter the inherent reality
of an orange, an apple or a rose. These things exist and can be shown to exist.
Saying that this is just a case of Occidentalism is rubbish.
I cannot imagine what your "objectively observable reality which 99% of
> people around the world can agree on" can possibly be...it sounds
> something like 19th Eurocentric cultural imperialism.
> Color has been theorized to be a cultural phenomenon, i.e., there is no
> universal color perception, that color peception is dependent upon culture
> and language structures.
I am sure that biologists opticians would have something to say about that. Sure, a
culture may give different leves of 'meaning' to different colours; but this hardly
makes red into blue or blue into green.
> The writer Borges wrote of 'a certain Chinese encyclopaedia' in which it
> is written that 'animals are divided into (a) belonging to the Emporer,
> (b) embalmed, (c) tame, (d) sucking pigs, (e) sirens, (f) fabulous, (g)
> stray dogs, (h) included in the present classification, (i) frenzied, (j)
> innumerable, (k) drawn with a very fine camelhair brush, (l) et cetera,
> (m) having just broken the water pitcher, (n) that from a far way off look
> like flies'.
But how does that change the fact that a cat is real, and so is a dog? Both can be
observed objectively.
> What you are seeing is a product of your cultural indoctrination, not
> 'objective reality'.
No - it is not. Animals also perceive an external world - whether or not they
attach more or less 'meaning' to these sensory phenomena is unknown (at least to
me) but this does not change the fact that a cat knows what a mouse is ; it doesn't
sit there debating whether it is, or is not, real - or if it seems to be, whether
the mouse is a product of its "cultural indoctrination".
> You could fall prey to Descartes' Problem and say that
> > all of this is merely an illusion concocted by some malign force - but what
> > use is there in this? For all practical purposes, we may as well consider the
> > universe as reported to us by sense perceptions as being 'real'.
>
> ?
Rene Descartes argued that one could never know that the outside world was real
because the senses are, on occasion, wrong. He proposed this argument, strangely
enough, as an attack against the case of such skeptics as Pyrrho; Descartes
'answer' began with 'I think, therefore I am' - he established that he is real, for
to doubt is still proof of thought, and thought is proof of existence. Yet, this
does not - according to his Problem - prove that anything outside of thought (such
as sensory phenomena) is real. He therefore called upon theological arguments to
get him out of the mess. There are many who refute that 'solution'.
> > There are other, more subtely realities also. When historians label Courbet a
> > 'Realist' what do they mean? Certainly, his paintings are based on
> > representationalism, but they are 'less' so than the work of the much-refered
> > to William Bouguereau. Yet Bouguereau is not usually considerered to be a
> > 'Realist'. Perhaps a better term for Courbet is 'Social Realist', as he chose
> > to most often paint subjects closer to contemporary life instead of working
> > with mythological and/or religious subjects. Courbet therefore becomes,
> > perhaps, a kind of 'reporter', an artist who sees the society of his time and
> > reports it visually through paint. The Naturalist movement which followed was
> > also concerned with Courbetesque subjects. Labels, therefore, can often be
> > misleading, and one has to keep in mind that there are useful generalizations
> > of often large groups of individual artists who sometimes did not even
> > consider themselves at all similar. (Chopin, for example, detested being
> > called a Romantic. Yet is he not today called just that?)
>
> What does any of this have to do with your notion of 'the real world'?
I was merely demonstrating that the word 'real' in art history has different shades
of meaning.
> Your 'real world' is also a Re-presentation. What leads you to suggest
> that either Courbet's or Bouguereau's re-presentations are any more 'real'
> than any other form of re-presentation?
Because they are more veridical - they are visually closer to what is real than,
say, a Picasso or even that horrible Matisse. There is also, granted, more to
reality than photographic accuracy - there is psychological content. Properly
trained, a craftsman could achieve a photgraphic technique - but he might still not
have the 'temperament' to make his productions into 'art work'. What is this extra
thing involved? - It is that which we call the 'art' of anything, the creativity.
> > The reason why the 'real world' has served as such a fount of inspiration to
> > so many thousands of artists through history is that we all immediately
> > respond to it.
>
> More likely we respond to our re-presentations of the world.
> Perhaps the immediacy and spontanaeity we imagine, is intelligable and
> possible at all because the codes always already precede us...the opposite
> of immediacy and spontenaety.
Certainly, we may react to paintings from other cultures differently from the
natives of that culture; because we carry different cultural baggage. But it does
seem that apples are still apples, at least when it comes to objectively observable
reality. You might debate the importance or the 'meaning' of an apple in a
painting, but when it comes to appraising pictorial veridity it does not seem that
the East is different from the West that they could not agree that one image is
more realistic than another. It doesn't mean they have to LIKE either image - but
they can sit there and objectively observe the image, comparing it to the real
object. Where is the "cultural indoctrination" of that?
I find the suggestion that non-Western cultures cannot objectively observe the
world to be a vaguely sinister statement. Are you saying that only Occidentals can
tell the difference between reality and fantasy?
> > Yes, we also respond to abstract shapes as well, which allows
> > us to appreciate the beauty of a galaxy, or the terror of a violent ocean.
> > The 'abstract' in this sense becomes hard to define, and one might say that
> > the Old Masters were also supreme masters of the abstract elements which
> > permeates all great art.
>
> Yes, hard to define because you are vague, and have not yet appraoched the
> subject of abstract painting or abstract pictorialism.
I was touching upon abstract painting when I made the comparison between
abstraction and galaxies. If you look at a NASA photo of some rather splendid
galaxy, you might observe that the forms are quite beautiful without having to
'represent' anything like a nude or landscape. I took this one step further,
implying that in all reality there is this feeling of 'abstraction' - which is what
we detect in the rhythm of art work, such as is displaying in the draperies of
Bernini's angels and saints. That is but ONE example. There are surely millions of
others we could all draw from art across the world, examples of 'abstraction' -
which is, in this sense, not an abstraction from representation, but a kind of
mental patterning which we call creativity. Abstraction is particularly present in
language. When I say the word 'green' I am not referring specifically to 'grass' or
'leaves' - I refer to a quality which those things may have, but which does not
'belong' to them. This is a form of abstraction - it is starting from at least two
real elements and then forms a super-category over them which finds similarities in
some area - in this case, in their respective colours.
Can this 'asbtraction' be applied to realistic art? I think it happens all the
time. Architecture is a completely abstract art-form - it is gigantic sculpture
which we happen to live in.
We are here limiting our topic to abstract painting: you wish to address
> abstract painting but instead prattle on about astronomy...or
> galaxies...or the ocean....or for that matter, music. Better familairity
> with the subject would have you writing about painting rather than
> substituting vague musings upon the ocean.
Have you ever heard the word 'analogy'?
> Is this what passes as critical thinking where you hail from?
My criticisms have little or nothing to do with 'where I hail from'. So, don't
bother blaming my parents.
> (Can you accomadate cabbages and kings in your diatribe as well?)
No, but I can point you to plenty of lemons and the Emperor's New Clothes - just go
to a gallery of 'modern art'.
> Anything can be mutilated and then re-presented as an abstraction...taking
> a small section of a representational or figurative painting and excluding
> the rest, for example.
Good point. I have even seen that done.
> Rembrant was a figurative and representational
> artist. He was in no way an abstract artist. If you are limiting your
> pantheon of abstract artists to representatoinal artists, you are more
> than a little far out on a thin limb.
Sorry to disappoint you, but you've got your case wrong. I certainly don't consider
Rembrandt to be an abstract painter in the sense of non-representationalist - and
that was not what I had ever meant to suggest. I merely pointed out that in all art
there is something which is 'beyond' reality; when we look at an Ingres, we might
say, "He has a wonderful mastery of line! - look at how voluptuous it is!" Ingres
has distorted reality to achieve that; but the only reason he could pull it off so
well is because he knew how far he could go and still hit the mark. That makes him
a professional and an artist.
> <<snips>>
>
> > While on the topic of abstraction and art, could one not say that
> > instrumental music is the highest and most successful form of abstraction? As
> > the 20th century progressed, one notices a gradual stripping of
> > representational elements (this is speaking broadly, of course) - this has
> > been justified as removing that which is excessive to capture the 'essence'
> > of the art beneath. Well, in instrumental music we find the highest
> > consummation of abstraction.
>
> >Sound is utterly invisible - which is what
> > minimalist art seems to be striving for.
>
> Not in the world I live in.
Minimalism seems to be striving to exclude that which is 'inessential' and to
preserve the 'essential'. Now, to say that does not mean much until you minimalists
appear to consider representationalism to be 'inessential' - in fact, some have
even called it an impediment. So, logically, if we are to remove references to
ANYTHING visual, to avoid that o-so-nasty representiationalism, what are we left
with ... why, we are left with INVISIBLE art. And what art is invisible and deeply
moving? Music, of course. In any case, I had said all of this tongue-in-cheek. I
don't BELIEVE that music is abstract art in the sense that abstract is understood
today. But music is very, very rarely 'representational' - and where music DOES
'represent' the world (through bird-whistles, nature sounds, etc.) serious
musicians are usually more inclined to dismiss it as 'gimickry'.
> Great music has an instant hold on
> > our emotions and can drive grown men and women to tears or jubilation - just
> > as those who support abstract painting claim it achieves (or tries to).
> So
> > here, in music, we have what is perhaps the goal of abstract art -
>
> Get real.
> You are putting forth as criticism the ridiculous criterion that because
> in your view abstract painting wishes to function like music (?) and that
> people have been moved by music in the past, it therefore outperforms
> current abstract painting?
Nope, you seem to have a "cripplingly limited" understanding of what I was
attempting to say above. Music resembles the ultimate realization of minimalist art
only in one sense - minimalist art wishes to exorcise representationalism from its
boundaries. Music is already non-representational. I apologize for indulging in a
bit of humour, though, since it seems to have been taken the wrong way.
> You are mixing a cripplingly limited and naive
> understanding of abstract painting with a sentimental apprecciation of
> music to support/dismiss (your eggregiously limited and naive concept) of
> abstract painting.
Fine - give me your defintion of abstract painting. Anyone can make accusations and
then back away. I want justification for your claims now.
> I do not see as you have even broached the topic of abstract painting in
> your posts...rather you substitute a cartoon parody for your lack of
> experience with abstract painting. Such a vague and insubstantial
> substitution will neither allow you entry into critical discource upon
> abstract painting nor help you in being taken seriously by anyone even
> remotely familair with abstract art and painting. Its buffoonery.
Whether they take me seriously or not is their business. I will only be convinced
by reasonable arguments, and not by slander, exaggeration or insults. So there
really is not point in brandishing them if you want me to see your point of view.
> a goal
> > realized many centuries before the world even saw Modernism and its
> > successors, and it was realized far more successfully, beautifully and
> > potently than (I imagine) any reductionist-based non-representationalist
> > movement could ever hope to achieve.
>
> Sentimetal rubbish.
> Non of this is making any sense.
> It is a vague simpering appologia for music in general and
> representational painting in particular (respectfully).
Classical music needs no apologia from anyone, and I am far from offering one for
it.
> Again: Is this what passes as critical thinking where you hail from?
Is this a rhetorical question? Or just an insult? :-)
> "space composition is the art which humanizes the void, making of it an
> enclosed Eden, a domed mansion wherein our higher selves at last find an
> abode."
I would rather not comment on any of these quotes as they are taken out of context.
Some of them certainly SEEM ridiculously over-inflated, but I am not going to go
into it until I see where Berenson is coming from. Otherwise I might entirely
misrepresent him.
> That there are thousands of crucifixion paintings of obstensible religious
> content, but that they do not all evoke the same responses from us, can be
> attributed to how well the abstract element of space composition is
> realized. The awe and 'union with the universe' experienced in front of
> great painting is more a function of space-composition than
> imagery...nothing new, as the great painters of the past were great
> space-composers. Certain manifestations of abstract painting have built
> upon these and other traditions, (which you would be in a better position
> to appreciate were you to learn more about painting, its history,
> traditions, and current practice).
To even know that a painting is of the Crucifixion one would need representational
elements for the audience to recognize - unless you want them to take the artist on
faith, in which case, I recommend you start handing around the donation plate.
> Abstraction differs from representional
> painting in that it can be small without being minature.
So can good illustration.
> Conversly,
> representation when it gets very large, losses it's represtational
> quality and becomes abstract.
It depends on how far away you are standing.
> Color/light is freed to be manipulated for
> best pictorial effect without concerns that are based on non-pictorial
> needs. The list goes on and on. Space composition can soar: conservative,
> static, and limiting space effects such as seen in classicism can be
> bypassed: Bouguereau was not a great painter despite having achieved a
> certain technical facility ...great painting demands more than facile
> superficial effects. Bouguereau's works are pictorially weak (rendering
> skills are no guarantee or measure of great painting: of coarse, there is
> abstract painting that does not deliver the goods).
Bouguereau was more than a skilful renderer. He was also a consummate harmonist and
fairly good at composition when he put his mind to it. And that 'certain technical
facility' is better phrased as 'enormous technical skill'. Even those
contemporaries who despised him could barely rival him. Where Bouguereau is REALLY
work is originality of conception - this held him back in regards to composition.
If he had continued to take on dramatic, ambitious themes as he had when younger,
he would probably be more remembered - because this is what history favours.
History does not look kindly on entertainers, no matter how brilliant they may be.
> A better understanding of abstract painting will enhance your viewing of
> all painting.
I don't see what is wrong with my understanding of abstract painting at the moment.
But if you have a different interpretation of it from me, I would welcome your own
comments and theories.
> Back to that example: the crucifix itself (as image or
> symbol), no matter how well rendered, has little effect on the pictorial
> power of the painting and its effect on us. The abstract pictorial
> qualities of the painting are the meat of what directly moves us in
> painting.
Representationalism is merely the BEGINNING - not the END. But without the
beginning, there is no end at all.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
mdeli
(N) wrote:
>Gravity is a theory.
Gravity is a natural phenomenon.
> Gravity did not exist before Newton invented the theory
>of gravity..
Nonsense.
>Surely gravity will not be the last theory, or cultural explanation on the
>subject, although it may be a theory that to a degree fits a certain
>culture in a certain historical period, and meets their provisory needs
>for an explanation.
The scientific explanations of gravity have nothing to do with
cultural beliefs. If everyone believed in Santa Claus it doesn't mean
that he exists.
>Again, I disagree. What proof do you have to support this? I
Yes its why people the world over recognize photographs.
>Imagine one were to take a figure painting by Titian and bring it to a
>tribe in the jungle which had never had contact with the West and its
>conventions of representation and art, and also no contact with the West's
>symbolic and iconic signs and traditions.
Just do it and tell us what happened.
> Firstly how would they view the
>painting? Just the simple activity of viewing the painting (i.e,
>exhibiting it), is one we take for granted in the West (but not all of us
>do: artists of the avant guarde have challanged and provoked these tropes
>and conventions for quite some time)...this viewing is already a very
>sophisticated activity dependent upon numerous conventions, and demands a
>heavy and thorough indoctrination with those conventions for the codes to
>work.
Pomo nonsense.---snip
I doubt that there is any evidence that a painting of a face looks
like anything else to anyone.