Cezanne Painting Badly Admits Failure
Flying_Naked_People
social life; I am hated, distrusted, and worse, *****I cannot achieve my
objectives as an artist*****.""
When Clemenceau asked him about his little "sensation," how certain artists
were trying to steal it from him, Cezanne replied: They are welcome to it if
they can FIND it! " And he had added: "To be honest, *****I never know when I
have it myself*****--it's so damn elusive!"
Cezanne asked: "Why do complexities multiply as my work advances? And why is
it that what I painted yesterday, *****I cannot paint***** today?"
Cezanne observed: "From this point, it is utterly impossible for me to add a
single brushstroke to the canvas, *****without REPAINTING the ENTIRE
PICTURE*****.
Cezanne, in a rage, one day, *****over his inability to realize a canvas*****,
threw it out the window of his apartment in Paris, where it was picked up by
children, who tossed stones at it for their amusement.
Chris
cares about their art read them Cezanne gave himself to art; as these quotes
show how he was torn by the inner turmoil that comes from choosing to go his
own way, which happened (at the time) to be against the flow of comforting
mediocrity.
That struggle - and the struggle of others like him - is what gives art it's
ability to gives new form to ideas, and from that new form, new ideas.
Anyway, I've tossed in a few comments of my own :)
>"Flying_Naked_People" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl> wrote in message
news:vgoqd1e...@corp.supernews.com...
> ""I am a MONK." he complained, "isolated on a distant mountain; I have no
> social life; I am hated, distrusted, and worse, *****I cannot achieve my
> objectives as an artist*****.""
>
Anybody who strives for excellence is in this position; only those who rest
in comfort aren't.
> When Clemenceau asked him about his little "sensation," how certain
artists
> were trying to steal it from him, Cezanne replied: They are welcome to it
if
> they can FIND it! " And he had added: "To be honest, *****I never know
when I
> have it myself*****--it's so damn elusive!"
>
Yes, unpredictable. Again, the sign of someone who is venturing farther than
others, into unfamiliar territory.
> Cezanne asked: "Why do complexities multiply as my work advances? And why
is
> it that what I painted yesterday, *****I cannot paint***** today?"
>
The unexplored world always looks simple from the outside - remember that
whole fields of physics - relativity and quantum both - arose from the lack
of resolution in two small areas. 120 years ago, those initial questions
seemed so insignificant, and look what they have blossomed into.
> Cezanne observed: "From this point, it is utterly impossible for me to add
a
> single brushstroke to the canvas, *****without REPAINTING the ENTIRE
> PICTURE*****.
>
he has reached the end of a canvas; he has taken an idea as far as it can
go. Many artists never get to that point of recognizing when the idea is
expressed. "Above all, know thyself".
> Cezanne, in a rage, one day, *****over his inability to realize a
canvas*****,
> threw it out the window of his apartment in Paris, where it was picked up
by
> children, who tossed stones at it for their amusement.
>
Yes, and who struggling to bring an idea from mind to paper or canvas,
hasn't felt that way? Only those with ideas to trivial to require struggle.
Anyway, thanks for the post - it's good to see cezanne get the good press he
deserves....
Chris
Oliver Gili
"Flying_Naked_People" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl> wrote in message
news:vgoqd1e...@corp.supernews.com...
thank you for posthing this,.
Oliver
Nikolaus Maack
point -- what is being spoken is emotional and intuitive. You're
interpreting the words literally and "rationally".
1) What I want to do, I cannot do. What happens on the paper/canvas is
something other than my intentions.
2) The sense of doing the right thing, artistically, is fleeting.
Sometimes the move feels perfect, other times not. But on a good day,
when you do it right, you feel it in your bones.
3) I am not the same person today that I was yesterday. Whatever
happens in my life changes me, and I can no longer think and feel what I
thought and felt.
4) Sometimes, everything on the painting FITS. To try to change a
single stroke would put all the other brush-strokes out of place.
5) There are days when I paint for hours and hours, days and days, look
at the end result, and tear it into pieces.
I totally understand where these quotes are coming from. Seeing you
trying to warp them into something they aren't is very depressing.
Seagull Manager
"Flying_Naked_People" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl> wrote in message
news:vgoqd1e...@corp.supernews.com...
> ""I am a MONK." he complained...
He was just playing up to the expected role of the Romantic Genius. It's all
bollocks. The 19th century equivalent of the artist's statement.
Flying_Naked_People
> I totally understand where these quotes are coming from. Seeing you
> trying to warp them into something they aren't is very depressing.
What did I warp? I posted the quotes in the exact form in which they were
presented. You, on the other hand, manipulated them into words with different
spellings.
> Nik
> http://www.nikart.ca
Oliver Gili
"Oliver Gili" <Redo...@ogili.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:beht0l$dee$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Oliver
>
Noumenon
> He was just playing up to the expected role of the Romantic Genius. It's all
> bollocks. The 19th century equivalent of the artist's statement.
Not that easy.
He did have innumerable flaws and he was a lousy painter, after all.
He was truthful about it. In certain way.
Naturally he exaggerated his drawbacks and defects to a degree when he
could capitalize on them.
Typical trick of self-promotion.
But so many other artists did the same
million times as well.
Weaving the Conundrum
-=| NOUMENON |=-
Nikolaus Maack
> What did I *****warp?**** I posted the quotes in
> the *****exact form**** in which they were
> presented. You, on the other hand, manipulated
Hope this ****helps*****.
Andrew D
<n...@this.address> wrote:
>Thanks for posting these, I recommend every struggling artist who really
>cares about their art read them Cezanne gave himself to art; as these quotes
>show how he was torn by the inner turmoil that comes from choosing to go his
>own way, which happened (at the time) to be against the flow of comforting
>mediocrity.
So he pursued an uncomfortable mediocrity??!
>That struggle - and the struggle of others like him - is what gives art it's
>ability to gives new form to ideas, and from that new form, new ideas.
What new ideas did Cezanne deliver - other than the idea that really bad
paintings should be considered "art"?
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Oliver Gili
"Nikolaus Maack" <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3F0C912B...@sympatico.ca...
> Don't all artists go through these feelings? I think you're missing the
> point -- what is being spoken is emotional and intuitive. You're
> interpreting the words literally and "rationally".
>
> 1) What I want to do, I cannot do. What happens on the paper/canvas is
> something other than my intentions.
>
illustration is that with fine art the art changes from the original intent,
i.e. has a life of its own, were as with illustration it remains true to the
original pre-doing intent? However it is now 11 years since I studied him.
> 2) The sense of doing the right thing, artistically, is fleeting.
> Sometimes the move feels perfect, other times not. But on a good day,
> when you do it right, you feel it in your bones.
and its the best feeling in the whole world... exstasy in the pre acid house
sense
>
> 3) I am not the same person today that I was yesterday. Whatever
> happens in my life changes me, and I can no longer think and feel what I
> thought and felt.
>
> 4) Sometimes, everything on the painting FITS. To try to change a
> single stroke would put all the other brush-strokes out of place.
>
> 5) There are days when I paint for hours and hours, days and days, look
> at the end result, and tear it into pieces.
I'd say that this constant battle with failure actually defines the artist.
>
> I totally understand where these quotes are coming from. Seeing you
> trying to warp them into something they aren't is very depressing.
>
> Nik
> http://www.nikart.ca
>
>
Oliver
Seagull Manager
"Noumenon" <ArtE...@Concentric.Net> wrote in message
news:3F0CB953...@Concentric.Net...
I think I can agree with you all the way on that one.
Nikolaus Maack
>>Not that easy.
>>He did have innumerable flaws and he was a lousy painter, after all.
>>He was truthful about it. In certain way.
>>
>>Naturally he exaggerated his drawbacks and defects to a degree when he
>>could capitalize on them.
>>Typical trick of self-promotion.
>>
>>But so many other artists did the same
>>million times as well.
>
> I think I can agree with you all the way on that one.
Does anyone else moan in annoyance every time someone (who hasn't so
much as shown us a single painting) stands up and defines himself by
knocking someone else down?
Chris
> Don't all artists go through these feelings?
>
Of course all artists - in fact all people who struggle to acheive things of
value - go through this. That's why Bruce and FNP have such a hard time with
them.
Chris
Chris
No, not with Bruce Attah at least, it's a pretentiousness borne of
intellectual cowardice - very common in those that wish they could do, but
can't.. But reading his writing gives me a new appreciation for artists
willing to take the chances necessary to go farther in their work, and it
reminds me of how one winds up if one doesn't..
Just to illustrate my point, here's a link I came across in WoN ereH
(Debra's) post - I'm glad she's put her site up: http://www.Gevant.com
(and debra, if you are reading this, if you use this form rather than what
you have in your post, it'll show up in most newsreaders as a hot link :)
Chris
>
> Nik
> http://www.nikart.ca
>
>
>
G*rd*n
> >>He did have innumerable flaws and he was a lousy painter, after all.
> >>He was truthful about it. In certain way.
> >>
> >>Naturally he exaggerated his drawbacks and defects to a degree when he
> >>could capitalize on them.
> >>Typical trick of self-promotion.
> >>
> >>But so many other artists did the same
> >>million times as well.
Seagull Manager wrote:
> > I think I can agree with you all the way on that one.
> Does anyone else moan in annoyance every time someone (who hasn't so
> much as shown us a single painting) stands up and defines himself by
> knocking someone else down?
I find the put-downs boring regardless of their purpose.
Since I want to enjoy art, what I'm interested in is the
enjoyment of those who see something I don't see, not the
petulance of those who can't see something I do see. It
does not impress me that someone can't see anything good
in Cezanne (or whoever); I can avoid seeing good in any
artist's work simply by closing my eyes.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/19/03 <-adv't
Mani Deli
But unlike Cezanne they aren't considered great masters and their work
gets no comment.
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Mani Deli
This is a place to express one's opinions. Most here haven't shown
work. Some have been here for years. Its a free choice.
Mani Deli
>nikm...@sympatico.ca:
>> Does anyone else moan in annoyance every time someone (who hasn't so
>> much as shown us a single painting) stands up and defines himself by
>> knocking someone else down?
>
>
>I find the put-downs boring regardless of their purpose.
So start a moderated alt Modern Art love in conference. You will
notice that when someone puts-down Bouguereau I don't see any artzy
fartzies complaining.
>Since I want to enjoy art,
Is that supposed to infer that those who have negative opinions about
certain artists don't enjoy art?
> what I'm interested in is the
>enjoyment of those who see something I don't see, not the
>petulance of those who can't see something I do see. It
>does not impress me that someone can't see anything good
>in Cezanne (or whoever);
Who give a shit whether you are impressed or not.
>I can avoid seeing good in any
>artist's work simply by closing my eyes.
These are the same sort of jerks who want a newspaper that only
reports good news.
Marc Sabatella
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
The Outside Shore
Music, art, & educational materials:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Marc Sabatella
> What did I warp? I posted the quotes in the exact form in which they
were
> presented.
... and put a subject line on the thread that does not relate in even
the slightest way to the point of the quotes.
Mani Deli
<Redo...@ogili.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>I'd say that this constant battle with failure actually defines the artist.
>>
I often wonder why many who produce artwork worry so much about being
an Artist and whether they are producing Art. It seems to me it
obsesses those who don't sell. I believe that is up to viewers.
Personally I don't give a damn whether I'm producing art, Art or ART
or whether I'm an artist.
Mani Deli
<nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Does anyone else moan in annoyance every time someone (who hasn't so
>much as shown us a single painting) stands up and defines himself by
>knocking someone else down?
>
Does anyone else moan in annoyance every time someone (who hasn't so
much as shown us a single painting) stands up and defines himself by
complimenting someone else?
I don't care either way.
Mani Deli
>> I'd say that this constant battle with failure actually defines the
>artist.
I'd say that an artist who experiences a constant battle with failure
doesn't know his craft. Modern Academic artists especially the
millions who are starving are obsessed with failure; for good reasons.
Chris
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:u20rgvg0q304qinbh...@4ax.com...
> On 10 Jul 2003 09:45:47 -0400, g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>
>
> >nikm...@sympatico.ca:
> >> Does anyone else moan in annoyance every time someone (who hasn't so
> >> much as shown us a single painting) stands up and defines himself by
> >> knocking someone else down?
> >
> >
> >I find the put-downs boring regardless of their purpose.
>
> So start a moderated alt Modern Art love in conference. You will
> notice that when someone puts-down Bouguereau I don't see any artzy
> fartzies complaining.
>
Take that back. I consider myself an artzy-fartzy but I also like B's work
and find it worth a whole lot of respect (as he himself was as a person).
I'd defend him as quickly as I would Cezanne - whose work I also like even
if he was a nutcase. :-P Both were completely dedicated to their work, and I
wish that our society was such that both sides would get equal airtime, so
to speak.
Chris
Mani Deli
>What new ideas did Cezanne deliver - other than the idea that really bad
>paintings should be considered "art"?
>
The idea that really bad paintings should be considered "art," is the
major idea behind what hangs in the modern sections of all major
museums. Schools have been teaching this for more than half a century
and most artzy fartzies are obsessed with it.
Mike Stengl
I'm not a Cezanne fan but his sentiments are so genuine and for me
seem so familiar that he MUST have been doing something. I don't like
Van Gogh's work either, it all looks supremely clumsy to me, but there
is a PASSION there that I feel akin to. I don't think either one of
these painters was trying to pull some shit on any one, they're lives
were devoted to painting. Other painters who's work I may enjoy more
do not necessarily express their experience with painting in a way
that is helpful to me. As a painter who spends a lot of time alone
with the radio down low smearing on pigment, standing back and
squinting to blur the image and check for over all compositional
integrity, soul search for the next color and start smearing again
(one thing I like about oils vs. watercolor I might add here is the
act of 'brushing', I love that, with watercolor you only 'apply' the
pigment, but I regress...), I NEED to hear the lives of these tortured
souls even if their work does not speak to me. And what about Gauguin?
(Besides the fact that he was an ass-hole) I like some of his
paintings but it seems to me, as his work 'progressed' it became much
flatter and I like it less, but it was more successful to him? Isn't
it possible that these people were trying to acheive something that is
just not apparent to some of us? For instance, I strive to paint
figures without 'outlines'. I prefer the way it looks when a lit area
of the figure disolves into a bright area of the background and ditto
for dark or shadowed areas. Many painters including highly skilled
realists, will stick in a little dab of a darker color just to keep
this from happening, I like it less but it's 'easier'... And I'm sure
many people look at my work and don't have a clue as to what it takes
to make it work without relying on this crutch. And it's not that I'm
against crutches or LIKE doing things the HARD way, it is purely a
matter of personal taste and choice.
Oliver Gili
> someone wrote
> >> I'd say that this constant battle with failure actually defines the
> >artist.
>
> I'd say that an artist who experiences a constant battle with failure
> doesn't know his craft. Modern Academic artists especially the
> millions who are starving are obsessed with failure; for good reasons.
> ...no skill no art!
I'd say an arist who doesn't fight failure either has either a lack of
goals, a low quality threshold, suffers from one of the great enemies of
creativeness: complacency, is stupifyingly dull.... or has a huge cocaine
habit.
Oliver
Oliver Gili
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:56:13 +0100, "Oliver Gili"
> <Redo...@ogili.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >I'd say that this constant battle with failure actually defines the
artist.
> >>
>
> I often wonder why many who produce artwork worry so much about being
> an Artist and whether they are producing Art. It seems to me it
> obsesses those who don't sell. I believe that is up to viewers.
>
> Personally I don't give a damn whether I'm producing art, Art or ART
> or whether I'm an artist.
>
Hahahahahaha you do make me laugh you know.... my last two shows in London
I've sold very well, and even had a painting stolen. Seems like you've
misunderstood what I was saying in order to make the same old
id(iot)eological point.
Oliver
Paul Mesken
<Redo...@ogili.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>my last two shows in London
>I've sold very well, and even had a painting stolen.
I wonder, how does that make you feel when your work is stolen? Does
the crime make you angry or do you feel proud, thinking "My work is so
good, people are even stealing it."? :-)
Oliver Gili
"Paul Mesken" <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
news:0i6rgvs5g9fsgf75h...@4ax.com...
Well it was only a little piece... and there was a security guard within 4
metres of it... and they used such force that they left one of the mirror
mounts still attached to the wall... so I found that quite flattering.... I
was more bemused than proud.... there is no accounting for public taste.
Oliver
Mani Deli
<ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>Indeed, most great artists in any genre were tortured by self-doubt.
>
The usual art school bullshit necessary for anyone who doesn't know
his craft. And remember most art schools can guarantee that you won't
learn that on their premises.
Marc Sabatella's is a good example of work which would torture any
with self-doubt.
keith o'connor
unfortunately that is not an acceptable trait among the black and white
believers here .
--
take care: Keith
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
"Mike Stengl" <eatn...@humboldt1.com> wrote in message
news:45dd5dd.03071...@posting.google.com...
Flying_Naked_People
ma...@outsideshore.com says...
>
> "Flying_Naked_People" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl> wrote:
>
> > What did I warp? I posted the quotes in the exact form in which they
> were
> > presented.
>
> ... and put a subject line on the thread that does not relate in even
> the slightest way to the point of the quotes.
Do you know what failure means?
Seagull Manager
> seem so familiar that he MUST have been doing something.
That's how the whole Romantic Genius scam operates. Anyone who tries to make
ambitious art (except the lucky few who are invincibly self-confident) goes
through troughs of self-doubt from time to time, and experiences
dissatisfaction with their efforts occasionally, regardless of whether they
are good or bad. If anything, a bad artist will experience those doubts and
dissatisfactions more often - but at least it shows they're sincere, eh? The
Romantic Genius plays up to this idea of struggle by acting stern or aloof
and extremely earnest, by complaining about the stupidity of the masses who
fail to see the true importance of his work, by gazing into the far distance
or directly into your eyes and making cryptic, deep-sounding pronouncements,
and by occasionally having public tantrums. Said Romantic Genius may believe
his own performance, may even be entirely sincere, but it doesn't mean he's
any good as an artist.
Emile Zola was Cezanne's childhood friend, and knew him very well, long into
adulthood. But Zola spotted the contrast between Cezanne's self-importance
and the actual quality of his work, and wrote a novel, called "The
Masterpiece" about a guy who did all the Romantic Genius stuff, but was
actually a crap painter. Naturally, Zola and Cezanne never spoke to one
another after that.
> (one thing I like about oils vs. watercolor I might add here is the
> act of 'brushing', I love that, with watercolor you only 'apply' the
> pigment, but I regress...)
Don't underestimate watercolour. It is a less forgiving medium than oil.
Lots of amateurs use it because it is easy to get into, but to use it well
is a different matter. But we digress.
Seagull Manager
"Oliver Gili" <Redo...@ogili.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bek5kh$3d1$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> I'd say an arist who doesn't fight failure either has either a lack of
> goals, a low quality threshold, suffers from one of the great enemies of
> creativeness: complacency, is stupifyingly dull.... or has a huge cocaine
> habit.
Or has trained themselves up to a level where they can be confident of
success most of the time.
Seagull Manager
"Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote in message
news:8jfPa.6411$fa3....@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com...
> Indeed, most great artists in any genre were tortured by self-doubt.
How do you know this is true? The documentary evidence available to us
suggests that Michelangelo, Raphael, Da Vinci and Titian were all blessed
with considerable self-confidence. If they were full of self-doubt, they
kept it pretty much to themselves. I think we could say this of a lot of
successful artists.
Of course, almost everyone with ambition will occasionally experience a
little doubt, but it is not plausible that everyone who is successful in
their artistic ambitions suffers extreme amounts of such emotions. It is
especially implausible that the best artists should be agonized by far more
self-doubt than the worst. Indeed, the opposite ought to be the case: it
would be natural to expect that the talented, well-trained and successful
ones would suffer less self-doubt than the unsuccessful ones, and those
whose talents or skills or successes do not match up to their ambitions.
Historically, the whole idea of the "tortured" genius is a Romantic myth. It
barely exists before the 18th century; but it grows and grows from that time
on to reach fever pitch in the 19th century. Hogarth lampooned the idea in
his series of prints, "The Distrest Poet", and Zola grimly satirized
Cezanne's own self-inflicted "torture" in "The Masterpiece".
Oliver Gili
"Seagull Manager" <seagull...@nospamthanksbecauseisayso.demon.co.uk>
wrote in message news:bekc1c$6l9$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
the point. Say for example you are exploring a new avenue of your work, it
doesn't matter how well its executed, you could still look at it and realise
that it was a wrong turn in your exploration, or that what you thought was a
new avenue is in fact a cul-de-sac
Oliver
keith o'connor
write. Your habitual use of sound byte thinking (dependence upon other
opinions which you quote endlessly) is a well worn method of hiding your
true self.
My unwelcome advice is: start thinking for yourself. Consider researching
Cézannes approach to colour recession and how it differs from previous
approaches.
Write in your own words an expressed understanding of the various theories
of colour recession (hint: there are six) pointing out the one Cézanne
experimented with and don't just write some quotes you pull out of a book
or off the web.
--
take care: Keith
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
"Seagull Manager" <seagull...@nospamthanksbecauseisayso.demon.co.uk>
wrote in message news:bekbtb$bum$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
Mani Deli
<Redo...@ogili.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:el0rgvk7it678nt1s...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:56:13 +0100, "Oliver Gili"
>> <Redo...@ogili.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >I'd say that this constant battle with failure actually defines the
>artist.
>> >>
>>
>> I often wonder why many who produce artwork worry so much about being
>> an Artist and whether they are producing Art. It seems to me it
>> obsesses those who don't sell. I believe that is up to viewers.
>>
>> Personally I don't give a damn whether I'm producing art, Art or ART
>> or whether I'm an artist.
>>
>
>Hahahahahaha you do make me laugh you know.... my last two shows in London
>I've sold very well, and even had a painting stolen. Seems like you've
>misunderstood what I was saying in order to make the same old
>id(iot)eological point.
>
>Oliver
>
Lets hope you go to bed every night worrying about being an artist
after a long day battling your failure.
Seagull Manager
"keith o'connor" <ke...@tinmangallery.com> wrote in message
news:JFjPa.103314$a51....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> You are definitely an incredible act and actually appear to believe what
you
> write.
And you appear to believe what you write.
> Your habitual use of sound byte thinking (dependence upon other
> opinions which you quote endlessly) is a well worn method of hiding your
> true self.
I hardly ever quote anyone else, and my opinions are often unpopular ones,
so I don't know where you got that idea.
> My unwelcome advice is: start thinking for yourself.
If I didn't think for myself, I'd probably only have the same
common-or-garden opinions that every unthinking person has (like you,
perhaps?). I'd be happy to accept the ridiculous idea that Cezanne was a
great painter, just because some wizened old prof says so in a book. Perish
the thought.
> Consider researching
> Cézannes approach to colour recession and how it differs from previous
> approaches.
Does it now? Could that be because it is wrong?
> Write in your own words an expressed understanding of the various theories
> of colour recession (hint: there are six) pointing out the one Cézanne
> experimented with and don't just write some quotes you pull out of a
book
> or off the web.
Really? There are precisely six theories of colour recession in the world?
You've read all the books and articles in the world that could possibly
contain a theory of colour recession, and you now know for sure that there
are no more? How do you know there's not one in Japanese that's never been
translated, eh? What a stupid thing to say.
Look at Cezanne's paintings for yourself. There's no evidence whatsoever
that he had a proper grasp of colour recession. Heck, he could barely keep
his paintings from turning into all-over mud.
> --
> take care: Keith
Take care yourself. If you live a long time, you might learn to think for
yourself one day.
Seagull Manager
>
> > Or has trained themselves up to a level where they can be confident of
> > success most of the time.
> >
> you are talking about the physicalities of painting, and somewhat missing
> the point.
I don't think I'm missing the point at all. If you build up an armoury of
skills and knowledge relevant to your aims (not just the "physicalities" of
painting), you should be less apt to have crises of confidence than if you
don't.
> Say for example you are exploring a new avenue of your work, it
> doesn't matter how well its executed, you could still look at it and
realise
> that it was a wrong turn in your exploration, or that what you thought was
a
> new avenue is in fact a cul-de-sac
Yes, you could. I did say "most" of the time, not "all" the time.
keith o'connor
of fresh air at the end of it. Her work is fun, entertaining, relaxing,
filled with unexpected combinations of the picturesque as opposed to the
graceful, ordered, everything has its place, life is serious and filled
with passive nudes type of painting that the proponents of Bouguereau try
to push onto us.
--
take care: Keith
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
"Chris" <n...@this.address> wrote in message
news:JddPa.8736$ru2.8...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> "Nikolaus Maack" <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3F0D43BD...@sympatico.ca...
> > Seagull Manager wrote:
> > >>Not that easy.
> > >>He did have innumerable flaws and he was a lousy painter, after all.
> > >>He was truthful about it. In certain way.
> > >>
> > >>Naturally he exaggerated his drawbacks and defects to a degree when he
> > >>could capitalize on them.
> > >>Typical trick of self-promotion.
> > >>
> > >>But so many other artists did the same
> > >>million times as well.
> > >
> > > I think I can agree with you all the way on that one.
> >
> > Does anyone else moan in annoyance every time someone (who hasn't so
> > much as shown us a single painting) stands up and defines himself by
> > knocking someone else down?
>
>
> No, not with Bruce Attah at least, it's a pretentiousness borne of
> intellectual cowardice - very common in those that wish they could do, but
> can't.. But reading his writing gives me a new appreciation for artists
> willing to take the chances necessary to go farther in their work, and it
> reminds me of how one winds up if one doesn't..
>
> Just to illustrate my point, here's a link I came across in WoN ereH
> (Debra's) post - I'm glad she's put her site up: http://www.Gevant.com
> (and debra, if you are reading this, if you use this form rather than what
> you have in your post, it'll show up in most newsreaders as a hot link :)
>
> Chris
>
>
> >
> > Nik
> > http://www.nikart.ca
> >
> >
> >
>
>
keith o'connor
more relaxed texture based approach than your uptight isolated controlled
forms.
--
take care: Keith
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:187rgv87nf5026e2o...@4ax.com...
Flying_Naked_People
ke...@tinmangallery.com says...
> Mani: I just went over to Marc's site. You're just jealous because he has a
> more relaxed texture based approach than your uptight isolated controlled
> forms.
Real mean like it tight.
> take care: Keith
>
> www.tinmangallery.com
>
Flying_Naked_People
ke...@tinmangallery.com says...
> You are definitely an incredible act and actually appear to believe what you
> write.
Of what value is that which you criticize about others, when you can't
even tell the difference between a male and a female? What does this say
about what *you* believe? What kind of act are you displaying here?
> Your habitual use of sound byte thinking (dependence upon other
> opinions which you quote endlessly) is a well worn method of hiding your
> true self.
How do you explain your obscurity by masking the beautiful female nude
behind homosexuality? Why do you *hide* by not directly answering direct
questions?
> My unwelcome advice is:
Discombobulating falderal! Infrangible betise! Arrant buncombe! You sir,
are a whited sepulcher!
> --
> take care: Keith
Erik A. Mattila
It feels shitty, especially when the thieves are making a lot of bucks
over your work (or, as they say, "intellectual property.") The "fame"
component is ephemeral and doesn't pay the rent.
Erik
>
keith o'connor
> Cezanne's own self-inflicted "torture" in "The Masterpiece".
Zola also painted. You don't know how much of Zola's story was just a nice
story he could make money on and how much expressed his need to justify his
own painterly style.
It is very possible that Cézanne recognised Zola's attempt to enhance his
own standing at the expense of Cézannes. People (including yourself) do this
all the time.
You are a convergent thinker - that means you consistently narrow the
variables in order to arrive at a conclusion that is consistent with your
general attitude. You can't learn anything because you already know
everything.
--
take care: Keith
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
"Seagull Manager" <seagull...@nospamthanksbecauseisayso.demon.co.uk>
wrote in message news:bekd78$8db$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
Seagull Manager
> snip: ...Zola grimly satirized
> > Cezanne's own self-inflicted "torture" in "The Masterpiece".
>
> Zola also painted. You don't know how much of Zola's story was just a nice
> story he could make money on and how much expressed his need to justify
his
> own painterly style.
Hahaha! Zola was a hugely successful writer by the time the Masterpiece was
published in 1886, with more than a dozen novels under his belt, and plenty
of critical writing besides. He was the most famous writer in France at the
time. Meanwhile, Cezanne was languishing in obscurity in Aix.
>
> It is very possible that Cézanne recognised Zola's attempt to enhance his
> own standing at the expense of Cézannes. People (including yourself) do
this
> all the time.
Hahaha, once more.
>
> You are a convergent thinker - that means you consistently narrow the
> variables in order to arrive at a conclusion that is consistent with your
> general attitude.
Smart people think "convergently" when that is required, and "divergently"
when that is. Dumb people are stuck with only one strategy of thought.
> You can't learn anything because you already know
> everything.
I'm learning all the time.
keith o'connor
sir,
> are a whited sepulcher!
Attention 911: we have a real one here: he's cracking up: bring in the white
coats!
Yes he's a convergent thinker fear based personality group suffering
overexposure to more than one thought - needs urgent sedation - keeps
talking about hiding beautiful female nudes behind homosexuality - yes
possibly showing signs of homophobia - yes he's afraid of being exposed -
keeps calling himself flying naked - please hurry!
--
take care: Keith
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
"Flying_Naked_People" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl> wrote in message
news:vgrrobi...@corp.supernews.com...
Flying_Naked_People
ke...@tinmangallery.com says...
> Attention 911: we have a real one here: he's cracking up: bring in the white
> coats!
>
> Yes he's a convergent thinker fear based personality group suffering
> overexposure to more than one thought - needs urgent sedation - keeps
> talking about hiding beautiful female nudes behind homosexuality - yes
> possibly showing signs of homophobia - yes he's afraid of being exposed -
> keeps calling himself flying naked - please hurry!
Your essay will fail.
Andrew D
eatn...@humboldt1.com (Mike Stengl) wrote:
>right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D) wrote in message
news:<right-10070...@i172-135.nv.iinet.net.au>...
>> In article <8i_Oa.7427$ru2.7...@news20.bellglobal.com>, "Chris"
>> <n...@this.address> wrote:
>>
>> >Thanks for posting these, I recommend every struggling artist who really
>> >cares about their art read them Cezanne gave himself to art; as these quotes
>> >show how he was torn by the inner turmoil that comes from choosing to go his
>> >own way, which happened (at the time) to be against the flow of comforting
>> >mediocrity.
>>
>> So he pursued an uncomfortable mediocrity??!
>>
>> >That struggle - and the struggle of others like him - is what gives art it's
>> >ability to gives new form to ideas, and from that new form, new ideas.
>>
>> What new ideas did Cezanne deliver - other than the idea that really bad
>> paintings should be considered "art"?
>>
>> Andy D.
>
>I'm not a Cezanne fan but his sentiments are so genuine and for me
>seem so familiar that he MUST have been doing something. I don't like
>Van Gogh's work either, it all looks supremely clumsy to me, but there
>is a PASSION there that I feel akin to. I don't think either one of
>these painters was trying to pull some shit on any one, they're lives
>were devoted to painting. Other painters who's work I may enjoy more
>do not necessarily express their experience with painting in a way
>that is helpful to me.
I'm still looking for those "new ideas" you spoke of.....
> As a painter who spends a lot of time alone
>with the radio down low smearing on pigment, standing back and
>squinting to blur the image and check for over all compositional
>integrity, soul search for the next color and start smearing again
>(one thing I like about oils vs. watercolor I might add here is the
>act of 'brushing', I love that, with watercolor you only 'apply' the
>pigment, but I regress...), I NEED to hear the lives of these tortured
>souls even if their work does not speak to me. And what about Gauguin?
>(Besides the fact that he was an ass-hole) I like some of his
>paintings but it seems to me, as his work 'progressed' it became much
>flatter and I like it less, but it was more successful to him?
I'm still looking for those "new ideas" you spoke of.....
> Isn't
>it possible that these people were trying to acheive something that is
>just not apparent to some of us? For instance, I strive to paint
>figures without 'outlines'. I prefer the way it looks when a lit area
>of the figure disolves into a bright area of the background and ditto
>for dark or shadowed areas. Many painters including highly skilled
>realists, will stick in a little dab of a darker color just to keep
>this from happening,
Or because it enhances contrast - like putting a dob of darkish blue next
to a patch of brightish yellow - though most skillfull
realist/representational artists understand the power of 'lost and found'
edges. But I'm still looking for those "new ideas" you spoke of.....
> I like it less but it's 'easier'... And I'm sure
>many people look at my work and don't have a clue as to what it takes
>to make it work without relying on this crutch. And it's not that I'm
>against crutches or LIKE doing things the HARD way, it is purely a
>matter of personal taste and choice.
Cezanne outlined damned near everything - but what "new ideas" did he deliver?
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Flying_Naked_People
<http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl> says...
> > Yes he's a convergent thinker fear based personality group suffering
> > overexposure to more than one thought - needs urgent sedation - keeps
> > talking about hiding beautiful female nudes behind homosexuality - yes
> > possibly showing signs of homophobia - yes he's afraid of being exposed -
> > keeps calling himself flying naked - please hurry!
>
Oh what the hell!
You're right... I confess...
...I... I... (well dog-onit!) I really (truly - honestly - deep down inside my
Holy Drawers) desire... men. Big, muscular, sweaty, freaky men!
Oh God Oh Lord All Mighty yes... I WANT MEN.
I mean, is there really anything WRONG with that?? Can't I get my freak on
too? I never would have guessed that a master-mind like you would figure that
out by looking at the art in my house. Not that you've ever been to my
house... but if you were a little younger... well... you never know.
I'm just sayin'. I mean, that's just how *I* roll.
winky wink and flirty tootie fruit to you!!!
;-)
Flying_Naked_People
right@the_end.of.my_tether says...
> Andy D.
>
> "I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
>
Hey man... you gotta website? I wanna "check you out". Lol.
Andrew D
"keith o'connor" <ke...@tinmangallery.com> wrote:
>You are definitely an incredible act and actually appear to believe what you
>write.
Unlike you who openly admits to rambling on without necessarily knowing
what you've written??
Andrew D
"keith o'connor" <ke...@tinmangallery.com> wrote:
>You are definitely an incredible act and actually appear to believe what you
>write. Your habitual use of sound byte thinking (dependence upon other
>opinions which you quote endlessly) is a well worn method of hiding your
>true self.
>My unwelcome advice is: start thinking for yourself. Consider researching
>Cézannes approach to colour recession and how it differs from previous
>approaches.
>Write in your own words an expressed understanding of the various theories
>of colour recession (hint: there are six) pointing out the one Cézanne
>experimented with and don't just write some quotes you pull out of a book
>or off the web.
So you want him to research Cezanne then form an opinion of his own
without reference to what others say??? What's the point of all that
reference if the ultimate intent is to ignore it completely and decide for
himself if the work has any merit?
Where do your long-winded opinions come from Keith? Where do you get the
idea that there are 6 theories of colour recession and why do you accept
that those who formulated these "theories" are worthy of our faith whilst
you dogmatically insist we should not rely on statements by other people?
And if we are to think for ourselves, why would we pay heed to your
unwelcome advice - surely that would be a counter-productive start...
wouldn't it?
And why didn't you grace us with your understanding of the colour theories
that you insist should be researched before passing comment in this forum?
BRIAN: "You're all individuals"
CROWD (in unison): "Yes, we are all individuals"
BRIAN: "You've got to learn to think for yourselves."
CROWD (in unison):"Yes, we've got to learn to think for ourselves"
[Monty Python's "Life of Brian"]
Andrew D
<n...@this.address> wrote:
>"Nikolaus Maack" <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:3F0C912B...@sympatico.ca...
>
>> Don't all artists go through these feelings?
>>
>
>Of course all artists - in fact all people who struggle to acheive things of
>value - go through this. That's why Bruce and FNP have such a hard time with
>them.
But it's also true to say that most failures will also suffer the same
emotions, possibly even to a greater extent, so emotions themselves do not
indicate that the person "must be" an artist - which is what some seem to
be saying with regard to Cezanne.
Mani Deli
>Mani: I just went over to Marc's site. You're just jealous because he has a
>more relaxed texture based approach than your uptight isolated controlled
>forms.
>--
>take care: Keith
>
>www.tinmangallery.com
His colored badly drawn sludge is definitely a more relaxed texture
based approach. Its so relaxed that it shows evidence of sleeping
sickness.
His work is even worse then yours. That's why he makes you feel good.
Seagull Manager
"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
news:right-11070...@i168-169.nv.iinet.net.au...
>
> BRIAN: "You're all individuals"
> CROWD (in unison): "Yes, we are all individuals"
> BRIAN: "You've got to learn to think for yourselves."
> CROWD (in unison):"Yes, we've got to learn to think for ourselves"
> [Monty Python's "Life of Brian"]
Exactly! LOL!
Lauri Levanto
Seagull Manager wrote:
> "Anyone who tries to make
> ambitious art (except the lucky few who are invincibly self-confident) goes
> through troughs of self-doubt from time to time, and experiences
> dissatisfaction with their efforts occasionally, regardless of whether they
> are good or bad. If anything, a bad artist will experience those doubts and
> dissatisfactions more often - but at least it shows they're sincere, eh?
It seems I'm getting worse with the age. When I was a child, all my drawings
were perfect.
The more I have learned, the more difficult it becomes.
-lauri
Mike Stengl
> In article <45dd5dd.03071...@posting.google.com>,
> eatn...@humboldt1.com (Mike Stengl) wrote:
>
> > >
> >I'm not a Cezanne fan but his sentiments are so genuine and for me
> >seem so familiar that he MUST have been doing something. I don't like
> >Van Gogh's work either, it all looks supremely clumsy to me, but there
> >is a PASSION there that I feel akin to. I don't think either one of
> >these painters was trying to pull some shit on any one, they're lives
> >were devoted to painting. Other painters who's work I may enjoy more
> >do not necessarily express their experience with painting in a way
> >that is helpful to me.
>
> I'm still looking for those "new ideas" you spoke of.....
>
I'm not the 'new idea guy' and I've searched his paintings probably
much like yourself and come up just scratching my head. But I'm not
'outraged' at his popularity, there's much crummier work out there for
me to talk shit on. I just look elsewhere for inspiration. Ever read a
book of poetry by a poet that you like but not all the poems speak to
you? I just turn the page. Frankly, well painted photo-realist work
often makes me shake my head, it's like, it makes me weary to think
someone went to such great efforts to make a canvas look like a
photograph. Or a painter who does a cool painting or two, the kind
that make you stop and look and then down the line continues to
repaint the same damn paintings over again by either copying the same
subject matter or using the same color scheme.
Erik A. Mattila
stomping grounds? I've lived in Blue Lake, Trinidad and Myers Flat -
late 70s early 80s. A great place in the world. I have a sister in
Trinidad, a sister in Benbow, and a Nephew in Westhaven. I'm way down
south now, Imperial Valley, pulling duty caring for my ailing
mother-in-law. It was 115 today, and we had a power failure. That was
fun. We lose about 15 or 20 Campesinos from Mexico around here each
year, when the Coyotes dump them out in the brush, after fleecing them
of their money. A great tragedy.
Two artists who I got to know pretty well up there were John Wesa,
screen printer (lived in the Arcata bottoms last time I saw him) and
Brian Tripp, Karok artist in Eureka. Both great fellows - Brian's been
doing some awesome work last I saw.
Erik
Chris
"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
news:right-11070...@i168-169.nv.iinet.net.au...
> Cezanne outlined damned near everything - but what "new ideas" did he
deliver?
>
If you are serious about discussing this, painter to painter and not Usenet
asshole to Usenet asshole (so to speak), I'd be happy to take part. My time
is rather limited, but I find the political and moral issues that hit the
fan as the Age of Reason gave way to the dehumanization of the Twentieth
Century fascinating, and worth discussing - especially how it was expressed
in the art of the time.
Chris
Erik A. Mattila
Whew! That road looks like it will take us to DaDa.
Erik
>
>
Oliver Gili
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
news:3F0DEF5E...@oco.net...
Thats somewhat different, Grand Theft Art/Idea so to speak... what I
encountered was more akin to shoplifting....
I'd be interested to hear your take on the whole corporate intellectual
copyright versus napster/kazaa/winmx/limewire etc battle, and the Copyleft
movement. (http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/copyleft/copyleftart.jsp)
Also do you know www.illegal-art.org (a site devoted to 'what is rapidly
becoming the "degenerate art" of a corporate age: art and ideas on the legal
fringes of intellectual property' some of the stuff on there is very good).
Oliver
Chris
>
>
> Whew! That road looks like it will take us to DaDa.
>
Oh definitely, But why stop there? "To infinity, and beyond!"
Chris
Seagull Manager
"Mike Stengl" <eatn...@humboldt1.com> wrote in message
news:45dd5dd.03071...@posting.google.com...
>
> I'm not the 'new idea guy' and I've searched [Cezanne's] paintings
probably
> much like yourself and come up just scratching my head. But I'm not
> 'outraged' at his popularity, there's much crummier work out there for
> me to talk shit on.
Ah, but he's the *first*. Cezanne was the first truly all-round bad painter
to be accorded the accolade of "great". You can't even accuse him of having
naive charm. He's the excuse that thousands of other bad painters have used
since. No wonder Matisse called him "the father of modernism".
> I just look elsewhere for inspiration. Ever read a
> book of poetry by a poet that you like but not all the poems speak to
> you? I just turn the page. Frankly, well painted photo-realist work
> often makes me shake my head, it's like, it makes me weary to think
> someone went to such great efforts to make a canvas look like a
> photograph. Or a painter who does a cool painting or two, the kind
> that make you stop and look and then down the line continues to
> repaint the same damn paintings over again by either copying the same
> subject matter or using the same color scheme.
I can sympathise with all of that.
Mani Deli
As I said the usual Bullshit.
Mike Stengl
> Mike, just out of curiosity, are you in Humboldt County - my old
> stomping grounds? I've lived in Blue Lake, Trinidad and Myers Flat -
> late 70s early 80s. A great place in the world. I have a sister in
> Trinidad, a sister in Benbow, and a Nephew in Westhaven. I'm way down
> south now, Imperial Valley, pulling duty caring for my ailing
> mother-in-law. It was 115 today, and we had a power failure. That was
> fun. We lose about 15 or 20 Campesinos from Mexico around here each
> year, when the Coyotes dump them out in the brush, after fleecing them
> of their money. A great tragedy.
>
> Two artists who I got to know pretty well up there were John Wesa,
> screen printer (lived in the Arcata bottoms last time I saw him) and
> Brian Tripp, Karok artist in Eureka. Both great fellows - Brian's been
> doing some awesome work last I saw.
>
> Erik
>
How'd you know? Thought I recognized the John Wesa name recently in a
post. Tripp's work is beyond me, but he is apparently quite
successful. I must have moved in when you moved out, '84. I currently
reside in Blue Lake, again, how'd you know? Where were getting
swimming tempatures now and then. One of my favorite Hum. Cty artists
is this Stengl guy... heh, heh, little joke. Actually he sucks. Guys'
been wasting paint and canvas for a year now, completely incompetent,
spends his time at this news group pretending to be a painter... feel
free to email me, we'll chat. I'll tell ya how the old town bar and
grill is no more and such...
Mani Deli
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/reference_pictures/electric_ingres.jpg
ONLY BAD OPINIONS WELCOME?
some suggestions:
Where did I ape Dali and which one did I ape?
How bad is my painting theory, philosophy and politics, composition,
color, drawing? And of course what about my bad intentions?
Should I study Cezanne more? Matisse? Pollock? Go back to art school
and get a diploma?
Will I ever catch up to keith o'connor or Sabatella's " more relaxed
texture based approach than my uptight isolated controlled
forms?" Will I always be jealous of their esteemed artwork?
Will Mattila smell something again?
Perhaps Fox can lecture us on sour grapes and how bitter I am and
tell us how kooky and bourgeois it is and whether it supports Hitler
as much as he claimed I used to?
And can Keith our conference porno-detector comment on its hidden
obscenities? (long wordy message expected)
Any comments Marilyn "Yente" Welch?
Is all this too impolite for Paul Mesken?
Flying_Naked_People
says...
> Perhaps Fox can lecture us on sour grapes and how bitter I am and
> tell us how kooky and bourgeois it is and whether it supports Hitler
> as much as he claimed I used to?
>
I know (personally) that Fox is too busy booking gallery shows on the east
coast.
Nikolaus Maack
Mani Deli wrote:
> Here's one of my latest evil paintings "Electric Ingres" At
> http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/reference_pictures/electric_ingres.jpg
And ends with this:
> Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd
> pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Evidently he's unaware that these words could be applied to his latest
work. Indecipherable? Check. Absurd pretensions? Check.
This is not say the painting is bad. I just think it's funny it could
be described in the very terms Mani uses to beat down paintings he
doesn't like.
Mani also says:
>And can Keith our conference porno-detector comment on its hidden
>obscenities? (long wordy message expected)
How about the Freudian implications of a flaming zepplin (phallus) going
down, and as it's about to crash, it's going to fly out the window
(vagina)? Not to mention that the zepplin leaves a trail of creamy
white "paint" across the face of the woman in centre.
I hope to God it's a deliberate Freudian trope, because if it isn't, it
might be a little embarrassing.
It's not an ape of Dali, which is nice.
I kind of like it. I find the armless statue and that eye near the
window more a distraction than anything else. I don't see how they fit
in to the work. Although it is sort of cute that the statue is looking
out the widnow.
I forgot to mention how much I like that large hand, with a single
finger touching the throat. It's like she's taking her own pulse. The
prominent wedding band is a cute touch.
Thanks Mani. I enjoyed it.
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>Here's one of my latest evil paintings "Electric Ingres" At
>http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/reference_pictures/electric_ingres.jpg
>
>ONLY BAD OPINIONS WELCOME?
You know, I think it looks better when I cover the area right from her
head with my hand. It makes her ("electric" blue) eyes stand out more
while that area dulls them down by being more blue than her eyes.
Mike Stengl
> Here's one of my latest evil paintings "Electric Ingres" At
> http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/reference_pictures/electric_ingres.jpg
>
> ONLY BAD OPINIONS WELCOME?
>
adventurous. If that's what you like then the piece is pretty
flawless. For me, after I have looked at the shapes and discerned the
quality there in I look for color appreciation (my own). It is almost
monochromatic with yellow highlights. As a painter, I am aware that
it's a whole lot less complicated if the colors remain muted this way.
Thur
Surrealism, I cannot make out what it is meant to
be.
What am I to make of the cucumber shaped object
that seems to have liquefied part of her head?
It is an airship, but is it also a suggestion of a
phallus I wonder?
(back to my The Home Analyst)
And what has happened to the poor woman, morphing
herself into a liquid like that?
Was she a wax model to begin with?
The reason I have troubled myself to comment is that
this is a complete example of my problem with Art
appreciation.
Apart from noting that the work has been carefully painted,
there is nothing to go on.
Hung by itself in a gallery, and knowing that only a few know who
M.Deli is, then would it stand up as a work?
Perhaps much better than all the Abstract stuff, but not enough
to delight me.
Thur
"Flying_Naked_People" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl> wrote in message
news:vgvdmo1...@corp.supernews.com...
Roob
Marc Sabatella
> Do you know what failure means?
My dictionary is not missing any pages.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
The Outside Shore
Music, art, & educational materials:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Marc Sabatella
<seagull...@nospamthanksbecauseisayso.demon.co.uk>:
> > Indeed, most great artists in any genre were tortured by self-doubt.
>
> How do you know this is true?
If you wish to claim the actual number is less than 50%, I will be happy
to change my statement to "some". "Many", even. This is completely and
obviously true if you have done any reading whatsoever.
Oil pastel has the advantage of working well on a wider variety of
surfaces. Actually, too much tooth can be a problem.
> Michelangelo, Raphael, Da Vinci and Titian
Great, that's what, three out of how many thousands? Or are there in
your world fewer than six great artists?
Flying_Naked_People
ma...@outsideshore.com says...
> Subject: Re: Cezanne Painting Badly Admits Failure
> From: "Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
>
> "Flying_Naked_People" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl> wrote:
>
> > Do you know what failure means?
>
> My dictionary is not missing any pages.
Did I ask if your dictionary was missing any pages? (a shame)
> --------------
> Marc Sabatella
> ma...@outsideshore.com
>
>
Marc Sabatella
> Oil pastel has the advantage of working well on a wider variety of
> surfaces. Actually, too much tooth can be a problem.
Woah. Who knows what I was *trying* to cut and paste into that spot.
à-la-votre
library_...@hotmail.com says...
>
>POSTMODERN? check.
With a 'sucker born every minute' is it any
wonder that Mani has managed to hoodwink
his followers with this computer generated
collage? I can only assume that those who
are praising his "painting" skills fail to
see that it's his computer software skills
at work! The same is true of most if not all
of his so-called "paintings."
G*rd*n
We want to Believe.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/19/03 <-adv't
gerberk
it.It's daring,it's fresh ,it's new I love it.Pretty good stuff.
"Mike Stengl" <eatn...@humboldt1.com> schreef in bericht
news:45dd5dd.03071...@posting.google.com...
Mani Deli
>With a 'sucker born every minute' is it any
>wonder that Mani has managed to hoodwink
>his followers with this computer generated
>collage?
To all my "hoodwinked followers" I have always said that what counts
is the picture not how one did it and have described the process I
used in former messages.
Long ago when I painted professionally I had to do all preliminary
drawings, placement, and enlarging by traditional methods. The
computer frees on from this tedium. (which BTW is often done by
assistants if the painter is wealthy enough to have them.)
One can now do all those pieces and get the composition in the
computer. On can take sketches and put them into the computer and do
what the computer does best. Print them out and do additional painting
return it etc.
The computer generated part is then used as an underpainting. There is
nothing unusual about this technique and it is used constantly. Even
art schools now teach computer methods with the usual disastrous
results because it is taught unsystematically to students who can't
draw .
Art schools and artzy fartzies infer that any method other then
mindless schmiering around and drawing without technical knowledge is
the only way to go about things painterly. Everything else is cheating
using gimmicks. You can usually look at the work of teachers, students
failures, and the crap in museums to see why this is so.
>I can only assume that those who
>are praising his "painting" skills fail to
>see that it's his computer software skills
>at work! The same is true of most if not all
>of his so-called "paintings."
Those who can't draw and don't know perspective and their painterly
craft will produce little more than the crap which floods the internet
regardless of method. Most can't even do an interesting abstraction on
a computer or anything else.
I advise all artzy fartzies here to continue hoodwink themselves with
work based on a total lack of craftsmanly knowledge along with a lack
of understanding of the latest methods.
The more so-called artists who don't know their craft, the more work
for those who do.
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Flying_Naked_People
Voisins) says...
> With a 'sucker born every minute' is it any
> wonder that Mani has managed to hoodwink
> his followers with this computer generated
> are praising his "painting" skills fail to
> see that it's his computer software skills
> at work! The same is true of most if not all
> of his so-called "paintings."
>
I was curious about two things: (1) why the "painting" had the *same* texture
throughout the same elements/passages, etc. and (2) the why eye looked more
realistic than anything else. One would think the level realism would be
consistent in one "realization" of an assumed canvas- but in this case, it was
not.
Honestly, I thought it was a painting with cut photographs placed into the
media... and the texture was the fault the image of being a jpeg (although
jpegs have more uneven and random jaggies).
Good call.
Flying_Naked_People
says...
> Those who can't draw and don't know perspective and their painterly
> craft will produce little more than the crap which floods the internet
> regardless of method. Most can't even do an interesting abstraction on
> a computer or anything else.
>
I think that's an inaccurate statement. There's goo-gobs of gorgeous digital
art floating around the internet. Where have you been?
I could even say that emulating archaic painting styles with the technology
available today is... rabbit-ass-backwards.
What are you doing??
Dr. Slick
> http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/reference_pictures/electric_ingres.jpg
>
> ONLY BAD OPINIONS WELCOME?
>
Another Dali influenced piece, with too many melting eyes and
melting faces moving through the fun house of mirrors.
And no central point of interest, just random eyeballs and faces
strew everywhere pointlessly. Very similar to the randomly strewn
objects of Dali at his worst, who tries to impress you with the
"genius" of incompatible objects.
Just put a lot of unrelated things together and distort them, and
you will please all the acid heads, ehh? Well, maybe some of them.
Go back to school and learn ORIGINALITY and COMPOSITION.
Slick
Mani Deli
<http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl> wrote:
>In article <1123hvktl0pm0jt5s...@4ax.com>, ma...@sympatico.ca
>says...
>> Those who can't draw and don't know perspective and their painterly
>> craft will produce little more than the crap which floods the internet
>> regardless of method. Most can't even do an interesting abstraction on
>> a computer or anything else.
Your work is a good example.
>
>I think that's an inaccurate statement. There's goo-gobs of gorgeous digital
>art floating around the internet. Where have you been?
Most of which is far worse than your work.
>
>I could even say that emulating archaic painting styles with the technology
>available today is.... rabbit-ass-backwards.
>
>What are you doing??
And what are you doing when you can't even get more than lumpiness
when copying Ingres' La Source?
Most of your stuff is then as you say "rabbit-ass-backwards." Only you
are unable to refine it because you lack the knowledge.
Mani Deli
BTW I forgot to mention the name of the painting. "Electric Ingres."
The hand is a copy of a detail in Ingres.
Delighted that you think its crap. However you haven't pointed out
which Dali influenced it.
Does it have an art school influence similar to your work?
Mani Deli
Here's another one of my latest evil paintings, unfinished.
ONLY BAD OPINIONS WELCOME? Others unwelcome.
Perhaps Dr Slick can recommend an art school where I will learn to
improve this one.
Flying_Naked_People
sniffed you out for the hypocrite that you (know you) are.
So now we know the source of Mani's anger. He CAN'T DRAW - Has to use a
'puter!
Lame-o!
In article <scs3hv8frc4mel1fd...@4ax.com>, ma...@sympatico.ca
says...
> Subject: Re: Mani's last laugh...Re: New Painting by Mani
> From: Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
>
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 18:37:30 -0000, "Flying_Naked_People"
> <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl> wrote:
>
> >In article <1123hvktl0pm0jt5s...@4ax.com>, ma...@sympatico.ca
> >says...
> >> Those who can't draw and don't know perspective and their painterly
> >> craft will produce little more than the crap which floods the internet
> >> regardless of method. Most can't even do an interesting abstraction on
> >> a computer or anything else.
>
> Your work is a good example.
>
> >I think that's an inaccurate statement. There's goo-gobs of gorgeous
digital
> >art floating around the internet. Where have you been?
>
> Most of which is far worse than your work.
> >
> >I could even say that emulating archaic painting styles with the technology
> >available today is.... rabbit-ass-backwards.
> >
> >What are you doing??
>
> And what are you doing when you can't even get more than lumpiness
> when copying Ingres' La Source?
>
> Most of your stuff is then as you say "rabbit-ass-backwards." Only you
> are unable to refine it because you lack the knowledge.
As if your "connect-the-pixel" comments hold any value! At least my art is the
real deal baby. Too bad you can't say the same thing!
Fraud!
Flying_Naked_People
says...
> http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/reference_pictures/sugar-bowl.jpg
> Here's another one of my latest evil paintings, unfinished.
>
>
disproportionate and ill-rendered box.
LoL.
Not too cool to be on the receiving end eh Mani? I can pick out flaws in
perfection. I can humble a giant. Shall I go on?
Mani Deli
Please do!
Mani Deli
anger detector. wrote:
>Touch a nerve did I?
You can't touch anything via the net.
>Don't get mad at me just because a couple of people
>sniffed you out for the hypocrite that you (know you) are.
Check Mattila. He's an expert sniffer. I love hypocrisy. I even
practiced by selling big schmiers.
>So now we know the source of Mani's anger. He CAN'T DRAW - Has to use a
>'puter!
>
>Lame-o!
Like most no-skill-realist You can't draw and the computer won't help.
>As if your "connect-the-pixel" comments hold any value! At least my art is the
>real deal baby. Too bad you can't say the same thing!
>
At least its the real deal baby. At best its better than average art
school. Try copying Ingres without the lumps while concentrating on my
anger.
Mani Deli
<ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>Indeed, most great artists in any genre were tortured by self-doubt.
>
The usual art school bullshit necessary for anyone who doesn't know
his craft. And remember most art schools can guarantee that you won't
learn the craft on their premises.
Marc Sabatella's work is a good example of work which would torture
anyone with self-doubt.
Mike Stengl
REally? I've been duped! Why doesn't he crank up the color then?
Mike Stengl
I'm disappointed dude. Christian wuz on to yoo.
>
>
> ...no computer no art!
>
> Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of collage style faux paintings?
>
> Refrain from going here> http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Iz that why you do such tiny paintings?
Andrew D
<http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl> wrote:
>In article <right-11070...@i168-169.nv.iinet.net.au>,
>right@the_end.of.my_tether says...
>> Andy D.
>>
>> "I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
>>
>
>Hey man... you gotta website? I wanna "check you out". Lol.
Do you want me clothed or naked?
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Flying_Naked_People
says...
> >Don't get mad at me just because a couple of people
> >sniffed you out for the hypocrite that you (know you) are.
>
> Check Mattila. He's an expert sniffer. I love hypocrisy. I even
> practiced by selling big schmiers.
Stick to the subject, chicken head - I called YOU a hypocrite.
> Like most no-skill-realist
Speaking from experience?
> You can't draw and the computer won't help.
At least I know how to draw a BOX!! LOL
> >As if your "connect-the-pixel" comments hold any value! At least my art is
the
> >real deal baby. Too bad you can't say the same thing!
> >
> At least its the real deal baby. At best its better than average art
> school. Try copying Ingres without the lumps while concentrating on my
> anger.
Boy! Where did you learn how to Joan??!?
You're nothing more than a TRACER! But here's some free advice: Find a Better
BOX to trace!
> ...no skill no art!
>
> Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions
Andrew D
<ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/reference_pictures/sugar-bowl.jpg
>Here's another one of my latest evil paintings, unfinished.
>
>ONLY BAD OPINIONS WELCOME? Others unwelcome.
Errr, what is it - and why?