John and Mani
Roob
like Picasso because his most famous works are not painted
"realistically," though, in fact, Picasso at the age of 12 could draw
and paint more "realistically" than you will ever be able to. He beats
you on your own theory of art:
Andrew D
library_...@hotmail.com (Roob) wrote:
What he was capable of producing and what he chose to produce are entirely
different things. Just because someone is capable of doing something does
not mean they will always do it to the best of their ability or that
everything they produce is a quality product.
But thanks for the link to nga. This site appears to prove a point that's
made here time and time again about the lack of support shown by major
galleries for traditional, beautiful, realist art and the overwhelming
support given to ugly art.
Whilst there are 6 PAGES of Picasso's stuff totalling around 240 separate
works on this website - with plenty of images to view, there are just two
works by Frederic Edwin Church, one by Albert Bierstadt and three by
Sanford Robinson Gifford and each has just one viewable image.
Enough said.
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Mani Deli
>your entire idea of art is weird. You basically imply that you don't
>like Picasso because his most famous works are not painted
>"realistically,"
No, its because they are poorly executed in many respects including
drawing.
>though, in fact, Picasso at the age of 12 could draw
>and paint more "realistically" than you will ever be able to. He beats
>you on your own theory of art:
>
Picasso never could draw particularly well. At best he got to the
level of a third rate cartoonist. This however was far superior to
Matisse and Pollock.
Of course in the realm of art school mythology Picasso is such a
superb draftsman because art students compare his mediocrity to their
abominations. They rarely look at fine drawings as this makes them
feel bad.
...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/
John Ng
the rubbish you have heard and been taught (I myself was no different
from you when I was in art school). The thing that now is that with
the Internet, I am begining to realise that I am not alone in doubting
the current concept of art and I begin to believe the LOGICAL.
Whilst I do not say that I "don't like Picasso because his most famous
works are not painted realistically", I compare his work to the wall
paint of my house and assume that he should be given the right amount
of praise... that is almost nothing like what is given to him today.
He has contributed nothing. And as Lauri has pointed out, he and
several others, are the "byproduct of
modern mass media and star cult".
> Picasso at the age of 12 could draw
> and paint more "realistically" than you will ever be able to. He beats
> you on your own theory of art:
Even at his best, Picasso could never draw except what is expected of
entry level art students (mind you I have seen his early works as
well). Picasso doesn't have any theory of art just a really round
about way of saying things that critics couldn't understand except to
read into it what is never not there.
John Ng
ART RENEWAL ADVOCATE
http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
Updated 25Nov2002
Richard
On 26 Nov 2002 17:26:58 -0800, library_...@hotmail.com (Roob)
wrote:
You're an idiot. Just because he painted well before he turned to
modern crap, that doesn't turn his crap into gold. It's STILL crap!
You need to learn some LOGIC.
I appreciate art other than strictly realistic art, as long as it
doesn't look like crap or garbage. Cubism and Expressionism look like
crap and garbage.
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
William Palmer
> In article <b1783836.02112...@posting.google.com>,
> library_...@hotmail.com (Roob) wrote:
>
> >your entire idea of art is weird. You basically imply that you don't
> >like Picasso because his most famous works are not painted
> >"realistically," though, in fact, Picasso at the age of 12 could draw
> >and paint more "realistically" than you will ever be able to. He beats
> >you on your own theory of art:
> >
> >http://www.nga.gov/images/noncol/fisherfs.htm
>
> What he was capable of producing and what he chose to produce are entirely
> different things. Just because someone is capable of doing something does
> not mean they will always do it to the best of their ability or that
> everything they produce is a quality product.
>
> But thanks for the link to nga. This site appears to prove a point that's
> made here time and time again about the lack of support shown by major
This is interesting, because those of you have just
read my "thesis," will note from the above that it
sounds like the person above is referring to the
"third defective heir" of 19th Century art. I
don't know where he is making his observations,
but I can assure him that all he has to do is
stroll around through the big galleries of
downtown La Jolla and he will find all the
"traditional, beautiful, realist art" that
most people could ever afford to buy.
Basically, it is art that would not have been
out of place one hundred years ago, because it
is the same thing that people were painting
then. It is safe, sane, comfortable art for
affluent middle class homes. It does nothing
at all to advance realism creatively in any
way. You want to see beautiful realist art
that ALSO shows the all-important spark of
originality? Go to the Cleveland Museum of
Art and check out Don Eddy's 44 X 48" acrylic
on canvas, "New Shoes for H." (1973). Or
check out the work of Richard Estes, Robert
Cottingham, Audrey Flack, or Ron Kleeman.
You see, this is art that has advanced
with the century because it is created by
artists with great skill AND imagination.
It is not done by someone with skill but
no originality who is making big money by
re-doing what someone already did better
one-hundred years ago.
and the overwhelming
> support given to ugly art.
The odd thing is, on my little tour of the
La Jolla galleries, where you find so many
paintings with the multi-thousand dollar
price tags, by far most of the art, was
what most people would call pretty or
beautiful rather than ugly. Most of it
was also devoid of anything truly original
and unique. It was designed to be part
of the decor of well-appointed homes,
to impress people that the owners had
arrived were now buying culture with
expensive gilt frames around it.
It was not designed to disturb or ask
any questions. Is that what you mean
by "traditional, beautiful art"? If
so, I can assure you there's no shortage
of it.
>
> Whilst there are 6 PAGES of Picasso's stuff totalling around 240 separate
> works on this website - with plenty of images to view, there are just two
> works by Frederic Edwin Church, one by Albert Bierstadt and three by
> Sanford Robinson Gifford and each has just one viewable image.
>
> Enough said.
I can relate to your concerns. But if you
are lamenting the fact that not enough artists
today are merely re-doing the same sort of art
that was popular in the days of the three worthies
you mention, then we part company there. Genuine
art always develops. At one time, the best of
realism was exemplified by Bierstadt. Today
it is in artists such as Robert Cottingham.
But some people in this group seem to think
that someone with Cottingham would be advancing
the cause of art further by re-doing Bierstadt,
instead of doing masterpieces like his Buschs
Jewelers sign (78 X 78" oil on canvas, 1974)
and that's pathetic. The dreary fact
is, in the expensive gallaries you see far
more art that suggests someone re-doing the
19th century than you art with the originality
of Cottingham, who is as realist as they come.
Despite the all the wailing going on this group,
it seems to me that middle-brow people want
pretty art in the traditional sense. Although
to me Cottingham's art is stunningly beautiful,
it is a beautiful in accordance with the age,
not in accordance with what someone in the 19th
century thought was a "proper" subject for a
picture. I think some people in this group
need to try to re-orient themselves to the
fact that this isn't the 19th century any
more. Actually, I am certain that I love
19th century art as much as anyone in the
group. But to borrow a vogue phrase, "that
was then, but this is now." Now let's see
a few people get those thinking caps
out of storage...The notion continually
bruited around rec.arts.fine that the high-
priced galleries abound with rubbishy,
second rate abstractions is not true.
The reality is a little better, but in
my view not very satisfying either.
Too many pretty dogs, pretty children,
pretty everything. I would like to
see that ugly ol' Elephant of the
Celebes crash through those fancy
galleries and and knock everything
topsy turvy... a.g.b-p
G*rd*n
| >your entire idea of art is weird. You basically imply that you don't
| >like Picasso because his most famous works are not painted
| >"realistically," though, in fact, Picasso at the age of 12 could draw
| >and paint more "realistically" than you will ever be able to. He beats
| >you on your own theory of art:
| >
| >http://www.nga.gov/images/noncol/fisherfs.htm
right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D):
| What he was capable of producing and what he chose to produce are entirely
| different things. Just because someone is capable of doing something does
| not mean they will always do it to the best of their ability or that
| everything they produce is a quality product.
|
| But thanks for the link to nga. This site appears to prove a point that's
| made here time and time again about the lack of support shown by major
| galleries for traditional, beautiful, realist art and the overwhelming
| support given to ugly art.
|
| Whilst there are 6 PAGES of Picasso's stuff totalling around 240 separate
| works on this website - with plenty of images to view, there are just two
| works by Frederic Edwin Church, one by Albert Bierstadt and three by
| Sanford Robinson Gifford and each has just one viewable image.
Obviously people with money and power prefer Picasso and
other "ugly art", for whatever reasons. However, they aren't
actively suppressing other kinds of art, so I don't see
what difference it makes.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 11/14/02 <-adv't
Roob
whatever. i'm just saying he beats john ng and mani at their own game.
Richard <cool_a...@z.com> wrote in message news:<7kr8uu8galiv5cg6d...@4ax.com>...
Erik A. Mattila
> Obviously people with money and power prefer Picasso and
> other "ugly art", for whatever reasons. However, they aren't
> actively suppressing other kinds of art, so I don't see
> what difference it makes.
G*rd*n, when I read your comment, I thought "Is that so "obvious?" It
didn't seem so to me. The only one I could think of to check-out was
Tyco's Dennis Kozlowki since he got into trouble for tax evasion on
expensive painting purchas. You may have read about the lavish birthday
party he threw for his wife in Sardinia (a 2 million dollar affair)
which featured an ice scupture of Michaelangelo's "David" with Stolli
flowing out of his penis into a punchbowl. I thought: "Could this guy
be buying Picasso's."
I found the indictment "People of the State of New York vL Dennis Kozlowski"
news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/tyco/ nykozlowski60402ind.pdf
It lists the paintng in questions, and his tactics for cheatng on the
taxes (alleged). Here's the list I extracted, with a few comments added:
Sir Alfred J. Munnings (1878-1959)
British Sporting Artist (fox hunts)
Bougereau (no comment needed)
John Atkinson Grimshaw (British, 1836-1893)
http://www.artmagick.com/artists/grimshaw.aspx?p=1#browse
Primarily landscapes
subtotal for these three $1,975,000
-----------------------
Rachael Castera Herter (Hatian/American contemporary)
Flower paintings/Max Parish redux
John LaFarge (American, 1835-1910)
Flowers,Landscapes/Parish redux
subtotal for these two $575,000
-----------------------
Marie-Rosalie (Rosa) Bonheur (Dutch, 1822-1899)
Animal paintings-deer, dogs, sheep...
subtotal for this one $60,000
------------------------
Claude Monet $3,950,000 (no comment needed)
subtotal for this one $3,950,000
-------------------------
Osias Beert (Flemish 1570?-1623/24)
Founder of Flemish still-life ptng. Flowers
Gustave Caillebotte (French, 1848 - 1894)
Impressionism
August Renoir (no comment needed)
subtotal for these three $8,000,000
----------------------------
Grand Total $14,560,000
Taxes not paid (8.75%) $1,270,000
-----------------
What I mean by "Max Parrish Redux" is simply the Parrish "look" and
subject matter.
What is interesting to me about his list is that it shows the exercise
of taste and preference, not just buying paintings as wealth collateral,
which I'm sure that many high-ranking collectors do. Obviously the
Kozlowshi's are flower painting fans - and there's some pretty nice
stuff there too, I might add.
And this is just for his Manhattan Apartment. I wonder what he has at
his Nantucket Estate?
Erik
John Ng
> don't know where he is making his observations,
> but I can assure him that all he has to do is
> stroll around through the big galleries of
> downtown La Jolla and he will find all the
> "traditional, beautiful, realist art" that
> most people could ever afford to buy.
Where? I have been looking for affordable art but to date I cannot
find any. If you are talking about buying anything that looks
realistic, crap or not, then I think you don't need Kadinsky. Paint
your own or ask your kid to paint them.
John Ng
John Ng
> i'm just saying he beats john ng and mani at their own game.
What the hell are you talking about? Who, Picasso? How did he "beat" me?
Andrew D
willia...@prodigy.net (William Palmer) wrote:
>right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D) wrote in message
news:<right-27110...@i204-110.nv.iinet.net.au>...
[snip]
>> Whilst there are 6 PAGES of Picasso's stuff totalling around 240 separate
>> works on this website - with plenty of images to view, there are just two
>> works by Frederic Edwin Church, one by Albert Bierstadt and three by
>> Sanford Robinson Gifford and each has just one viewable image.
>> Enough said.
>I can relate to your concerns. But if you
>are lamenting the fact that not enough artists
>today are merely re-doing the same sort of art
>that was popular in the days of the three worthies
>you mention, then we part company there.
There are two points.
1: That too many major public galleries place way too much emphasis on the
ugly and abstract, and way too little emphasis on the real craftsman. I
chose Church, Bierstadt and Gifford at random and while I assumed
beforehand they'd fall short of Picasso's presence on the website, I was
truly astonished at how far short they did fall.
2: That traditional realist art still has a place in the art world and
that galleries still ignore it in preference for big ugly abstracts that
break no newer ground than the pieces they overlook.
> Genuine
>art always develops.
Often backwards it seems. I'm constantly amazed at how many artists feel
that to "grow" you must abandon knowledge and skill - and that this
philosophy is rigorously employed by gallery curators and critics.
> At one time, the best of
>realism was exemplified by Bierstadt.
Tell that to nga.
[snip]
>Despite the all the wailing going on this group,
>it seems to me that middle-brow people want
>pretty art in the traditional sense.
I don't believe that's the case. I see that they call for art to display a
level of skill rather than just spilling or smearing paint on a surface
and saying "it comes from within". Rockwell and bierstadt were worlds
apart yet in general, you will find that the anti-expressionists (for want
of a better term) appreciate both. Mani even likes Dali and Disney - who
are neither Rockwell nor Bierstadt. I also appreciate the other names you
listed (those I'm familiar with) like Eddy and Flack et al.
I personally paint what many would consider to be traditional "pretty"
pictures - but they are from my interpretations of the world around me and
so are different from all that's come before without being indecipherable.
In any given exhibititon many people tell me they can spot my work easily
so clearly the difference between my paintings and similar paintings of
similar subjects by other artists is obvious. Even my basic approach
differs from many "by the book" oil painters. But my work isn't
particularly ground breaking and I've no illusions that I will or even
should hang in a major gallery.
> Although
>to me Cottingham's art is stunningly beautiful,
>it is a beautiful in accordance with the age,
>not in accordance with what someone in the 19th
>century thought was a "proper" subject for a
>picture. I think some people in this group
>need to try to re-orient themselves to the
>fact that this isn't the 19th century any
>more. Actually, I am certain that I love
>19th century art as much as anyone in the
>group. But to borrow a vogue phrase, "that
>was then, but this is now." Now let's see
>a few people get those thinking caps
>out of storage...The notion continually
>bruited around rec.arts.fine that the high-
>priced galleries abound with rubbishy,
>second rate abstractions is not true.
I think it's more about major public galleries. I really don't care what
private businesses do. That's their business, if you'll pardon the pun.
G*rd*n
| > Obviously people with money and power prefer Picasso and
| > other "ugly art", for whatever reasons. However, they aren't
| > actively suppressing other kinds of art, so I don't see
| > what difference it makes.
| G*rd*n, when I read your comment, I thought "Is that so "obvious?" It
| didn't seem so to me. The only one I could think of to check-out was
| Tyco's Dennis Kozlowki since he got into trouble for tax evasion on
| expensive painting purchas. You may have read about the lavish birthday
| party he threw for his wife in Sardinia (a 2 million dollar affair)
| which featured an ice scupture of Michaelangelo's "David" with Stolli
| flowing out of his penis into a punchbowl. I thought: "Could this guy
| be buying Picasso's."
| ...
He couldn't afford them.
I was thinking of the stuff that gets put into the museums,
which is in turn influenced by galleries and academic
institutions. All of these tend to be most strongly
affected by the tastes and desires of upper-class, that is,
powerful, wealthy and well-connected people. Of course the
museums etc. also feed back into the tastes, desires, power
and wealth of the people who support and influence them. If
only our friends who are fans of Bouguereau could convince
these people that Boug was much better than Pablo, out the
latter would go and Psyche would be ravished in the place of
honor. But they can't. So they burn with resentment. It's
a question of power. Picasso has the power to be on the
walls of MoMA, and their boy doesn't.
Erik A. Mattila
> He couldn't afford them.
>
> I was thinking of the stuff that gets put into the museums,
> which is in turn influenced by galleries and academic
> institutions. All of these tend to be most strongly
> affected by the tastes and desires of upper-class, that is,
> powerful, wealthy and well-connected people. Of course the
> museums etc. also feed back into the tastes, desires, power
> and wealth of the people who support and influence them. If
> only our friends who are fans of Bouguereau could convince
> these people that Boug was much better than Pablo, out the
> latter would go and Psyche would be ravished in the place of
> honor. But they can't. So they burn with resentment. It's
> a question of power. Picasso has the power to be on the
> walls of MoMA, and their boy doesn't.
Yes, I agree with you - with one small reservation: the buying power of
oligarchy has the power to put a Boug in the Met, if not MoMa.
Whe Jasper Johns sold his first million dollar ptng, he was asked "Does
this validiate your achievment as an artist?"
He answered no, stating it had nothing to do with his artistic
achievement. "It's about money and business." (or words to that effect).
But aren't we talking about at least three discrete "streams" here:
collecting, museology and art making? Certainly these streams cross at
points, and perhaps are all fed by the same source, and share
attributes, but at the same time maintain some sort of autonomy. The
confluence would be the 'grand narrative' but it may be a purely
theoretical object.
I think collecting is particularly interesting. You know, tracing the
origin of the modern "art museum" leads you back to the Early Modern
"Wunderkammern" which were precisely those types of institutions that
your are describing - without any public space. But they were typically
eclectic - and in some that we have historical records the very
eclecticism became the collection main virtue, in reputation. Then the
element of competition set in (keeping up with the Rothchilds) and the
wonder cabinets began going through their own aesthetic morphs, and
branching off into various sub-spieces, and less eclectic. I'm just
trying to set out a trajectory here - a sort of counter development to
what we normally consider Art history. There was a very interesting
divergence in the 19th century - the 'curio' collections seemed to have
been picked up by pop-culture barons, and were displayed in the new and
growing Burlesque theatres in Europe and America. While other types of
collections, such as colonial artefact collections, imported china,
nature collections and so on went in other directions.
Even by the time of Delacroix artists were renting space in a commercial
sector in town and putting their Salon pieces on display, like a circus
side show, charging admission to the public to see the works. Painting
was still largely "outside" collecting, especially in the arena of
public exhibition.
By the turn of the century the three streams did merge to some degree
(the various avant garde strategies exerting subversive forces against
any sort of stasis). What's really interesting is that collecting,
museums (and galleries) and art production assumed the sort of integrity
we see today at about time of the collapse of the French Academy and
similar changes all throughout western society. The only thing you can
say is radically different about the 'grand narrative' is that the
public component entered the picture. The "public" became a player, in
other words.
And it's ironic in some ways. The art that was made available for
public view was indeed a reflection of the tastes and interests of those
who had the wealth and power to collect and preserve art, as you have
said. But programs such as "art in public places" and other public
funded programes seek to get around this, and always get in trouble
because the public has 'learned' art from the private collectors.
Hey, I'm getting carried away here. Sorry.
Erik
William Palmer
> In article <cbc76035.02112...@posting.google.com>,
> willia...@prodigy.net (William Palmer) wrote:
>
> >right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D) wrote in message
> news:<right-27110...@i204-110.nv.iinet.net.au>...
> [snip]
> >> Whilst there are 6 PAGES of Picasso's stuff totalling around 240 separate
> >> works on this website - with plenty of images to view, there are just two
> >> works by Frederic Edwin Church, one by Albert Bierstadt and three by
> >> Sanford Robinson Gifford and each has just one viewable image.
>
> >> Enough said.
>
> >I can relate to your concerns. But if you
> >are lamenting the fact that not enough artists
> >today are merely re-doing the same sort of art
> >that was popular in the days of the three worthies
> >you mention, then we part company there.
>
> There are two points.
> 1: That too many major public galleries place way too much emphasis on the
> ugly and abstract, and way too little emphasis on the real craftsman. I
> chose Church, Bierstadt and Gifford at random and while I assumed
> beforehand they'd fall short of Picasso's presence on the website, I was
> truly astonished at how far short they did fall.
I can't disagree with you there. What you
describe has certainly been true of the L.A.
art scene for many years (with some refreshing
exceptions now and then, of course). However,
I did not realize we had to restrict ourselves
to public galleries, so I was talking about some
of the private galleries in downtdown La Jolla,
as the result of my recent tour of them.
It seems to me both, public and commercial, are
significant. My own complaint is that the public
galleries have too much of the rubbish you describe,
while the private galleries are not much more
satisfying, since their emphasis is too much on
conventional, safe, sane, "pretty" art. Of course,
I respect the fact that market forces dictate what
those commerical galleries carry. Even so, you
should not discount where people actually spend
their money buying art. I could be wrong, not have
the actual figures, but I would not be surprised
to find that the concentration of commerical
galleries in La Jolla generates more revenue
than all the public galleries in the U. S.
combined.
>
> 2: That traditional realist art still has a place in the art world and
> that galleries still ignore it in preference for big ugly abstracts that
> break no newer ground than the pieces they overlook.
Well, you see, where we differ, I think, is in
what realist art means today. Certainly much of
the art in the La Jolla commercial galleries is
of a realistic or representational nature.
However, for my taste, much of it is rather
vacuous. It is easy to see that for a certain
percentage of the clientle, it is simply part
of the home decorating process. In fact, I
would not be surprised to learn that when some
of the buyers visit those galleries, they take
their decorator along with them! Often it is
pretty art, comfortable art. My own feeling
is that art needs to be more challenging.
On the other hand, in those same galleries,
I saw very little of what I feel is the
best realism, art of people like Cottingham,
Flack, Bechtel, Eddy, Estes, etc. That
is realism at its best. That's not people
trying to paint 19th century pictures
because they can sell them. Whom am I
referring to as one of my negative examples?
Well, for one, Kincade is big down there
(in La Jolla). He's second or third-rate,
Nineteenth century style. His pictures would
likely be most welcome on the wall of middle
class 19th century home. One of the problems
with the current debate in rec.arts.fine
is that some people want to fit everything
into a simplistic "realism versus second-
rate abstract rubbish" mode. I think
"Cottingham versus Kincade" is far more
enlightening. Don't laugh, because I am
sure you have noticed all the talk about
"traditional, beautiful art," in this
group. Well, that is the way many
Kincade customers would describe their
acquisitions! However, many of those
same people would find Cottingham's
Busch Jeweler's sign not to their
liking, though I think it is beautiful.
Of course, in my view, Cottingham is a
fantastically talented artist and a
genuine innovator who prefers realism,
while Kincade is little more than a popular
anachronism.
[...]
a.g.b-p
William Palmer
It seems to me people are far too careless about
throwing around terms like "beautiful art" and
"ugly art." As some readers may recall, I tried
to challenge certain smug assumptions with my
"beautiful/ugly" posting about Carlos Schwabe's
"Death and the Gravedigger" post. Not too many
people would feel that a wizened gravedigger
having a heart attack in a grave he was digging
would make for a beautiful painting (like maybe
a Kincade cottage or something). Yet, it is
hard to deny the beauty of Schwabe's work, when
you get around your intital discomfort, at least.
I tried to make the same challenge the other
day regarding Fremiet's "Orangutan Strangling
a Native of Borneo" sculpture. It is very
interesting, because it be seen as both
hideously ugly and fantastically beautiful
at the same time. On top of that, much
Surrealist art has been described now and
then as ugly too. I find Earnst's "Elephant
of the Celebes," ugly and unsettling, somehow,
but I would certainly far prefer having a
reproduction of it on my wall than an
original Kincade. So, let us not continually
resort to a simplistic "beautiful versus ugly,"
debate. Let us explore more thoroughly the
value of those words in art today. a.g.b-p
William Palmer
> In article <cbc76035.02112...@posting.google.com>,
> willia...@prodigy.net (William Palmer) wrote:
[snip]
> >Despite the all the wailing going on this group,
> >it seems to me that middle-brow people want
> >pretty art in the traditional sense.
>
> I don't believe that's the case. I see that they call for art to display a
> level of skill rather than just spilling or smearing paint on a surface
> and saying "it comes from within".
Well, there we don't have any argument. I have
certainly seen more dreary second and third rate
abstrations in public galleries around L. A. than
I care to remember.
Rockwell and bierstadt were worlds
> apart yet in general, you will find that the anti-expressionists (for want
> of a better term) appreciate both. Mani even likes Dali and Disney -
Well, he is mistaken in thinking that Disney was
an artist, or even an illustrator/artist. Disney
was a second-rate illustrator and a first rate
businessman. Many talented people produced
what is sometimes called "Disney art," but
the greatest of all of them, in my opinion,
was comic illustrator Carl Barks. He is regarded,
correctly, as one of the 20th Century's finest
cartoon illustrators. Disney paid him a bag
of peanuts a week for decades. In fact, Disney
Company was so good at keeping Barks under wraps
and obscure that most people never heard of him
until Barks was an old man.
who
> are neither Rockwell nor Bierstadt. I also appreciate the other names you
> listed (those I'm familiar with) like Eddy and Flack et al.
[...]
a.g.b-p
G*rd*n
|>| >your entire idea of art is weird. You basically imply that you don't
|>| >like Picasso because his most famous works are not painted
|>| >"realistically," though, in fact, Picasso at the age of 12 could draw
|>| >and paint more "realistically" than you will ever be able to. He beats
|>| >you on your own theory of art:
|>| >
|>| >http://www.nga.gov/images/noncol/fisherfs.htm
right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D):
| > | What he was capable of producing and what he chose to produce are entirely
| > | different things. Just because someone is capable of doing something does
| > | not mean they will always do it to the best of their ability or that
| > | everything they produce is a quality product.
| > |
| > | But thanks for the link to nga. This site appears to prove a point that's
| > | made here time and time again about the lack of support shown by major
| > | galleries for traditional, beautiful, realist art and the overwhelming
| > | support given to ugly art.
| > |
| > | Whilst there are 6 PAGES of Picasso's stuff totalling around 240 separate
| > | works on this website - with plenty of images to view, there are just two
| > | works by Frederic Edwin Church, one by Albert Bierstadt and three by
| > | Sanford Robinson Gifford and each has just one viewable image.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
| > Obviously people with money and power prefer Picasso and
| > other "ugly art", for whatever reasons. However, they aren't
| > actively suppressing other kinds of art, so I don't see
| > what difference it makes.
willia...@prodigy.net (William Palmer):
I think "beautiful art" means "art that I/we like" and "ugly
art" means "art that I/we don't like." I don't mean that
there isn't some thing or at least some coherent human experience
we could call "beauty" but that people don't ever agree
completely on what it is -- that is simply not given to us --
and so the words can't be cleared of their subjective
content.
That's why I put _ugly_ in quotes above. Obviously the
people who pay millions of dollars to get Picasso on the
walls of prestigious museums, galleries and homes don't
think his work is "ugly" in the sense of bad. Other people
do. But the latter don't have the power, wealth or connections
of the Picasso-lovers, so they're out of luck when it comes
to the practice of social domination. On the other hand, no
one is stopping them from enjoying whatever it is they like
elsewhere, e.g. the very nice Bougereau site on the Net. They
should stop whining and enjoy themselves, in my opinion.
Consider -- the works of their hero are still within the
striking range of an ordinary middle-class person's borrowing
capacity, which is more than you can say for Picasso, as far
as I know.
If their complaint is that their money, taken in taxes, profits
and fees, is being used to support art they don't like, that's
a subject of political philosophy, not art criticism.
Andrew D
[snip]
>If their complaint is that their money, taken in taxes, profits
>and fees, is being used to support art they don't like, that's
>a subject of political philosophy, not art criticism.
And as far as public galleries go that is a big part of the issue... for
me anyway. In Perth we have a publicly funded gallery that fills its main
walls with indigenous art and ugly art (nothing to see here folks, move
along).
They hide all the traditional realist art - our historical art, our
heritage - in a poorly signposted gallery down some stairs and outside the
main building. Most visitors to the gallery, locals and non-locals alike,
leave without ever knowing this second gallery exists.
Yes, I point this out to the gallery at every opportunity but the
complaints are ignored - presumably because the curators are embarassed by
the historical works and see worth only in the modern crap and aboriginal
art that is plastered across the walls of the main galleries.
And yes, as a taxpayer, I'm forced to support this then told that if I
don't like it, I should find my kind of art elsewhere. If I was a tiny
minority I might accept this - but I feel I'm in the majority.
John Ng
> They hide all the traditional realist art - our historical art, our
> heritage - in a poorly signposted gallery down some stairs and outside the
> main building. Most visitors to the gallery, locals and non-locals alike,
> leave without ever knowing this second gallery exists.
About this point, I was living in Perth for almost ten years (and all
along complaining about the dearth of art here) before I stumbled
across this dungeon treasure trove. Everyone I spoke to don't know of
the existence of the place until recommended.
Sometimes when I am down in the city, I would spend hours down there
(even though the paintings are still relatively few and never
changing). It is easy to reconize me as the old chinese guy who roams
the deserted place.
John
G*rd*n
| > They hide all the traditional realist art - our historical art, our
| > heritage - in a poorly signposted gallery down some stairs and outside the
| > main building. Most visitors to the gallery, locals and non-locals alike,
| > leave without ever knowing this second gallery exists.
pigsm...@hotmail.com (John Ng):
| About this point, I was living in Perth for almost ten years (and all
| along complaining about the dearth of art here) before I stumbled
| across this dungeon treasure trove. Everyone I spoke to don't know of
| the existence of the place until recommended.
|
| Sometimes when I am down in the city, I would spend hours down there
| (even though the paintings are still relatively few and never
| changing). It is easy to reconize me as the old chinese guy who roams
| the deserted place.
So why is it deserted if people like it? Going by what I
see in museums, galleries, and stores in malls and on the
street, my impression is that people don't like it much, and
when they do, they tend to buy photographs. There is
something of a preference for art depicting recognizable
objects, but usually they want something to be done to the
object, e.g. you get a toreador, but one is polished brass
on black velvet. I think this is reflected in a Man Ray
story: although he was primarily not in that bag, he would
occasionally do a realistic painting. One day his niece,
who was then around 10, was watching him, and asked him what
he was doing. Man Ray said he was trying to paint something
just the way it looked. "But why do you want two of it?"
the niece asked.
However, it you do want "two of it", it's a political
question, which means you have to find how what power
relations govern the placement of art in your museums and
then try to assemble other political factors, like public
opinion, to change them.
William Palmer
Your story is thought-provoking but it really
answers nothing much at all, despite my high
regard for Man Ray. He was illustrating something,
but he was not really answering anything of
importance in his entertaining anecdote. For
instance, I have been having some rather profound
experiences looking at a reproduction of Cottingham's
"Busch's Jeweler's Sign." Okay, why does this
painting focusing on the sign fascinate me? Does
it have something to do with jewelry? Not at all.
Normally, you have to drag me into a jewelry store.
Is it that I have not--like so many of you--seen
an untold number of commercial signs? Scarcely.
Yet, that PAINTING has its magical effect on me.
I emphasize painting, because I am not actually
fascinated by the sign itself. It's everything.
The close up angle, the alstonishing blues and reds,
the amazing mirror effect of the sign background
that the letters are mounted on. Maybe it captures
a certain mood of having a pleasant stroll down a
street and suddenly looking up at a large neon sign.
Neon can cast a certain spell, that has often been
noted by writers, singers, and artists. So, we
don't REALLY have another sign at all. We have an
astonishing example of modern realism that uses
the sign for its central subject. a.g.b-p
Nick Coleman
gallery? Any other gallery recommendations for me to enjoy while I'm
there?
Thanks,
Nick
G*rd*n
| > | > They hide all the traditional realist art - our historical art, our
| > | > heritage - in a poorly signposted gallery down some stairs and outside the
| > | > main building. Most visitors to the gallery, locals and non-locals alike,
| > | > leave without ever knowing this second gallery exists.
pigsm...@hotmail.com (John Ng):
| > | About this point, I was living in Perth for almost ten years (and all
| > | along complaining about the dearth of art here) before I stumbled
| > | across this dungeon treasure trove. Everyone I spoke to don't know of
| > | the existence of the place until recommended.
| > |
| > | Sometimes when I am down in the city, I would spend hours down there
| > | (even though the paintings are still relatively few and never
| > | changing). It is easy to reconize me as the old chinese guy who roams
| > | the deserted place.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
| > So why is it deserted if people like it? Going by what I
| > see in museums, galleries, and stores in malls and on the
| > street, my impression is that people don't like it much, and
| > when they do, they tend to buy photographs. There is
| > something of a preference for art depicting recognizable
| > objects, but usually they want something to be done to the
| > object, e.g. you get a toreador, but one is polished brass
| > on black velvet. I think this is reflected in a Man Ray
| > story: although he was primarily not in that bag, he would
| > occasionally do a realistic painting. One day his niece,
| > who was then around 10, was watching him, and asked him what
| > he was doing. Man Ray said he was trying to paint something
| > just the way it looked. "But why do you want two of it?"
| > the niece asked.
| >
| > However, it you do want "two of it", it's a political
| > question, which means you have to find how what power
| > relations govern the placement of art in your museums and
| > then try to assemble other political factors, like public
| > opinion, to change them.
willia...@prodigy.net (William Palmer):
I just brought in the Man Ray anecdote to illustrate the
point that not everyone likes exact representation, which is
what some people seem to mean by "realism". The rest is a
consideration of what appears to be a political, not an
artistic problem, one which would have to be examined
politically, not by arguing about the "quality" of different
styles of art -- a mysterious issue about something which
may not exist in any objective way.
As far as art goes, the anecdote raises questions which it
doesn't answer.
John Ng
> So why is it deserted if people like it?
That is because the dungeon is through a narrow obsured small door and
almost everyone I met do not know of its existence. As I said, I have
been living in Perth for such a long time before I know of it.
Why is it hidden? Because the managers of the museum are just plain
hopeless. (And I hope they read this message -- HOPELESS).
John Ng
Richard
Well in southern California we have many large, lavish, fine museums
which showcase classical art. They just built the Getty Center a few
years ago for $1 billion. It has only classical art, from ancient
times up to the 19th century. I got to see paintings by Bouguereau,
Alma-Tadema, Godward, Rembrandt, Raphael, Rubens, etc. up close. I
heard they are going to acquire a Vermeer for $50 million.
As for those managers you're complaining about, they might be ashamed
of Australia's history, considering how the aborigines were treated.
G*rd*n
| > So why is it deserted if people like it?
pigsm...@hotmail.com (John Ng):
| That is because the dungeon is through a narrow obsured small door and
| almost everyone I met do not know of its existence. As I said, I have
| been living in Perth for such a long time before I know of it.
|
| Why is it hidden? Because the managers of the museum are just plain
| hopeless. (And I hope they read this message -- HOPELESS).
Try publicizing it. Also, you might be able to get
permission to have some sort of public functions there. If
the permission were refused, that in itself would be a good
issue to publicize.
John Ng
> It has only classical art...
This I like!!!!
> I got to see paintings by Bouguereau,
> Alma-Tadema, Godward, Rembrandt, Raphael, Rubens, etc. up close.
You are very fortunate. I got to get to US again someday... seems
like US is where all the good art is going to.
> As for those managers you're complaining about, they might be ashamed
> of Australia's history, considering how the aborigines were treated.
They might be but I doubt that is the reason. The mindset of the art
circle here is very strange and archaic. A couple of years ago, they
bought a A$250,000 (or US$120,000) photograph from a Canadian
photographer, Jeff Wall, who is reputed to be very good. The picture
is of a yuppy in suit and tie in a bare (sterile) room with some stuff
littering the place. The theme is suppose to be a man living beyond
his means. However, the photograph is like a commercial advert
snapped by a photographer without having gone through any thought
process. The result is a very sharp clinical photo that is taken by a
total amateur (I wish I could show you the photo). I wouldn't have
the photo even if you give me $2.50!
John Ng
Andrew D
pigsm...@hotmail.com (John Ng) wrote:
Yes, it is relatively deserted but as you point out, the few who discover
it do spend a long time there. So, whilst higher numbers visit the main
gallery, most would spend far less than an hour there unless they are with
some sort of organised tour or group.
It's a disgrace and I make my views known in the "comments box" on every visit.
If you're still in Perth and still visit the gallery occasionally, I'm the
short guy doing the five minute dash around the main gallery and looking
in vain for something to make it worth my while stopping.
Andrew D
>right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D):
>| > They hide all the traditional realist art - our historical art, our
>| > heritage - in a poorly signposted gallery down some stairs and outside the
>| > main building. Most visitors to the gallery, locals and non-locals alike,
>| > leave without ever knowing this second gallery exists.
>
>pigsm...@hotmail.com (John Ng):
>| About this point, I was living in Perth for almost ten years (and all
>| along complaining about the dearth of art here) before I stumbled
>| across this dungeon treasure trove. Everyone I spoke to don't know of
>| the existence of the place until recommended.
>|
>| Sometimes when I am down in the city, I would spend hours down there
>| (even though the paintings are still relatively few and never
>| changing). It is easy to reconize me as the old chinese guy who roams
>| the deserted place.
>
>So why is it deserted if people like it?
Pay attention G*rd*n. The historical gallery is in a separate building
from the main, much newer gallery. The main gallery has a large entrance
from outside (in the Perth Cultural Centre courtyard, near the public
carpark and state library) but the only way to enter the historical
gallery is through the main gallery. The problem is, there is just one
sign advising the existence of the historical gallery and that is a
movable sign about 1 foot square (and it does get moved) in the dowstairs
foyer. This sign points to a barren staircase that looks like an exit, not
an entrance or thoroughfare.
The main gallery is a two storey, circular-honey-comb design of
interconnecting galleries. I have visited numerous times and still have
difficulty finding the right way out to the historical gallery - largely
because the sign is easily overlooked - even when you're looking for it!
The main gallery used to house one large historical piece by lengendary
Australian painter Hans Heysen. This was a show-stopper and most people
would recall it well after their visit - but even this has now vanished.
[snip]
>One day his niece,
>who was then around 10, was watching him, and asked him what
>he was doing. Man Ray said he was trying to paint something
>just the way it looked. "But why do you want two of it?"
>the niece asked.
Why would anyone want a picture of an artists "emotions"? Why does anyone
want any painting and why does anyone paint? Ten year olds have a lot of
questions but few answers - they are kids after all.
>However, it you do want "two of it", it's a political
>question, which means you have to find how what power
>relations govern the placement of art in your museums and
>then try to assemble other political factors, like public
>opinion, to change them.
Do you seriously suggest art curators are interested in public opinion?
Andrew D
>I'm spending Christmas in Perth with family. Where's the second
>gallery? Any other gallery recommendations for me to enjoy while I'm
>there?
The best bet is to ask the staff where the Centenary Gallery is since the
sign is often moved.
If you enjoy more "traditional" art (though not necessarily realist or
old-fashioned) The the following often have something to lok at:
Staffords - Cottesloe
Gadfly - Dalkeith
McKenzie's - Claremont
These usually have rotating solo exhibitions so I can't guarantee what
will be on during your stay.
Lynton & Shaw in Subiaco usually have some spectacular local landscapes
but I wouldn't describe it as a gallery so much as a shop (in fact,
"warehouse" wouldn't be an insult).
If you also enyoy modern/abstract then there are plenty of galleries from
Perth City, through Claremont and especially Fremantle.
If you get to travel down south at all (beg if need be), there are a lot
of small boutique galleries around Yallingup and Margaret River. For a
large variety of work from a wide range of artists, you can't go past
Yallingup Gallery and Boranup Gallery.
Summer is pretty quiet on the Community exhibition front so you probably
won't get mush opportunity to see what the less well known artists among
us are doing.
Enjoy your visit.... and bring your sunscreen!
Andrew D
<cool_a...@z.com> wrote:
>As for those managers you're complaining about, they might be ashamed
>of Australia's history, considering how the aborigines were treated.
If that were true, you'd have to ask why they exhibit work by
non-indigenous modern artists!?
The reality appears to be that the current curators are a part of the
"abstract or ugly" brigade who despise representational art unless it
represents ugliness (Lucian Freud, for example).
Andrew D
right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D) wrote:
>In article <as9u0d$ais$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, nj...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
>>I'm spending Christmas in Perth with family. Where's the second
>>gallery? Any other gallery recommendations for me to enjoy while I'm
>>there?
>
>The best bet is to ask the staff where the Centenary Gallery is since the
>sign is often moved.
[snip]
Further to my earlier suggestions:
Our Saturday newspaper, The West Australian, has a lifestyle liftout which
includes an "Arts Directory" where many current exhibitions are advertised
(and not just galleries). Using this and a street directory, it should be
possible to map out a daily "gallery crawl".
Richard
On 2 Dec 2002 18:29:41 -0800, pigsm...@hotmail.com (John Ng) wrote:
>They might be but I doubt that is the reason. The mindset of the art
>circle here is very strange and archaic. A couple of years ago, they
>bought a A$250,000 (or US$120,000) photograph from a Canadian
>photographer, Jeff Wall, who is reputed to be very good. The picture
>is of a yuppy in suit and tie in a bare (sterile) room with some stuff
>littering the place. The theme is suppose to be a man living beyond
>his means. However, the photograph is like a commercial advert
>snapped by a photographer without having gone through any thought
>process. The result is a very sharp clinical photo that is taken by a
>total amateur (I wish I could show you the photo). I wouldn't have
>the photo even if you give me $2.50!
I find it hard to believe they would sincerely believe that that photo
is worth $250,000. Who could be that stupid or foolish? Perhaps there
was a kickback, or perhaps they hate art, or some other sinister
motive.
G*rd*n
| >question, which means you have to find how what power
| >relations govern the placement of art in your museums and
| >then try to assemble other political factors, like public
| >opinion, to change them.
right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D):
| Do you seriously suggest art curators are interested in public opinion?
The administrators of the museums are not God. They probably
pay more attention to prominent people -- the rich, successful
politicians and businessmen, high-ranking academics and media
heavies -- than they do to the public in general, but I'd
guess that the public has some effect, directly and indirectly.
It was the folk, you know, and not the media or the arts
establishment, that noticed the famous Armory Show of 1913
and made a big deal out of it. Or at least, that's what
they tell me; I wasn't there.
As I suggested in another article, I think the first step is
to publicize the neglected art and get people down to look at
it. At least it's not locked up in the basement. Also, I
recommend accentuating the positive, if you know what I mean.
You want to establish that the art is well-liked and that a
large number of people want to see it, not that Picasso is
evil, etc.
Andrew D
right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D) wrote:
>In article <right-03120...@i172-029.nv.iinet.net.au>,
>right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D) wrote:
>
>>In article <as9u0d$ais$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, nj...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>>
>>>I'm spending Christmas in Perth with family. Where's the second
>>>gallery? Any other gallery recommendations for me to enjoy while I'm
>>>there?
[and still more...]
If you haven't left home yet...... be sure to check out the Doug Moran
Portrait Prize when you get here. It should still be on exhibit at the WA
gallery.
At A$100,000, this is one of the richest protrait prizes in the world. I
believe it was started in "opposition" to our Archibald Prize which had
taken a left turn some time ago with prizes awarded only to portraits that
didn't look like people. The Moran was intended to focus attention back on
more traditional portraits though in recent years, the judges seem not to
have been made aware of this and some attrocious, unrecognisable smears
have found their way into the finals.
However, some decent stuff remains. In particular, check out the
self-portrait by Drewfus Gates. There is quite a story behind it - though
you don't need to read the story to get something from the painting.
John Ng
> The main gallery is a two storey... even when you're looking for it!
I thought I was the only one who keeps missing it. Some days I would
have to walk a couple times around the museum before I locate the
entrance (to heaven).
> ...Hans Heysen...
Yeah, where is "Droving into the Light" gone to now? The museum
curators probably chucked it into the bin -- Not funky enough I guess.
John Ng
William Palmer
> | >However, it you do want "two of it", it's a political
> | >question, which means you have to find how what power
> | >relations govern the placement of art in your museums and
> | >then try to assemble other political factors, like public
> | >opinion, to change them.
>
> right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D):
> | Do you seriously suggest art curators are interested in public opinion?
>
> The administrators of the museums are not God. They probably
> pay more attention to prominent people -- the rich, successful
> politicians and businessmen, high-ranking academics and media
> heavies -- than they do to the public in general, but I'd
> guess that the public has some effect, directly and indirectly.
Not nearly enough. For instance, I have done a good
deal of thinking about this, and I have come to believe
that after Norman Rockwell, there is a very good chance
that Frank Frazetta is quite likely the second most popular
American illustrator of the Twentieth Century, and currently
the most popular living illustrator of the 21st century.
Now, some people in this group will deny that right away,
thinking of Parrish, Wyeth, etc. But when I said the most
popular artist, I meant popular with millions who know nothing
neither art nor illustration. I suspect, then, there are
vast numbers of people who know nothing about Parrish, Pyle,
or Wyeth who could instantly recognize a Frazetta, while the
only other illustrator (cartoonists like Schultz excepted)
they could recognize is Rockwell. If there is such a
critter as the "common people," then both Rockwell and
Frazetta--though totally different--are artists of the
common people. Yet, how many prestigious museums have
mounted Frazetta exhibits? Not many that I have heard
about. Why? It is absolutely bias, because top
ranking museums have exhibited all sorts of abstract
rubbish done by people who could not ever begin
to draw or paint like Frazetta. Frazetta is
incredibly imaginative, he is superbly talented,
so that millions of Americans have fallen under the
spell of his art, but these SNOBS who make up the art
establishment look down on him.
> It was the folk, you know, and not the media or the arts
> establishment, that noticed the famous Armory Show of 1913
> and made a big deal out of it. Or at least, that's what
> they tell me; I wasn't there.
>
> As I suggested in another article, I think the first step is
> to publicize the neglected art and get people down to look at
> it. At least it's not locked up in the basement. Also, I
> recommend accentuating the positive, if you know what I mean.
> You want to establish that the art is well-liked and that a
> large number of people want to see it, not that Picasso is
> evil, etc.
Well, Fernand Khnopff is an artist who is unreasonably
neglected by the establishment, though I am certainly
not going to suggest he is artist that EVERYONE needs
to know about, because it was not--from anything I
have read about him--his goal to be everyone's
favorite painter. Khnopff felt he was being moved
to express something profound, and he didn't really
seem to care about being popular.
On the other hand, Frank Frazetta IS an immensely
popular artist, though he got that way with his
talent, not by attention-getting antics or by trying
to outrage the public. As a result, it is my belief
that it would be good for the art establishment to
try and divest itself of some of its artsy phoniness
and give a genuine talent like Frazetta some of the
recognition he deserves. a.g.b-p
Richard
On 4 Dec 2002 20:47:58 -0800, willia...@prodigy.net (William
Palmer) wrote:
>Not nearly enough. For instance, I have done a good
>deal of thinking about this, and I have come to believe
>that after Norman Rockwell, there is a very good chance
>that Frank Frazetta is quite likely the second most popular
>American illustrator of the Twentieth Century, and currently
>the most popular living illustrator of the 21st century.
I think Frazetta is one of the truly great contemporary artists. Larry
Elmore, Keith Parkinson, and Boris Valejo are some of the others.
Andrew D
pigsm...@hotmail.com (John Ng) wrote:
>right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D) wrote in message news:<right-
>
>> The main gallery is a two storey... even when you're looking for it!
>
>I thought I was the only one who keeps missing it. Some days I would
>have to walk a couple times around the museum before I locate the
>entrance (to heaven).
If I don't find it the first time, I ask - then make a comment about how
well hidden it still is. The guards will usually give a wry smile and a
"no comment".
Do you make your views known in the comment box? I've written number of
times. Sometimes a simple request that some of the art be brought upstairs
and the signage to the Centenary Gallery be made more prominent - and
other times a sarcastic note thanking the curator for ensuring tourists
and visitors not be allowed to accidentally discover our best and most
beautiful art while we have so much ugly, amateurish tripe for them to
exprerience.
>> ...Hans Heysen...
>Yeah, where is "Droving into the Light" gone to now? The museum
>curators probably chucked it into the bin -- Not funky enough I guess.
Last I heard it went to Adelaide on tour but that was a good while ago -
at least a year. I suspect it was detracting too much from all the stuff
most visitors just breeze past without a second glance.
Andrew D
willia...@prodigy.net (William Palmer) wrote:
>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote in message news:<asjk9l$84v$1...@panix2.panix.com>...
>> | >However, it you do want "two of it", it's a political
>> | >question, which means you have to find how what power
>> | >relations govern the placement of art in your museums and
>> | >then try to assemble other political factors, like public
>> | >opinion, to change them.
>>
>> right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D):
>> | Do you seriously suggest art curators are interested in public opinion?
>> The administrators of the museums are not God. They probably
>> pay more attention to prominent people -- the rich, successful
>> politicians and businessmen, high-ranking academics and media
>> heavies -- than they do to the public in general, but I'd
>> guess that the public has some effect, directly and indirectly.
>Not nearly enough.
[snip]
> Yet, how many prestigious museums have
>mounted Frazetta exhibits? Not many that I have heard
>about. Why? It is absolutely bias, because top
>ranking museums have exhibited all sorts of abstract
>rubbish done by people who could not ever begin
>to draw or paint like Frazetta. Frazetta is
>incredibly imaginative, he is superbly talented,
I'd have to agree. As far as his genre goes, he walks all over Valejo (who
may be second in line of "well knowns"). I would queue to see a Frazetta
exhibition over here.
G*rd*n
|>| >question, which means you have to find how what power
|>| >relations govern the placement of art in your museums and
|>| >then try to assemble other political factors, like public
|>| >opinion, to change them.
right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D):
| > | Do you seriously suggest art curators are interested in public opinion?
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
| > The administrators of the museums are not God. They probably
| > pay more attention to prominent people -- the rich, successful
| > politicians and businessmen, high-ranking academics and media
| > heavies -- than they do to the public in general, but I'd
| > guess that the public has some effect, directly and indirectly.
willia...@prodigy.net (William Palmer):
You're describing a political problem, then, not an artistic
or administrative problem. However, the problem is more
complex than one of mere numerical popularity, which is itself
a somewhat uncertain sort of value. That is, (1) because
people say they like a certain sort of art, or are familiar
with it, does not necessarily mean they want to see in on
museum walls, or on the walls of their home or workplace, and
(2) being familiar with, and mentioning a preference for a
kind of art, may be a very weak sort of choice which appears
only when a pollster shows up, and may not reflect buying or
viewing energy. If the people who care strongly about art,
to the point of actually putting up money for it or becoming
involved in the arts establishment, like Picasso rather than
Frazetta, Picasso is what you're going to get in the kind of
environments they dominate, because either the Frazetta fans
are too passive to support bringing his work into a gallery
or museum environment, or because they're not interested in
using it in that way -- they'd rather look at it in a magazine,
for example.
Andrew D
[SNIP]
>You're describing a political problem, then, not an artistic
>or administrative problem.
Yes, of course it's political. No one on this side of the discussion has
ever suggested it has anything to do with art - that is the problem. It's
all ideology and in the case of many public art institutions, the tail is
wagging the dog.
G*rd*n
| >You're describing a political problem, then, not an artistic
| >or administrative problem.
right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D):
| Yes, of course it's political. No one on this side of the discussion has
| ever suggested it has anything to do with art - that is the problem. It's
| all ideology and in the case of many public art institutions, the tail is
| wagging the dog.
I don't know which side of the discussion you're talking about,
exactly, but several people have posted arguments based on
"modern" art being bad in some transcendent, universal sense,
so that the influence of Modernism, for example, can be ascribed
only to something like conspiracy, class war, or mass hysteria.
These may well be in play, but the supposed intrinsic quality
of Modernism has nothing to do with the issue. Arguments of
that sort are worthless because they are grounded in conflicted
subjective judgments. The actual question at hand is whether
one can have what one wants to have on the walls of museums
and art galleries, not whether it's "good" or not. Everyone
thinks the stuff they like is "good". The reason some people
don't get what they want is because they don't have the power
to get it, not because they're good and the others are bad.
The solution for them is to develop the political power to get
what is desired, or, as the song goes, learn to lose.
Erik A. Mattila
That's reminiscent of the position Edward Sapir took in his essay
"Culture: Genuine and Spurious (1924). He was discussing the term
"culture" as belonging to a class of terms we use that have an overly
broad and 'fuzzy' meaning, and he used "art" to illustrate this. One
popular sense of 'art' is that is something we like. As I recall, his
words were something like" "When you go to an art gallery and see
something you don't like, you don't say "...then I don't like art". You
say: ..."that isn't art"."
Erik
>
Andrew D
>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>| >You're describing a political problem, then, not an artistic
>| >or administrative problem.
>
>right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D):
>| Yes, of course it's political. No one on this side of the discussion has
>| ever suggested it has anything to do with art - that is the problem. It's
>| all ideology and in the case of many public art institutions, the tail is
>| wagging the dog.
>
>I don't know which side of the discussion you're talking about,
>exactly, but several people have posted arguments based on
>"modern" art being bad in some transcendent, universal sense,
>so that the influence of Modernism, for example, can be ascribed
>only to something like conspiracy, class war, or mass hysteria.
>These may well be in play, but the supposed intrinsic quality
>of Modernism has nothing to do with the issue. Arguments of
>that sort are worthless because they are grounded in conflicted
>subjective judgments.
I believe many of the comments are akin to an ambit claim - they are an
over-statement in response to the current situation. I'd suggest that the
argument would virtually disappear if public galleries displayed a more
even spread of styles rather than promoting the weird and ugly as "great
art" while ignoring traditional and contemporary 'realist' works.
That is just my opinion of course.
G*rd*n
| >| >You're describing a political problem, then, not an artistic
| >| >or administrative problem.
right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D):
| >| Yes, of course it's political. No one on this side of the discussion has
| >| ever suggested it has anything to do with art - that is the problem. It's
| >| all ideology and in the case of many public art institutions, the tail is
| >| wagging the dog.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| >I don't know which side of the discussion you're talking about,
| >exactly, but several people have posted arguments based on
| >"modern" art being bad in some transcendent, universal sense,
| >so that the influence of Modernism, for example, can be ascribed
| >only to something like conspiracy, class war, or mass hysteria.
| >These may well be in play, but the supposed intrinsic quality
| >of Modernism has nothing to do with the issue. Arguments of
| >that sort are worthless because they are grounded in conflicted
| >subjective judgments.
right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D):
| I believe many of the comments are akin to an ambit claim - they are an
| over-statement in response to the current situation. I'd suggest that the
| argument would virtually disappear if public galleries displayed a more
| even spread of styles rather than promoting the weird and ugly as "great
| art" while ignoring traditional and contemporary 'realist' works.
| ...
_You_ may feel that way, but that's not what the people who
complain about "modern" art say. They say that Picasso,
Rothko, Pollock, and so on are _intrinsically_bad_. I think
we have to take them at their word. Their opinions are not
unfamiliar to me: I heard the same thing from many of my
relatives when I was growing up, back in the Dark Ages -- that
is, the 1950s -- and it's not far from the conception of
"degenerate art" promulgated by that unpleasant political
group of mid-20th-century Europeans to which all Usenet
discussions inevitably tend. That is, the art is positively
bad and must be forcibly eliminated from public life. The
thing that's most odd about all this to me is that they seem
to think Modernism is still a potent style or movement, but
that's a mere detail. I gather they don't like Warhol, either,
and there just isn't any work of art more realistic than, say,
a Warhol Brillo box.
Here in degenerate New York City, by the way, I've been able
to enjoy large shows of Hopper and Wyeth in the last few years.
I feel sorry for all you folks stuck in the provinces having
to look at nothing but nasty old Picassos all the time. But
I think the situation is not going to be rectified by idealist
attacks on hypothetical intrinsic qualities. The people who
are hanging the Picassos are playing _that_ game as pros. I
think the proper issue is one of political discrimination.
That is, if there really are a large number of people who
want to see something besides the aforementioned evil ones
in the museums. People often make that assumption, but I
wouldn't count on it without testing the waters.
Mani Deli
>I'd suggest that the
>argument would virtually disappear if public galleries displayed a more
>even spread of styles rather than promoting the weird and ugly as "great
>art" while ignoring traditional and contemporary 'realist' works.
>
However, I do suggest that in fairness to today's polarized extremes
in taste, museums should have two different curators. One for each
side of the art debate. They could then compete by means of the
artwork they each choose to hang and engage in lively debates. People
will then have an opportunity to see the work of both sides of the art
debate and decide what they prefer for themselves. If this were to
happen the censored approach of the last 60 years would end.
Museums could then hang examples of the finest works which are
popular with a large facet of the public. What critics dismiss as
illustration, kitsch and commercial will then reappear in museums.
Only then will our finest illustrators, nature and scientific artists,
cartoonists, animators, comic book artists etc. have an opportunity to
have their original work shown to that audience.
I would also like art reviews to feature the opinions of two critics
who are known to take opposite sides. This would certainly create more
interest than the usual dose of ecstatic Artspeak praise reserved for
any work exhibiting modern academic conformity.
...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/
Richard
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 00:26:46 -0500, Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
>
>I do not advocate that museums cease exhibiting Modern Academic Art.
>
> However, I do suggest that in fairness to today's polarized extremes
>in taste, museums should have two different curators. One for each
>side of the art debate. They could then compete by means of the
>artwork they each choose to hang and engage in lively debates. People
>will then have an opportunity to see the work of both sides of the art
>debate and decide what they prefer for themselves. If this were to
>happen the censored approach of the last 60 years would end.
You know what? I don't like modern art but why are you complaining so
much about museums? There are plenty of museums where I live (Los
Angeles county) that display fine classical works of art. As for the
others, I don't have to go to them.
G*rd*n
| >I'd suggest that the
| >argument would virtually disappear if public galleries displayed a more
| >even spread of styles rather than promoting the weird and ugly as "great
| >art" while ignoring traditional and contemporary 'realist' works.
Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca>:
| I do not advocate that museums cease exhibiting Modern Academic Art.
|
| However, I do suggest that in fairness to today's polarized extremes
| in taste, museums should have two different curators. One for each
| side of the art debate. ...
The "art debate" doesn't have two "sides". There are a lot
of people who have different degrees of influence over what
gets shown in a gallery or a museum, and they all have different
tastes and theories about what's good. These vary and overlap
widely -- there is no guarantee that because a given person
values Wyeth and Hopper highly she will hate Picasso and
Pollock, and vice versa. As a result, the museums (around
here, anyway) have a wide variety of art, the condition you
say you desire. Raging against a given species of art in
this situation can only express a desire to efface it, and
that is matched by the abusive tone taken towards this
category and the people who practice it and like it.
It seems like another kind of fundamentalism, of which we see
so much in the present world: everthing is simple, knowledge
is absolute, one thing is good, everything else is bad, the
people who do not adhere to the one thing are evil, and so on.
John Rune
....
>The "art debate" doesn't have two "sides". There are a lot
>of people who have different degrees of influence over what
>gets shown in a gallery or a museum, and they all have different
>tastes and theories about what's good. These vary and overlap
>widely -- there is no guarantee that because a given person
>values Wyeth and Hopper highly she will hate Picasso and
>Pollock, and vice versa. As a result, the museums (around
>here, anyway) have a wide variety of art, the condition you
>say you desire. Raging against a given species of art in
>this situation can only express a desire to efface it, and
>that is matched by the abusive tone taken towards this
>category and the people who practice it and like it.
>
>It seems like another kind of fundamentalism, of which we see
>so much in the present world: everthing is simple, knowledge
>is absolute, one thing is good, everything else is bad, the
>people who do not adhere to the one thing are evil, and so on.
Sounds like you're describing candycoated FASCISM. <g>
FASCISMFASCISMFASCISMFASCISMFASCISMFASCISMFASCISM
ASCISMFASCISMFASCISMFASCISMFASCISMFASCISMFASCISM
SCISMFASCISMFASCISMFASCISMFASCISMFASCISMFASCISM
CISMFASCISMFASCISMFASCISMFASCISMFASCISMFASCISM
ISMFASCISMFASCISMFASCISMFASCISMFASCISMFASCISM
SMFASCISMFASCISMFASCISMFASCISMFASCISMFASCISM
MFASCISMFASCISMFASCISMFASCISMFASCISMFASCISM
MWUA-HA-HA-HA-HA!
NOT A FASCIST,
John the Red
Mani Deli
Internal links
Conceptual bull: Culture minister and his critique of the best of
British art
Leading article: Art attack
"The culture minister Kim Howells launched an intemperate attack on
the art world's most controversial contest yesterday, accusing this
year's Turner prize contenders of producing "conceptual BS".
Dec 2002
CULTURE minister Kim Howells relaunched his scathing attack on the
Turner Prize yesterday, describing its judges as black-wearing elites
who talk in "psychobabble".
He said that the competition, which was won by Keith Tyson on Sunday,
had been overrun by self-serving colonists of the "incomprehensible
classes". Mr Howells, an art school graduate, said he had received a
ground-swell of support since proclaiming last month that the
shortlisted entries were "conceptual bullshit".
He added: "I love art, and I love abstract art … the problem is that
there is a very small elite of people now who believe that they are
the only ones who are allowed to speak about art." "
That's not really the problem!
Until the so-called modern Art artwork of the 20th c. is reassessed
starting with perhaps Picasso and Matisse we will continue forward to
more and more Dadaistic put-ons. As this continues some officials who
favored former put-ons will be appalled by the new ones. In my
opinion the whole lot is full of BS.
Mani Deli
wrote:
>You know what? I don't like modern art but why are you complaining so
>much about museums? There are plenty of museums where I live (Los
>Angeles county) that display fine classical works of art. As for the
>others, I don't have to go to them.
>
In part the same type of people who run the museums that you don't go
teach in the school which you constantly complain about. I believe its
time we expose charlatans for what they are.
John Ng
> why are you complaining so
> much about museums? There are plenty of museums where I live (Los
> Angeles county) that display fine classical works of art
That is LA. America is far ahead when it comes to good art. Most
other countries are not so fortunate. Take Perth, Australia for
example. The museum exhibits good art in a hidden dungeon that nobody
knows of, unless by accident. The TV programmes talk of art as if
only strange arty-fartsy paintings are art, and good technical art is
otherwise.
John Ng
G*rd*n
| > why are you complaining so
| > much about museums? There are plenty of museums where I live (Los
| > Angeles county) that display fine classical works of art
pigsm...@hotmail.com (John Ng):
| That is LA. America is far ahead when it comes to good art. Most
| other countries are not so fortunate. Take Perth, Australia for
| example. The museum exhibits good art in a hidden dungeon that nobody
| knows of, unless by accident. The TV programmes talk of art as if
| only strange arty-fartsy paintings are art, and good technical art is
| otherwise.
So who decides what _art_ is, and which of it is good,
in Perth?
Andrew D
>right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D):
>right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D):
>| I believe many of the comments are akin to an ambit claim - they are an
>| over-statement in response to the current situation. I'd suggest that the
>| argument would virtually disappear if public galleries displayed a more
>| even spread of styles rather than promoting the weird and ugly as "great
>| art" while ignoring traditional and contemporary 'realist' works.
>_You_ may feel that way, but that's not what the people who
>complain about "modern" art say. They say that Picasso,
>Rothko, Pollock, and so on are _intrinsically_bad_.
Yes, I know they (we) do. If they (we) spoke glowingly of it they'd (we'd)
have no chance of affecting change. I often disparage certain things as
ugly, tripe, smears, drips and so on but the reality is, I really don't
care much about that stuff at all. What concerns me is an "industry" that
has turned its back on all except this stuff.
I'm not saying everyone who disparages modern art is really unopposed to
it, but my opinion is that many, possibly most contributors to this side
of the discussion simply wouldn't bother writing if the major public
galleries weren't so one-eyed.
Andrew D
As I said earlier, my main objection is to our own public gallery in
Perth, Western Australia . While it is clearly true that some
galleries/museums do hang a variety of work, including the classics, it is
also true that many do not. The Perth gallery hides all traditional art
away in a separate, poorly signposted building and fills the walls of the
main gallery with ugly, modern trash (and it's clear a similar problem
exists in other galleries around the world).
Andrew D
pigsm...@hotmail.com (John Ng) wrote:
Hey John. Have you seen Gallery Watch on Channel 31? Check it out if you
can - it's good for a laugh if nothing else (Monday nights I think).
It was on this show that I saw a local $15,000 award go to a woman who was
stumped when asked to explain her winning piece - a large canvas filled
with horizontal lines.
***** [paraphrased exchange] *********
"What inspires you to paint?"
"Life and nature"
"So is this piece about life or nature?"
".....[long pause]........ err, it's errr....., about, umm....., horizontals"
"So what is it exactly?"
"Well, it's......, umm, whatever you errr..., want it to be.
********************************
Not a bad way to earn $15K. You had to see it!
When the sponsor was asked for his opinion on the exhibition, I believe he
said it was "err, interesting". :)
Andrew D
>Richard <cool_a...@z.com> wrote in message
>| > why are you complaining so
>| > much about museums? There are plenty of museums where I live (Los
>| > Angeles county) that display fine classical works of art
>
>pigsm...@hotmail.com (John Ng):
>| That is LA. America is far ahead when it comes to good art. Most
>| other countries are not so fortunate. Take Perth, Australia for
>| example. The museum exhibits good art in a hidden dungeon that nobody
>| knows of, unless by accident. The TV programmes talk of art as if
>| only strange arty-fartsy paintings are art, and good technical art is
>| otherwise.
>
>So who decides what _art_ is, and which of it is good,
>in Perth?
Presumably those in persuasive positions. The gallery curators and
"lecturers" at Curtin University. They have a tight-knit, self-fulfilling
system in which students learn to produce what the lecturers deem to be
acceptable then they enter exhibitions judged by those same lecturers and
win awards which then see them promoted as great, upcoming artists who
might then be noticed by the gallery curator and wined and dined media
"critics".
Looking in from the outside, it appears very much like an "old boys" club
- where pedigree and conformity are more important than skill, talent,
ability or originality.
This is not to say that traditional art doesn't get a look in in private
galleries. Indeed, some local commerical galleries have very little to do
with unfathomable art.
augart
good for the plebs, it's good for the royals and it's good even for
british ministers. Seems this brit is so excentric he decided to do
without it. Probably he will outlaw to make shit or maybe he thinks
about taxing this activity.
Lauri Levanto
Last time you proposed this idea I took it too lightly.
In fact the National Museum of Art, Finland has two fairly independent departments.
I guess Tate Brittany and Tate modern divide the field in a similar way.
-lauri
Mani Deli wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 10:26:03 +0800, right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew
> >I'd suggest that the
> >argument would virtually disappear if public galleries displayed a more
> >even spread of styles rather than promoting the weird and ugly as "great
> >art" while ignoring traditional and contemporary 'realist' works.
> >
> I do not advocate that museums cease exhibiting Modern Academic Art.
>
> However, I do suggest that in fairness to today's polarized extremes
> in taste, museums should have two different curators. One for each
> side of the art debate. They could then compete by means of the
> artwork they each choose to hang and engage in lively debates. People
> will then have an opportunity to see the work of both sides of the art
> debate and decide what they prefer for themselves. If this were to
> happen the censored approach of the last 60 years would end.
>
> Museums could then hang examples of the finest works which areÂ
> popular with a large facet of the public. What critics dismiss as
> illustration, kitsch and commercial will then reappear in museums.
> Only then will our finest illustrators, nature and scientific artists,
> cartoonists, animators, comic book artists etc. have an opportunity to
> have their original work shown to that audience.
>
> I would also like art reviews to feature the opinions of two critics
NOSPAM
>Last time you proposed this idea I took it too lightly.
>In fact the National Museum of Art, Finland has two fairly independent
>departments.
>I guess Tate Brittany and Tate modern divide the field in a similar way.
>
>-lauri
I didn't know Brittany had her own art museum ;-)
NOSPAM
walkowiak
\
>
> ...no skill no art!
go back to your life drawing class you idiot.
John Rune
D) wrote:
>In article <at8l74$54a$1...@panix2.panix.com>, g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
....
>>So who decides what _art_ is, and which of it is good,
>>in Perth?
>Presumably those in persuasive positions. The gallery curators and
>"lecturers" at Curtin University. They have a tight-knit, self-fulfilling
>system in which students learn to produce what the lecturers deem to be
>acceptable then they enter exhibitions judged by those same lecturers and
>win awards which then see them promoted as great, upcoming artists who
>might then be noticed by the gallery curator and wined and dined media
>"critics".
>
>Looking in from the outside, it appears very much like an "old boys" club
>- where pedigree and conformity are more important than skill, talent,
>ability or originality.
>
>This is not to say that traditional art doesn't get a look in in private
>galleries. Indeed, some local commerical galleries have very little to do
>with unfathomable art.
This is quite amusing because if you changed a few nouns it would echo
many of the sentiments of the French Impressionists who felt neglected
and abused by academe and the salon system. Or so I've heard. <g>
Funny how both sides of an argument eventually wind up using the same
buzz words, the same rationale. Like two men squaring off, the crowd
doesn't care _why_ they fight, so long as they fight _well_.
>Andy D.
>
>"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
John the Red
John Ng
> So who decides what _art_ is, and which of it is good,
> in Perth?
In case you are thinking that it is the viewing public, I dispute
that. A reason is that there is no way this museum can determine the
number or kind of people. There is no turnstile or means of feedback.
I go to the museum often and make my way to the dungeon to view real
art, but, for all I care, they probably registered me as supporting
the tasteless art too. Lots of tourist go there too because they want
to sample Perth's culture (and how wrong an impression they would
get).
I surmise that the people behind all these bad art are linked to the
same artsy body. The rest of the people just go along not knowing any
better, for after all, who can really define art these days? I am
sure it is that loose definition that gets anything into the museums.
John Ng
ART RENEWAL ADVOCATE
http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
John Ng
> This is quite amusing because if you changed a few nouns it would echo
> many of the sentiments of the French Impressionists who felt neglected
> and abused by academe and the salon system
Exactly. These things happen even before the Impressionists. In went
back to Neo-Classist and before. That is why, an art renewal is
impending. This time, however, the art world is deludged of all their
talents and technique so that the cry for a renewal is sharply
weakened.
John Ng
> Hey John. Have you seen Gallery Watch on Channel 31? Check it out if you
> can - it's good for a laugh if nothing else (Monday nights I think).
I might have seen something like that when I flipped the channels. It
sounds interesting the way you put it so I will keep a look out.
I was so feed-up of Victoria Park Awards a few months ago and I am
attempting a piece of CRAP art to send in next year. If some fowl
scratches could win this year, I could as well... it is all a matter
of luck... odds are better than lotto. Maybe that is how I will
explain my painting, "Eh... about nature... splotches".
What are the good galleries here? I know:
Lauder and Howard
Linton and Shaw
McKenzies (sometimes)
You can write to me at pigsm...@hotmail.com.
John Ng
Mani Deli
>I was so feed-up of Victoria Park Awards a few months ago and I am
>attempting a piece of CRAP art to send in next year. If some fowl
>scratches could win this year, I could as well... it is all a matter
>of luck... odds are better than lotto. Maybe that is how I will
>explain my painting, "Eh... about nature... splotches".
>
As I said here often, always outschmier the schmierers and give the
idiots what they want when the opportunity arises.
Andrew D
Staffords in Cottesloe has a fair range of exhibits and often shows some
amazing work (depending on your taste). The Merryl Bell (sp?) exhibition
was astonishing. Their stock room is always worth a look.
The Gadfly in Delkeith also have a fair mix but have exhibited the likes
of Robert Hagan this year. Accent next door is a little more down-market
but gives upcoming local artists an opportuntiy to exhibit.
For some local art by both professionals and hobbyists (usally good
hobbyists) you can try Houghton Wines in Middle Swan. They change exhibits
every three weeks. It's worth finding out what's there before you go if
you don't live nearby. You might get an art society exhibit or a charity
exhibit or just a group of people who got together to exhibit. You're
unlikely to find world-class masterpieces there but the standard is
usually pretty good - depending on your taste ;)
Houghton's was shown on the new Channel Nine show "Crush" this week. If
you saw the segment, you saw some of my work :) If you don't mind a bit
of harmless fun in your art, take a look at Dez Smith's watercolour
exhibition opening this weekend at Houghton.
Down south you can try Boranup Galleries off Caves Road - a host of work
from WA and interstate. Big names, small names - my name - and solid
timber furniture that should grab anyone's attention.
<http://www.boranupgallery.com>
There's also Yallingup Gallery (Wildwood road I think) - similar to
Boranup but without the furniture. <http://yallingupgalleries.com.au/>
Gunyulgup tends to focus on childish - sorry, naive - art plus drip and
smear paintings but did have Tony Windberg a few months ago.
<http://www.gunyulgupgalleries.com.au>
There's a new one in Middle Swan called Yeltrah ("Hartley" backwards if
that's significant?). I don't know much about it but hope to have a look
soon.
G*rd*n
| >| I believe many of the comments are akin to an ambit claim - they are an
| >| over-statement in response to the current situation. I'd suggest that the
| >| argument would virtually disappear if public galleries displayed a more
| >| even spread of styles rather than promoting the weird and ugly as "great
| >| art" while ignoring traditional and contemporary 'realist' works.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| >_You_ may feel that way, but that's not what the people who
| >complain about "modern" art say. They say that Picasso,
| >Rothko, Pollock, and so on are _intrinsically_bad_.
right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D):
| Yes, I know they (we) do. If they (we) spoke glowingly of it they'd (we'd)
| have no chance of affecting change. I often disparage certain things as
| ugly, tripe, smears, drips and so on but the reality is, I really don't
| care much about that stuff at all. What concerns me is an "industry" that
| has turned its back on all except this stuff.
|
| I'm not saying everyone who disparages modern art is really unopposed to
| it, but my opinion is that many, possibly most contributors to this side
| of the discussion simply wouldn't bother writing if the major public
| galleries weren't so one-eyed.
If one's desire is to affect what one sees in museums and
galleries, then I think the metaphysical arguments about the
intrinsic goodness and badness of Picasso _et_al._ are a big
mistake. The people in charge of such institutions always
know people who not only love P.e.a. but can make much
stronger metaphysical arguments in their favor than anything
I've observed in this newsgroup. Often, these people also
have lots of money, advanced degrees, and high social status
as well. I think you need to accentuate the positive, that
is, forget Pic and draw attention to the art which you do like
that is now being neglected.
Of course, some people really enjoy denouncing Picasso and
so on, and they _need_ it to be on museum and gallery walls,
so they can be outraged by it. By denouncing it they draw
attention to it and ensure its continued prominence; so they
should be happy.
G*rd*n
| >| > why are you complaining so
| >| > much about museums? There are plenty of museums where I live (Los
| >| > Angeles county) that display fine classical works of art
pigsm...@hotmail.com (John Ng):
| >| That is LA. America is far ahead when it comes to good art. Most
| >| other countries are not so fortunate. Take Perth, Australia for
| >| example. The museum exhibits good art in a hidden dungeon that nobody
| >| knows of, unless by accident. The TV programmes talk of art as if
| >| only strange arty-fartsy paintings are art, and good technical art is
| >| otherwise.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| >So who decides what _art_ is, and which of it is good,
| >in Perth?
right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D):
| Presumably those in persuasive positions. The gallery curators and
| "lecturers" at Curtin University. They have a tight-knit, self-fulfilling
| system in which students learn to produce what the lecturers deem to be
| acceptable then they enter exhibitions judged by those same lecturers and
| win awards which then see them promoted as great, upcoming artists who
| might then be noticed by the gallery curator and wined and dined media
| "critics".
|
| Looking in from the outside, it appears very much like an "old boys" club
| - where pedigree and conformity are more important than skill, talent,
| ability or originality.
|
| This is not to say that traditional art doesn't get a look in in private
| galleries. Indeed, some local commerical galleries have very little to do
| with unfathomable art.
I think you need to get better informed about who decides
what goes on the walls, and how they get in that position,
if you want to affect their behavior. And where's the
money coming from?
Andrew D
[snip]
>I think you need to get better informed about who decides
>what goes on the walls, and how they get in that position,
>if you want to affect their behavior. And where's the
>money coming from?
A part of that, as I see it, is to get people to think beyond a forum
where ideas can be exchanged internationally - and one can only hope some
of those ideas find their way into the wider arts community.
G*rd*n
| >I think you need to get better informed about who decides
| >what goes on the walls, and how they get in that position,
| >if you want to affect their behavior. And where's the
| >money coming from?
right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D):
| A part of that, as I see it, is to get people to think beyond a forum
| where ideas can be exchanged internationally - and one can only hope some
| of those ideas find their way into the wider arts community.
When I look in _Artnews_ or _Art_in_America_, or the museums
or the galleries around here (NYC) -- including the suburbs --
I see a lot of stuff besides Picasso and abstract expressionism.
I would say fairly straight representation is quite well, uh,
represented. Hence I think you may be in an environment with
different problems than those I observe.
Erik A. Mattila
G*rd*n wrote:
> g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> | >I think you need to get better informed about who decides
> | >what goes on the walls, and how they get in that position,
> | >if you want to affect their behavior. And where's the
> | >money coming from?
>
> right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D):
> | A part of that, as I see it, is to get people to think beyond a forum
> | where ideas can be exchanged internationally - and one can only hope some
> | of those ideas find their way into the wider arts community.
>
> When I look in _Artnews_ or _Art_in_America_, or the museums
> or the galleries around here (NYC) -- including the suburbs --
> I see a lot of stuff besides Picasso and abstract expressionism.
> I would say fairly straight representation is quite well, uh,
> represented. Hence I think you may be in an environment with
> different problems than those I observe.
>
Me too - especially with postmodern eclecticism, everything seems to
fly. The argument itself, abstract v. representation, seems to have
taken on a life of its own - some sort of simulacra that has completely
shed its reference system in favor of self-reference. Wouldn't
Greenberg have fun with that one?
Erik