Cease Fire Anyone?
il...@hotmail.com
In so many posts there is so much sarcasm and a real lack of respect for
each other, or at least each others' opinions. On all sides. And so
much of it revolves around issues of Modernism that one would think we
are in the heyday of its ascendency, and yet that moment passed long ago.
Modernism, for better or worse, is dead and gone and it died some 30
years ago. Modernism is not the issue. It's not the Modernists versus
the Traditionalists anymore. Trust me, showing anyone a porfolio of
"classic" modernist painting will not earn you a badge of being current.
And Postmodernism is *not*, as some might think, an updated continuation
of Modernist values. It is anti-Modernist to the extreme, and Modernist
painting is as much in the cross-hairs as Traditional painting. In fact,
what I find ironic, is that while I see so many painters going at each
other's throats, the very existence of painting as a shared value is
under such a huge attack from other quarters. When I was at Yale, in
1992, the school was considered extremely conservative by most in the art
world, despite its Modernist pedigree and Formalist inheritence. Why?
Because people there still painted--pure and simple. Because people
still took brush to canvas daily in some hope of furthuring and
participating in the tradition of painting. Because people there were
still trying to give meaning to a rapidly dissapearing, marginalized
activity. As painters we have enough enemies to worry about that we
hardly need to villify each other. Latter-day Romanticists, arch
Modernists, Neo-Classicists all--don't you think that its time, at least
in part, to strengthen what we hold in common and what we hold dear. I
know first hand that Painting Departments are shrinking and battling for
existence; enrollment in their courses are plummeting while those in
Computer Art soar. Its a pure numbers game as far as University
administrations are concerned. At Indiana University, where I taught, I
couldn't believe that I actually sat through whole faculty meetings where
the very continuation of the Printing Department was seriously debated,
and the Painting department nearly lost one of its only four full time
positions because it simply could not demonstrate through class rosters
that it had any compelling need for that level of commitment. Painting
classes there struggle to get 15 students at most, and both Intermediate
and Advanced courses are lumped together because neither could survive on
their own. Meanwhile, Computer Design and Computer Art courses have long
waiting lists and are incredibly popular. So, I find it a bit ironic
that we argue with such a poisened invective against each other, while
not long ago I was passionately trying to defend the very right for us to
keep on arguing at all, much less paint, in the face of cultural forces
that threaten the very continuation of Painting Departments everywhere.
Isaac il...@hotmail.com "There is no such thing as a wrong note, it all
depends on the note you play after." Art Tatum, jazz pianist
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
mark webber
These are, on the whole, I think, excellent points.
I'm not sure that a playful jab now and then is such a bad thing, but its
true that a lot of energy can be wasted in invective.
Mark
Jerry
il...@hotmail.com wrote:
Meanwhile, Computer Design and Computer Art courses have long
> waiting lists and are incredibly popular.
Almost all school curriculum are based on numbers, who signs up for what
class. The shame of it is that many people after they have taken a
computer class are not all that thrilled with it and it loses its
attaction. No one realizes that once art programs are gone, they are
gone. You can teach computers from a textbook, which means that any
teacher if they want, can do so. The same cannot be said for an art
class and most teachers do not have a clue how to teach art.
Jerry
Jerry
il...@hotmail.com wrote:
When I was at Yale, in
> 1992, the school was considered extremely conservative by most in the art
> world, despite its Modernist pedigree and Formalist inheritence. Why?
> Because people there still painted--pure and simple.
Would anyone else care to comment on what is happening at major
universities as to what is happening with their art programs? As a
former art teacher I would be interesest to hear .
Jerry
mdeli
On Fri, 06 Feb 1998 20:51:25 -0600, il...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Latter-day Romanticists, arch
>Modernists, Neo-Classicists all--don't you think that its time, at least
>in part, to strengthen what we hold in common and what we hold dear. I
>know first hand that Painting Departments are shrinking and battling for
>existence; enrollment in their courses are plummeting while those in
>Computer Art soar.
Why is this so amazing? Art departments are made up of fifth
generation incompetent graduate failures. The word is out.
Computer art, rather than the same old bullshit under a new title
(postmodern) is in. Why? Because it promises a career which requires
knowledge and skill. Those teaching computer art can't get away with
pure bullshit. They have to pass on knowledge.
>At Indiana University, where I taught, I
>couldn't believe that I actually sat through whole faculty meetings where
>the very continuation of the Printing Department was seriously debated,
>and the Painting department nearly lost one of its only four full time
>positions because it simply could not demonstrate through class rosters
>that it had any compelling need for that level of commitment.
Gee I wonder why?
> Painting
>classes there struggle to get 15 students at most, and both Intermediate
>and Advanced courses are lumped together because neither could survive on
>their own.
Perhaps the word among is out. "Art teachers don't teach; they just
babble on."
> Meanwhile, Computer Design and Computer Art courses have long
>waiting lists and are incredibly popular. So, I find it a bit ironic
>that we argue with such a poisened invective against each other, while
>not long ago I was passionately trying to defend the very right for us to
>keep on arguing at all, much less paint, in the face of cultural forces
>that threaten the very continuation of Painting Departments everywhere.
What is happening is that students are beginning to judge Modern
Academic Art for what it is; a big put-on. Why pay the high cost of
university tuition for Artspeak lectures by teachers who don't know
their craft?
You can get your fill of Artspeak right here,
There is plenty of opportunity for those who master their craft.
Whether the medium is paper, canvas, computer paint or 3D. The person
who has first mastered drawing will do better than one who hasn't.
For those who only mastered Artspeak bullshit there are a few places
in academia and hardly any in the artzy fartzy gallery scene.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Isaac Sands
Before answering your specific points, Deli, you really have no cause to
answer my post with such a tone of voice. You don't know anything about
me, or my art. I taught at the Graduate School of Figurative Art, of
the New York Academy of Art, which offers as close to a French Academy
training as you will find in the United States--including a whole year
in anatomy, drawing extensively from plaster casts, an unrelenting focus
on drawing the figure, required courses in traditional techniques of
underpainting and glazing, etc., etc. Afterwards, I taught at Indiana
University, which is a completely figurative art school, again with
courses in artistic anatomy, a faculty knowledgable and dedicated to the
tradition of painting--as in pre-20th Centuary, and not a place so out
of step with your own values. My own training is probably more or as
conservative as yours. But you seem unable to treat anyone with
respect--even those like Gabriel Laderman, who has certainly done as
much as anyone in the United States to keep many of the values you
cherish in the public's eye and as part of the public debate. I take it
as a principle of simple good manners to treat all with respect--I would
appreciate it if you would treat me likewise. My post was, in part, a
call for such by all parties to our debates.
Now to the points you raise:
In refernce to my point about falling enrollments in Painting and
soaring ones in Computer Art
mdeli wrote:
> Why is this so amazing? Art departments are made up of fifth
> generation incompetent graduate failures. The word is out.
>
> Computer art, rather than the same old bullshit under a new title
> (postmodern) is in. Why? Because it promises a career which requires
> knowledge and skill. Those teaching computer art can't get away with
> pure bullshit. They have to pass on knowledge.
Sure, at some places, but not all. At Indiana, where I experienced
this, it had nothing to do with the "word being out" about being taught
"the same old bullshit". It had to do with students giving no value to
painting, to the hard work of disciplining their hand and mastering
their materials. Computers on the other hand seemed "cool" and "hip",
tendy and in, and painting, *especially* in older works, were seen as
stale and irrelevant in comparison. Also, in the past one could rely on
a fair degree of drafting ability in any descent Graphic Designer.
Today, when all graphics are computer aided and done, I had not one
Graphic Design student that good draw worth beans. And worst, they
could see no reason to--their attitude was "why not just manipulate
images, scan them in; why go through all the trouble".
In reference to my points that:
> >Painting classes there struggle to get 15 students at most, and both Intermediate
> >and Advanced courses are lumped together because neither could survive on
> >their own. Meanwhile, Computer Design and Computer Art courses have long
> >waiting lists and are incredibly popular. So, I find it a bit ironic
> >that we argue with such a poisened invective against each other, while
> >not long ago I was passionately trying to defend the very right for us to
> >keep on arguing at all, much less paint, in the face of cultural forces
> >that threaten the very continuation of Painting Departments everywhere.
mdeli wrote:
> Perhaps the word among is out. "Art teachers don't teach; they just
> babble on."
and
> What is happening is that students are beginning to judge Modern
> Academic Art for what it is; a big put-on. Why pay the high cost of
> university tuition for Artspeak lectures by teachers who don't know
> their craft?
How dare you judge what I and my colleagues taught without you knowing
anything about us. Again, see response to first point and my prologue.
You are maligning a department that has done far more than you think in
advancing traditional values in painting. I think you are striking
blindly here--none of at Indiana are your enemies, though all of us were
a good deal more polite. We did, and still do, know our craft; indeed,
we are steeped in it, and have practiced it daily with fierce
dedication. The faults were not on that end of the equation. One is
lucky if you can get students to look for even ten minutes at any
painting from the past. They are bored, their attention spans are
neglible, and none of it has the graphic power of their MTV and video
games. The same is found in English departments were Shakespeare and
the classics are under attack by a culture that has no patience with
hard work or the values of being cultured. Think more before you leap
to conclusions.
Isaac
il...@hotmail.com
Marilyn
mdeli wrote:
> You can get your fill of Artspeak right here,
>
AND you can get your fill of mdeli-speakright here, unfortunately.
Here are samples:
"artzy-fartzy
bull-shit
crap
babble
no skill - no art"
No skill in writing and vocabulary - no winning of arguments.
Marilyn
Bailey
I agree, Isaac, a cease fire does seem to be in order. The arguments of
Modern Art vs. Classic Art are pointless, really, it all comes down to
opinion, just like some people like The Honeymooners and some rather
Seinfeld (or some like both). The argument is also outdated, considering
it's over a half century since modern art's heyday. Also, any
downgrading of the modern masters' 'skill' is also outdated, because the
works of Kandinsky, Picasso, Klee etc. have stood the test of time and
have come out winning.
Face it, the standard of the artist imitating reality was largely
rendered obsolete with the invention of the camera. Starting with
Impressionism, the artist had a new job, interpreting the world through
feelings and emotions rather than visual slavery. The modern artists
carried on this mission with many endless variations.
Just because their art may not contain an ounce of realism does not mean
that the artists lacked skill. Picasso, Klee, Kandinsky, etc. all had an
extraordinary sense of composition, originality, imagination, and yes,
skill (depending on your definition, that is, IMO skill is the ability
to technically put down in reality what's in one's head). IMO the 'no
skill, no art' credo does not go against any of the modern artists that
I admire, since I consider all to hold some degree of skill.
As far as the whole computer art thing, I wouldn't use computers as a
scapegoat for the lack of interest in painting. The truth is, while
quite a few things are easier on the computer, it does not add anything
extraordinary to a poor artist, and in fact, it adds a few different
rules that are just as hard as anything in painting(for the record, I do
both). Also, the computer can be quite a legitimate art tool, and is
capable of fostering genuine creativity. But it is true that a basic
knowledge of drawing, composition, and color is needed before throwing
oneself into a computer paint program, and all those students who get
into computers before learning a few basics are due for a rude awakining
when it comes down to the nitty gritty.
I wouldn't worry too much about the loss of interest in painting. I
sense that there will be a backlash against all the computer stuff in
due time, similar to a few years back when many young musicians suddenly
realized that they should learn a little guitar or piano before
programming monsterous electronic synthesizer programs. What goes around
comes around.
Bailey
il...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> In so many posts there is so much sarcasm and a real lack of respect for
> each other, or at least each others' opinions. On all sides. And so
> much of it revolves around issues of Modernism that one would think we
> are in the heyday of its ascendency, and yet that moment passed long ago.
> Modernism, for better or worse, is dead and gone and it died some 30
> years ago. Modernism is not the issue. It's not the Modernists versus
> the Traditionalists anymore. Trust me, showing anyone a porfolio of
> "classic" modernist painting will not earn you a badge of being current.
> And Postmodernism is *not*, as some might think, an updated continuation
> of Modernist values. It is anti-Modernist to the extreme, and Modernist
> painting is as much in the cross-hairs as Traditional painting. In fact,
> what I find ironic, is that while I see so many painters going at each
> other's throats, the very existence of painting as a shared value is
> under such a huge attack from other quarters. When I was at Yale, in
> 1992, the school was considered extremely conservative by most in the art
> world, despite its Modernist pedigree and Formalist inheritence. Why?
> Because people there still painted--pure and simple. Because people
> still took brush to canvas daily in some hope of furthuring and
> participating in the tradition of painting. Because people there were
> still trying to give meaning to a rapidly dissapearing, marginalized
> activity. As painters we have enough enemies to worry about that we
> hardly need to villify each other. Latter-day Romanticists, arch
> Modernists, Neo-Classicists all--don't you think that its time, at least
> in part, to strengthen what we hold in common and what we hold dear. I
> know first hand that Painting Departments are shrinking and battling for
> existence; enrollment in their courses are plummeting while those in
> Computer Art soar. Its a pure numbers game as far as University
> administrations are concerned. At Indiana University, where I taught, I
> couldn't believe that I actually sat through whole faculty meetings where
> the very continuation of the Printing Department was seriously debated,
> and the Painting department nearly lost one of its only four full time
> positions because it simply could not demonstrate through class rosters
> that it had any compelling need for that level of commitment. Painting
> classes there struggle to get 15 students at most, and both Intermediate
> and Advanced courses are lumped together because neither could survive on
> their own. Meanwhile, Computer Design and Computer Art courses have long
> waiting lists and are incredibly popular. So, I find it a bit ironic
> that we argue with such a poisened invective against each other, while
> not long ago I was passionately trying to defend the very right for us to
> keep on arguing at all, much less paint, in the face of cultural forces
> that threaten the very continuation of Painting Departments everywhere.
>
Erik Johnson
On Sun, 08 Feb 1998 03:11:11 GMT, hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>Computer art, rather than the same old bullshit under a new title
>(postmodern) is in. Why? Because it promises a career which requires
>knowledge and skill. Those teaching computer art can't get away with
>pure bullshit. They have to pass on knowledge.
Not true! Computer 'art' that I run across more often than not fits
into you skillless schlock category. A few filters and nifty effects
and you're an ARTIST! No skill required. No time required. Of
course this generalization is not always true (and hopefully not
in my case)... just as your generalizations are rarely true.
If you have no skill in the physical world, you certainly aren't going
to be transformed in the digital world.
>Perhaps the word among is out. "Art teachers don't teach; they just
>babble on."
Pretty stupid generalization. I've had two art classes in my prior
student life... one instructor was *outstanding*, the other less than.
>> Meanwhile, Computer Design and Computer Art courses have long
>>waiting lists and are incredibly popular. So, I find it a bit ironic
>>that we argue with such a poisened invective against each other, while
>>not long ago I was passionately trying to defend the very right for us to
>>keep on arguing at all, much less paint, in the face of cultural forces
>>that threaten the very continuation of Painting Departments everywhere.
Because they are fun. Yet from my vantage point design is becoming
a lost art because computer "design" tools are modelling and
visualization tools that are not suited to actual design. And the
computer art usually is horrid.
>What is happening is that students are beginning to judge Modern
>Academic Art for what it is; a big put-on. Why pay the high cost of
>university tuition for Artspeak lectures by teachers who don't know
>their craft?
Every school and every teacher is different!
>You can get your fill of Artspeak right here,
>
>There is plenty of opportunity for those who master their craft.
>Whether the medium is paper, canvas, computer paint or 3D. The person
>who has first mastered drawing will do better than one who hasn't.
True!
>For those who only mastered Artspeak bullshit there are a few places
>in academia and hardly any in the artzy fartzy gallery scene.
Mani, the only 'fartspeak' I tend to hear is from you.
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Erik Johnson erik@ phidias.colorado.edu
http://phidias.colorado.edu/ejvgallery
http://phidias.colorado.edu/phidias
mdeli
On Sun, 08 Feb 1998 16:06:46 -0500, Isaac Sands <il...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Before answering your specific points, Deli, you really have no cause to
>answer my post with such a tone of voice. You don't know anything about
>me, or my art.
Where did I say I did?
>Now to the points you raise:
>
>In refernce to my point about falling enrollments in Painting and
>soaring ones in Computer Art
>
>mdeli wrote:
>
>> Why is this so amazing? Art departments are made up of fifth
>> generation incompetent graduate failures. The word is out.
>>
>> Computer art, rather than the same old bullshit under a new title
>> (postmodern) is in. Why? Because it promises a career which requires
>> knowledge and skill. Those teaching computer art can't get away with
>> pure bullshit. They have to pass on knowledge.
>
>Sure, at some places, but not all.
I agree completely. But these places are rare aren't they?
>
>mdeli wrote:
>
>> Perhaps the word among is out. "Art teachers don't teach; they just
>> babble on."
I presume you don't believe this is generally the case.
>
>and
>
>> What is happening is that students are beginning to judge Modern
>> Academic Art for what it is; a big put-on. Why pay the high cost of
>> university tuition for Artspeak lectures by teachers who don't know
>> their craft?
>
>How dare you judge what I and my colleagues taught without you knowing
>anything about us.
I'm not judging you or your colleagues. I have seen the work coming
out of universities and high class art schools. Most is incompetent. I
blame the teachers and the system. I know quite a bit about what is
happening. Do you think most art schools prepare a person for a
career?
Read the messages here. Most writers don't even acknowledge the need
for skill and most write in the inflated Artspeak style they learned
in school. When I see their work on the net I find their lack of
technical knowledge astounding.
One shouldn't even have the need to refer to basic technical skill. If
a musician is off pitch and plays wrong notes one rarely comments any
further about his supposed capibilities.
> Again, see response to first point and my prologue.
>You are maligning a department that has done far more than you think in
>advancing traditional values in painting.
I have nothing for or against traditional painting. My first point in
judging a painting is its technical competence. The problem is that
even most so called contemporary traditional painting I see lacks
technical skill. Am I mistaken?
I believe that except for a very small percentage of what passes for
fine art, the finest work today resides in the realm of is what is
denigratingly called illustration and commercial art. The best artists
in these fields are not really traditional in subject matter. Good
artwork is a combination of competence and invention. Do you disagree?
>I think you are striking
>blindly here--none of at Indiana are your enemies,
I don't know much about Indiana. I'm referring to the general picture.
I don't think my comment about the interest in computer art is
impolite, insulting or anything else. Do you disagree with my point as
to why students gravitate to computers?
I think the computer is the most interesting thing happening in art.
This in no way reduces my interest in the art of the past and present,
whatever the medium.
I stated the reasons I believe students are turning away from fine art
in general. That says nothing personal about you, of which I know
nothing more than the ideas you state here.
> though all of us were a good deal more polite.
You can state things in any manner you wish. I have seen many talents
ruined by art schools and the jargon they preach. I have read forty
years of art criticism of convoluted verbous idiocy. I visit museums
filled with trash which can be produced by anyone with a modicum of
artistic skill. I have experienced the collusion which modern art
historians complain about in the 19th century. And I have conned
people with my own abstract schmiers and assorted modern baloney.
Its time to call a spade a spade and if that is impolite I couldn't
care less. Check my web page.
> One is
>lucky if you can get students to look for even ten minutes at any
>painting from the past. They are bored, their attention spans are
>neglible, and none of it has the graphic power of their MTV and video
>games.
They were the same when I went to school. Most people say they are
interested in art because they are supposed to be. Most say they like
Picasso and Matisse for the same reason. Most make no effort to see
much else. Most never inspect a painting in detail. Art is for those
who wish to see it, collect it and read about it. I think few people
are interested in art. I don't worry about it. Fine work will be
admired and preserved even if it is done by a small minority.
In spite of this however, I believe there is as much fine work
produced as ever, you just won't find very much in the Modern Academic
sections of museums.
MAni DeLi
...no skill no art
D F Russell
In article <34DFE7...@hotmail.com>, Bailey <bcbai...@hotmail.com> writes:
|> I agree, Isaac, a cease fire does seem to be in order. The arguments of
|> Modern Art vs. Classic Art are pointless, really, it all comes down to
|> opinion, just like some people like The Honeymooners and some rather
|> Seinfeld (or some like both). The argument is also outdated, considering
|> it's over a half century since modern art's heyday. Also, any
|> downgrading of the modern masters' 'skill' is also outdated, because the
|> works of Kandinsky, Picasso, Klee etc. have stood the test of time and
|> have come out winning.
:-)
OK. So even though it's just an "opinion" -- one is stupid to have
an opinion other than the one you have? Interesting :)
|>
|> Face it, the standard of the artist imitating reality was largely
|> rendered obsolete with the invention of the camera.
<LOL> To state that *any* "artist" "imitates reality" deminishes the
"artist" considerably... even photo-realists. If all one was
interested in was an exact copy, cameras work just fine... and are
a **lot** faster.
Your bias is showing ;-)
|> Starting with
|> Impressionism, the artist had a new job, interpreting the world through
|> feelings and emotions rather than visual slavery.
<ROTFL>
"visual slavery"... <heh heh heh>
Sounds like sour grapes to me.....
|> The modern artists
|> carried on this mission with many endless variations.
<lol>
I have noticed that "endless variations" feeling when viewing some
"modern art" galleries :-) -- possibly not in the way you meant it,
though :)
|>
|> Just because their art may not contain an ounce of realism does not mean
|> that the artists lacked skill.
Nor does the fact that a painting is realistic imply, as you liked to
put it, "visual slavery".
Your obvious blindness to your personal bias somewhat reduces your
credibility.
|> Picasso, Klee, Kandinsky, etc. all had an
|> extraordinary sense of composition, originality, imagination, and yes,
|> skill (depending on your definition, that is, IMO skill is the ability
|> to technically put down in reality what's in one's head). IMO the 'no
|> skill, no art' credo does not go against any of the modern artists that
|> I admire, since I consider all to hold some degree of skill.
I'm afraid there is really no way one can judge whether this has actually
occured or not... since there's no way to take a snapshot of what's in
someone's head :)
Therefore, using your criteria, it is impossible to determine if any
of the above named individuals were "skilled".
--
Views expressed are personal and not necessarily shared by my employer.
mdeli
On Mon, 09 Feb 1998 23:36:08 -0600, Bailey <bcbai...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Face it, the standard of the artist imitating reality was largely
>rendered obsolete with the invention of the camera.
If an Ingres, a Dali, a Rockwell or Walt Disney looks like a
photograph to you, get new glasses.
>Starting with
>Impressionism, the artist had a new job, interpreting the world through
>feelings and emotions rather than visual slavery. The modern artists
>carried on this mission with many endless variations.
Mostly incompetent variations.
>Just because their art may not contain an ounce of realism does not mean
>that the artists lacked skill.
Absolutly CORRECT and it also doesn't mean that he has SKILL, does it?
>As far as the whole computer art thing, I wouldn't use computers as a
>scapegoat for the lack of interest in painting. The truth is, while
>quite a few things are easier on the computer, it does not add anything
>extraordinary to a poor artist, and in fact, it adds a few different
>rules that are just as hard as anything in painting(for the record, I do
>both). Also, the computer can be quite a legitimate art tool, and is
>capable of fostering genuine creativity. But it is true that a basic
>knowledge of drawing, composition, and color is needed before throwing
>oneself into a computer paint program, and all those students who get
>into computers before learning a few basics are due for a rude awakining
>when it comes down to the nitty gritty.
I couldn't have said it better. Complaining about the computer as a
medium is as silly as complaining about the invention of lithography
or the typewriter.
Mani DeLI
...no skill no art
mdeli
From the anti-skill quarters of the art world "Nothing-to-say" Marylin
wrote:
>mdeli wrote:
>> You can get your fill of Artspeak right here,
>>
>
>Here are samples:
>
>"artzy-fartzy
>bull-shit
>crap
>babble
>no skill - no art"
>
>No skill in writing and vocabulary - no winning of arguments.
>
>Marilyn
As usual Marylyn has nothing to say. She has yet to reply to any of my
arguments.
As far as being avant garde in her answers, she fails compared to the
most concise answer I got to my web page.
It was I quote:
"Fuck you."
No return address. I was amused. Its alway nice to know that my
message was enough to get someone to take the trouble to write.
Mani DeLi http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
...no skill no art
Lisa A. Gittens
mdeli wrote:
On Fri, 06 Feb 1998 20:51:25 -0600, il...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Latter-day Romanticists, arch
>Modernists, Neo-Classicists all--don't you think that its time, at least
>in part, to strengthen what we hold in common and what we hold dear. I
>know first hand that Painting Departments are shrinking and battling for
>existence; enrollment in their courses are plummeting while those in
>Computer Art soar.
Why is this so amazing? Art departments are made up of fifth
generation incompetent graduate failures. The word is out.
Computer art, rather than the same old bullshit under a new title
(postmodern) is in. Why? Because it promises a career which requires
knowledge and skill. Those teaching computer art can't get away with
pure bullshit. They have to pass on knowledge.
>At Indiana University, where I taught, I
>couldn't believe that I actually sat through whole faculty meetings where
>the very continuation of the Printing Department was seriously debated,
>and the Painting department nearly lost one of its only four full time
>positions because it simply could not demonstrate through class rosters
>that it had any compelling need for that level of commitment.
Gee I wonder why?
> Painting
>classes there struggle to get 15 students at most, and both Intermediate
>and Advanced courses are lumped together because neither could survive on
>their own.
Perhaps the word among is out. "Art teachers don't teach; they just
babble on."> Meanwhile, Computer Design and Computer Art courses have long
>waiting lists and are incredibly popular. So, I find it a bit ironic
>that we argue with such a poisened invective against each other, while
>not long ago I was passionately trying to defend the very right for us to
>keep on arguing at all, much less paint, in the face of cultural forces
>that threaten the very continuation of Painting Departments everywhere.
What is happening is that students are beginning to judge Modern
Academic Art for what it is; a big put-on. Why pay the high cost of
university tuition for Artspeak lectures by teachers who don't know
their craft?
You can get your fill of Artspeak right here,
There is plenty of opportunity for those who master their craft.
Whether the medium is paper, canvas, computer paint or 3D. The person
who has first mastered drawing will do better than one who hasn't.
For those who only mastered Artspeak bullshit there are a few places
in academia and hardly any in the artzy fartzy gallery scene.
mdeli Were you attacked by a painting teacher as a child? To make such generalization is a shame. I am a computer artist, as well as a painter. I am college educated. I have taken painting classes with good and bad professors, the same thing happen in my computer imaging class, as well. Both computer art and painting take the same amount of skill and commitment! By the way the market is flood with bad painters and bad computer artist. You can be successful at both! It is all up to the commitment of the artist!Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
LA Gittens
Brother Alphabet
On Sun, 8 Feb 1998, mdeli wrote:
> Computer art, rather than the same old bullshit under a new title
> (postmodern) is in. Why? Because it promises a career which requires
> knowledge and skill.
Don't you check into ANYTHING before you speak, Mani de Li?
Money is the motivator of all careers related to electornic imaging.
Animation, Multimedia, etc. Big bucks, not skill or talent. It is a BONUS,
but definitely not the rule that electronic 'artists' have skill/talent.
Any fool with a handbook can feasibly pass themselves off as a web
designer, computer artist, etc. Take you own homepage for exaple. You
could show that thing to a know-nothing employer and he woud think you
were a web designer just because you said so and knew some words he
didn't.
> Those teaching computer art can't get away with
> pure bullshit. They have to pass on knowledge.
This is also completely incorrect.
I have met more inept computer art teachers than anything. I have been in
classes in which I had to show the teacher how something was done. The
teach in a graphics class, unlike the teacher in a drawing or painting
class, can hand the students user manuals on the software and go take a
nap.
You really ought to experience things before pretending to know what
you're talking about.
Hutto - (Computer artist since MacDraw, fanboy)
-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-
"I paint what I think, not what I see..." - Pablo Picasso
"You're not the boss of me!..." - J. A. Hutto (Pre age 3)
http://www2.msstate.edu/~jah10 + ja...@ra.msstate.edu
Bailey
> >rendered obsolete with the invention of the camera.
>
> photograph to you, get new glasses.
>
When did I criticize the above artists in my post? You're obviously
reading things that aren't there, because I actually admire almost all
of those artists very much, and am somewhat upset that anyone would
claim otherwise.
I admire Dali's ability and originality to combine a realist style with
surrealist elements, to produce, in his own words, ''dream
photographs''. While often looked down on as a 'commercial artist', I
think as time passes Norman Rockwell will be reknown (if he isn't
already) for representing his world and time period so wonderfully in
his art, similar to how many classical artists are considered to be a
mirror of their times. Walt Disney's animators were excellent craftsman
who perfected a new medium (I say 'his animators' because Walt Disney
himself was mostly a shotcaller who stopped drawing in his early
twenties, and was little responsible for the actual art of his films). I
have a few reservations about Ingres, however. I am not overly familar
with his work, so I may need to study him more to have an official
opinion. From what I've seen of his work, he was excellent craftsman,
and truly talented no doubt. But his subject matter mostly seems to
regurgitate age old material that has been mined by classic artists for
centuries. I look for originality in artists, that's what appeals to me,
but I must say that Ingres possesses great skill if that's what you
admire (again, it all comes down to opinion).
Yes, I do like Dali, Disney, and Rockwell, but I also like Picasso,
Kandinsky, and Klee (just to name a few). One doesn't have to close
their mind to one area of art to admire another.
> >Starting with
> >Impressionism, the artist had a new job, interpreting the world through
> >feelings and emotions rather than visual slavery. The modern artists
> >carried on this mission with many endless variations.
>
> Mostly incompetent variations.
Again, opinions. But IMO: How can you say that Picasso was incompetent?
He had a strong knowledge in color composition and design, and even in
human anatomy. If you detest his cubist works, than howabout his
paintings from the blue and rose periods? Surely they contain quite a
degree in artistic knowledge. Picasso is just one example, I could go on
with other examples of modern artists that I also like and think that
they have skill, but I do want this thread to be of reasonable length.
But you are right that there are others who can be considered jokes.
> >Just because their art may not contain an ounce of realism does not mean
> >that the artists lacked skill.
>
> Absolutly CORRECT and it also doesn't mean that he has SKILL, does it?
But IMO they do have skill. Your opinion may be different, but it's just
that: an opinion.
> >As far as the whole computer art thing, I wouldn't use computers as a
> >scapegoat for the lack of interest in painting. The truth is, while
> >quite a few things are easier on the computer, it does not add anything
> >extraordinary to a poor artist, and in fact, it adds a few different
> >rules that are just as hard as anything in painting(for the record, I do
> >both). Also, the computer can be quite a legitimate art tool, and is
> >capable of fostering genuine creativity. But it is true that a basic
> >knowledge of drawing, composition, and color is needed before throwing
> >oneself into a computer paint program, and all those students who get
> >into computers before learning a few basics are due for a rude awakining
> >when it comes down to the nitty gritty.
>
> I couldn't have said it better. Complaining about the computer as a
> medium is as silly as complaining about the invention of lithography
> or the typewriter.
>
At least we agree on something. (-:
Bailey
D F Russell
Marilyn <anti...@island.net> wrote:
>AND you can get your fill of mdeli-speakright here, unfortunately.
>Here are samples:
>
>"artzy-fartzy
>bull-shit
>crap
>babble
>no skill - no art"
<LOL>
Unfortunately for you, the terms you've listed are actually quite
succint, descriptive, and often correct.
wanax
> >rendered obsolete with the invention of the camera.
>
as well?
> >Starting with
> >Impressionism, the artist had a new job, interpreting the world through
> >feelings and emotions rather than visual slavery. The modern artists
> >carried on this mission with many endless variations.
>
> Mostly incompetent variations.
Both correct statements
>
> >Just because their art may not contain an ounce of realism does not mean
> >that the artists lacked skill.
>
> Absolutly CORRECT and it also doesn't mean that he has SKILL, does it?
Both correct again.
> >As far as the whole computer art thing, I wouldn't use computers as a
> >scapegoat for the lack of interest in painting.
The fact is that interest in painting has wained with the advent of the
"enlightened" educational model implemented by former hippies and
"bleeding hearts" in the U.S. public schools and the NEA. Interest in
anything meaningful to life artistically seems to have suffered directly
as a result of trying to make every student learn exactly the same as
the next. It is total BS. Everyone does not need to be college
educated, and everyone does not need to be artistically accute; in
attempting to do both, we have compromized both in terms of value and
relevance. When artist fling shit on a wall, we must all try to connect
with his/her inner statement? Call a spade a spade, please. The
leveling of the playing field has brought "awareness" down to a lower
scale of civilization. For a comparative, look at the classical Greek
civilization prior to Alexander and after; while Alexander spread
hellenism, it was a weaker form that manifested over a larger area; the
core creative initiative of the Greeks suffered directly as a
result--i.e. once everyone _thought_ they were Greek, the meaning of
being Greek was lost to the Greeks themselves.
The truth is, while
> >quite a few things are easier on the computer, it does not add anything
> >extraordinary to a poor artist, and in fact, it adds a few different
> >rules that are just as hard as anything in painting(for the record, I do
> >both). Also, the computer can be quite a legitimate art tool, and is
> >capable of fostering genuine creativity. But it is true that a basic
> >knowledge of drawing, composition, and color is needed before throwing
> >oneself into a computer paint program, and all those students who get
> >into computers before learning a few basics are due for a rude awakining
> >when it comes down to the nitty gritty.
This is not entirely so. With a computer, one can draw a line on the
pixel level and as straight as a geometric ray. Corrections also
require little effort. The skill of the artist lies not in his choice
of media, but in his choice of commitment to excellence.
> I couldn't have said it better. Complaining about the computer as a
> medium is as silly as complaining about the invention of lithography
> or the typewriter.
Agreed, but....
I've seen computer art that is interesting, and I've seen computer art
that is cool/neato/rad. However, I've never seen computer art that make
me feel.
Wanax Andron
mdeli
On Tue, 10 Feb 1998 17:55:52 -0600, Bailey <bcbai...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>mdeli wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 09 Feb 1998 23:36:08 -0600, Bailey <bcbai...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Face it, the standard of the artist imitating reality was largely
>> >rendered obsolete with the invention of the camera.
>>
>> If an Ingres, a Dali, a Rockwell or Walt Disney looks like a
>> photograph to you, get new glasses.
>
>When did I criticize the above artists in my post? You're obviously
>reading things that aren't there, because I actually admire almost all
>of those artists very much, and am somewhat upset that anyone would
>claim otherwise.
When did I say that you didn't like them?
All these artists imitate reality to some degree don't they? My point
is that "imitating reality" is not rendered obsolete by the camera. In
other words I believe your statement is incorrect.
>Yes, I do like Dali, Disney, and Rockwell, but I also like Picasso,
>Kandinsky, and Klee (just to name a few). One doesn't have to close
>their mind to one area of art to admire another.
On doesn't necessary close one's mind if he dislikes and pokes fun at
artwork which he feels is incompetent and easily imitated. I haven't
accused anyone of being closed minded or bitter etc. for disliking
Dali, Bouguereau etc.
>> >Starting with
>> >Impressionism, the artist had a new job, interpreting the world through
>> >feelings and emotions rather than visual slavery. The modern artists
>> >carried on this mission with many endless variation
>> Mostly incompetent variations.
If you want to see fine Impressionism look closely at the backgrounds
in Renaissance paintings. The best pure Impressionist painter is
Canelleto. In case you don't know it there are hundreds of
impressionists just as competent as the famous lot. I don't mean to
say that this lot are not good painters. But I will say they are
greatly over-rated. Impressionism has been with us since the beginning
of classical oil painting. It is not revolutionary.
>Again, opinions. But IMO: How can you say that Picasso was incompetent?
I took a close look.
>He had a strong knowledge in color composition and design, and even in
>human anatomy.
His drawing is third rate. His technique is mostly flat schmier. His
composition is nothing because he is incapable of any complexity
beyond a simple colored cartoon. I don't see any evidence of anatomy,
perspective, complexity or a degree of finish that is beyond student
quality. (look at the curtain backdrop he did for the ballet (the name
slips my mind, Parade?) )
The only original thing about Picasso is that he could out-ugly all
his competetors because they were far more incompetent he was.
>If you detest his cubist works, than howabout his
>paintings from the blue and rose periods?
Cubism is amusing and not much more. I don't detest any paintings.
His best B&R period are his best. But they are admired as a relief
from his ugly incompetent period which amounts to most everything
else. However his B&R stuff isn't great art which compares with even a
minor master. It is completely over-rated. Remember we are talking
about what are supposed to be masterpieces.
>Surely they contain quite a
>degree in artistic knowledge. Picasso is just one example, I could go on
>with other examples of modern artists that I also like and think that
>they have skill, but I do want this thread to be of reasonable length.
>But you are right that there are others who can be considered jokes.
I guess that's were our opinions depart. I think Abstract
Expressionism is no worse than Cezanne, Picasso, Matisse, etc.
>
>> >Just because their art may not contain an ounce of realism does not mean
>> >that the artists lacked skill.
Cezanne, Picasso and Matisse etc. all attempted realism. The images
are recognize able.
>>
>> Absolutly CORRECT and it also doesn't mean that he has SKILL, does it?
>At least we agree on something. (-:
>
>Bailey
Thanks. Its nice to read someone here who writes clearly and doesn't
go off into sentimental autobiography or convoluted political
diatribes.
mdeli
>mdeli wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 09 Feb 1998 23:36:08 -0600, Bailey <bcbai...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Face it, the standard of the artist imitating reality was largely
>> >rendered obsolete with the invention of the camera.
>>
>> If an Ingres, a Dali, a Rockwell or Walt Disney looks like a
>> photograph to you, get new glasses.
>
>When did I criticize the above artists in my post? You're obviously
>reading things that aren't there, because I actually admire almost all
>of those artists very much, and am somewhat upset that anyone would
>claim otherwise.
When did I say that you didn't like them?
All these artists imitate reality to some degree don't they? My point
is that "imitating reality" is not rendered obsolete by the camera. In
other words I believe your statement is incorrect.
>Yes, I do like Dali, Disney, and Rockwell, but I also like Picasso,
>Kandinsky, and Klee (just to name a few). One doesn't have to close
>their mind to one area of art to admire another.
On doesn't necessary close one's mind if he dislikes and pokes fun at
artwork which he feels is incompetent and easily imitated. I haven't
accused anyone of being closed minded or bitter etc. for disliking
Dali, Bouguereau etc.
>> >Starting with
>> >Impressionism, the artist had a new job, interpreting the world through
>> >feelings and emotions rather than visual slavery. The modern artists
>> Mostly incompetent variations.
>> >Just because their art may not contain an ounce of realism does not mean
>> >that the artists lacked skill.
Cezanne, Picasso and Matisse etc. all attempted realism. The images
mdeli
>
>On Sun, 8 Feb 1998, mdeli wrote:
>
>> Computer art, rather than the same old bullshit under a new title
>> (postmodern) is in. Why? Because it promises a career which requires
>> knowledge and skill.
>
>Don't you check into ANYTHING before you speak, Mani de Li?
>
>Money is the motivator of all careers related to electornic imaging.
>Animation, Multimedia, etc. Big bucks, not skill or talent. It is a BONUS,
>but definitely not the rule that electronic 'artists' have skill/talent.
Anything wrong with money?
>> Those teaching computer art can't get away with
>> pure bullshit. They have to pass on knowledge.
>
>This is also completely incorrect.
>I have met more inept computer art teachers than anything. I have been in
>classes in which I had to show the teacher how something was done.
In other words you had a lousy teacher. So?
>You really ought to experience things before pretending to know what
>you're talking about.
>
>Hutto - (Computer artist since MacDraw, fanboy)
MD
mdeli
On 10 Feb 1998 21:42:42 GMT, "Lisa A. Gittens"
<Equ...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> Were you attacked by a painting teacher as a child?
No were you?
>To make such generalization is a shame. I am a computer artist, as
>well as a painter. I am college educated.
Me too.
>I have taken painting classes
>with good and bad professors, the same thing happen in my computer imaging
>class, as well. Both computer art and painting take the same amount of
>skill and commitment!
Right
> By the way the market is flood with bad painters
>and bad computer artist. You can be successful at both!
Correct.
>It is all
>up to the commitment of the artist!
Yes. SO what's your point?
Bailey
mdeli wrote:
> >> If an Ingres, a Dali, a Rockwell or Walt Disney looks like a
> >> photograph to you, get new glasses.
> >
> >When did I criticize the above artists in my post? You're obviously
> >reading things that aren't there, because I actually admire almost all
> >of those artists very much, and am somewhat upset that anyone would
> >claim otherwise.
>
> When did I say that you didn't like them?
>
> All these artists imitate reality to some degree don't they? My point
> is that "imitating reality" is not rendered obsolete by the camera. In
> other words I believe your statement is incorrect.
When I said 'imitating reality' I was reffering to photographic type
images taken straight from reality. Dali etc. all altered reality to
suit their own artistic purposes, as did Picasso and Klee. I will go
against my own statement in saying there is still a place in art for
artists to copy reality, to see how far their skills can take them. But
as a practical matter, it serves little purpose.
Edvard Munch said something along the lines of (I can't find the exact
quote right now) 'The camera has eliminated the necessity of art
imitating reality, until an invention will be made to photograph man's
dreams, the artist's new job will be to express his emotions through his
art'. For the most part, I agree with him.
> If you want to see fine Impressionism look closely at the backgrounds
> in Renaissance paintings. The best pure Impressionist painter is
> Canelleto. In case you don't know it there are hundreds of
> impressionists just as competent as the famous lot. I don't mean to
> say that this lot are not good painters. But I will say they are
> greatly over-rated. Impressionism has been with us since the beginning
> of classical oil painting. It is not revolutionary.
I agree that there were impressionistic undertones in many classic
paintings, but pure impressionism didn't come along until that famous
1874 exhibition that shocked art critics.
I'm curious; considering your somewhat controversial opinions on modern
art, mdeli, what are your thoughts on impressionism (pure late 19th
century impressionism), the big change that started it all (according to
most art history books, anyway)? Surely you must admire impressionists
like Monet and Seurat, and their clever mingling of skill and
originality, not to mention expression. Or, hey, maybe not.
> His >speaking of Picasso<
> composition is nothing because he is incapable of any complexity
> beyond a simple colored cartoon.
I happen to be a big cartoon fan. (-: (after all, I am an aspiring
cartoonist).
> I don't see any evidence of anatomy,
> perspective, complexity or a degree of finish that is beyond student
> quality. (look at the curtain backdrop he did for the ballet (the name
> slips my mind, Parade?) )
Note that I said that he had 'basic knowledge' of such things, I never
said he had the technical expertise of Leonardo or anything. His
originality and versatility, however, is seldom matched.
> The only original thing about Picasso is that he could out-ugly all
> his competetors because they were far more incompetent he was.
Ugly? Maybe in a superficial sense some of his cubist distortions of the
human figure
are almost horrid, but his overall compositions are pleasing to the eye.
Some of his paintings are suppose to repulse the senses, like his
'weeping woman' painting. But it's still not ugly, or badly painted, and
is in it's own way beautiful.
Ofcourse if you've been reading Dali quotes, 'ugly' would be the first
word that comes to mind about Picasso. Didn't he say something like
'Picasso is the master of the ugly, and I am the master of the
beautiful.'? It's funny that some of Dali's distorted paintings repulse
me in the same way Picasso's do.
> Cubism is amusing and not much more. I don't detest any paintings.
> His best B&R period are his best. But they are admired as a relief
> from his ugly incompetent period which amounts to most everything
> else. However his B&R stuff isn't great art which compares with even a
> minor master. It is completely over-rated. Remember we are talking
> about what are supposed to be masterpieces.
I agree, I'm not crazy about his B&R periods either. But I much rather
like his cubism and abstractions.
But I'd rather not spend paragraph after paragraph defending Picasso.
While I enjoy his work very much, there are many others who I enjoy on a
more artistic level; Klee and Kandinsky in particular. Anyway, I don't
need to defend Picasso, history has already done that for me.
> >Surely they contain quite a
> >degree in artistic knowledge. Picasso is just one example, I could go on
> >with other examples of modern artists that I also like and think that
> >they have skill, but I do want this thread to be of reasonable length.
> >But you are right that there are others who can be considered jokes.
>
> I guess that's were our opinions depart. I think Abstract
> Expressionism is no worse than Cezanne, Picasso, Matisse, etc.
When I said ''others who can be considered jokes'', I didn't mean
Abstract Expressionism, which I enjoy very much. I meant guys like
Rothko who just threw up blank canvases and then made up some balony to
make it seem highly intellegent and spiritual.
> >At least we agree on something. (-:
> >
> >Bailey
>
> Thanks. Its nice to read someone here who writes clearly and doesn't
> go off into sentimental autobiography or convoluted political
> diatribes.
Well, I've looked at your page, and while I disagree with your knocking
of great modern masters, I found myself agreeing with your opinions on
artspeak. Artspeak is nonsense and I can't stand it.
But I wouldn't use it as an excuse to put down Picasso or any other
modern master. It's a shame that artspeak has become so associated with
modern art, and it's even more of a shame that a few great artists have
used it themselves to 'justify' their art (or even worse, a few bad
artists using it to justify their blank canvases). A good painting
doesn't have to have a 10 page nonsense thesis on why it's great to
justify it, a good work of art speaks for itself.
My liking of Klee, Kandinsky, Picasso, etc. didn't come from reading a
buch of artspeak malarchy, I saw the paintings in books and on the
internet first, with no accompanying text except for maybe the artist's
biography. I enjoyed the work on their own levels. I didn't enjoy their
work because 'They were expressing their inner liberated selves, with
symmetry and asymmetry, their stylized echoes reflecting a culture in
obsolete antiprimitism' or some other nonsense.
In the end, I enjoyed the work because I admired the design and
originality, and because it made me feel and let me see something that
I've never experienced before. And that alone is more than enough to
justify their works to me.
Bailey
J. J. Novotny
mdeli wrote: (some sections snipped for length)
> I'm not judging you or your colleagues. I have seen the work coming
> out of universities and high class art schools. Most is incompetent. I
>
> blame the teachers and the system. I know quite a bit about what is
> happening. Do you think most art schools prepare a person for a
> career?
>
> Read the messages here. Most writers don't even acknowledge the need
> for skill and most write in the inflated Artspeak style they learned
> in school. When I see their work on the net I find their lack of
> technical knowledge astounding.
>
> You can state things in any manner you wish. I have seen many talents
> ruined by art schools and the jargon they preach. I have read forty
> years of art criticism of convoluted verbous idiocy. I visit museums
> filled with trash which can be produced by anyone with a modicum of
> artistic skill.
I think Mdeli raises many good points here. Although I don't agree with
everything he says, I feel that the core of his argument about art
school is very sound, and I've experienced it personally.
A couple of years ago I decided to go to university. Since I was
already in my mid-20s, I wasn't as worried about finding myself, and was
rather looking for something that I could enjoy as a career. Since I've
always enjoyed art and have at least a basic competence in drawing, I
first thought about going to art school. However, I kept hearing again
and again that it was impossible to make a living with a B.F.A., and
that this degree is not highly regarded in the corporate world (ad
agencies and such). When I did some research, I found out that art
school graduates have the lowest average incomes of any university
grads. Now I'm not concerned about making a fortune ... but I do want to
be able to feed myself. (Food is good :) ) A visit to the school of art
at the university left me even more uneasy as the whole place appeared
somewhat divorced from reality in a way I couldn't quite put my finger
on.
So instead I decided to study for a degree in Computer Science and to
draw and paint on the side. Perhaps after I get my degree I'll study at
nights for my BFA. It will prolly be more enjoyable with the pressure
off.
Let me say that I have taken a couple of course in art as electives and
I find that there is some truth in what M Deli says. Certainly there is
much to be learned at art school, but excellence is, IMHO, not the
primary concern at the school. Many students appear to be floating
through the school; students sleep during art history classes; and a lot
of them are hiding from the world, shouting out about how different they
are. Technical skill takes a back seat to nurturing creativity and
expression. I see a lot of stuff in the "student" gallery that is
complacent and prententious. Creativity is great of course, but without
technique what could I do with my ideas? Not much.
As I've stated, I love art. I want to learn more about it. I want to
become better at it. But where can I go? What can I do? With the path
I've chosen, it's obvious I'll never make my living at art, but I
certainly believe it can be my number one hobby! :) Does anyone have any
advice?
BTW, I definitely don't want to offend anybody here. I hope I don't come
across as cranky, but it's late ... and I'm tired.
Best;
J. J.
il...@hotmail.com
Bailey wrote:
>
(snip)
> Face it, the standard of the artist imitating reality was largely
> rendered obsolete with the invention of the camera. Starting with
> Impressionism, the artist had a new job, interpreting the world through
> feelings and emotions rather than visual slavery. The modern artists
> carried on this mission with many endless variations.
But which artists of the past are you thinking of when saying they were
tied to "visual slavery"? Oddly enough, Realism's rise as a major force
in painting really comes into its own at exactly the same period as the
camera's invention. The Impressionists are, I would argue, *the* most
photographic generation of painters ever; indeed, far closer to the
aesthetic of photography than an Ingres, and certainly in no way can
they be seen as leading a liberation away from a photographic eye. The
mistake here is in thinking of the camera as only a device for capturing
detail. What connects the Impressionists to the camera is their
emphasis are the arbitrary and the momentary. Monet's attempt to narrow
the slice of time caught in a painting is absolutely paralleled by the
camera's ability to freeze a fleeting moment, and Degas' use of
radically cropping forms at the edges of a painting comes completely out
of photography's example. Rather then end realism for painting, the
camera actually ushers it in. And it provides a new aesthetic where a
painting no longer seems to present a privlidged, constructed moment,
but rather captures only one of an infinite series of "impressions" than
passes before our eyes. When Cezanne criticizes Monet for being "just an
eye", what is being attacked are those qualities that I would claim are
the most photographic elements in Monet's work-- its sense of the
insubstantial moment, of a moment seemingly recorded through perception
alone, like the passive stance of a photographic plate before a motif.
Also, you can't really believe that "interpreting the world through
feelings and emotions" starts with the Impressionists? What do you
assume is at the heart of all the art previous to this period? Think of
Rembrandt, Rubens, Caravaggio, El Greco, Goya, Michelangelo, Titian, and
on and on...in all of them, "feeling" and "emotion", no? I realize that
perhaps you didn't mean your statements to be taken in such a broad
sense, but I think its important to remember that the art of the past is
rarely, if ever, a matter of cold realism. Van Eyke boils with intensity
compared to any photo.
mdeli
On Thu, 12 Feb 1998 13:07:09 -0600, Bailey <bcbai...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>> All these artists imitate reality to some degree don't they? My point
>> is that "imitating reality" is not rendered obsolete by the camera. In
>> other words I believe your statement is incorrect.
>
>When I said 'imitating reality' I was reffering to photographic type
>images taken straight from reality. Dali etc. all altered reality to
>suit their own artistic purposes, as did Picasso and Klee. I will go
>against my own statement in saying there is still a place in art for
>artists to copy reality, to see how far their skills can take them. But
>as a practical matter, it serves little purpose.
>
By countering your original statement I'm trying to show that the many
artists today are not skeptical. They substitute profound sounding
silly statements in order to excuse their lack of knowledge, I have
tried to point this out on my web page in detail.
All this would be relatively unimportant if nothing followed. But this
statement has long served as a grand excuse with terrible results.
Namely it is the excuse for not teaching drawing, The incompetent
teacher tells his students, "why would you want to produce what you
can do with a camera."
I have yet to see a painting that anyone would mistake for a
photograph. It doesn't mean that there isn't plenty of lousy realistic
painting out there. However the worst realistic painting is never bad
because it resembles a photo. Check it out.
>Edvard Munch said something along the lines of (I can't find the exact
>quote right now) 'The camera has eliminated the necessity of art
>imitating reality, until an invention will be made to photograph man's
>dreams, the artist's new job will be to express his emotions through his
>art'. For the most part, I agree with him.
I don't. Munch is a good example of over-rated incompetence, His
drawing is terrible and the excuse for it is that it is "expressive."
>
>I'm curious; considering your somewhat controversial opinions on modern
>art, mdeli, what are your thoughts on impressionism (pure late 19th
>century impressionism), the big change that started it all (according to
>most art history books, anyway)? Surely you must admire impressionists
>like Monet and Seurat, and their clever mingling of skill and
>originality, not to mention expression. Or, hey, maybe not.
Compared to Modern Academic art of this century they are great
masters. Compared to the finest Academic painters of the 19th cent.
who everybody pooh poohs and has never seen, they are third rate.
Compared to the best painters of past and present they are highly
fashionable and highly over-rated.
Impressionism is found as an element in classical painting.
Impressionism is like part of a painting with the rest missing. That
is the only original thing about it. It is on the classical level of a
rough sketch.
Impressionist subject matter is, contrary to what you may have gleaned
in art history, unoriginal. Not that this is a fault, most art is
unoriginal. The interesting thing about the famous impressionists is
the romantic tales about their lives. Their struggles against the evil
academy and final glory etc. If a Monet proved a fake it would be of
little interest. If a fine painting turned out not to be a Holbein it
would still maintain a value.
>> His >speaking of Picasso<
>> composition is nothing because he is incapable of any complexity
>> beyond a simple colored cartoon.
>
>I happen to be a big cartoon fan. (-: (after all, I am an aspiring
>cartoonist).
The best cartoonists are better than Picasso. None are considered
great artists. Yet all are publicly recognized and very few hang in
museums.
>> I don't see any evidence of anatomy,
>> perspective, complexity or a degree of finish that is beyond student
>> quality. (look at the curtain backdrop he did for the ballet (the name
>> slips my mind, Parade?) )
>
>Note that I said that he had 'basic knowledge' of such things, I never
>said he had the technical expertise of Leonardo or anything. His
>originality and versatility, however, is seldom matched.
I even think you are mistaken in this. There were hundreds of cubists.
There are also picassoid artists during the Deco period who one never
sees except at auctions and in old art magazines. If art history were
taught on the basis of periodicals and the hundreds of names they
contain, you would find that almost no one is original. The artists
that really last do so because they can combine unoriginal ideas with
their own and execute them far better than those they imitate.
>> The only original thing about Picasso is that he could out-ugly all
>> his competetors because they were far more incompetent he was.
>
>Ugly? Maybe in a superficial sense some of his cubist distortions of the
>human figure are almost horrid, but his overall compositions are pleasing to the eye.
True sometimes. Even the color is often interesting. But is this on a
level of great art? Does it belong in a museum as the giant
intellectual accomplishment it is said to be? Is it that much better
than so much decorative art? Can't it really be imitated to a point
where the supposed good is indistinguishable from the the nothing
particular?
>Some of his paintings are suppose to repulse the senses, like his
>'weeping woman' painting. But it's still not ugly, or badly painted, and
>is in it's own way beautiful.
The fact that it is ugly in subject matter doesn't make it bad. It is
not great art in my opinion because it can be imitated, is repetitive
and lacks form and complexity. It is two dimensional design, big,
impasto and schmiery.
>Ofcourse if you've been reading Dali quotes, 'ugly' would be the first
>word that comes to mind about Picasso. Didn't he say something like
>'Picasso is the master of the ugly, and I am the master of the
>beautiful.'? It's funny that some of Dali's distorted paintings repulse
>me in the same way Picasso's do.
Dali painted detailed complexity with a unique technique. Much of his
work isn't ugly nor are his distortions. At his ugliest, it is the
ugliness of Bosch. Beautifully rendered with inimitable technique. Is
his Portrait of Gala or Persistence of Memory in the MOMA ugly in the
Picassoid sense? I don't think so because they are painted in a hyper
real round. There is no fashionable flatness in Dali.
>While I enjoy his work very much, there are many others who I enjoy on a
>more artistic level; Klee and Kandinsky in particular. Anyway, I don't
>need to defend Picasso, history has already done that for me.
>
>> >Surely they contain quite a
>> >degree in artistic knowledge.
Compared to the more contemporary stuff in museums their knowledge is
vast. It is especially vast if one avoids looking at other classical
work.
>>
>> I guess that's were our opinions depart. I think Abstract
>> Expressionism is no worse than Cezanne, Picasso, Matisse, etc.
>
>When I said ''others who can be considered jokes'', I didn't mean
>Abstract Expressionism, which I enjoy very much. I meant guys like
>Rothko who just threw up blank canvases and then made up some balony to
>make it seem highly intellegent and spiritual.
>
AE isn't a joke, its supposed to be very serious. Its a put-on.
>
>My liking of Klee, Kandinsky, Picasso, etc. didn't come from reading a
>buch of artspeak malarchy,
>In the end, I enjoyed the work because I admired the design and
>originality, and because it made me feel and let me see something that
>I've never experienced before. And that alone is more than enough to
>justify their works to me.
>
I had the same experience until I studied art and saw the greatest
works of the past and the finest work of this century which is rarely
seen as art and is passed off as beyond criticism other than
dismissing it as kitsch and commercial. Which ironically, is exactly
what Modern Academic painting is.
Aidan Campbell
In article <34e5328a...@news.interlog.com>, mdeli
<hug...@interlog.com> writes
>Compared to Modern Academic art of this century they are great
>masters. Compared to the finest Academic painters of the 19th cent.
>who everybody pooh poohs and has never seen, they are third rate.
>Compared to the best painters of past and present they are highly
>fashionable and highly over-rated.
> the finest work of this century which is rarely
>seen as art and is passed off as beyond criticism other than
>dismissing it as kitsch and commercial. Which ironically, is exactly
>what Modern Academic painting is.
>
>Mani DeLi
>...no skill no art
Do you think it is possible to produce Great Art today? If not, why not?
--
Aidan Campbell
a.bucsay
I stayed away from this discussion for a while because there was so much negativity. The fact that many new people have been posting has intrigued me.
<snipped>
.... When I see their work on the net I find their lack of technical knowledge astounding ... I have seen many talents ruined by art schools and the jargon they preach ...
I think that you would find this in any major. Degrees have their positive points, but university training includes basic brainwashing. I am grateful for the education I have, but also must sadly acknowledge that the more formal education I have had, the further away I have become from who I really am.
... A visit to the school of art at the university left me even more uneasy as the whole place appeared somewhat divorced from reality in a way I couldn't quite put my finger
on ... Many students appear to be floating through the school; students sleep during art history classes; and a lot of them are hiding from the world, shouting out about how different they are ... Does anyone have any advise?
Not having visited the art departments in universities with the same quest, I cannot comment. I can say however, having been on the business end of things, that hiding out part and shouting out part really seem to be true. I have found that everyone thinks they are different from everyone else. Sure, this is true, but we also have common threads. The more someone wants to show how different they are, the more they reveal how similar they are.
Self education seems to be the most potent. If one wishes to conform into a particular society, they need to join that society. I one wants to teach art at the university level, I would suggest studying art at the university level. I one wants to sell art, one should sell art for someone else, and learn how it is done. If one wants to learn how to paint a certain way, one needs to seek out that teacher, and learn how they do it. I got this advise many years ago from someone my senior, and it has helped me very much.
--
~~~~~~~~~~
Anita Bucsay
a.bu...@ix.netcom.com
1st Water Fine Art
The Original MICROGALLERY TO GO
http://www.netcom.com/~a.bucsay/1stWaterFineArt.html
~~~~~~~~~~
Bailey
il...@hotmail.com wrote:
> But which artists of the past are you thinking of when saying they were
> tied to "visual slavery"? Oddly enough, Realism's rise as a major force
> in painting really comes into its own at exactly the same period as the
> camera's invention.
You think? I know that many artists of the late 19th century were
heavily influenced by the advent of photography, but I think it would be
by the atmosphere of a photo rather than actual reality (for example,
Degas paintings). I just find it curious that many classic paintings
resemble photos and portraits, while during the advent of photography,
movements like Impressionism gravitated towards abstraction. I assume
it's not just by chance.
> The Impressionists are, I would argue, *the* most
> photographic generation of painters ever; indeed, far closer to the
> aesthetic of photography than an Ingres, and certainly in no way can
> they be seen as leading a liberation away from a photographic eye.
The Impressionists did take a realistic and almost scientific approach
to light, but I believe this is based off of individually viewed reality
rather than anything photographic in nature (Monet's wonderful and
almost abstract water lilly studies, for example).
>The
> mistake here is in thinking of the camera as only a device for capturing
> detail. What connects the Impressionists to the camera is their
> emphasis are the arbitrary and the momentary.
I pretty much agree. However, when I look at an Impressionist's work, I
usually think of it as the artists view of his subject, his feelings and
sensations of the enviroment in his painting, rather than just a
snapshot that captures a momentary frame in time. I actually feel the
'impression' of an Impressionist painting.
Monet's attempt to narrow
> the slice of time caught in a painting is absolutely paralleled by the
> camera's ability to freeze a fleeting moment, and Degas' use of
> radically cropping forms at the edges of a painting comes completely out
> of photography's example.
I totally agree, especially in Degas' case. However, this sort of
influence is similar to how popular culture has influenced many modern
painters, and how religion influenced many classic ones. It's the same
sort of thing, of an outside source providing fodder for artistic
inspiration. It really has little to do with reality.
>Rather then end realism for painting, the
> camera actually ushers it in. And it provides a new aesthetic where a
> painting no longer seems to present a privlidged, constructed moment,
> but rather captures only one of an infinite series of "impressions" than
> passes before our eyes.
If the camera has ushered in a new age of realism for painting, then how
come do so many modern artists not only create 'constructed moments',
but pretty much create their own 'constructed worlds' as well. Painters
like Kandinsky and Klee leave the realm of reality totally to explore
everything inner and unreal. Surely photography had little influence on
them. However if you're just referring to the Impressionists, you're
pretty much right.
> Also, you can't really believe that "interpreting the world through
> feelings and emotions" starts with the Impressionists? What do you
> assume is at the heart of all the art previous to this period? Think of
> Rembrandt, Rubens, Caravaggio, El Greco, Goya, Michelangelo, Titian, and
> on and on...in all of them, "feeling" and "emotion", no?
Agreed. All of the great classic artists put extraordinary feeling and
emotions into their work. It's what made them true 'artists', not just
ancient cameras.
>I realize that
> perhaps you didn't mean your statements to be taken in such a broad
> sense,
No, I didn't really. (-: (and if you've read my comments to mdeli,
you'd noticed that I've sort of retracted my comments about obsolete
realism). But I did enjoy your comments, and I find your opinions to
hold much weight and validity.
> but I think its important to remember that the art of the past is
> rarely, if ever, a matter of cold realism. Van Eyke boils with intensity
> compared to any photo.
Agreed.
Bailey
Bailey
mdeli wrote:
> All this would be relatively unimportant if nothing followed. But this
> statement has long served as a grand excuse with terrible results.
> Namely it is the excuse for not teaching drawing, The incompetent
> teacher tells his students, "why would you want to produce what you
> can do with a camera."
I agree. Any formal art education should teach strong knowledge in
anatomy, perspective, and other reality based fundamentals. Other stuff
like expressiveness, theories, and computer programs are important, but
should take a back seat to those fundamentals. Art speak mumbo jumbo
really has no practical value, and should be left out of the equation.
> I have yet to see a painting that anyone would mistake for a
> photograph.
You're right. Paintings are rarely realistic enough to be photographic
like. But many classic ones came close in principal.
> Compared to Modern Academic art of this century they are great
> masters. Compared to the finest Academic painters of the 19th cent.
> who everybody pooh poohs and has never seen, they are third rate.
> Compared to the best painters of past and present they are highly
> fashionable and highly over-rated.
I think the main reason that the Impressionists are so praised and
admired, while the many realistic artists of that time make a mere foot
note in art history books, is based on the originality of the
Impressionists' approach to painting and subject matter.
Bouguereau, to take an example, has extraordinary skill and expertise at
representing the realistic human form, and is quite awesome in that
regard. However, his approach to painting and subject matter just
regurgiatates age old material that classic artists have used repeatedly
throughout the centuries. Naked half draped women and giddy nymphs in
art are about as old as time itself. Bouguereau has very little to
express artistically, except maybe his skill.
That is why the Impressionists look so fresh in comparison. Their
technique, reflection of their times and nature (Renoir's social outings
and Monet's water lillys are very original subject matter) are such a
breath of fresh air after years of stifled tradition. They proved that
art needs to evolve, it cannot be stuck in one place. They opened up the
doors for many originaters and innovators.
> Impressionism is found as an element in classical painting.
> Impressionism is like part of a painting with the rest missing. That
> is the only original thing about it. It is on the classical level of a
> rough sketch.
It is a different approach to painting, not a stripped down version of
the 'official' standard. Nothing is missing from a good Impressionist
painting, it contains all of the elements that make many classic works
great.
> Impressionist subject matter is, contrary to what you may have gleaned
> in art history, unoriginal.
I think most of it is original. I haven't took art history formally yet.
I've also never heard of a classic painter sitting in his garden
painting water lillys.
> The interesting thing about the famous impressionists is
> the romantic tales about their lives. Their struggles against the evil
> academy and final glory etc.
I would agree with that argument if you were reffering to
post-impressionists like Van Gogh and Gauguin, whose lives reached
mythic proportions. But the truth is that the most interesting thing
about most of the Impressionists is a few mocked exhibitions and
paintings that failed to sale, hardly the stuff that legends are made
of. Truth is, the Impressionists are admired for their daring and
originality. Their work speaks for itself.
> >> His >speaking of Picasso<
> >> composition is nothing because he is incapable of any complexity
> >> beyond a simple colored cartoon.
> >
> >I happen to be a big cartoon fan. (-: (after all, I am an aspiring
> >cartoonist).
>
> The best cartoonists are better than Picasso. None are considered
> great artists. Yet all are publicly recognized and very few hang in
> museums.
I agree! Quite a few cartoons deserve to be hanged on the same wall as
Picasso's art! I can't stand when great individualistic art is
disrespected just because the artists work in so called 'despised
mediums', venues too commercial or unusual to be taken seriously.
Quite a few cartoonists deserve to be ranked among the greatest artists
of the 20th century. George Herriman, Walt Kelly, Cliff Sterrett,
Charles Schulz, and Bill Watterson, just to name a few. George Herriman
deserves to be mentioned in particular. Some have called him the
greatest artist and cartoonist of the 20th century, and he is often
considered the first true surrealist. Even Picasso and DeKooning have
praised his art.
> I even think you are mistaken in this. There were hundreds of cubists.
> There are also picassoid artists during the Deco period who one never
> sees except at auctions and in old art magazines. If art history were
> taught on the basis of periodicals and the hundreds of names they
> contain, you would find that almost no one is original. The artists
> that really last do so because they can combine unoriginal ideas with
> their own and execute them far better than those they imitate.
Maybe you're right, but I would have to do more research to verify it.
It is true that Picasso was influenced by alot of outside art. I read
somewhere that he was often fascinated by commercial art in books and
magazines, he read comics, and he often brought home newspaper clippings
of advertisements for influence. At the same time he was influenced
heavily from classic artists throughout history. Much of Picasso's
originality was balanced with a degree of unoriginality. All artists are
influenced by other art, though, it's natural to the process.
> True sometimes. Even the color is often interesting. But is this on a
> level of great art? Does it belong in a museum as the giant
> intellectual accomplishment it is said to be? Is it that much better
> than so much decorative art?
I think so.
> Dali painted detailed complexity with a unique technique. Much of his
> work isn't ugly nor are his distortions. At his ugliest, it is the
> ugliness of Bosch. Beautifully rendered with inimitable technique. Is
> his Portrait of Gala or Persistence of Memory in the MOMA ugly in the
> Picassoid sense? I don't think so because they are painted in a hyper
> real round. There is no fashionable flatness in Dali.
I didn't mean that Picasso's distorted two deminsionality and Dali's
maliformed mutations had anything in common as far as technique is
concerned. I just believe that with this 'ugliness' among artists,
whether it be Bosch, Dali, or Picasso, they all share this sort of
emotionial enjoyment of repulsiveness in common. It's all quite cool!
> >My liking of Klee, Kandinsky, Picasso, etc. didn't come from reading a
> >buch of artspeak malarchy,
> >In the end, I enjoyed the work because I admired the design and
> >originality, and because it made me feel and let me see something that
> >I've never experienced before. And that alone is more than enough to
> >justify their works to me.
> >
> I had the same experience until I studied art and saw the greatest
> works of the past and the finest work of this century which is rarely
> seen as art and is passed off as beyond criticism other than
> dismissing it as kitsch and commercial. Which ironically, is exactly
> what Modern Academic painting is.
I've seen great classic, illustration, cartoon, computer, etc. art, and
I still admire the work of many modern artists. I do believe that fine
art has been in a coma for the last few decades, and much of the true
art of today is to be found in 'despised' mediums like design,
illustration, cartooning, etc. None of this devalues the greatness of
the fine artists of the first half of this century, however. I do
believe that perceptions of 'art' will be even further changed, beyond
the realm of painting and fine art.
Bailey
Ronald W. Brooks
In article <iu7qYEAi...@zola.demon.co.uk>, Aidan Campbell
<ai...@zola.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Aidan Cammbell wrote:
> Do you think it is possible to produce Great Art today? If not, why not?
>
I believe it is possible to produce Great Art today because we have the
past to learn from. There art many artists working in todays market making
a living and producing what I find to be Great Art. Artists like Odd
Nerdrum and Richard Maury are just two of the many I find in this category.
These artists have incredible skills and have been able to develop a market
around there work.
J. J. Novotny
a.bucsay wrote:
> Self education seems to be the most potent. If one wishes to conform
> into a particular society, they need to join that society. I one
> wants to teach art at the university level, I would suggest studying
> art at the university level. I one wants to sell art, one should sell
> art for someone else, and learn how it is done. If one wants to learn
> how to paint a certain way, one needs to seek out that teacher, and
> learn how they do it. I got this advise many years ago from someone
> my senior, and it has helped me very much.
>
Thanks, Anita. This is excellent advice. It makes more sense than just
about anything else I've heard. I'll certainly keep it in mind. Much
appreciated.
Best;
J. J.
J. J. Novotny
Bailey wrote: (some snipped)
> I think the main reason that the Impressionists are so praised and
> admired, while the many realistic artists of that time make a mere
> foot
> note in art history books, is based on the originality of the
> Impressionists' approach to painting and subject matter.
>
> Bouguereau, to take an example, has extraordinary skill and expertise
> at
> representing the realistic human form, and is quite awesome in that
> regard. However, his approach to painting and subject matter just
> regurgiatates age old material that classic artists have used
> repeatedly
> throughout the centuries. Naked half draped women and giddy nymphs in
> art are about as old as time itself. Bouguereau has very little to
> express artistically, except maybe his skill.
>
Spot on! I'm taking a class in 19th-C art at the moment, and I was
really struck by the contrast myself. I admire the skill of the academic
painters and the dedication with which they approach their craft, but
there seems to be something dry and dead about it, as if all the life
has been rendered out of their paintings. It's difficult to appreciate
from our present perspective exactly how fresh and innovative the
Impressionists were at the time, but they really were exciting in
contrast to what came before ... and in fact to what continued to
dominate the salons through the mid and late century. After all,
Bouguereau, Cabinel, Delaroche, et al. just didn't vanish when Manet
came along. It's also worth remembering that many of the Impressionists
had a strong Beaux-Arts background and could certainly paint in a
traditional manner if they so wished. Perhaps that is what separates
them from some of the artists of the last twenty years who appear to be
so widely disregarded.
>
>
> Quite a few cartoonists deserve to be ranked among the greatest
> artists
> of the 20th century. George Herriman, Walt Kelly, Cliff Sterrett,
> Charles Schulz, and Bill Watterson, just to name a few. George
> Herriman
> deserves to be mentioned in particular. Some have called him the
> greatest artist and cartoonist of the 20th century, and he is often
> considered the first true surrealist. Even Picasso and DeKooning have
> praised his art.
>
Total agreement here. In particular, I like Kelly's work. Sequential art
has been tremendously maligned. In Europe and Japan, of course, the
medium of comic art and cartooning has received the respect it deserves.
Let's hope the same thing happens over here. I'll stop here, since I
don't want to run desperately off topic. Not that I haven't done that
before. :)
Interesting and thoughtful comments, Bailey. Thanks for your opinion.
Best;
J. J.
Bailey
J. J. Novotny wrote:
> Spot on! I'm taking a class in 19th-C art at the moment, and I was
> really struck by the contrast myself. I admire the skill of the academic
> painters and the dedication with which they approach their craft, but
> there seems to be something dry and dead about it, as if all the life
> has been rendered out of their paintings.
Right. Skill and talent are important fundamentals in art. But after an
artist gets these two going, is it enough? It depends. If artists want
to break new ground, a new factor comes into play: originality. Thats
what the Impressionists had, and what the academic painters lacked for
the most part.
> It's difficult to appreciate
> from our present perspective exactly how fresh and innovative the
> Impressionists were at the time, but they really were exciting in
> contrast to what came before ...
Yes. Impressionist paintings seem almost old fashioned now, since almost
everyone's grandma has an imitation one hanging in their living room.
But the truth is that they were not only innovative in their own time,
but almost shocking. Art critics had a field day mocking their works,
and the typical reaction was the 'my 3 year old can probably draw that'
kind of comment that a Pollock or Miro gets nowadays. It took a while
for people to come around and see the true talent and skill that it took
to create these masterpieces.
> It's also worth remembering that many of the Impressionists
> had a strong Beaux-Arts background and could certainly paint in a
> traditional manner if they so wished. Perhaps that is what separates
> them from some of the artists of the last twenty years who appear to be
> so widely disregarded.
Yes, a traditional art background does give valdity to an artist. The
Impressionists had it for sure. One look at Renoir's works, for example,
and one would imagine that it wouldn't take a big stretch for him to
paint very traditionally.
Alot of artists from the first half of the 20th century that are known
for their ground breaking work also had traditional art backgrounds.
Picasso, Klee, Kandinsky, and even Pollock all had varying degrees of
traditional painting knowledge. Whether it helped in their self styled
paintings is best left to individual opinion.
> Total agreement here. In particular, I like Kelly's work. Sequential art
> has been tremendously maligned. In Europe and Japan, of course, the
> medium of comic art and cartooning has received the respect it deserves.
> Let's hope the same thing happens over here.
As the line between so called 'commercial' and fine art has been
blurred, comics have slowly gained more of an acceptance as a valid art
form. The lack of respect for comics in the USA comes from the
preconceived notion that comics are lowly entertainment for kids. Also,
commercial concerns have not allowed the majority of comics made to
reach the strong individualistic quality that the few great ones from
history have had. But there's no doubt that 'sequential art' has the
potential to be a strong artistic medium, as cartoonists like Herriman
and Kelly have proved.
>I'll stop here, since I
> don't want to run desperately off topic. Not that I haven't done that
> before. :)
It's not totally off topic, is it? We are talking about what serves as
valid art, aren't we?
> Interesting and thoughtful comments, Bailey. Thanks for your opinion.
You too. Thanks.
Bailey
> Best;
> J. J.
Brother Alphabet
On Thu, 12 Feb 1998, mdeli wrote:
> Anything wrong with money?
Heck no. I like money.
My point was that the recent surge in number of computer artists is more
directly related to the big money-grab than skill/talent.
You were saying that the value of computer art was that it required skill
to do and teach.
> >This is also completely incorrect.
> >I have met more inept computer art teachers than anything. I have been in
> >classes in which I had to show the teacher how something was done.
> In other words you had a lousy teacher. So?
So...I have never been in any other art class which presented the same
circumstance.
Currently, it is more likely that students will have more computer
experience than professors. The other case that is also common is that
professors of computer-related art are members of younger generations. Due
to their youth, it is likely that these professors would have been through
the educational process you continually disdain. How then can you credibly
claim that the teachers possess skill?
Aidan Campbell
In article <rwbrooks-ya0240800...@news.erols.com>, Ronald
W. Brooks <rwbr...@erols.com> writes
Art today because 'we have the past to learn from'. Does it mean that
the condition for producing Great Art is that it must be an imitation of
(or an incremental improvement upon) the past?
--
Aidan Campbell
Aidan Campbell
In article <34E9C2...@hotmail.com>, Bailey <bcbai...@hotmail.com>
writes
> Skill and talent are important fundamentals in art. But after an
>artist gets these two going, is it enough? It depends. If artists want
>to break new ground, a new factor comes into play: originality. Thats
>what the Impressionists had, and what the academic painters lacked for
>the most part.
>Impressionist paintings seem almost old fashioned now, since almost
>everyone's grandma has an imitation one hanging in their living room.
>But the truth is that they were not only innovative in their own time,
>but almost shocking. Art critics had a field day mocking their works,
>and the typical reaction was the 'my 3 year old can probably draw that'
>kind of comment that a Pollock or Miro gets nowadays. It took a while
>for people to come around and see the true talent and skill that it
took to create these masterpieces.
>
Dear Bailey,
Is there not a contradiction between the fact that you think the
impressionists had 'originality', yet the contemporary art critics
thought they saw no such thing, but instead were reminded of their own
children's attempts at art? I can understand why you see impressionism
as 'innovative' and 'even shocking' but how can you classify it as
original when so many similar examples were so ready to hand in
nurseries up and down the country? This is a serious question.
--
Aidan Campbell
zi...@interport.net
I think the answer was somewhat gauche, but I think you are being
unduly hard on him. I don't know where you are coming from, but think
of it ethnologically. In every traditional society, anyone who does an
activity learns the activity by being apprenticed eithe formally or
informally to a specialist. In some cases, such as that of the
Balinese, village people can be specialists in several procedurally
unrelated fields. A star actor in the annual religious play may also
be a wood carver. At any rate, from the past as shown by two sources,
th ework of the living specialists, and the works in stone and other
material which have been preserved in the temples, the young student
learns. Like many other cultures in the world, slavish imitation is
not only not required, it is discouraged. The individual has to
express through what is in him/her, the works which are required. Thus
Baliness dance, music, sculpture Etc. are all different from that of
the Javanese who continue some of the earlier Hindu activities despite
their conversion to Islam. But the Balinese music has become
increasingly frenetic, as has the dance. In fact, Mario, the great
dancer of the 30s through 50s, invented a new dance form. Etc.Etc.
So, if there is a lot of great art in the museums available and there
are good contemporary models and teachers and the ability to go off
and make it new is there-great art is possible. If it once was
possible, it is still possible.
Models in the museums for both level of achievement and what to
achieve [orthe equivalent of the museums] are a part of the equation
everywhere in the world and have been for a long, long time. Since
people have not changed in any measurable physiological way in all
those years, why should it not still be true?
There is one implication in your words which I find equally gauche and
simplistic. If new work is done, to be good, must it be wildly unlike
work of the past rather than an incremental change. Improvement is
another gauche word. Do you believe in the idea that everything is
always going up per astra? We are getting better and better? What
supports that in history, behavior, human kindness and the like, or
for that matter in art?
I would be glad for art to be good, now. Better than some before I
choose, maybe, but not all of the various befores. Is there really
anything about Cave painting or paleolithic bone engraving which is
worse than what we have sone since?
Gabriel
Aidan Campbell
In article <6cg8b6$966$1...@broadway.interport.net>, zi...@interport.net
writes
Thank you Gabriel for your considered response. But your reference to
Cave art indicates precisely the point that I am trying to get at. I do
not deny that people produced Great Art in the past. My question is, is
it still possible today - that is, in a modern world? Your remarks such
as: 'if was once possible, it must still be possible', etc, sound like
an evasion of this point to me. Indeed it is particularly illuminating
that all the *concrete* examples of Great artistic ability that you use
are of primitive societies from the past or alledgely primitive
societies from the present-day. But can people in a modern world produce
Great Art?
Incidentally, you seem imply that I may have a mechanic appreciation of
progress (through your use of the word 'gauche'). On the contrary, it
seems to me that the most mechanical remark was your own: 'people have
not changed in any measurable physiological way in all those years' and
therefore they can still produce great art,etc etc. I rather suspect
that people have managed to produce Great art, not as a result of some
mechanical-sounding physiology common to humanity from the cavemen to
the present day, but because they consistently have been able to rise
above the heritage passed on to them by the past. Until now, that is.
For some reason, in the late 20th century, there exists a loss of
direction (or maybe it is a failure of nerve) and people are obliged to
cast envious glances at the cavemen's art. I am not asking for art that
is 'wildly unlike' the work of the past. But *some* originality would be
nice for a change.
Why the impasse in modern art? If you were at all mechanically minded,
you would have thought that since artistic people in a modern world have
the opportunity of experiencing approximately one billion more
interesting happenings than your average cave-dweller, they would
therefore have been able to produce art that was as equally as dynamic
as modern society is as compared to the Stone Age. Yet here we are
putting possibly the most boring form of human society ever on to the
podium of Great art. If it was me who was being mechanical, or gauche if
you prefer, I wouldn't even be questioning the impasse. But don't you
think it is a tragedy, Gabriel, that we have all these myriad
experiences and yet when we want to think of Great art we have to dwell
in the past?
--
Aidan Campbell
frank....@dol.net
In article <34E522...@hotmail.com>,
il...@hotmail.com wrote:
Oddly enough, Realism's rise as a major force
> in painting really comes into its own at exactly the same period as the
> camera's invention. The Impressionists are, I would argue, *the* most
> photographic generation of painters ever; indeed, far closer to the
> aesthetic of photography than an Ingres
Very true; Ingres was the master of the sensitive line which in impressionism
is often used only as a supplement to unite masses of colored shapes. (Cezanne
& Tolouse-Lautrec) I became aware of this when I started making enlargements
of digital photographs. Starting with realistic photos, as I zoomed in and
the pixels becaame ever more visible they began to look like Monet and Seurat.
Some of the painting software programs take advantage of this and will convert
your photo to a painting by your favorite artist, invariably and
impressionist.
Regards,
Frank
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading