What is called art?
Lauri Levanto
>Certainly culture in the sense of the complex of social customs
>and arrangements -- affect what is considered to be important
>art and what isn't in any particular community. But can
>anything more be said about it? This is not a rhetorical
>question.
Here we have the culture in general, and a particular subculture
calle art elite. At present they represent diiferent views.
While re-reading art history, I was stopped with a question
"What is our art heritage?"
We inhert appreciation of artworks near us.
We did not inherit art history, it is given to us by art historians.
Some pieces belong to art history because they have been there.
The Greek vase paintings are supposed to be Fine Art. Why
art history portraits no porcellain painters from the last few
centuries?
Because vessel decoration no loger belongs to fine art.
There are medieval Irish book illustrations, but in present
usage to call an artist illustrator is pejorative.
The renaissance artists struggled free from craftpeople stigma
and wanted to be included into seven dine arts along with
music, math and poetry. The concept of art was changed.
Cellini was the last goldsmith in art history.
"Art for arts sake" excluded documentary art. When Darwin sailed,
he was accompanied by an _artist_ to document the findings.
This task is now left to CNN. In fact representational art
in general ceased to be art. It lives almost only in
text books.
While contemporary art seems to cover an ever wideding field,
it has deliberately pruned almost as much. Isn't MoMa almost
the only art museum that caters industral design and crafts.
It is another question how and why these changes happen.
I hope someone can throw light on that question.
-lauri
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
It is another question how and why these changes happen.
I hope someone can throw light on that question.
You will know the answer when your are old enough to understand that the
world is not you and you are not the world. Reality is perception and
perception is belief and belief is distortion.
keith
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
Lauri Levanto <laur...@netti.fi> wrote in message
news:3E2EAC25...@netti.fi...
Bob C
>
> The Greek vase paintings are supposed to be Fine Art. Why
> art history portraits no porcellain painters from the last few
> centuries?...
>
> The renaissance artists struggled free from craftpeople stigma
> and wanted to be included into seven dine arts along with
> music, math and poetry. ...
>
> "Art for arts sake" excluded documentary art. When Darwin sailed,
> he was accompanied by an _artist_ to document the findings.
> This task is now left to CNN.
Prior to the early renaissance, there really is no concept of creating
something which had no specific utilitarian (or ritual) purpose and was
also completely independent of anything which did. Once you've accepted
the concept of "art for arts sake", anything else looks like decoration
or compromise by comparison.
Art, basically, is anything which meets our expectations of what an art
object should be. This statement may be meaningless as a definition, but
it does have a great deal of use in understanding how we deal with art.
Art history remembers those artists who have expanded and changed our
expectations, because they are the ones defining what art is. Once the
concept of "art for arts sake" has been created, very few artists
interested in pushing our expectations to new limits are going to chose
to tie their art to a utilitarian purpose or object, since it is "art
for arts sake" which gives them the most freedom to pursue their goal.
Recently, however, there is probably an upswing in the number of artists
working in traditional crafts who are getting their work accepted as
fine art. This is probably because the other visual fine artists have
been sticking to sculpture and easel painting for so long that they have
exhausted many of the possibilities for further development while
leaving the possibilities in the traditional crafts untouched. I would
expect this development to continue for some time.
- Bob C.
Ed H.
>
> >Certainly culture in the sense of the complex of social customs
> >and arrangements -- affect what is considered to be important
> >art and what isn't in any particular community. But can
> >anything more be said about it? This is not a rhetorical
> >question.
You make it way to hard.
"art is...."
"what is created"
"what is hated or loved"
That means that art can be a beautiful painting, or the noisy kids next
door. <g>
Ed
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.438 / Virus Database: 246 - Release Date: 1/7/2003
Chris
"Bob C" <bob...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3E2F0A7A...@erols.com...
> Lauri Levanto wrote:
>
> >
> > The Greek vase paintings are supposed to be Fine Art. Why
> > art history portraits no porcellain painters from the last few
> > centuries?...
>
> >
>
> > The renaissance artists struggled free from craftpeople stigma
> > and wanted to be included into seven dine arts along with
> > music, math and poetry. ...
> >
> > "Art for arts sake" excluded documentary art. When Darwin sailed,
> > he was accompanied by an _artist_ to document the findings.
> > This task is now left to CNN.
>
>
> Prior to the early renaissance, there really is no concept of creating
> something which had no specific utilitarian (or ritual) purpose and was
> also completely independent of anything which did.
Jeez, I love USENET; thousands of years of Greek and Roman art erased at the
flick of a finger....go to a museum; or at least:
http://www.metmuseum.org/collections/department.asp?dep=13
And while your there, cruise through the list of other art on the LHS of the
page....
Chris
G*rd*n
| > >
| > > Prior to the early renaissance, there really is no concept of creating
| > > something which had no specific utilitarian (or ritual) purpose and was
| > > also completely independent of anything which did.
| >
| > Jeez, I love USENET; thousands of years of Greek and Roman art erased at
| > the flick of a finger....go to a museum; or at least:
| > http://www.metmuseum.org/collections/department.asp?dep=13
| >
| > And while your there, cruise through the list of other art on the LHS of
| > the page....
danf...@NOSPAMyahoo.com(Dan Fox):
| I think what he means is that, up until fairly recently, there was no such
| thing as 'art' as we now know it: objects created expressly for aesthetic
| enjoyment. All of the Greek and Roman work, as well as everything from the
| cave paintings to the religious art of the middle ages and beyond, was
| created with a utilitarian rather than an aesthetic purpose. Of course that
| doesn't mean we can't appreciate these objects aesthetically. In a sense
| they have 'become' art.
You could look at it the other way around, though, and say
that art objects were "originally" created with religious,
magical or hypnotic purposes in mind -- to induce higher states
of consciousness -- which, due to various religious and
political changes since those times, have become gradually
attenuated into the artistic experience, a mere sense of
pleasure, often at a representation of objects which may
be possessed.
I was already thinking about that in regard to Newman and
the "Sublime." As I said, I don't get much out of Newman's
paintings, but I think I can see what he was getting at.
I've also seen some very simple art objects, usually
prehistoric, which were thought to have magical qualities
for the people who made them, not at all evident to most of
us today.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/19/03 <-adv't
Chris
"Dan Fox" <danf...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20030122180533.688$G...@newsreader.com...
> Hey, Chris -
>
> I think what he means is that, up until fairly recently, there was no such
> thing as 'art' as we now know it: objects created expressly for aesthetic
> enjoyment. All of the Greek and Roman work, as well as everything from the
> cave paintings to the religious art of the middle ages and beyond, was
> created with a utilitarian rather than an aesthetic purpose. Of course
that
> doesn't mean we can't appreciate these objects aesthetically. In a sense
> they have 'become' art.
Hi Dan;
Re utilitarian aspects; au contraire - there's lots of work that were
created just for the pleasure of doing so - take a look at the bedroom
featured on the met museum site; while even the artwork on pottery had no
practical purpose (the pottery would be just as practical without it...).
What was the purpose of (say) the Venus de Milo if not primarily for
beauty.We tend to see Greco-Roman art through a bit of a veil, both
self-imposed (modern Westerners do have a few problems accepting that some
aspects of our culture are not recent inventions..) and imposed by events
over time. But when you look, I think you'll find many if not most of the
aspects that we use to define art present in their work and culture as well.
Cheers;
Chris
John Ng
therefore encompasses everything because skill is defined differently
for different people. So art is anything. If you accept this kind of
scope, by all means. However, the concern is not what is art but what
should fine arts be.
A good definition, thus, is what the populace wants it to be -- good
or bad. As persons X (in this NG) said it, it is what the socialites
(or the dictators) want. Okay, so this definition means Picassco is
in and Bouguereau is out (at this juncture). The problem is what is
art yesterday is not art today. It depends on the "well-informed"
victors". The greatest example is Bouguereau, who at the end of the
19C is hailed as the greatest by very well-informed art circle, the
Salon. Yet today (or at least until now), one would never know he was
the greatest in an era. So either this definition is wrong or we have
been lied to.
We therefore come to the conclusion that art is undefinable in this
way as well. I believe fine arts is about the ideal and the modelling
of nature; and NOT what others say it should be (because they lie).
John Ng
Advocate of a renewal in art and the return of realism
http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
Erik A. Mattila
There was a terrific thread on sci.archaeology last year, starring a
couple of archeo's who were working in the caves in France and Spain.
What struck be as interesting was that they cited three genres of cave
art - splayed figures of animals, which were thought to be instructural
as regards butchering, the splendid animal drawings we are most familar
with, and the third was mish-mash - collections of symbols and cryptic
marks which were thought to have magico-religious significance.
I think there's a good chance the motive for the middle genre may have
been purely aesthetic. Why not? We can see examples of so-called
primitive art all over the place that just looks good, pleases the eye,
and may have no significance beyond that.
On the other hand, magico-religious "art" doesn't have to please an
aesthetic sense - it only needs an accumulation of magical substance
duly represented to fill it's purpose. Some lizard spleen, a dab of
spit, eye of the newt.
At least that leaves some room for "art for art's sake" 35kya.
And one other thing. Greek vases were manufactured in pottery
factories. Of course a few shops reached the "Tiffany" status, and
these potters even signed their work. In times of economic recession,
pottery factories all over Attica went belly-up. I think they deserve
the "fine art" status we have assigned to them, but let's not time
travel with our values.
> I was already thinking about that in regard to Newman and
> the "Sublime." As I said, I don't get much out of Newman's
> paintings, but I think I can see what he was getting at.
> I've also seen some very simple art objects, usually
> prehistoric, which were thought to have magical qualities
> for the people who made them, not at all evident to most of
> us today.
>
Well, you know...Carl Jung wrote that primitivos "lived in a twilight
state of consciousness" which kind of irked Levi-Bruhl and caused
Levi-Strauss to write "The Savage Mind." His first two chapters fell
under "The Science of the Concrete." There's really no strong reason to
suppose that the ancients didn't have an aesthetic motive for making
art, just as we (sometimes) do.
Erik
Nerd Gerl
ART is what Hulk Hogan says it is!!!
===============
Naked Angel Art
http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl
G*rd*n
| Well, you know...Carl Jung wrote that primitivos "lived in a twilight
| state of consciousness" which kind of irked Levi-Bruhl and caused
| Levi-Strauss to write "The Savage Mind." His first two chapters fell
| under "The Science of the Concrete." There's really no strong reason to
| suppose that the ancients didn't have an aesthetic motive for making
| art, just as we (sometimes) do.
Except when you're living in a small tribe that represents
most of the world, you can't or don't divide up the universe
the way modern people do. There aren't walls between religion,
art, politics, medicine, sex, drugs, rock'n'roll, and so on.
They're aspects of things, rather than separate realms. Or
that's what they tell me, anyway.
Lauri Levanto
Bob C wrote:
> Prior to the early renaissance, there really is no concept of creating
> something which had no specific utilitarian (or ritual) purpose and was
> also completely independent of anything which did. Once you've accepted
> the concept of "art for arts sake", anything else looks like decoration
> or compromise by comparison.
>
Just a minor point: I see no utilitarian or ritual purpose
-in Roman portraits,
-Pompeiji wall paintings
-hellenistic floor mosaics.
Greek texts contemplated art, thoug Plato did not
appreciate it much
-lauri
>
> Art, basically, is anything which meets our expectations of what an art
> object should be. This statement may be meaningless as a definition, but
> it does have a great deal of use in understanding how we deal with art.
> Art history remembers those artists who have expanded and changed our
> expectations, because they are the ones defining what art is.
I think art historians have a more active role, they _select_
those artists we should memorize.
> Once the
> concept of "art for arts sake" has been created, very few artists
> interested in pushing our expectations to new limits are going to chose
> to tie their art to a utilitarian purpose or object, since it is "art
> for arts sake" which gives them the most freedom to pursue their goal.
What is then the goal for artists for arts sake? Make art that looks like
art,
but conteins an acceptable deviation, pushing the envelope?
>
> Recently, however, there is probably an upswing in the number of artists
> working in traditional crafts who are getting their work accepted as
> fine art. This is probably because the other visual fine artists have
> been sticking to sculpture and easel painting for so long that they have
> exhausted many of the possibilities for further development while
> leaving the possibilities in the traditional crafts untouched. I would
> expect this development to continue for some time.
>
The acceptance of crafts is an interesting and promising trend.
It only too often pushes the envelope of crafts toward non-utilian
direction.
As Glass artist Brian Blackthorn said:
If you can pee in it, it is crafts - if you can't it must be art.
-lauri
Lauri Levanto
Think about the swaters of Faroyan fishermen.
A sweater is very utilitarian in those circumstances.
Every house had a unique pattern of veawe,
that was utilitarian, too. It was used to identify
the unevitable casualities of the sea.
When the women veawed the patterns, they did
not apply any social security code, the choice was
aesthetic, independent of the utulitary functions.
-lauri
G*rd*n
| ... I believe fine arts is about the ideal and the modelling
| of nature; ...
I trust you see the paradox there.
Ivor E. Black
says...
>Jeez, I love USENET; thousands of years of Greek and Roman art erased at the
>flick of a finger....go to a museum; or at least:
To say nothing of far-eastern, Etruscan, etc
utilitarian objects now considered "art" objects.
And then there are those REALLY ancient fertility
goddesses (or gods) considered among the oldest
man-made "art" objects yet found...
Ivor E. Black
>There's really no strong reason to
>suppose that the ancients didn't have an aesthetic motive for making
>art, just as we (sometimes) do.
That there wasn't decorative intent to much
of the ancient art is pure poppycock. One
need only visit some of the restored villas
and palaces all the way back to middle-eastern
cultures to realize that not only were the
people decorating the walls with purely
decorative motifs, they also were intent on
depicting historically important events in
an "artistic" way. Anyone fortunate enough
to have viewed first-hand some of the friezes
in places like Persepolis has an understanding
of this "decorative" intent. Or Pompeii, for
that matter. And then there is the island
culture of mysterious Knossos with all the
imaginative decorative paintings on the walls.
Bob C
>
> Bob C wrote:
>
>>Prior to the early renaissance, there really is no concept of creating
>>something which had no specific utilitarian (or ritual) purpose and was
>>also completely independent of anything which did. ...
>>
> Just a minor point: I see no utilitarian or ritual purpose
> -in Roman portraits,
> -Pompeiji wall paintings
> -hellenistic floor mosaics.
Neither do I. I specifically did add the qualifier "completely
independent of anything which did". A wall and a floor are, in my
opinion, very utilitarian, so that anything which decorates them are not
independent of the utilitarian object.
I realize my statement is overly strong. There no doubt was art created
purely for arts sake before the renaissance, although in many cases it's
very difficult for us to know and it certainly does not represent the
large majority of aesthetically pleasing extant works. We can only guess
at the purpose of cave drawings and petroglyphs, and certainly not all
rock faces served a utilitarian purpose. And certainly much of the
renaissance work which we now look at as fine art did have very specific
functions, ritual or otherwise.
Let's not squabble over semantics. The assertion you (and others) are
responding to was not really the point of the post - it needs only be
well enough understood and agreed upon in order to support my one
possible hypothesis of why the modern art history definition of fine
arts is limited in the way it is.
- Bob C.
Bob C
>
> Bob C wrote:
>>Art history remembers those artists who have expanded and changed our
>>expectations, because they are the ones defining what art is.
>
> I think art historians have a more active role, they _select_
> those artists we should memorize.
>
The chicken and the egg. Art historians select those works which they
think are defining what art is, but it may be that the work influences
our definition only because it was the one selected. Art historians
certainly could have chosen other paths to take, but realize that their
expectations come from the same culture which shapes the expectations of
the artists and the public, so within the context of this culture I
think we can make some reasonably objective judgements about whether an
art object really has the qualities that expand and change our
definition of what art is.
>
> What is then the goal for artists for arts sake? Make art that looks like
> art,
> but conteins an acceptable deviation, pushing the envelope?
An interesting article I once read defined art as "nonfunctional
stylistic dynamism". The "nonfunctional" part is easily understood. The
"stylistic" part means that the art must create some recognizable
patterns which allow us to identify it as art. The "dynamism" is that
the work becomes art by deviating from these patterns in interesting and
creative ways. Although not an aesthetically pleasing definition of art,
I think there is a great deal of use in it (it seems particularly
relevant to me when thinking about music). And so the artist who wants
to change the definition of what art is will create new patterns for us
to recognize.
Traditionally this was done in small, incremental steps, but modern
contemperary art often tries to contain patterns which are completely
new, so that we have to first recognize this new pattern before we can
have any idea of what the artist is actually trying to accomplish with
it. But even the same was true of traditional art when people of the
time rejected artists who we now greatly admire.
- Bob C.
Oliver Gili
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
news:3E2F5667...@oco.net...
> There was a terrific thread on sci.archaeology last year, starring a
> couple of archeo's who were working in the caves in France and Spain.
> What struck be as interesting was that they cited three genres of cave
> art - splayed figures of animals, which were thought to be instructural
> as regards butchering, the splendid animal drawings we are most familar
> with, and the third was mish-mash - collections of symbols and cryptic
> marks which were thought to have magico-religious significance.
>
> I think there's a good chance the motive for the middle genre may have
> been purely aesthetic. Why not? We can see examples of so-called
> primitive art all over the place that just looks good, pleases the eye,
> and may have no significance beyond that.
>
> On the other hand, magico-religious "art" doesn't have to please an
> aesthetic sense - it only needs an accumulation of magical substance
> duly represented to fill it's purpose. Some lizard spleen, a dab of
> spit, eye of the newt.
>
> At least that leaves some room for "art for art's sake" 35kya.
>
and some of them also depict shamanic states, amost a comic book manual for
travels through the farther reaches of the human brain
Have you read Lars Iyer's Cave Walls and Wall Writings:
Blanchot and Bataille at Lascaux ?
(http://www.sidestreet.org/sitestreet/larsiyer/larsiyer_index.html)
Oliver
Lauri Levanto
> Bob C wrote:
> >>Art history remembers those artists who have expanded and changed our
> >>expectations, because they are the ones defining what art is.
> lauri
> > I think art historians have a more active role, they _select_
> > those artists we should memorize.
> >
> Bob C
> The chicken and the egg. Art historians select those works which they
> think are defining what art is, but it may be that the work influences
> our definition only because it was the one selected.
Architecture is a good example. It was Vasari who first bundled
architecture and art. It has been in art history since that.
it is partly a convenience. To write about antique Greek,
all that has been found is ruins, sculptures and vases.
No paintings - art historian must write of architecture.
The last six generations architecture and art have gone
different ways ( with the exception of Gaudi and maybe Hundertwasser)
Can you give examples of dadaistic, surrealistic, orffist, AbEx architecture.
I can expand my claim to the museum institution. It has similar if not even
stronger impact. When a new museum of contemporary art is opened,
it is bound to a concept of concurrent art which is very restrictive.
> Bob C
> An interesting article I once read defined art as "nonfunctional
> stylistic dynamism". The "nonfunctional" part is easily understood. (snip)
It is not so clear to mee, see below:
Bob C elsewhere:
> A wall and a floor are,
>in my
>opinion, very utilitarian, so that anything which decorates
>them are not
>independent of the utilitarian object.
If paintings decorating the wall, and sculptures decorating the floor
are utilitarian what on earth is nonfuctional :-)
> (snip) Although not an aesthetically pleasing definition of art,
> I think there is a great deal of use in it (it seems particularly
> relevant to me when thinking about music). And so the artist who wants
> to change the definition of what art is will create new patterns for us
> to recognize.
>
A musician who wants to change what music is...
I can think only Ligeiti and Gage.
In general is it an ultimate goal to change the definiton of art.
-lauri
Mani Deli
http://www.artnet.com/ag/fineartthumbnails.asp?G=9&aid=14480
In surfing the net I come across big name put-on artists. They are
worth perusing in order to see what kind of crap is being pushed and
how similar it all is. It is also interesting to see how many
charlatans there are and how short lived the moment of fame is for
most. The back pages of artzy publications is good evidence
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Norma
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:2ia13v07cpm9o44h1...@4ax.com...
> check out Ugo Rondinone
>
> http://www.artnet.com/ag/fineartthumbnails.asp?G=9&aid=14480
>
> In surfing the net I come across big name put-on artists. They are
> worth perusing in order to see what kind of crap is being pushed and
> how similar it all is. It is also interesting to see how many
> charlatans there are and how short lived the moment of fame is for
> most. The back pages of artzy publications is good evidence
>
> ...no skill no art!
Worth nothing, I would say!! Who does this stuff anyway?
>
> Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd
pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Indeed!! Norma
Norma
Now this I have put on my computer desktop and in my favorites. Norma
Bob C
>
> If paintings decorating the wall, and sculptures decorating the floor
> are utilitarian what on earth is nonfuctional :-)
The painting in a vacuum! Upon reflection, I think what I was trying to
get at was the ultimate goal of creating something which is nothing but
pure image, unconnected to anything else, not serving any specific
purpose other than to present the aesthetic qualities and artistic
expression which the image contains. Easel painting (and similar
activities) is probably the closest that we can come to doing this in a
permanent manner. This is the type of object which I think is usually
missing from pre-Renaissance cultures.
Let's face it - fine art in modern Western Culture puts a huge premium
on the image. Just look at what you see in gallerys, museums, or the
subject of most of the posts in this newsgroup! When modern art
historians discuss Greek pottery it is mostly to discuss the images
decorating it. Pottery is only of interest as long as it is being used
to advance and change the way that images are made. If pottery or
ceramics do not contain images, then we view it mainly as decorative art
rather than fine art. Architecture and decorative arts seem to be
included in art history not so much because they are considered fine
art, but because they help define those aspects of culture which are
relevant to understanding the fine art which the culture is producing.
I don't know much in common this modern view of art history has with
previous ones, but certainly the obsession with image is not something
unique to our culture. Cave painters went to a great deal of trouble to
create images even though they don't seem to contribute in any way to
survival (although the cave painters may have thought differently). And
I can certainly say that for myself, the creation of images is what
motivates me and always dominates my thoughts about art.
An obvious exception is that we've always considered sculpture to be
fine art even though it clearly gets much less attention than painting.
Prior to modern art, though, the sculpture being considered fine art was
always realistically figurative, a characteristic which it shared with
paintings of the time.
>> And so the artist who wants
>>to change the definition of what art is will create new patterns for us
>>to recognize.
>
> A musician who wants to change what music is...
> I can think only Ligeiti and Gage.
Anybody who makes even the slightest change to what we expect from music
is changing what music is. They aren't changing ALL of what music is,
but if you could create a definition of music which is all-encompassing,
then even the smallest addition will change that definition.
I think jazz is a wonderful example. The introduction of swing time, the
phrasings and improvisitions of bebop, the incorporation of African and
Latino rhythms, the use of free jazz - all of things changed people's
definition of what jazz sounds like. Many of these innovations were
rejected by many people upon first hearing it. This includes myself - I
first thought that bebop was just noise after being raised on dixieland,
armstrong, and ellington, but I eventually learned to recognize the
patterns which this newer developments was creating and now enjoy it
greatly (not that I'm old enough to have been around when it was first
being done, but I grew up in an environment where I only ever heard the
most traditional of jazz music).
- Bob C.
Mani Deli
wrote:
Tracey Emin took out her Brownie Reflex and does crappy photos. This
gives rich artzy fartzies orgasms and makes all those starving
failures who are producing similar drivel eat their hearts out.
Check out the work at:
http://www.artnet.com/ag/fineartthumbnails.asp?gid=838&aid=5797
Mani Deli
I start with Bouguereau's Flagellation_of_Christ
Check it out at:
http://www.artrenewal.org/images/artists/b/Bouguereau_William/large/The_Flagellation_of_Christ.jpg
Those committed B. haters here would do well to avoid looking at this
work. Perhaps a few artzy fartzies here who feign prudery by claiming
that B's work is little more than porno might gather up some courage
and take close look.
It is in high rez and if you have the ability to download it you will
get some idea of the mastery of the detail and finish.
Mike
ma...@sympatico.ca wrote on 1/24/03 2:35 PM:
> http://www.artrenewal.org/images/artists/b/Bouguereau_William/large/The_Flagel
> lation_of_Christ.jpg
Link does not respond.
":^) ®
--
Mike
€ Logo Design €
Put some fun in your next logo!
Site at: http://www.artistmike.com
Norma
> Masterpiece of the day:
>
> I start with Bouguereau's Flagellation_of_Christ
>
> Check it out at:
>
http://www.artrenewal.org/images/artists/b/Bouguereau_William/large/The_Flag
ellation_of_Christ.jpg
I don't see the reason for criticism. When one looks at the arts of any
kind, criticism/critique are surely in the mind of the beholder.
This at first glance does not horrify--the beatings and crucifixion are well
known to Christians and non-Christians who are arta lovers.
The love of art is to examine every brush stroke, colors, etc. I like the
picture, When I look at it, even on my computer screen, it if of immediate
interest, then after the intitial things I look at the people and want to
identify them and what is curious is the body. I doubt that anyone amongst
the Jesus' Apostles or Jesus himself would have carrie that much weight as
to look so well "filled out".
Sorry if I intrude, I am fairly new here and am an art lover. You all
probably already are far ahead, but I will keep looking over and over again.
Wish I could find that place where the painting is hung to get it all.
Norma
Mani Deli
take a look at it at:
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/cezanne/portraits/cezanne.father.jpg
Any street corner portraitist would starve if he didn't have a lot
more talent. Work of the quality of this Cezanne horror wouldn't make
it to any art gallery without a coveted signature or really good
connections. It is less than amateurish in color, composition and
technique even if one disregards the shoes that look like lumps of
something. It is utterly conventional in subject matter and would
interest no one were it done by an unknown.
One can see the original in the National Gallery Washington. When I go
to Washington I never fail to take a close look at this and the other
Cezanne's in the room which hang in the same building along with the
best of art. Cezanne represents a major step in the direction of 20th
century popular incompetence expressed in no-skill-realism.
If someone painted a similar thing and asked you whether he should
follow an art career what would you advise?
Mani Deli
Heres one you never learned about in art school. As long as
incompetence is in fashion anything containing this degree of
craftsmanship is hardly mentionable. If not her work, the best of
Dutch 17-18th century can be seen in any major museum. The only
recognized 20th century artist whose technique comes close to that of
this school is Dali. There are others but they aren't allowed in
museums at the moment.
Take a look at:
http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/index1.html
Rachel Ruysch, with van Huysum are among the most celebrated exponents
of Dutch still life. The daughter of a botanist and the pupil of
Willem van Aelst, she worked mainly in her native Amsterdam, but also
in The Hague (1701-08) and Düsseldorf, where from 1708 to 1716 she was
court painter to the Elector Palatine. All her works are painted in
with meticulous attention to detail to form masterly compositions.
Ruysch lived eighty-five years and painted from the time she was a
young woman until she was an octogenarian. About a hundred paintings
by her are known. As a mother of ten children its amazing that she
could turn out so much.Her husband was the portraitist Juriaen Pool
(1666-1745).
PS
If you get to the Metropolitan museum Take a look at their Margaret a
Haver man (not sure of exact spelling), student of van Huysum. Its the
finest Dutch still life they own. However on my last visit it was
hanging seven feet above the floor, in memory of the twit curators who
I suppose wanted to make sure that no one would see the magnificent
detail.
NightMist
wrote:
>Masterpiece of the day:
>
>I start with Bouguereau's Flagellation_of_Christ
>
>Check it out at:
>http://www.artrenewal.org/images/artists/b/Bouguereau_William/large/The_Flagellation_of_Christ.jpg
>
Technically apt, but precisely the type of xtian religious art I
despise.
Behold, a lily white christ apparently fainting under the pain of his
scourging. Not a mark on him of course.
This scourging is being carried out, not by Roman soldiers, as would
be the case if the 2 brief biblical mentions of the event are
accurate, but by unknown persons one of whom appears to be wearing
pre-spandex bicycle pants.
I shall not go into the further obvious inaccuracies other than to
mention that the scourges portrayed bear little resemblance to
anything the Romans were known to use or even might have used.
I can forgive the bicycle pants, I can forgive B not haveing a clue
about Roman military discipline and I can forgive the lack of blood
and gore. I can take into consideration that he was probably
pandering to the religious establishment of the time.
But I really really dislike it.
Oh, I almost forgot....
I am an anal retentive bitch with a tendancy to pay overmuch attention
to detail other than that directly involved in the physical actions of
generateing a painting. I do not have a website, therefore I am
obviously a sham, one of those faux representational painters who
doesn't know realism from polaroid. Dammit I ought to be a teacher in
a Bahaus monastary, leading blundering art students down the path of
abstraction.
OK, that bit is out of the way. If you are going to respond just do
the good bits.
Barbara
--
everybody is somebodys chew toy
Marc Sabatella
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
Check out my visual art:
http://www.outsideshore.com/marc/art/
Andrew D
(NightMist) wrote:
[snip]
>Behold, a lily white christ apparently fainting under the pain of his
>scourging. Not a mark on him of course.
I'm certain I can see marks on his back.
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Mani Deli
19th subject matter many modern artzies claim upsets them. Don't
believe them. What upsets them is the mastery of technique,
composition and story telling and the fact that a painting of this
degree of complexity requires more then thirty seconds to look at .
I always admired the originality of the placement of the hands and the
degree of complexity of the painting without the usual clutter found
in later 19th century art.
If you get to the museum also note the portrait of the great Lavoisier
and His Wife. When there were teachers like David it is little wonder
that an Ingres would follow.
AT:
http://www.artrenewal.org/images/artists/D/David_Jacques_Louis/large/The_Death_of_Socrates_cgf.jpg
John Ng
Another one for politically correctness! What is wrong with a white
Christ? First of all, the painting was done in the 19C where such
images were acceptable as they were during the Renaissance. Second,
you are just being pretentious and simply echoing the laughable notion
that it is a virtue to correct images like these. Only nitwits come
up with the notions of politically correctness, and try to correct
what need not be corrected. English (and other languages) is full of
symbols of where black is negative and white is positive. Do you ever
use these words? or are they now out of your vocabulary?
John Ng
Peter H.M. Brooks
"John Ng" <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1bb492a.0301...@posting.google.com...
fascists, is now seen become dated and unfashionable. It won't be long
before it is simply a bad old joke.
--
'The effect of studying masterpieces is to make me admire and do otherwise.
So it must be on every original atrtist to some degree, on me to a marked
degree'
Gerard Manley Hopkins (letter to Bridges 1888)
Edward G. Nilges
> > Behold, a lily white christ ...
>
> Another one for politically correctness! What is wrong with a white
> Christ? First of all, the painting was done in the 19C where such
> images were acceptable as they were during the Renaissance. Second,
The problem is that this completely undercuts any special claim
"realism" might have.
We are told by you et al. that "realism" is, well, better, because it
is "realistic" and corresponds to "reality."
But here, you claim artistic license.
Read Edward Said's Orientalism: for during the hey-day of 19th century
"realism" artists starting with Delacroix started to paint exotic
lands being conquered by Europeans.
The only real "realism" in these paintings was a mathematical
projection of models-in-studios, dressed in clothes that were only
approximations to what people wore contemporaneously in the Levant and
far East, and in architectural settings that bore no more than a
superficial relation to the actual architecture.
The research done by the artists was superficial and anecdotal.
Thus Christ, in all probability a dark-skinned Middle Easterner, is
portrayed lily white because Christianity is centered in Europe.
Whatever the artistic merits of this gesture, it is not "realism."
Fans of "realistic" art really demand a confirmation of prejudices.
G*rd*n
"John Ng" <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > Another one for politically correctness! What is wrong with a white
| > Christ? First of all, the painting was done in the 19C where such
| > images were acceptable as they were during the Renaissance. Second,
| > you are just being pretentious and simply echoing the laughable notion
| > that it is a virtue to correct images like these. Only nitwits come
| > up with the notions of politically correctness, and try to correct
| > what need not be corrected. English (and other languages) is full of
| > symbols of where black is negative and white is positive. Do you ever
| > use these words? or are they now out of your vocabulary?
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za>:
| The good news is that political correctness, always a refuge for puritanical
| fascists, is now seen become dated and unfashionable. It won't be long
| before it is simply a bad old joke.
Well, it's been politically incorrect for some time, kept
alive mostly by the people who disparage it as a sort of
whipping-boy. But what happened to "realism"?
Peter H.M. Brooks
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:b1b52c$90b$1...@panix2.panix.com...
Realism either was never there, or is always there. It is a little like the
old saw 'if you have to ask the price you can't afford it'.
NightMist
Geez get over yourself will you?
Jesus was a semetic Jew, born and bred in Palestine.
They knew that in the 19th century.
I know it is typical of artists through the ages to throw the local
ethnic spin on their artwork.
I do note that in most cases academic realism in the 19th century
extended only to technical proficiency and had little to do with
reality. As I recall this was what caused a number of impressionists
to break away from tradition.
Finally, yes I am well aware that if he had painted that scene in
anything remotely approaching a realistic fashion he would have been
decried from on high. I do not know the history of the painting, I do
know that B had a bit of a reputation for painting what he wanted and
the heck with anyone else. If he wanted to paint that scene in that
way, fine he did a good job of it. I am not required to like it nor
find it perfect in all ways. Good thing cause I don't like it, and I
have previously stated what I find to be less than perfect about it.
Oh, as for the PC angle, I hadn't really thought about it that way.
Going back for another look at the painting, we see our fainting white
christ being scourged by persons of a notably darker complexion, even
the crowd is darker. Now I suppose that one can look at this in a
Hindu sort of way and assume it was done to differentiate christ from
the crowd, or take it from the way the church I attended as a child
would explain it and say christ is so white to imply his allfired
holiness and purity. One could just take a 19th century view of
status as it relates to skin color. Personally, I just don't think B
put that much sociological or theological thought into his paintings.
If he did his training as an artist tends to override all of it.
Either he did it that way because that is the way he was taught to do
it, or his way of working on such paintings caused him to paint the
central figure much lighter than the surrounding figures to make it
pop. Thats the one I would bet on. Maybe a combination of the last
two notions.
Mani Deli
Jesus didn't look the way he was painted by Bruegel nor does god as
portrayed by Michelangelo.
Nomen Nescio
> I judge a painting by its quality not
> its subject matter.
WHO CARES how you judge art, you slum-dwelling mendicant, you
talentless blowhard, you opinionated buffoon, you incorrible poltroon,
you jumped-up jackanapes!
st...@primrose.csv.warwick.ac.uk
Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>I judge a painting by its quality not its subject matter.
>
>Jesus didn't look the way he was painted by Bruegel
Very probably true.
> nor does god as
>portrayed by Michelangelo.
But surely only someone who's seen God can assert this
[aside: what does God look like if (S)He doesn't exist?]
And I imagine that anyone who believes they've seen God
also believes that He can appear in any form She chooses.
Curmudgeonly comments on two other current threads
(I've had a hard week at the office):
1) A quantum is either an amount (colloquially),
or a *VERY* tiny amount (in physics), so saying
that Picasso made a quantum jump forwards,
or backwards, isn't really saying much.
However, I could care less:-)
2) Two scratched records and a megaphone.
--
J.E.H.Shaw [Ewart Shaw] st...@uk.ac.warwick TEL: +44 2476 523069
Department of Statistics, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK
http://www.warwick.ac.uk/statsdept http://www.ewartshaw.co.uk
3 ((4&({*.(=+/))++/=3:)@([:,/0&,^:(i.3)@|:"2^:2))&.>@]^:(i.@[) <#:3 6 2
Mani Deli
Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
>"Mani Deli" wrote
>
>> I judge a painting by its quality not
>> its subject matter.
>
>WHO CARES how you judge art, you slum-dwelling mendicant, you
>talentless blowhard, you opinionated buffoon, you incorrible poltroon,
>you jumped-up jackanapes!
Mani Deli
st...@primrose.csv.warwick.ac.uk () wrote:
>In article <ib4j3v4u8krf1i6pc...@4ax.com>,
> Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>>I judge a painting by its quality not its subject matter.
>>
>>Jesus didn't look the way he was painted by Bruegel
>
>Very probably true.
>
>> nor does god as
>>portrayed by Michelangelo.
>
>But surely only someone who's seen God can assert this
>[aside: what does God look like if (S)He doesn't exist?]
>And I imagine that anyone who believes they've seen God
>also believes that He can appear in any form She chooses.
Long ago I took LSD and saw god. He was very fat, blue and clean
shaven. Which goes to show that you can't believe everything you see.
>Curmudgeonly comments on two other current threads
>(I've had a hard week at the office):
>
I had an easy week. God is the mature man's Santa Claus and we all see
Santa every year if we take the trouble.
NightMist
wrote:
>I judge a painting by its quality not its subject matter.
>
>Jesus didn't look the way he was painted by Bruegel nor does god as
>portrayed by Michelangelo.
Hey, for all we know Michaelangelo saw God and painted him as he saw
him. Of course I wouldn't expect any 2 people to see the great spook
in the sky the same 2 ways.
Barbara
I've always rather fancied god as a hot babe with red hair who rides a
Triumph
Mani Deli
wrote:
That's why I don't judge paintings by their subject matter.
Roy L. Ballou
>I've always rather fancied god as a hot babe with red hair who rides a
>Triumph
Sounds like our airy nemesis Alison Raimes to me!
But you forgot to mention 'wearing combat boots...'
NightMist
wrote:
Alison wears combat boots and rides a trump?
Barbara
Quite certain that god wears either cavalier boots with a lace hanky
tucked in the top, or New Rock Terminator IIIs
Alison A Raimes
>
> Barbara
Only in the fantasies of Jack Schiller ..... but then again, he has a
tendency to his own gender so that image would suffice
John Ng
> We are told by you et al. that "realism" is, well, better, because it
> is "realistic" and corresponds to "reality." But here, you claim artistic
> license.
That is why the most common meaning of realism is not what the art
books say it is. Maybe I should say that the art books' jargon is a
pedantic form describing "realism" as social realism.
> The only real "realism" in these paintings was a mathematical...
That is the best word describing "realism", that is "mathematical".
Mathematical should be what art is all about... skill to reproduce
nature in its ideal form described in mathematically, be it beauty or
proportion or composition or representation. Only when this is so,
can the idea of the painting be judged.
Although, it seems from my discussion, that "idea" takes a backseat,
it is what separates the great paintings from a good painting. A
painting with an idea but no artisanship is no art at all (eg
Matisse). It is like an architect, who has the grandest idea for his
building but could not draw a straight line. On the other hand, a
mathematically-correct painting with artisanship but a simple
repetitive idea, is still (good) art, no matter how you look at it.
What about a painting that is both mathematically-correct and having a
good idea? One would have thought it terrific. This is the case in
my opinion, but not for the "elite in art circles". I am critical of
those of this category who are appalled at the mere sight of a
mathematically-correct painting because it is not arty enough (and
does not appear in any art books).
> Thus Christ, in all probability a dark-skinned Middle Easterner, is
> portrayed lily white because Christianity is centered in Europe.
Of course that is the case. No one believes that Jesus is a blond
white, and not even the Catholics in non-white countries. Still they
are satisfied with that sort of image.
> Whatever the artistic merits of this gesture, it is not "realism."
> Fans of "realistic" art really demand a confirmation of prejudices.
Is it prejudice, or is it what books say is prejudice? Seems like
some people can't make up their minds unless some god-like body tells
them so. Would George Bush do?
John Ng
Advocate of a renewal in art and the return of realism
http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
Edward G. Nilges
> spino...@yahoo.com (Edward G. Nilges) wrote in message
>
> > We are told by you et al. that "realism" is, well, better, because it
> > is "realistic" and corresponds to "reality." But here, you claim artistic
> > license.
>
> That is why the most common meaning of realism is not what the art
> books say it is. Maybe I should say that the art books' jargon is a
> pedantic form describing "realism" as social realism.
>
>
> > The only real "realism" in these paintings was a mathematical...
>
> That is the best word describing "realism", that is "mathematical".
> Mathematical should be what art is all about... skill to reproduce
> nature in its ideal form described in mathematically, be it beauty or
> proportion or composition or representation. Only when this is so,
> can the idea of the painting be judged.
There are proportions, such as the so called divine proportion,
thought by many to be more satisfying somehow than others.
However, the divine proportion, if memory serves, is a simple
recursive pattern. Take a look at Stephen Wolfram's book A New Kind
of Science, for cellular automata which generate recursive patterns
are less interesting than automata that generate nonrecursive,
nonrepeating, and nonrandom patterns.
These are a class Wolfram has discovered to be computationally
equivalent and may be generalisations of Turing automata. He
discovered them in an abstract sense and did not realize that they
could have an interpretation as goal-seeking versions of artificial
life.
To me, these automata are more "beautiful" than simple recursive
patterns and if other people share this sense, then the apparent
beauty of mathematical regularity may have been an historical
accident.
Perhaps, by the time of the Renaissance, men were simply tired of mere
repetition as seen in certain forms of mediaeval art...notably music,
whose paucity of forms in the Middle Ages meant, probably, a lot of
the old da capo.
Therefore, recursive patterns seemed more satisfying, but only at a
historical moment.
And, the jazz of a Parker or Mingus LACKS the mathematical regularity
of Baroque music (Bach can be quite irregular but he cleverly resolves
just in time, probably because he was being paid for most of his
output, and could not formally experiment). Many jazz creations are
less repeated or recursive structures and more like goal-seeking
Turing machines in that they surprise before they satisfy.
>
> Although, it seems from my discussion, that "idea" takes a backseat,
> it is what separates the great paintings from a good painting. A
> painting with an idea but no artisanship is no art at all (eg
> Matisse). It is like an architect, who has the grandest idea for his
"Artisanship", if interpreted as following somebody else's rules, is
not art. Art is making and obeying your own rules. Disordered
personalities interpret this statement as license and to me this is an
indication of a weakened superego.
And it is true that in modern society to even have a superego is often
to be marked as an oddball. This generates an almost Dosteovskyan
rage to find a guru or Grand Inquisitor or Bouguereau, to whom the
artist can snuffle with tears of blood, and who will then "raise the
cup on which the word Mystery is written."
> building but could not draw a straight line. On the other hand, a
Being able to draw a straight line has of course nothing to do with
architecture. Mies van der Rohe used a T square and modern architects
use CAD CAM.
> mathematically-correct painting with artisanship but a simple
> repetitive idea, is still (good) art, no matter how you look at it.
>
But of course this means Mondrian is "good." I think what you mean is
that a painting should have a recognizable leit-motif and pander to a
lowered attention span. Well, I guess flying naked ladies, a little
on the heavy side but quite acceptable nonetheless, provide a "catch"
or leit-motif in Bouguereau.
Like Wagner, they give the museum goer who has had a snifter or two
something to remember. From the Louvre, the *boulevardier*, even
after a heavy dinner, cigars, and brandy, can remember that Bouguereau
chap who painted that naked lady flying though the air, supported by
whathisname, Perseus.
The relation of the figures, with Perseus obviously in control even at
2000 feet, provides no information over and above our boy's normal
expectations of the relations of men and women. Chic alors, if men
could fly, then of course le monsieur would carry la femme.
Whereas any reversal would create new, hard to remember information (I
am reminded in this connection of the ignorance in this ng of the most
elementary facts of Picasso's biography: "Picasso", here, is less a
real artist and a mere symbol-in-the-mind.)
Kitsch, in other words, takes care to confirm normal emotional
expectations of a mob while adding a minimal hook in order to give the
mob the feeling of something for the money. This ranges from
Bouguereau's finish to Frazetta's musculature to Vargas' airbrushing.
All these artists did take care to add a sort of unique element, but
they minimized it: they did not embark on a series of parallel tasks
as did Cezanne or Matisse.
One complaint made even about traditional, classic artists, was that
they were EITHER overly complex in approach OR not skilled enough to
somehow isolate a hook for the mob. Thus Beethoven's performers
complained that his vocal parts in the Missa Solemnis were mere
screeching and yowling, which it probably was given the mismatch of
their vocal arts with what Beethoven was attempting: the vocal art
improved as a result of efforts, after Beethoven died, to master his
work.
Thus Bach's major works such as Kunst der Fuge fell into complete
disuse after his death, for they, too, were considered either
talentless (because the audience did not understand Bach's goals) or
overly complex (as compared with Telemann's primitive banging, a
"simple mathematical repetition that sucked then and sucks now) or
both.
Thus Louis XIV's courtiers simply did not understand Poussin's complex
principles of composition. They wanted "classicism", to be sure, but
to them, "classicism" was bas-relief as seen on many Roman fragments
available in the 17th century. Poussin's dual interests, which were
in complex iconography and composition in depth, were simply beyond
the ken of all but a small minority of collectors.
Basically, you are demanding a pandering to an unwillingness to pay
attention. I say this with all due respect, but that is only a
phrase. Basically, I am horrified by the debased tastes in this ng.
Shudder.
> What about a painting that is both mathematically-correct and having a
> good idea? One would have thought it terrific. This is the case in
> my opinion, but not for the "elite in art circles". I am critical of
> those of this category who are appalled at the mere sight of a
> mathematically-correct painting because it is not arty enough (and
> does not appear in any art books).
>
The problem is "mathematically correct, but what is your standard of
correctness?" There is none unless the painter has been retained by a
mathematician to illustrate a proof.
If you want to do math, then do math.
>
>
> > Thus Christ, in all probability a dark-skinned Middle Easterner, is
> > portrayed lily white because Christianity is centered in Europe.
>
> Of course that is the case. No one believes that Jesus is a blond
> white, and not even the Catholics in non-white countries. Still they
> are satisfied with that sort of image.
>
My question was why, and my theory is that many viewers' sadism is
enticed by this sort of image.
>
> > Whatever the artistic merits of this gesture, it is not "realism."
> > Fans of "realistic" art really demand a confirmation of prejudices.
>
> Is it prejudice, or is it what books say is prejudice? Seems like
> some people can't make up their minds unless some god-like body tells
> them so. Would George Bush do?
>
The elite has of course attempted for many years to destroy
confidence, in ordinary people, in their ability to know. This makes
it possible for the elite to bust unions and declare wars.
This is why ordinary slobs usually end arguments, not with a bang but
an epistemological whimper in which they tell their opponent, "you
just gots an opinion and mine is as good as yours by gum."
De Tocqueville noticed this, but he may have failed to notice that in
antebellum times Americans resolved debates in this way because of the
hovering slave question, in which disagreements on river boats could
be bloody.
I am afraid that in recent years the healthy American tolerance has
been taken to extremes, and encouraged by nihilists like Bush, so that
people lack the confidence to have tastes and opinions.
I jest know my taste in art is high class. You have the right to
demur, but not to make me equate Picasso and Bouguereau.
Roy L. Ballou
pigsm...@hotmail.com says...
>Mathematical should be what art is all about... skill to reproduce
>nature in its ideal form described in mathematically
Oh PULLEEEEZE!
Lauri Levanto
Dan Fox wrote:
> bal...@noemailever.com (Roy L. Ballou) wrote:
> Jack - I think this is at the heart of these guys' problem: most of them
> are engineers, and they only understand engineering concepts. - -
> Dan
When I pointed out the inferior engineering of the greeat B
( as compared to f.ex. Botticelli) they protested loudly.
I am not an engineer, but I feel your sterotype is quite superficial.
Fundamentalism is not an engineering skill.
-lauri
( I can SEE it is wrong, who says othervise is a liar :-)
G*rd*n
| > > >Mathematical should be what art is all about... skill to reproduce
| > > >nature in its ideal form described in mathematically
bal...@noemailever.com (Roy L. Ballou) wrote:
| > > Oh PULLEEEEZE!
Dan Fox wrote:
| > Jack - I think this is at the heart of these guys' problem: most of them
| > are engineers, and they only understand engineering concepts. - -
Lauri Levanto <laur...@netti.fi>:
| When I pointed out the inferior engineering of the greeat B
| ( as compared to f.ex. Botticelli) they protested loudly.
|
| I am not an engineer, but I feel your sterotype is quite superficial.
| Fundamentalism is not an engineering skill.
| -lauri
|
| ( I can SEE it is wrong, who says othervise is a liar :-)
It is not engineering, it is a matter of providing views of
graspable objects and occupiable terrain within some convention,
property, in other words, just as for a fundie Christian the
Bible provides a _contract_ and therefore must be taken
literally. Engineering is a matter of producing objects or
effects which are desired; it is not concerned with the
desire itself.
However, there is also the political edge: the condemnation
of all other views and forms as evil, and the expression of a
desire to discredit and obviate them, if not to destroy them
completely. So the fundamentalist view is strongly connected
with a desire for power and resentment of those who have it.
Roy L. Ballou
says...
>Jack - I think this is at the heart of these guys' problem: most of them
>are engineers, and they only understand engineering concepts.
I were once an injunear too...then I gone
bak to skule and got me an art decree...
John Ng
> When I pointed out the inferior engineering of the greeat B
> ( as compared to f.ex. Botticelli) they protested loudly.
When I pointed out that you are wrong, you simply disappeared
> I am not an engineer, but I feel your sterotype is quite superficial.
> Fundamentalism is not an engineering skill.
It is not an engineer that needs mathematics. Even the most basic
function like picking up a pen needs mathematical/perception skills
(or how else can you estimate that you hand is there). The
mathematics is calculated by the brain without you knowing it.
I think I know what the problem with Modern Art is. There is no brain
involved.
John Ng
John Ng
> Oh PULLEEEEZE!
Oh PULLEEEEZE don't be so shock by this discovery.
Lauri Levanto
John Ng wrote:
> Lauri Levanto <laur...@netti.fi> wrote in message
>
> > When I pointed out the inferior engineering of the greeat B
> > ( as compared to f.ex. Botticelli) they protested loudly.
>
> When I pointed out that you are wrong, you simply disappeared
>
So you challence me to repeat my proof:
( I can SEE it is wrong, who says othervise is a liar :-)
Now when we both show that attitude, there is no poit to continue
-lauri
>
>
Leo Papandreou
"Dan Fox" <danf...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20030203094441.579$a...@newsreader.com...
> painting is a precise copy of a unit of external reality. It is no
> different from a software program or a complex piece of machinery. An
> attempt to explain aesthetics to them is like the proverbial discourse on
> color to a blind man.
>
Scientific results are open to a variety of philosophical and cultural
interpretations, and John’s reductionism is itself a philosophical position,
one
that has already been tested by the well-known mathematician and logical
positivist G. D. Birkhoff. In the late 1920’s and early 1930’s, Birkhoff
attempted to reduce aesthetics to mathematics by defining the aesthetic
measure of an object as the ratio of its symmetry to its complexity.
Birkhoff’s
brave if misguided program successfully demonstrated the limitations of
computational approaches to aesthetics, which, in spite of Birkhoff’s
intentions, is an advance in our understanding of art. [1]
Be that as it were, I don’t think John meant to advance a computational or
mathematical theory of beauty. I think he was satisfied to assert a wooly-
headed equivalence between formal mathematics and his and Mani’s
correspondence theory of beauty, after the correspondence theory of truth in
semantics: the notion that art is beautiful to the extent it imitates
nature. [2]
This criterion provides (or would provide if perception of the thing were
the
thing, if it could account for art’s conceptual, intentional and emotional
dimensions, etc.) a simple rational criterion. However, the criterion
depends
on not only a separation between subject and object, which is problematic
and difficult to reconcile with numberless cultural artifacts we call 'art',
but
between art and nature. Without the latter distinction, everything is
natural
and thus already maximally beautiful. It is also unclear what counts as
nature--is 'realistic' fantasy and sci-fi art nature? Finally, the
correspondence
theory of beauty fails to account for contemporary art, which is often non-
representational. (Of course, John’s frequent prescriptions of taste aren’t
an
account of anything; his agenda is not explanation.)
[1] _On Birkhoff’s Aesthetic Measure of Vases_:
<http://www.fi.muni.cz/informatics/reports/files/older/FIMU-RS-99-06.pdf>
_Computational Aesthetics_:
<http://iaaa.nl/rs/compestE.html>
[2] I seriously doubt either Mani or John have heard of or can defend the
correspondence theory of beauty, so here I am for their benefit, at the
easel,
painting a picture of this footnote. That’s me in the green foothills of
Parnassus. Do you see me? I am the one carrying a lyre, flogging a dead
horse.
Erik A. Mattila
Dan Fox wrote:
> bal...@noemailever.com (Roy L. Ballou) wrote:
>
> Yeah, I got a couple of degrees in physics, worked in industry for awhile,
> then went back to school for art. I remember that Pie are squared. (Which
> is actually wrong; pie are round -- biscuits are square.)
>
Some physicist...pie r8.
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
John, back in the days when General Semantics was all the rage (the 60s)
the clarion of GS was "don't confuse the map with the territory."
Meaning that a "word" is not the thing it represents. You're doing this
now. Picking up a pen +perhaps+ can be represented mathematically, but
it is not mathematics. We can pick up the pen without mathematics after
all.
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
Lauri - +pointlessness+ itself is sufficient point to continue...this is
the postmodern world, after all. Think "simulacra"...the endless
reproduction of something that has no original.
Besides, in 50 years the art pundits will be holding up Newsnet
exchanges as an example of the neo-expressionist revival :-).
Erik
Mani Deli
take a look at it at:
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/cezanne/portraits/cezanne.father.jpg
Any street corner portraitist would starve if he didn't have a lot
more talent. Work of the quality of this Cezanne horror wouldn't make
it to any art gallery without a coveted signature or really good
connections. It is less than amateurish in color, composition and
technique even if one disregards the shoes that look like lumps of
something. It is utterly conventional in subject matter and would
interest no one were it done by an unknown.
One can see the original in the National Gallery Washington. When I go
to Washington I never fail to take a close look at this and the other
Cezanne's in the room which hang in the same building along with the
best of art. Cezanne represents a major step in the direction of 20th
century popular incompetence expressed in no-skill-realism.
If someone painted a similar thing and asked you whether he should
follow an art career what would you advise?
Marc Sabatella
some of the most beautiful, moving pieces of art. Much more interesting
to look at than more overtly realistic but less creative and emotionally
involving paintings.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
The Outside Shore
Music, art, & educational materials:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>Now here's one from one from the holy trinity of modern art.
>take a look at it at:
>http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/cezanne/portraits/cezanne.father.jpg
>If someone painted a similar thing and asked you whether he should
>follow an art career what would you advise?
I would advise to use a projector :-)
The pelvis is dislocated, his right arm has the wrong proportions and
the ring and middle finger of his left hand should be under the flap
of the newspaper instead of over it (the angle of either the arm or
the hand is off any way unless his hold is very awkward), the
perspective of the bottom of the chair is off, his left leg is wrong
and why is there a black line around his hair above (and over) his
left ear? I've destroyed some of my own work for less.
All these things can ofcourse be done wrong for a reason but I don't
see these errors contributing to the overall picture.
Thur
But there are a number of self-portraits.
People who are not familiar might wish to
check out some of the others:-
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/C/cezanne/self_1.jpg.html
http://www.whyy.org/cezanne/selfpor.html
http://www.exittoart.nl/framesetmain.htm?
http://www.exittoart.nl/gallery1.htm?
http://www.exittoart.nl/cezanne/cezanne11.htm
http://www.mezzo-mondo.com/arts/mm/cezanne/CEP015.html
http://www.artprints-on-demand.co.uk/noframes/cezanne/self_portrait_1.htm
http://www.bsu.edu/burris/art/modern/sld010.htm
http://www.art-and-artist.co.uk/impressionist/impress-gifetc/cezanne-self.jpg
And Mr.Dali :-)
http://www.revilo-oliver.com/Kevin-Strom-personal/Art/Dali_Self-portrait_1954.html
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/artists/dali/coloring/self.shtml
Head & shoulders 1921
http://www.eyecandy-media.com/dali/selfportrait.htm
Self Portrait with Raphaelesque neck 1920-1
http://www.eyecandy-media.com/dali/selfraphael.htm
(I think someone has been taking the Mickey here!)
Self Portrait in the Studio Cadaques 1919
http://www.angelfire.com/wa/danart98/Paintings.html
Enjoy
Thur
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:mem3fv0v2av8jnhpb...@4ax.com...
Chris
"Paul Mesken" <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
news:7i14fvg39furdokug...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 11:44:13 -0400, Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >Now here's one from one from the holy trinity of modern art.
> >take a look at it at:
> >http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/cezanne/portraits/cezanne.father.jpg
>
> >If someone painted a similar thing and asked you whether he should
> >follow an art career what would you advise?
>
> I would advise to use a projector :-)
>
> The pelvis is dislocated, his right arm has the wrong proportions and
> the ring and middle finger of his left hand should be under the flap
> of the newspaper instead of over it (the angle of either the arm or
> the hand is off any way unless his hold is very awkward), the
> perspective of the bottom of the chair is off, his left leg is wrong
> and why is there a black line around his hair above (and over) his
> left ear? I've destroyed some of my own work for less.
>
But perhaps if you hadn't, you'd be the next Cezanne. Ahh, Paul, to think of
what one throws away in search of perfection....
> All these things can ofcourse be done wrong for a reason but I don't
> see these errors contributing to the overall picture.
>
Try correcting them in Photoshop and see if there's any improvement :)
BTW, I've always liked Cezanne, particularly his later work where he had
established his technique (and even if some of his work bordered on the
truly absurd - but whose doesn't?). If someone painted like that now and
wanted to establish an art career on that basis, I'd advise against it.
After all, it's been done before. But Cezanne never had to earn his living
painting so it's pretty much a moot point.- we should all be so lucky .
Chris
Mani Deli
>You have chosen your favourite hate.
>But there are a number of self-portraits.
>People who are not familiar might wish to
>check out some of the others:-
>http://www.artchive.com/artchive/C/cezanne/self_1.jpg.html
Very famous.very dull.
>http://www.whyy.org/cezanne/selfpor.html
utterly horrendous
>http://www.exittoart.nl/cezanne/cezanne11.htm
Looks as amateurish as usual. I like the black section.
>http://www.mezzo-mondo.com/arts/mm/cezanne/CEP015.html
many students who never learned anything are better.
>http://www.artprints-on-demand.co.uk/noframes/cezanne/self_portrait_1.htm
Notice the sensitive shape of the body
>http://www.bsu.edu/burris/art/modern/sld010.htm
Back of a napkin stuff.
If any of this stuff weren't signed Cezanne or turned out to be fake,
it would be close to garbage.
>And Mr.Dali :-)
>http://www.revilo-oliver.com/Kevin-Strom-personal/Art/Dali_Self-portrait_1954.html
>http://www.enchantedlearning.com/artists/dali/coloring/self.shtml
>Head & shoulders 1921
>http://www.eyecandy-media.com/dali/selfportrait.htm
>
>Self Portrait with Raphaelesque neck 1920-1
>http://www.eyecandy-media.com/dali/selfraphael.htm
>
>(I think someone has been taking the Mickey here!)
>Self Portrait in the Studio Cadaques 1919
>http://www.angelfire.com/wa/danart98/Paintings.html
>Enjoy
>Thur
Its interesting how little Dali's early work shows in the line of
talent. Its average student. It shows how even after that one can
learn and work hard to produce something worthwhile.
Flobby Bischer
Become famouse and the same sucky works become curiosities.
Chris
A few years back, someone sent me some scans of Bouguereau's sketches. What
impressed me was that the sketches were somewhat awkward & stiff. Not that
they weren't good - they just didn't have that easy gracefulness and
technical mastery one finds in his paintings. If one thinks of sketches as
an estimator of raw talent, and the finished work as a measure of
accomplishment, I think the same thing (as you pointed out about Dali) could
be said about B. So there's hope for us all :)
Cheers;
Chris
Seagull Manager
"Chris" <n...@this.address> wrote in message
news:8DoIa.2467$%91.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> BTW, I've always liked Cezanne
I'm baffled as to how anyone can like Cezanne. Under the influence of the
Impressionists, his paintings improved from being utterly revolting and
sick-making to being merely disgusting and tiresome. He never did a single
good painting in his entire life. He does nothing well: not colour, not
drawing, not anatomy, not imagination, not composition. Nothing. Instead,
they reveal all the faults of every bad Sunday painter who ever lived
combined into a single body of work. He captures neither the ephemeral nor
the permanent. Some critics praise him because his works reveal "struggle".
Yes, that they do. They reveal the struggle of an incompetent painter of
little or no talent who is too stupid and/or impatient to learn.
He split with the Impressionists because they were clearly so much better
than him, and when they were getting their paintings shown in the Salon, he
was still being rejected. Now, there are those who will tell you that the
Salon was highly exclusive. This is fiction. The Salon was one of the most
inclusive large exhibitions ever. For comparison, the Royal Academy Summer
show (generally considered to be one of the most inclusive) exhibits around
7 or 8 percent of submitted works. The Salon exhibited between 30 and 60
percent. Obviously, they wouldn't show a cartoon mocking the Emperor, or any
outright porn, but there wasn't much else that was beyond consideration. If
year after year, you submit to the Salon and you can't get anything shown,
there's something wrong with your work.
Seagull Manager
"Flobby Bischer" <blube...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qItIa.2848$%91.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Early works of about every artist suck. End of story.
It's a matter of degree. Raphael, Velasquez, and Antoon Van Dyck were
producing masterpieces by the time they hit twenty.
Chris
"Seagull Manager" <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote in
message news:bcv5mk$q5l$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "Chris" <n...@this.address> wrote in message
> news:8DoIa.2467$%91.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >
> > BTW, I've always liked Cezanne
>
> I'm baffled as to how anyone can like Cezanne.
Blah blah blah...I enjoy Mani's posts because while he's pretty intolerant
of painter's like Cezanne, he's also usually well grounded in practice &
informed. To say nothing about amusing. But your post reminds me more or
less of the Pope ("it's all about reproduction") writing about sex...
Cheers;
Chris
Mani Deli
<seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Chris" <n...@this.address> wrote in message
>news:8DoIa.2467$%91.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>>
>> BTW, I've always liked Cezanne
Check out my analysis of his "great Bathers." Its very theoretical.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/behind.htm
>I'm baffled as to how anyone can like Cezanne.
He is the father of no-skill-realism.
>Under the influence of the
>Impressionists, his paintings improved from being utterly revolting and
>sick-making to being merely disgusting and tiresome. He never did a single
>good painting in his entire life. He does nothing well: not colour, not
>drawing, not anatomy, not imagination, not composition. Nothing. Instead,
>they reveal all the faults of every bad Sunday painter who ever lived
>combined into a single body of work.
He's worse then that. This is what makes him popular. Even the worst
painter can look at Cezanne and say, "I can do that." Many can. That
is why no-skill-realism is so popular.
>He captures neither the ephemeral nor
>the permanent. Some critics praise him because his works reveal "struggle".
>Yes, that they do. They reveal the struggle of an incompetent painter of
>little or no talent who is too stupid and/or impatient to learn.
>
>He split with the Impressionists because they were clearly so much better
>than him, and when they were getting their paintings shown in the Salon, he
>was still being rejected. Now, there are those who will tell you that the
>Salon was highly exclusive. This is fiction. The Salon was one of the most
>inclusive large exhibitions ever. For comparison, the Royal Academy Summer
>show (generally considered to be one of the most inclusive) exhibits around
>7 or 8 percent of submitted works. The Salon exhibited between 30 and 60
>percent. Obviously, they wouldn't show a cartoon mocking the Emperor, or any
>outright porn, but there wasn't much else that was beyond consideration. If
>year after year, you submit to the Salon and you can't get anything shown,
>there's something wrong with your work.
>
That's too much information for the average artzy fartzy who learned
little more then that the Salon was bad bad bad.
Mani Deli
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/behind.htm
Its one of the most idiotically overrated masterpieces of Modern
Academic Art.
Until an important critic puts the Three Stooges of Modern Academic
Art (Cezanne, Matisse,Picasso) in their proper place, artwork will
continue in the direction of ever greater incompetent stupidity.
>
>"Flobby Bischer" <blube...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:qItIa.2848$%91.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> Early works of about every artist suck. End of story.
>
No, the beginning of story in Cezanne's case.
Chris
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 15:28:35 +0100, "Seagull Manager"
> <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Chris" <n...@this.address> wrote in message
> >news:8DoIa.2467$%91.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >>
> >> BTW, I've always liked Cezanne
>
> Check out my analysis of his "great Bathers." Its very theoretical.
> http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/behind.htm
>
I enjoyed that piece of writing too. I think most arts are taken way too
seriously (which leads to worshipping a Cezanne, rather than just enjoying
it), in the wrong quarters.
>
> That's too much information for the average artzy fartzy who learned
> little more then that the Salon was bad bad bad.
>
I finished Patricia Mainardi's book on the Salon ("The End of the Salon")
recently; I reccommend it. It seems to be quite a fair history of the Salon
(and how it became a political football, and eventually disappeared)..
Cheers;
Chris
Marc Sabatella
wrote:
> I'm baffled as to how anyone can like Cezanne. Under the influence of
the
> Impressionists, his paintings improved from being utterly revolting
and
> sick-making to being merely disgusting and tiresome. He never did a
single
> good painting in his entire life. He does nothing well: not colour,
not
> drawing, not anatomy, not imagination, not composition.
You are under the extremely mistaken impression that these traits can be
judged objectively, and under the even more misguided assumption that if
they could be judged objectively, that your opinions, rather than those
of people who like Cezanne, would happen to represent Truth. As it is,
people like Cezanne precisely because they disagree with your subjective
assessments. Also because not everyone considers anatomy drawing skills
to be particularly relevant to this type of art. Might as well rate
paintings according to size. What is important in art is whether
something is interesting to look at, and "interesting" is of course
subjective.
> If
> year after year, you submit to the Salon and you can't get anything
shown,
> there's something wrong with your work.
Or, your art is consistently of a style not in favor with the Salon
traditonalists.
It amazes me the number of people who are so convinced that their
subjective opinion about art represents Truth, and thatthey are somehow
"right" for liking and disliking what they do, and everyone else is
somehow "wrong". What arrogance this requires!
Seagull Manager
"Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote in message
news:nvHIa.40$YS1....@news.uswest.net...
> "Seagull Manager" <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > [Cezanne] does nothing well: not colour, not
> > drawing, not anatomy, not imagination, not composition.
>
> You are under the extremely mistaken impression that these traits can be
> judged objectively, and under the even more misguided assumption that if
> they could be judged objectively, that your opinions, rather than those
> of people who like Cezanne, would happen to represent Truth.
You can choose to like Cezanne, but you cannot like him on the basis that he
uses colour well (he does not: his colours correspond to what most people
would consider ugly - all drab, greyish blues, murky greens and browns), or
that he draws well (he does not: all his drawing shows what are normally
considered to be beginner's errors), or that his work is imaginative (it is
not: all his paintings are either conventionally-composed still-lifes,
portraits or landscapes, or they are crude parodies of the works of
Delacroix, Courbet, Bouguereau, or Poussin, treating the same subjects in
the same basic way, except with rough drawing, muddy colour, and scratchy
paint-handling), or that his work is charming (it is not: his portraits
subjects always look as if they are about to die of boredom), or sexy (it is
not: you'd have to be a pervert to find his nudes attractive), or luminous
(it is not: the light in his paintings is invariably flat and
directionless).
So, sure, you can SUBJECTIVELY find Cezanne's paintings wonderful and
beautiful and delightful, but you cannot do so for the usual reasons that
people have for liking paintings.
> Also because not everyone considers anatomy drawing skills
> to be particularly relevant to this type of art.
What type of art? What type of art is it? It is nothing but perfectly
conservative landscapes, portraits, still-lifes, and academic-style figure
compositions done extremely badly.
Do you have a name for that type of art? Go on, tell me! What is it? It
doesn't have a name! Cezanne is called a Post-Impressionist because, even
though he was older than most of the Impressionists, and he exhibited with
them (but failed to sell because even the trendy types who bought
Impressionist work would not buy his ugly shit), he didn't make any impact a
generation later. Now, what kind of label is "Post-Impressionism"? Is that a
TYPE of art? All it says is that the work came after Impressionism. It's
arguably not even historically accurate when applied to Cezanne.
> Might as well rate paintings according to size.
No need. The Abstract Expressionists did that.
> "interesting" is of course subjective.
Up to a point.
Lots of people like to praise Cezanne; not many actually like to look at his
paintings. I was intrigued a few years ago to read in a Cezanne catalogue
written by a specialist an admission that, like many who are interested in
19th century painting, he found Cezanne's paintings "hard to look at".
> > If
> > year after year, you submit to the Salon and you can't get anything
> shown,
> > there's something wrong with your work.
>
> Or, your art is consistently of a style not in favor with the Salon
> traditonalists.
What makes you think the Salon judges were such absolute traditionalists?
They showed that weirdo Moreau, didn't they? They showed Manet, didn't they?
They showed Monet, Degas and Renoir, didn't they? Or maybe you didn't know
that.
> It amazes me the number of people who are so convinced that their
> subjective opinion about art represents Truth
To anyone who considers Cezanne to be a great painter: I put it to you that
your subjective opinion that Cezanne is a great painter is based on nothing
but dogma. Can you persuade me that I'm wrong? Can you show me something in
the paintings that you like, and that surpasses what you find in most other
painters?
Paul Mesken
Yes, in "Pictures for the American people" some early paintings of
Norman Rockwell (not even twenty) were shown, they looked quite stiff.
Even though they were not bad they didn't have that "spark of life" in
them of his later works.
I think it's good to see that even the greatest of artists didn't
start out great. People all to often say it's all about talent (which
is supposed to be an innate quality) and never start drawing or
painting simply because they can't do it as well as the great artists.
Such pictures like that of Dali and Rockwell show the Great Ones had
to learn it as well.
Erik A. Mattila
> So, sure, you can SUBJECTIVELY find Cezanne's paintings wonderful and
> beautiful and delightful, but you cannot do so for the usual reasons that
> people have for liking paintings.
I grant that you're are the Prince of the Passive Voice (and other
clever devices that try to obscure ignernce), but you can't talk about
these "usual reasons" without giving us at least a litany of these
"reasons." I'm sure I am among many people who foolishly believe that
people like paintings for subjective reasons instead of "usual reasons".
At least that's how I interpret:
"I don't know anything about art, but I know what I like!"
Also, evaluating tight-assed descriptive rendering superior to abstract
expressionism is also subjective. Or it seems to me to be so. If you
approach art, or life, by arranging allegorical hierarchies of best and
worse then you are simply expressing your insecurity and/or anality,
which is quite subjective. Objective criteria, on the other hand, is
also an absurd method of constructing authoritarian typologies. Let's
see, the "best" art is that which took the longes to make. No, the
"best" art is that which has the brightest colors. Heavens no, the
"best" art is that which shows plates with fruit."
Erik
Marc Sabatella
> To suggest that all opinion on art is subjective allows you
> to get away with anything at all.
What do you mean by "get away with"? If you mean, I am entitled to hold
whatever opinion I like about what art I like, then I agree.
> If you truly think so, then how can you judge that my
> work is either better or worse than Cezanne?
Once you accept that aesthetics are subjective, it ceases to make sense
to even try to evaluate which of you is "better".
Now, that doesn't mean there is nothing worth discussing in aesthetics.
But it does require people engaging in such a discussion to have similar
views on which traits are important in art. For instance, there is
absolutely no way for me to respond to criticisms of Cezanne based on
his mastery of foreshortening, because that simply has no relevance in
how I appreciate his art. But, if we are talking about an artist where
my appreciation is based in part on their handling of anatomy, then it
can make sense to discuss this.
Furthermore, within certain circles, one can use consensus of generally
like-minded people and use this as a yardstick that has objectivity.
For instance, it is quite likely that if a collection of critics with an
interest in this type of art were to evaluate your work against
Cezanne's, there would be consensus as to which was "better" (meaning,
preferably to the critic in question. And if we understand how a
particular group of people tends to view art, we can even predict this
reasonably well. For example, if I saw your work, I could probably make
a good guess as to which of you a panel of critics who favor
impressionist and post-impressionist art would prefer. But show the
same works to a group of Salon judges, or a group of cavemen, or a group
of Japanese printmakers, or the members of a local experimental art
co-op, and you'll probably get different answers. Each group might be,
to some extent, internally consistent in their assessment, but since
their worldviews differ, so will the consensuses (consensi?) they
develop.
> When making a comparison between different works, even between work of
the
> same painter, then an objective judgement is made.
The only objective judgements you can make regarding a work as a whole
are dimensions and weight. Now, we can to *some* extent make objective
judgements about various particular aspects of a piece of art - in some
cases, one can objectively say that painting A has more correct
perspective than B. Although in other cases, even a judgement like that
will end up being subjective. Most paintings, for example, will contain
some errors in perspective or proportion, and if painting A has errors
in the length of one side of one window and the angle between the hubs
of the wheels of a bicycle, and another had errors in the width of an
alley and relative heights of two trees, who is to say which is "worse"?
But in any case, even given that in some cases, there would be almost
complete consensus that the perspective of one painting was better than
another, there will not be the same consensus on how important that is
in evaluating the painting as a whole. One critic might rate
perspective much higher than color harmony and composition, another
might color harmony the most important, and another still might say
composition. Others, of course, will have their own personal
yardsticks.
> If you like one painting
> more than another, you will still have to refer to them
> all, otherwise one piece of crap being slightly better
> than another is called art.
I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
> When deciding what to hang in the Salon, which gallery to
> go to, what bus to ride on, you have to come off the fence
> and decide.
Of course. But you don't have to fool yourself into thinking your
opinion of what you like is anything resembling an objective statement
about which is good.
Marc Sabatella
wrote:
> You can choose to like Cezanne, but you cannot like him on the basis
that he
> uses colour well
Who are you to tell me what I can or cannot like?
> (he does not: his colours correspond to what most people
> would consider ugly - all drab, greyish blues, murky greens and
browns)
Some people *like* this. And your characterization of his colors
applies only to some of his paintings. Would you say that, for
instance, about his watercolor landscapes? But for what it's worth, I
find his color to be serviceable, but not the main reason I enjoy his
art.
> or that his work is imaginative (it is
> not: all his paintings are either conventionally-composed still-lifes,
> portraits or landscapes
Treated in an almost revolutionarily imaginative way - the way he
reduced scenes to almost abstract yet still completely recognizable
forms was practically without precedent, and even when compared to his
followers, he still was one of the best at this. This is by far the
most important factor to me in considering Cezanne one of the all-time
great masters of art.
> or that his work is charming (it is not: his portraits
> subjects always look as if they are about to die of boredom)
Some may find this charming. But in my case, it is his landscapes and
still lifes that do it for me.
> So, sure, you can SUBJECTIVELY find Cezanne's paintings wonderful and
> beautiful and delightful, but you cannot do so for the usual reasons
that
> people have for liking paintings.
Usual, schmusual. And furthermore, you cannot objectively prove any of
the assertions you made about his art - virtually all of the individual
traits you mentioned are subjective in nature.
> > Also because not everyone considers anatomy drawing skills
> > to be particularly relevant to this type of art.
>
> What type of art?
The type of art that seeks to be evaluated on terms other than anatomy
drawing skills, for one thing.
> Do you have a name for that type of art?
I fail to see the relevance of whether or not I can put a name on
something. I have no problem with the general term "post-impressionism"
to describe it, but obviously, it is almost uselessly vague. Almost,
but not quite, as it does carry the above connotation.
> he didn't make any impact a
> generation later.
This much is objectively false. Many, many artists were profoundly
influenced by Cezanne and those he in turn influenced.
> Now, what kind of label is "Post-Impressionism"?
Who cares? What matters is the art, not the label.
> Lots of people like to praise Cezanne; not many actually like to look
at his
> paintings. I was intrigued a few years ago to read in a Cezanne
catalogue
> written by a specialist an admission that, like many who are
interested in
> 19th century painting, he found Cezanne's paintings "hard to look at".
Whatever. Did he say why? Perhaps because they were too powerful?
> > Or, your art is consistently of a style not in favor with the Salon
> > traditonalists.
>
> What makes you think the Salon judges were such absolute
traditionalists?
> They showed that weirdo Moreau, didn't they? They showed Manet, didn't
they?
> They showed Monet, Degas and Renoir, didn't they? Or maybe you didn't
know
> that.
I did know that. I also know most of these artists were rejected quite
often as well. And in any case, it should have gone without saying that
"traditionalist" could well mean, art that pushes boundaries as far as
the Impressionist were pushing them (in their more conservative moments,
in many cases), but were unwilling to accept art as radical as
Cezanne's.
> To anyone who considers Cezanne to be a great painter: I put it to
you that
> your subjective opinion that Cezanne is a great painter is based on
nothing
> but dogma. Can you persuade me that I'm wrong?
I have no idea whether or not I can persuade you, but I am absolutely
certain that my perception of Cezanne's greatness is not based on dogma.
It may have been conventional wisdom that introduced me to his art,
along with many other artists who are conisdered great by critics, but I
make my own judgements about which *I* consider great.
> Can you show me something in
> the paintings that you like, and that surpasses what you find in most
other
> painters?
I believe I did that above.
Sandy
If I'm allowed that is. You do seem like quite the steamroller, which
is sad, because some of your thoughts are very interesting.
In my opinion, if I'm allowed, Cezanne helped to move art down the
timeline to a new way of seeing things. The father of expressionism or
cubism if you will, it inspired those that followed, and this is what
cannonizes him.
It's the timeline of art, and how it changes, and what we see and how
it helps humanity become more human and to understand more that is the
river that carries me at least, my heart, to greater understanding and
enjoyment of art and life.
Seagull, I'd love to see some of your work, assuming that you are an
artist, to see if you have helped the timeline of art progress, or
helped anyone see things in a new way.
Sadly, your agression, assumptions, and judements all get in the way
and I've only been around here for a few days and have found you to be
a bitter dominatrix. I hope I'm wrong and that I just got off on the
wrong foot with you based on the repeated tones I keep finding in your
posts.
I honestly, honestly, have never met an artist who had that attitude.
The only people I've ever come across with such attitudes were those
who were not artists, but who judged artists.
Just an observation.
Flying_Naked_People
bluesa...@yahoo.com says...
> At the risk of pulling your chain, I respectfully disagree with you.
> If I'm allowed that is. You do seem like quite the steamroller, which
> is sad, because some of your thoughts are very interesting.
>
> In my opinion, if I'm allowed, Cezanne helped to move art down the
> timeline to a new way of seeing things. The father of expressionism or
> cubism if you will, it inspired those that followed, and this is what
> cannonizes him.
I agree with the intentions of your statement, but Cezanne was not a father of
either of these styles. Please remember that art's "timeline" did not begin,
nor will it finish on the European continent.
> It's the timeline of art, and how it changes, and what we see and how
> it helps humanity become more human and to understand more that is the
> river that carries me at least, my heart, to greater understanding and
> enjoyment of art and life.
>
> Seagull, I'd love to see some of your work, assuming that you are an
> artist, to see if you have helped the timeline of art progress, or
> helped anyone see things in a new way.
A wonderful cause!
> Sadly, your agression, assumptions, and judements all get in the way
> and I've only been around here for a few days and have found you to be
> a bitter dominatrix. I hope I'm wrong and that I just got off on the
> wrong foot with you based on the repeated tones I keep finding in your
> posts.
>
> I honestly, honestly, have never met an artist who had that attitude.
> The only people I've ever come across with such attitudes were those
> who were not artists, but who judged artists.
Haven't met Mani?
> Just an observation.
>
Mani Deli
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
> If you
>approach art, or life, by arranging allegorical hierarchies of best and
>worse then you are simply expressing your insecurity and/or anality,
>which is quite subjective.
I suppose that comparing artwork is a no-no for you.
> Objective criteria, on the other hand, is
>also an absurd method of constructing .
"authoritarian typologies" really?
> Let's
>see, the "best" art is that which took the longes to make. No, the
>"best" art is that which has the brightest colors. Heavens no, the
>"best" art is that which shows plates with fruit."
>
I guess you believe that all artwork has the same value. All
drawings are equally fine, all artwork has good color, all artwork is
equally good and we can't compare one work to another. And anyone who
says that he finds an artwork abominable and states his reasons
exhibits " insecurity and/or anality."
I think your logic is rather stupid.
Mani Deli
<ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>Treated in an almost revolutionarily imaginative way - the way he
>reduced scenes to almost abstract yet still completely recognizable
>forms was practically without precedent, and even when compared to his
>followers,
Little kiddies can do this.
>
>Some may find this charming. But in my case, it is his landscapes and
>still lifes that do it for me.
>
>> So, sure, you can SUBJECTIVELY find Cezanne's paintings wonderful and
>> beautiful and delightful, but you cannot do so for the usual reasons
>that
>> people have for liking paintings.
>
>Usual, schmusual. And furthermore, you cannot objectively prove any of
>the assertions you made about his art
No one including you can prove any statement about one's feelings
about artwork. Technique is another matter.
>- virtually all of the individual
>traits you mentioned are subjective in nature.
If you say he didn't know anatomy and perspective and one can show
this then its not strictly subjective.
>
>> > Also because not everyone considers anatomy drawing skills
>> > to be particularly relevant to this type of art.
>>
>> What type of art?
>
>The type of art that seeks to be evaluated on terms other than anatomy
>drawing skills, for one thing.
>
>> he didn't make any impact a
>> generation later.
>Whatever. Did he say why? Perhaps because they were too powerful?
powerfully incompetent.
>Music, art, & educational materials:
>http://www.outsideshore.com/
The quality of your artwork shows why Cezanne makes you feel good.
I suggest you study Kinkade to see what you are missing. Also, learn
to draw.
Thur
> "Thur" <a@spamless.z> wrote:
>
>snipped
> Marc Sabatella
> ma...@outsideshore.com
>
> The Outside Shore
> Music, art, & educational materials:
> http://www.outsideshore.com/
x-no-archive: yes
"get away with" as in saying a blank canvas or
a piece of driftwood or my granddaughters vomit
on my shirt is art.
My meaning is that there are some basic assumptions
that we can share.
If you challenge me here and unfurl the flag of the "anything
is art" brigade, then as in other threads we can get nowhere.
If you accept for example that some artists produce art that
is technically poor, and for no aesthetic reasons, then we
can use this together as one very small common value.
An example of technically poor, and possibly deliberately
so, because it is so poor.
http://www.abcgallery.com/M/matisse/matisse25.html
http://www.abcgallery.com/M/matisse/matisse148.html
I understand that rough brushstrokes can be used to convey
something in an Impressionist way, but he simply fills in
spaces with a large brush, and without any care.
There are other technical elements which if undertaken by
the artist can be weighed and judged next to other works.
The fact that other cultures such as the Japanese and the
Chinese painting may well look at Western Art in a different
way, dos not stop us judging Western Art.
"one piece of crap being better than another"
I think you know that if we look at two very poor works,
then we can say one of them is better. If we have no objectivity,
then we might wrongly say the better one is great.
e.g
If we make a subjective judgement, we can make it between
two works of schoolchildren. One may well be much better
than the other. If we are made to make a more objective judgement,
then we must refer to our knowledge of the standard of children's
art. Both might be poor, or might be very good.
Again, we would not normally try to place them against the great
works of art, because we can truly and objectively say they are
not great works in comparison.
Similarly if we narrowly look at Matisse, we might say look at this
one, he seems to have tried a little better with this one, but that
would not help us to make a more objective assessment, using
our knowledge of Western Art.
We cannot say if his works are crap or great without this.
And whether work is great or not is at the centre of our interest.
Just to get a tiny feeling of pleasure from a couple of colours
could be done at home with a colouring book.
We Want to judge.
That is why we go to galleries, or at least the main part.
The whole idea that because some prefer some types of works
to others can be used to say everything is subjective is wrong.
To conform with this, you could not indicate to me an artist's
work that was poor, because you say someone else might say
it is good.
That is, we can all accept that some art is good art, even if we dont
prefer it.
In fact, all the posts I read on this ng and elsewhere conforms
to this consistently.
How can you defend say Pollock without admitting there is a way to
defend him?
How can we say Raphael is great if we are only expressing
a personal taste?
It is time to stand up and say that somethings are true for an art
that is not degenerate.
If there are no standards at all, then that is degenerate.
But then as they say, art reflects the culture from which it springs.
Thur
"Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote in message
news:HiMIa.309$YS1.1...@news.uswest.net...
> "Thur" <a@spamless.z> wrote:
>
>snipped
gerberk
>
> >
And they can't do a Cobra or a De Kooning or a Rothko either.
And if a kid would paint a George Baselitz that would be very very strange
indeed.
Art has a way of disturbing people .Isn't that wonderful
regards
Mani Deli
><ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>
> the way he
>>reduced scenes to almost abstract yet still completely recognizable
>>forms was practically without precedent, and even when compared to his
>>followers,
>
Little kiddies can do this.
Mani Deli
>http://www.abcgallery.com/M/matisse/matisse148.html
Man, this stuff is really stupid. Lets hope all artzy fartzies here
get out their camera obscruras and copy these masterpieces.
Marc Sabatella
> > The father of expressionism or
> > cubism if you will, it inspired those that followed, and this is
what
> > cannonizes him.
>
> I agree with the intentions of your statement, but Cezanne was not a
father of
> either of these styles. Please remember that art's "timeline" did not
begin,
> nor will it finish on the European continent.
This is true - but the non-Western art that shares characteristics with
expressionism and cubism did not necessarily influence it directly. It
doesn't matter if someone else did something similar earlier in a
completely different tradition; the cubists and expressionists were
responding primarily to Cezanne, not this other art.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
> >Treated in an almost revolutionarily imaginative way - the way he
> >reduced scenes to almost abstract yet still completely recognizable
> >forms was practically without precedent, and even when compared to
his
> >followers,
>
> Little kiddies can do this.
They can do something that can be described with a similar sentence.
They can't do it in a way that will move large numbers of art patrons
and critics.
> No one including you can prove any statement about one's feelings
> about artwork. Technique is another matter.
It is partially another matter, but only if you first narrowly define
technique to only include those aspects of technique *you* happen to
value.
> >- virtually all of the individual
> >traits you mentioned are subjective in nature.
>
> If you say he didn't know anatomy and perspective and one can show
> this then its not strictly subjective.
These weren't the traits I was referring to. They were things like
"imagination", "color sense", "charm", etc.
> The quality of your artwork shows why Cezanne makes you feel good.
Indeed - because he is one of the masters whose work brings me joy,
makes me interested in painting.
> I suggest you study Kinkade to see what you are missing.
Thanks, but I have no use for Kinkade - I already have a brand of kitty
litter I am happy with.
> Also, learn
> to draw.
While there is always room for improvement, my drawing skills are mostly
sufficient to produce the results I wish to produce. The area I think I
need most work in is in controlling value to convey certain types of
light.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
The Outside Shore
Marc Sabatella
> "get away with" as in saying a blank canvas or
> a piece of driftwood or my granddaughters vomit
> on my shirt is art.
Well, what stops you from saying that? It isn't necessarily art anyone
is going to like - or maybe it will be.
> My meaning is that there are some basic assumptions
> that we can share.
There are indeed basic assumptions shared by certain groups of people.
But quite obviously, they aren't universal, or else we'd all agree on
the relative merits of Cezanne and Kinkade.
> If you accept for example that some artists produce art that
> is technically poor
I agree that some artists produce art that does not meet the standards
of the types of technique you happen to value. This is still not the
same as being technically poor in any objective sense.
> I think you know that if we look at two very poor works,
> then we can say one of them is better. If we have no objectivity,
> then we might wrongly say the better one is great.
You don't get it. If there is no such thing as objectivity in
aesthetics, then there is no such thing as great. You are wrong to say
*anything* is great if you think you are making anything but a
subjective judgement about it. You might be able to make a judgement
that a large number of people with similar tastes will agree on, but
that isn't the same as being objective.
> We cannot say if his works are crap or great without this.
We cannot say if they are great or crap, period. All we can say is
whether we like them personally, and whether we believe they have the
attributes that would make them appeal to a given segment of the
population.
> To conform with this, you could not indicate to me an artist's
> work that was poor, because you say someone else might say
> it is good.
Precisely. And that is exactly what is happening here, as people
disagree widely on the merits of Cezanne and Kinkade.
> How can we say Raphael is great if we are only expressing
> a personal taste?
We can also make educated guesses as to how others will respond, based
on what we know of their tastes.
--------------
Seagull Manager
Flying_Naked_People
says...
> "Flying_Naked_People" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl> wrote:
> > I agree with the intentions of your statement, but Cezanne was not a
> father of
> > either of these styles. Please remember that art's "timeline" did not
> begin,
> > nor will it finish on the European continent.
>
> This is true - but the non-Western art that shares characteristics with
> expressionism and cubism did not necessarily influence it directly. It
> doesn't matter if someone else did something similar earlier in a
> completely different tradition; the cubists and expressionists were
> responding primarily to Cezanne, not this other art.
Are you aware that Picasso admitted to getting the "idea" for cubism from
African art?
"Modern European art movements such as cubism and expressionism have drawn
strongly on African art. The abstract character of African art inspired early
modern painters such as Pablo Picasso and Henry Moore. Picasso first denied
and later admitted the powerful influence which African art had on him.
African art also inspired many 20th-century American artists including Meta
Warrick Fuller and Martin Puryear. In the 1990s American artist Renée Stout
based her sculptures on figures created by the Kongo people of central Africa.
"
http://www.a-piece-of-africa.com/h9.htm
This little fact is in almost *all* art history books.
And I have never seen anything done by Cezanne that would indicate he
"invented" cubism. From an objective point of view, I think Cezanne's
attribution to cubism is mere projection from some uninformed (or paid)
critic/historian. All I've seen by this artist are poorly done paintings.
Seagull Manager
> "Flying_Naked_People" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl> wrote:
>
> This is true - but the non-Western art that shares characteristics with
> expressionism and cubism did not necessarily influence it directly.
Yes, it did. Primitivism in Western art - both the idea and the form it
took - was powerfully informed by exposure to African and Oceanic art
brought back during the building of Empire.
Many primitivists collected such art (Derain is a fine example), and some
based their work directly on it. This applies to both sculptors and
painters. Even when paintings weren't directly copied from such art,
theories developed to account for the aesthetics of "primitive"/"tribal" art
found application as justifications for Western abstractionism. All
ambitious modernists knew that it was smart to study tribal art, and to
absorb overt influences from it. We need hardly mention Picasso's "Les
Demoiselles D'Avignon". Even Jackson Pollock was astute enough to make
ostentatious efforts to incorporate Native American motifs into his work
(pre drip-paintings), and even to use Native American rituals and art
practices as a way to justify his drip-paintings.
Some of the abstractionism that one could say wasn't based on tribal art
would be that of Kandinsky and the later, more totally abstract work of
Mondriaan. The thinking behind this stuff was mostly rooted in Theosophy -
which is an Orientalist sect (and thus arguably represents a different kind
of primitivism).
Seagull Manager
> "Thur" <a@spamless.z> wrote:
>
> But in any case, even given that in some cases, there would be almost
> complete consensus that the perspective of one painting was better than
> another, there will not be the same consensus on how important that is
> in evaluating the painting as a whole. One critic might rate
> perspective much higher than color harmony and composition, another
> might color harmony the most important, and another still might say
> composition.
Quite so. And Cezanne fails on perspective, colour, composition and a host
of other criteria that are usually used for assessing paintings. A very wide
range of critics would fail Cezanne, because he fails in a very wide range
of ways, even though all these critics may assign differing subjective
degrees of importance to various aesthetic values.
> Others, of course, will have their own personal
> yardsticks.
Obviously so, or no-one at all would say that Cezanne's paintings are any
good. By all the usual yardsticks, Cezanne's paintings are bad. People who
claim his paintings are good must be using novel yardsticks distinct from
colour, harmony, composition, perspective, anatomy...
The problem is to discover what yardsticks those who claim to admire Cezanne
are using. This is very hard.
Nikolaus Maack
> And I have never seen anything done by Cezanne that would indicate he
> "invented" cubism. From an objective point of view, I think Cezanne's
> attribution to cubism is mere projection from some uninformed (or paid)
> critic/historian. All I've seen by this artist are poorly done paintings.
That means there's hope for the rest of us.
Erik A. Mattila
Mani Deli wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:33:17 -0700, "Erik A. Mattila"
> <emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>
>> If you
>>approach art, or life, by arranging allegorical hierarchies of best and
>>worse then you are simply expressing your insecurity and/or anality,
>>which is quite subjective.
>
>
> I suppose that comparing artwork is a no-no for you.
>
>
>>Objective criteria, on the other hand, is
>>also an absurd method of constructing .
>
>
> "authoritarian typologies" really?
>
>
>>Let's
>>see, the "best" art is that which took the longes to make. No, the
>>"best" art is that which has the brightest colors. Heavens no, the
>>"best" art is that which shows plates with fruit."
>>
>
> I guess you believe that all artwork has the same value. All
> drawings are equally fine, all artwork has good color, all artwork is
> equally good and we can't compare one work to another. And anyone who
> says that he finds an artwork abominable and states his reasons
> exhibits " insecurity and/or anality."
>
> I think your logic is rather stupid.
Logic either "is" or "isn't," fart-face. Personally, I have all sorts
of favorites. The issue is whether or not I would argue that one
painting was "superior" and another "inferior" on that basis. I think
that is rather silly.
Stupid