Cezanne challenge
Mani Deli
"Bathers." You can read my illustrated criticism and praise of his
brilliant invention on my web page illustrated with some details
under the title, "behind the behind."
Tell us about the great
draftsmanship in "Card-players, Especially the hands and the drapery
and the brilliant color of the table cloth and the well fitted hat on
the conehead on the left.
In reference to his 1880 Self-portrait. Tell us about the
drawing and color in the jacket and why the eyes stare in two
directions. Also don't fail to tell us about the marvelous depth and
color in the background.
...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/
Marc Sabatella
> Tell us what's great the fabulous draftsmanship in his conformist
> "Bathers."
Why would we want to discuss the draftsmanship of Cezanne when that
misses the whole point? Might as well challenge you to tell us what's
great about the scratch-and-sniff aspect of the work of whatever artist
you might want to choose.
> Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities
I am sorry you lack the ability to "decipher" modern art, but I assure
you, others succeed just fine.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
The Outside Shore
Music, art, & educational materials:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Thur
I have extracted this from another of your posts:-
> Again, your opinion is not Truth. It is just opinion.
>And no amount of insisting can make
>anyone else hold the same opinion as you.
and I want to put it against this post:-
> I am sorry you lack the ability to "decipher" modern art, but I assure
> you, others succeed just fine.
>
If there is a decipherment, then there is a key.
There may be a number of keys, but not a number
of decipherments.
Or to put it more practically, if there is something that is hidden in
a work of art, and that can be uncovered by thought, experience,
and education, or even by reading a book written by the artist,
then this is contrary to your take upon art comprehension being
subjective.
That is to say we all divided into individual subjective judgements
when we say "I preferred his earlier Rose period", or "I like still-lifes
for
my lounge, and Dutch maritimes for my hall"
Or "I like Cezanne" without any qualification.
When "I do not like Cezanne because" ....followed by detail and
argument based upon strong references, practical judgement
on such as techniques, then this is something stronger in substance
than the fanciful examples of subjectivity.
You are being elusive, and slippery quite successfully, which says
a lot for your superficial cleverness, but it does not support your
posts when grouped together.
You are not ploughing a new furrow here. Most of the arguments
made in such fashion here deteriorate into the meaning of a word,
which allows someone to escape from the original base of the
thread.
If you wish to continue to defend a group of opinions such as those
about Cezanne, then you must do more than defend the right to
have an opinion?
The suspicion is that when forced into the 'open' and when dealing with
the detail, that your opinion might be based on little except faith.
And my suspicion extends to most of the similar opinions about
most 20th Century art.
Thur
"Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote in message
news:ARRJa.399$Hs2.2...@news.uswest.net...
Mani Deli
<ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> Tell us what's great the fabulous draftsmanship in his conformist
>> "Bathers."
>
>Why would we want to discuss the draftsmanship of Cezanne when that
>misses the whole point?
So what is the point.
> Might as well challenge you to tell us what's
>great about the scratch-and-sniff aspect of the work of whatever artist
>you might want to choose.
>
So Cezanne can't draw, has lousy painting technique, doesn't know
perspective, the form looks flat and his ideas about subject matter
are conventional and nobody should discuss this.
You might as well tell us what was great about Cezannes farts.
And you forgot to tell us about the great draftsmanship in
"Card-players, Especially the hands and the drapery and the novel
color of the table cloth and the well fitted hat on the conehead on
the left.
And in reference to his 1880 Self-portrait. Tell us why the
drawing and color in the jacket and why the eyes stare in two
directions. Also don't fail to tell us about the marvelous depth and
color in the background.
>> Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities
>
>I am sorry you lack the ability to "decipher" modern art, but I assure
>you, others succeed just fine.
Do take a look at Marc Sabatella's site at
http://www.outsideshore.com/
You will see how far he's gotten with his decipherment of modern art.
I've seen better Hong Kong stuff in the dollar store. If he studies
Cezanne for five more years and applied himself he might get to be a
15th rate Kinkade.
Lets hope he has lots of students. The more people out there who
don't know their craft the more work for those who do. I'm not at all
sorry that you don't know you craft. Stick to plucking guitars.
Marc Sabatella
> If there is a decipherment, then there is a key.
> There may be a number of keys, but not a number
> of decipherments.
> Or to put it more practically, if there is something that is hidden in
> a work of art, and that can be uncovered by thought, experience,
> and education, or even by reading a book written by the artist,
> then this is contrary to your take upon art comprehension being
> subjective.
I didn't say art *comprehension* was subjective. I was not talking
about whether a piece of art could be "understood"; I was talking about
whether or not it is "good". Yes, there are individual traits in a
painting that can be understood more or less objectively - perspective,
for example. Or whatever "keys" might help someone understand a given
non-realist work. Whether or not one *likes* that painting is a
completely different matter, and that is subjective.
> When "I do not like Cezanne because" ....followed by detail and
> argument based upon strong references, practical judgement
> on such as techniques, then this is something stronger in substance
> than the fanciful examples of subjectivity.
True enough, but you cannot make from leap from "I do not Cezanne
because..." to "Cezanne is objectively bad because...". There is simply
no basis for such a leap.
> You are being elusive, and slippery quite successfully, which says
> a lot for your superficial cleverness, but it does not support your
> posts when grouped together.
I am being quite consistent, actually.
> If you wish to continue to defend a group of opinions such as those
> about Cezanne, then you must do more than defend the right to
> have an opinion?
Well, I've also given my reasons for holding that opinion, just as
others have given reasons for their opinion of not liking him. This is
all well and good. The difference is, I am not arrogant enough to claim
that because *I* like him, that everyone else should also, or they are
stupid for not liking him. I don't care if someone else likes Cezanne.
i do care that the folks who do like him are not called stupid for doing
so.
Marc Sabatella
> >Why would we want to discuss the draftsmanship of Cezanne when that
> >misses the whole point?
>
> So what is the point.
All of the qualities I have discussed throughout this thread.
> So Cezanne can't draw, has lousy painting technique, doesn't know
> perspective, the form looks flat and his ideas about subject matter
> are conventional and nobody should discuss this.
You can discuss these opinions all you want, just as you can discuss his
weight or net worth. That doesn't make these factors relevant to his
art. Nor does it make it true that he "can't draw" or has "lousy
painting technique" - he does not draw *realistically", but this is not
the same as not being able to draw. Likewise, his painting technique is
not the same as that of the artists you admire, but that doesn't make it
lousy. The flat forms are precisely the look he was going for, so his
drawing and paintings must have been successful in conveying what he
wished to convey.
> And you forgot to tell us about the great draftsmanship in
> "Card-players...
No, I already said these thiungs are irrelevant. Might as well ask why
the canvas was rectangular, as if that were bad also.
> If he studies
> Cezanne for five more years and applied himself he might get to be a
> 15th rate Kinkade.
I can't imagine being inept enough that sutdying Cezanne would make
one's art look even remotely like Kinkade's. I am trying to go in the
opposite direction, so if I ended up a first rate Kinkade, I would be a
dimsal failure.
Andrew D
<ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> >Why would we want to discuss the draftsmanship of Cezanne when that
>> >misses the whole point?
>>
>> So what is the point.
>
>All of the qualities I have discussed throughout this thread.
>
>> So Cezanne can't draw, has lousy painting technique, doesn't know
>> perspective, the form looks flat and his ideas about subject matter
>> are conventional and nobody should discuss this.
>
>You can discuss these opinions all you want, just as you can discuss his
>weight or net worth. That doesn't make these factors relevant to his
>art. Nor does it make it true that he "can't draw" or has "lousy
>painting technique" - he does not draw *realistically", but this is not
>the same as not being able to draw.
So, everyone can draw, everyone is an artist and since there is apparently
no criteria by which drawing ability can be assessed, everyone is equally
good at art and therefore Cezanne was nothing special and doesn't deserve
to be held up as a master....?!? Is this your point?
> Likewise, his painting technique is
>not the same as that of the artists you admire, but that doesn't make it
>lousy. The flat forms are precisely the look he was going for,
How do you know this?
In case you're unaware, I am not a world famous golfer. No one would ever
say "there goes Andy, he's on eof the best golfers the world has seen".
This is probably because I can't hit a golf ball to save my life. When I
fail to hit a golf ball, I blame my lousy technique. I don't defend my
inability by telling people I choose to play golf my own way. I wonder if
I would become the "world's best golfer" if I claimed that I play
differently to others by choice?
> so his
>drawing and paintings must have been successful in conveying what he
>wished to convey.
Then explain what he was conveying.
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Marc Sabatella
> >You can discuss these opinions all you want, just as you can discuss
his
> >weight or net worth. That doesn't make these factors relevant to his
> >art. Nor does it make it true that he "can't draw" or has "lousy
> >painting technique" - he does not draw *realistically", but this is
not
> >the same as not being able to draw.
>
> So, everyone can draw, everyone is an artist and since there is
apparently
> no criteria by which drawing ability can be assessed, everyone is
equally
> good at art
None of this is what I said. If you choose to define "drawing ability"
as ability to draw realistically, clearly, some do better than others.
The same is true if you define "drawing ability" as ability to draw in a
way that pleases people not particularly interested in realism for its
own sake - some will do better than others, and it won't be the same
sets of people as under the first definition. The same is true of any
of these other measures. What does it mean to be "good" at art? If it
means, able to please Mani, then clearly, some will do better than
others. If it means, able to please me, then again, some will do better
than others - and it won't be the same artists rated "good" by both
measures.
> and therefore Cezanne was nothing special and doesn't deserve
> to be held up as a master....?!?
I readily agree there is no objective sense by which he, or anyone else,
can be considered great. Greatness is a subjective quality. However,
it is still worth noting and discussing when a large number of
relatively like minded people agree on an assessment, and this is true
the assessment of Cezanne as great. Does that actually make him great?
Not in the eyes of those who disagree, obviously.
> The flat forms are precisely the look he was going for,
>
> How do you know this?
His writings.
> In case you're unaware, I am not a world famous golfer. No one would
ever
> say "there goes Andy, he's on eof the best golfers the world has
seen".
Unlike in art, there exists objective measures of golfing ability - your
scores. I am not claiming *everything* is subjective; just aesthetics.
> >so his
> >drawing and paintings must have been successful in conveying what he
> >wished to convey.
>
> Then explain what he was conveying.
Look, this is basic Art Appreciation 101 stuff. Read a textbook.
Flying_Naked_People
> I readily agree there is no objective sense by which he, or anyone else,
> can be considered great. Greatness is a subjective quality.
No, this can be measured, according to what standards you use. Now I feel an
aesthetic segregation comin' on, so perhaps this just could be what we need
when we discuss artwork we like. A work can be great objectively - based on
the rules of art.
It can also be great subjectively, based on (fill in the blank).
It would be wonderful if you would fill in the blank, since you're so adamant
about being able to find subjective greatness.
Can subjectivity be measured? Of course. That's what adjectives are for!
> > Then explain what he was conveying.
>
> Look, this is basic Art Appreciation 101 stuff. Read a textbook.
Answers like this educate no one. Art Appreciation is art history and offers
no insight on what this guy was thinking when he painted "those pictures."
Mani Deli
<ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
> If you choose to define "drawing ability"
>as ability to draw realistically, clearly, some do better than others.
Cezanne's work is realistic. His subject matter utterly conventional.
His mistakes common to those who don't know their craft.
>> The flat forms are precisely the look he was going for,
>>
>> How do you know this?
>
>His writings.
He wrote "---- --all in good perspective."
Cezanne didn't know perspective. He couldn't even express the round
when he used what little he knew of mechanical drawing.
Seagull Manager
>
> None of this is what I said. If you choose to define "drawing ability"
> as ability to draw realistically, clearly, some do better than others.
Finally, grudgingly, indirectly, an admission that Cezanne can't draw.
> The same is true if you define "drawing ability" as ability to draw in a
> way that pleases people not particularly interested in realism for its
> own sake
I'm not particularly interested in realism for its own sake, but nor am I
greatly enamoured of clumsiness for its own sake or ugliness for its own
sake. I guess that's why I don't like Cezanne.
> - some will do better than others, and it won't be the same
> sets of people as under the first definition.
These are not two disjoint sets, though. Those who can draw and paint
realistically are usually capable of working in abstract or semi-abstract
styles, if they so choose.
> I readily agree there is no objective sense by which he, or anyone else,
> can be considered great. Greatness is a subjective quality.
Well, that's nice to know. All artists are equally good or bad, no matter
what they do. There's no need to try to improve, or do something special,
because you're already as great as it is possible to be.
> However,
> it is still worth noting and discussing when a large number of
> relatively like minded people agree on an assessment, and this is true
> the assessment of Cezanne as great.
And it is worth asking WHY they think he's great. Because it is clearly not
because of his paintings.
> > The flat forms are precisely the look he was going for,
> >
> > How do you know this?
>
> His writings.
The gist of Cezanne's writings on art tell us that he wanted to make grand
paintings like those of Poussin and Delacroix, but to make them look more
naturalistic, by basing them more on observation from nature. He also felt
that strict Impressionism was too vague and fuzzy, and he wanted his
paintings to be more sharply drawn. If anywhere he says he wants his
paintings to look flat and dull, and the perspective and anatomy to be all
out of whack, please let's have some quotations and references.
> Look, this is basic Art Appreciation 101 stuff. Read a textbook.
So that's where you get your brilliant notions! I see.
Well, go look at a few paintings. Art Appreciation 401 says Cezanne is an
incompetent hack.
Seagull Manager
"Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote in message
news:yz9Ka.830$1I2.1...@news.uswest.net...
>
> > The flat forms are precisely the look he was going for,
> >
> > How do you know this?
>
> His writings.
...and if he'd really wanted to paint flat, why didn't he just do so, like
the Nabis? Why all the half-cocked linear perspective? Why the clumsy aerial
perspective? Why the cast shadows? Why all the crooked elbows and faces?
Marc Sabatella
> > I readily agree there is no objective sense by which he, or anyone
else,
> > can be considered great. Greatness is a subjective quality.
>
> No, this can be measured, according to what standards you use.
How so, if the standards themselves are not objectively measurable?
When I think of the things that I appreciate in art, relatively few of
them cna be measured objectively.
> A work can be great objectively - based on
> the rules of art.
You mean, the rules of art you subjectively find important to you.
There *are* no rules of art in any objective sense.
> It can also be great subjectively, based on (fill in the blank).
>
> It would be wonderful if you would fill in the blank, since you're so
adamant
> about being able to find subjective greatness.
Absolutely. The blank can be filled in with the following phrase: "what
I like". It can also be filled in with the following phrase: "the
consensus of what a large number of others like". This would carry more
weight, and in fact is what we really mean when we are not careful and
use apparently objective language to describe an artist's greatness. If
I say Cezanne is great, with no additional qualifiers, what I really
mean is, I subjectively find him great, and so do a lot of other people.
For that matter, when you speak of the "rules of art", what this really
means is, the rules of art that a large group of people subscribe to.
We can get away with this sort of sloppy usage of language as long as we
don't start fooling ourselves into meaning something more, and as soon
as a situation comes up in which the non-universality of this group
consensus is relevant, we need to become more specific in our language.
> > > Then explain what he was conveying.
> >
> > Look, this is basic Art Appreciation 101 stuff. Read a textbook.
>
> Answers like this educate no one. Art Appreciation is art history and
offers
> no insight on what this guy was thinking when he painted "those
pictures."
You've been reading the wrong textbooks, then.
Marc Sabatella
> Cezanne's work is realistic.
Well, it is representational, I'll grant. How realistic is it? That is
precisely the issue here. The "mistakes" you refer to - which I claim
are not mistakes but deliberate - detract from the realism of his
representations. For you, they also detract from their beauty. They
don't for me.
> His subject matter utterly conventional.
True enough. And someone else's is unconventional. Doesn't make one
better than the other in any objective sense. You apparently prefer
unconventional subject matter; that's fine. I have no preference either
way, really.
> Cezanne didn't know perspective.
This is almost certainly false, although it's obvious too late to
establish for sure. Logic suggests to me *knew* the concept, but since
he gave himself had relatively little practice in applying it, he
probably wasn't as good at it as someone who practiced more. On the
other hand, he may have been faster at cleaning setting up his easel
than some other artists. This is about as relevant to me.
Marc Sabatella
wrote:
> > None of this is what I said. If you choose to define "drawing
ability"
> > as ability to draw realistically, clearly, some do better than
others.
>
> Finally, grudgingly, indirectly, an admission that Cezanne can't draw.
No, an admission of what is indeed obvious - his drawings are not overly
realistic. This is *not* the same as not being able to draw.
> > - some will do better than others, and it won't be the same
> > sets of people as under the first definition.
>
> These are not two disjoint sets, though.
True, there will be overlap. Juist as there will be overlap between the
set of artists who can draw well realistically and those who are over
six feet tall.
> Those who can draw and paint
> realistically are usually capable of working in abstract or
semi-abstract
> styles, if they so choose.
Sometimes. Often, though, they don't do so nearly as well - in the eyes
of those who appreciate abstract art - as those who dedicate themselves
more fully to abstraction.
> > I readily agree there is no objective sense by which he, or anyone
else,
> > can be considered great. Greatness is a subjective quality.
>
> Well, that's nice to know. All artists are equally good or bad, no
matter
> what they do. There's no need to try to improve, or do something
special,
> because you're already as great as it is possible to be.
That's not what I said, and it's not what "subjective" means. Artists
are neither good nor bad. But a artist X might be appreciated by more
people than artist Y, and that's worth something. That's what
"greatness" means really - a large number of people like your work a
lot.
> > However,
> > it is still worth noting and discussing when a large number of
> > relatively like minded people agree on an assessment, and this is
true
> > the assessment of Cezanne as great.
>
> And it is worth asking WHY they think he's great. Because it is
clearly not
> because of his paintings.
As I have explained many times, it clearly *is* for me, and for most
others I know. The fact that *you* don't like his paintings in no way
detracts from my enjoyment of them, or that of anyone else.
Marc Sabatella
wrote:
> ...and if he'd really wanted to paint flat, why didn't he just do so,
like
> the Nabis? Why all the half-cocked linear perspective? Why the clumsy
aerial
> perspective? Why the cast shadows? Why all the crooked elbows and
faces?
He, and I, find it more interesting to see things on the edge that
things completely realistic or completely abstract. And his genuis is
in doing this in a way a lot of people find more pleasing than just
about anyone else.
Mani Deli
<ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> Cezanne's work is realistic.
>
>Well, it is representational, I'll grant. How realistic is it?
Its realistic enough to name the objects. Representational--- Ok, I'll
try to remember to use that word instead.
That is
>precisely the issue here. The "mistakes" you refer to - which I claim
>are not mistakes but deliberate
Not interested whether or not they were deliberate,
> detract from the realism of his
>representations.
No, they show utter incompetence and ignorance.
> For you, they also detract from their beauty. They
>don't for me.
>
>> His subject matter utterly conventional.
>
>True enough.
So what else is new?
> And someone else's is unconventional. Doesn't make one
>better than the other in any objective sense.
But the guy is considered the father of modern art and one of the big
things critics blast off about is his being unconventional.
> You apparently prefer
>unconventional subject matter; that's fine. I have no preference either
>way, really.
Nor do I. I prefer craftsmanship and a display of something most can't
do.
>> Cezanne didn't know perspective.
>
>This is almost certainly false, although it's obvious too late to
>establish for sure.
Point out an example.
> Logic suggests to me *knew* the concept, but since
>he gave himself had relatively little practice in applying it, he
>probably wasn't as good at it as someone who practiced more. On the
>other hand, he may have been faster at cleaning setting up his easel
>than some other artists. This is about as relevant to me.
>-
Well, your display of a lack of knowledge in your work explains why.
Flying_Naked_People
says...
> Subject: Re: Cezanne challenge
> From: "Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
>
> "Flying_Naked_People" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl> wrote:
>
> > > I readily agree there is no objective sense by which he, or anyone
> else,
> > > can be considered great. Greatness is a subjective quality.
> >
>
> When I think of the things that I appreciate in art, relatively few of
> them cna be measured objectively.
I don’t know why. It is a simple matter of a quality in art existing or not.
Does perspective exist in this painting? Yes.(+1) No.(-1) etc.
> > A work can be great objectively - based on
> > the rules of art.
>
Ø You mean, the rules of art you subjectively find important to you.
It is impossible to be subjective about objective qualities. Whether they are
important to me are irrelevant.
> There *are* no rules of art in any objective sense.
Yes there are. They are called elements and principles. It’s called design.
Better known as composition.
> > It can also be great subjectively, based on (fill in the blank).
> >
> > It would be wonderful if you would fill in the blank, since you're so
> adamant
> > about being able to find subjective greatness.
>
> Absolutely. The blank can be filled in with the following phrase: "what
Ø I like".
You will have to be more specific than that to be taken seriously. "What I
like" shuts the door. Open it for others and explain what parts about it you
like. I can appreciate the information you’ve given so far although it was
frustrating to drag it out of you.
Ø It can also be filled in with the following phrase: "the
Ø consensus of what a large number of others like".
I agree.
Ø This would carry more
> weight, and in fact is what we really mean when we are not careful and
> use apparently objective language to describe an artist's greatness. If
> I say Cezanne is great, with no additional qualifiers, what I really
Ø mean is, I subjectively find him great, and so do a lot of other people.
When others question why, you can not say, "Because everyone else thinks so,"
and expect to be taken seriously. You must give observable reasons to explain
your feelings, otherwise, you just sound like a follower.
> We can get away with this sort of sloppy usage of language as long as we
> don't start fooling ourselves into meaning something more, and as soon
> as a situation comes up in which the non-universality of this group
> consensus is relevant, we need to become more specific in our language.
>
> > > > Then explain what he was conveying.
> > >
> > > Look, this is basic Art Appreciation 101 stuff. Read a textbook.
> >
> Answers like this educate no one. Art Appreciation is art history and
offers
> no insight on what this guy was thinking when he painted "those
pictures."
You've been reading the wrong textbooks, then.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
> But the guy is considered the father of modern art and one of the big
> things critics blast off about is his being unconventional.
In style, not subject matter.
> Nor do I. I prefer craftsmanship and a display of something most can't
> do.
Same here. And most cannot produce art that I find as appealing as
Cezanne's. This much also is objectively true. I have seen the work of
many, many artists, and hardly any are able to move and inspire me the
way Cezanne does.
> > Logic suggests to me *knew* the concept, but since
> >he gave himself had relatively little practice in applying it, he
> >probably wasn't as good at it as someone who practiced more. On the
> >other hand, he may have been faster at cleaning setting up his easel
> >than some other artists. This is about as relevant to me.
> >-
> Well, your display of a lack of knowledge in your work explains why.
Actually, I'm an excellent example of exactly what I'm talking about. I
understand the principles just fine, but since I don't go out of my way
to apply them any more than is necessary in order for the painting to
"read", if you asked me to make the effort, I would certainly not do as
good a job as someone who specialized in this. But I might be able to
set up my easel faster that they. Again, the relevance of the two
skills to my art is roughly the same. Actually, easel set-up time
probably more so, since I work almost exclusively plein air, and you
have limited time to work before the sun changes too much to continue.
Marc Sabatella
> >
> Ø How so, if the standards themselves are not objectively measurable?
> > When I think of the things that I appreciate in art, relatively few
of
> > them cna be measured objectively.
>
> I don't know why. It is a simple matter of a quality in art existing
or not.
> Does perspective exist in this painting? Yes.(+1) No.(-1) etc.
Your "etc." ends almost immediately after perspective, which is about
the only quality mentioned thus far that is partially objectively
measurable (aside from the ones I suggested - total volume of paint
used, etc). You won't find much disagreement about how good the
perspective is in a given painting, but you'll find much disagreement
about how good the color sense is, or the composition, or the use of
edges, or textures, etc.
> > > A work can be great objectively - based on
> > > the rules of art.
> >
> Ø You mean, the rules of art you subjectively find important to you.
>
> It is impossible to be subjective about objective qualities. Whether
they are
> important to me are irrelevant.
It isn't irrelevant, it is the whole reaosn we disagree. There *are*
rules for creating acccurate perspective, and they are objective. Is
creating accurate perspective *important* in creating art? That's the
subjective question, and we disagree on the answer. And that's why I am
no longer interesting in discussing art. I will instead limit my
comments to "schmart", which by definition has no rules.
> > There *are* no rules of art in any objective sense.
>
> Yes there are. They are called elements and principles. It's called
design.
> Better known as composition.
This is still not objective. I would agree that good design is
important in a way I would not agree good perspective is important - but
we might still disagree about what constitutes good design.
> > Absolutely. The blank can be filled in with the following phrase:
"what
> Ø I like".
>
> You will have to be more specific than that to be taken seriously.
"What I
> like" shuts the door.
And that is my intent. There is nothing more to be said. I've given
reasons why *I* like his work, but I cannot expect that anyone else will
accept those reasons for themselves.
> Open it for others and explain what parts about it you
> like. I can appreciate the information you've given so far although it
was
> frustrating to drag it out of you.
Shouldn't have been. I had said essentially the same thing several
times already. Perhaps it was before you even entered the discussion.
I wasn't trying to keep it a secret; I thought it was obvious.
> When others question why, you can not say, "Because everyone else
thinks so,"
> and expect to be taken seriously. You must give observable reasons to
explain
> your feelings, otherwise, you just sound like a follower.
Two different things. I can - and have - given reasons why *I* like his
work. I can only surmise that everyone else likes him for more or less
the same reasons. I am under no obligation to explain their reasons.
All I am doing is observing *that* others like him, and I do think this
is significant in itself. I am not saying that I like *because* others
like him; that would indeed be a copout.