Jackson Pollock
Chris
guess the least I can do is spell his name right.
I find his splatter paintings quite entrancing. Yeah, I know he couldn't
draw to save his life; his colour sense was abysmal; his composition
negligible, and all the other yadda yadda yadda. Plus he was an alcoholic
asshole, which can give all the PC's something nag about.
Bit frankly I don't care. The visual impact of some of those pictures is
immense (in RL); the question for the chattering classes is why is that so,
and what can a painter do with it and the visual ideas they represent; not
whether or not it is art (or good art, or what have you).
Cheers;
Chris
Paul Mesken
>Hmm, it's beginning to look like I'm the only Pollock fan around here; I
>guess the least I can do is spell his name right.
I'll cheer you up : you'll find a companion in Jack. He believes
Pollock to be great, just as that Jasper Johns guy. He even made a
painting that is a homage to the both of them :
http://www.zianet.com/jaxart/gallery/jasperj.jpg
Deli says Pollock's work would be great to print on tiles. I think
that's a pretty neat idea. I have black and white tiles and see all
the dirt on them. If I had "Pollock Tiles" I wouldn't have that
problem ;-)
Nikolaus Maack
> Hmm, it's beginning to look like I'm the only Pollock fan around here; I
> guess the least I can do is spell his name right.
You're not the only one. Pollock strikes me as a worthwhile and
interesting person. While I was never big on his splatter work, I do
have respect for the man.
> The visual impact of some of those pictures is
> immense (in RL); the question for the chattering classes is why is that so,
> and what can a painter do with it and the visual ideas they represent; not
> whether or not it is art (or good art, or what have you).
(The trouble with "chattering classes" is people so rarely graduate from
them.)
My favourite scene in the film "Pollock" is when he's working away and
his wife comes in to the room. Amazed by the painting, she tries to
define it. "It's not surrealism, and it's too complex to be
primitivism, and" blah, blah, blah.
Pollock responds, "If you know so much about it why don't you paint the
fucking picture?"
(Or words to that effect.)
So many people in this newsgroup spend a lot of time talking about art,
but spend an ant's shit amount of time making it.
Paul Mesken
<nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>So many people in this newsgroup spend a lot of time talking about art,
>but spend an ant's shit amount of time making it.
I think that's quite a big conclusion to draw. I don't see any ground
for it. Most of us here pursuit art as a hobby and some as work.
Andrew D
<n...@this.address> wrote:
>Hmm, it's beginning to look like I'm the only Pollock fan around here; I
>guess the least I can do is spell his name right.
Searching the web, it seems both Pollock and Pollack are widely supported.
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Paul Mesken" <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
news:8dg5dv0t5br62v5pv...@4ax.com...
with the design of a curry chunder on them.
--
The happiest people on earth are those few fortunates who seem to be in a
state of mild, stable hypomania. - David Horrobin 'The Madness of Adam and
Eve' (How schizophrenia shaped humanity)
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Nikolaus Maack" <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3ED2C4E0...@sympatico.ca...
>
>
> My favourite scene in the film "Pollock" is when he's working away and
> his wife comes in to the room. Amazed by the painting, she tries to
> define it. "It's not surrealism, and it's too complex to be
> primitivism, and" blah, blah, blah.
>
> Pollock responds, "If you know so much about it why don't you paint the
> fucking picture?"
>
> (Or words to that effect.)
>
abstract - or any other genre. She is pointing out how it breaks the rules
of cubism without making any new ones. Pollock's response makes it clear
that he was just painting, not thinking.
I thought that Pollock's response to wifely bitching [even though she was
not, at that stage, his wife] was apt. A husband mending a broken car might
well respond in a similar manner to similar 'advice'.
Peter H.M. Brooks
thinking about and making art - in a critic and, maybe, in a Pollock, they
are indeed disarticulated, but usually they are not. Being able to, by
reason of reading, articulation, or other means, about art does not, in
itself, disqualify one from being able to produce it - but some who relish
their inarticulation [like Pollock] might wish to claim so.
Nikolaus Maack
> On Mon, 26 May 2003 21:52:32 -0400, Nikolaus Maack
> <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>So many people in this newsgroup spend a lot of time talking about art,
>>but spend an ant's shit amount of time making it.
>
>
> I think that's quite a big conclusion to draw.
At least I'm spending my time drawing. What are you up to, art-wise?
Nikolaus Maack
> I see comments like that as attempts to disarticulate the processes of
> thinking about and making art - in a critic and, maybe, in a Pollock, they
> are indeed disarticulated, but usually they are not. Being able to, by
> reason of reading, articulation, or other means, about art does not, in
> itself, disqualify one from being able to produce it - but some who relish
> their inarticulation [like Pollock] might wish to claim so.
I don't know if you've noticed, but I'm a very articulate fellow. All
the same, I see the attempts at defining art a complete waste of time.
Disembodied, intellectual, desperately objective definitions of
something so personal and subjective -- it's insanity. It's like trying
to cut and polish a diamond with a sledgehammer.
Usually I would embrace such a futile exercise. If it can't be done,
let's do it -- that's my motto. But the worst aspect of this attempt at
defining art is how boring and unimaginative people are as they go about it.
"Intent plays a part! For if a person isn't attempting to create art,
they can't create art! So a machine can't make art!"
(Another diamond reduced to powder.)
People have been using artificial intelligence to make art ever since
the computer was invented. Computer generated music, computer generated
paintings, all of it has been played with.
There's just one example of lack of perspective.
And then there's Mani's blindness when it comes to the diversity of
world culture. He seems to genuinely believe that the tribesman from
the jungles of Borneo and the Parisian cheese-vendor will both
appreciate the same kind of art -- simply because the art was created
using skill. Presumably Mani believes the tribesman will throw away all
of his own work as soon as he sees his first great European art gallery.
And on, and on. Have you ever seen a more futile, endless, meaningless
struggle? Defining art to these people is taking your personal bias,
wrapping it up in words, and presenting it to others like a tiny bonbon.
Blah!
Paul Mesken
<nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Blah!
All I can say is : each to his own. You certainly showed your desire
to vent strong opinions about persons finding pleasure in pursuiting
something you don't find worthy or even desireable to pursuit.
Hans Klapeen
says...
>I'll cheer you up : you'll find a companion in Jack. He believes
>Pollock to be great, just as that Jasper Johns guy.
I would agree with you, to the point that 'great'
is not MY definition of either artist.
I would be quoting others if I made that claim.
Anyone who knows my art would understand why I
would not attempt to emulate either
Johns or Pollock. It's simply not my cuppa. But
I take nothing from them when it comes to their
achievement. And yes, I would appreciate (pun) having
one of each of their paintings!
What I do admire in anyone who has become known
by that term - GREAT - is the achievement, however
they managed to achieve it. I posted another such
explanation to one of the other running threads
on Pollock. I am not a fan of baseball either, but I can
still admire Sosa, Bonds and the Ruth for what
they achieved in their chosen fields.
Hans Klapeen
says...
>I think that's quite a big conclusion to draw. I don't see any ground
>for it. Most of us here pursuit art as a hobby and some as work.
And those of us who spend our waking hours
working at our art and our sleeping hours
dreaming up new projects need this respite
of arguing about it to keep us focused...
Paul Mesken
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>
>"Paul Mesken" <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
>news:s4j5dvc4v7o2a96g4...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 26 May 2003 21:52:32 -0400, Nikolaus Maack
>> <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >So many people in this newsgroup spend a lot of time talking about art,
>> >but spend an ant's shit amount of time making it.
>>
>> I think that's quite a big conclusion to draw. I don't see any ground
>> for it. Most of us here pursuit art as a hobby and some as work.
>>
>I see comments like that as attempts to disarticulate the processes of
>thinking about and making art - in a critic and, maybe, in a Pollock, they
>are indeed disarticulated, but usually they are not. Being able to, by
>reason of reading, articulation, or other means, about art does not, in
>itself, disqualify one from being able to produce it - but some who relish
>their inarticulation [like Pollock] might wish to claim so.
Making art is a form of articulation although not the (default) form
you're talking of. I could describe a face by using words ("the left
eye is lightly above the line of the right" etc) but it would be
better to visually describe it in a painting. Nevertheless verbal
articulation comes in quite handy in criticizing one's own work, the
knowledge can be penned down and read by others.
The attempt to verbally articulate one's own art will IMO deepen the
understanding of one's own techniques by making it explicit. Making
art is in the first place an intuitive enterprise and that makes it
hard to control. By articulation one can get explicit knowledge about
this intuitive business and this way use that explicit knowledge for
the betterment of one's art and even a wider range of things.
For instance : we all know how to walk (we do it effortlessly) but it
is only in the last few decades that we really succeeded in verbally
explaining it (or better : formalizing it). Before that time our
knowledge of walking was something intuitive which we only could use
for the act itself. The result of the success of making that knowledge
explicit is that we now can make machines that walk (in the MIT
"leglab" they have great examples) and that sporters can become even
better at running, jumping, etc by running movies of their endeavours
through a computer which point out where it deviates from perfection.
Paul Mesken
<nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Paul Mesken wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 May 2003 21:52:32 -0400, Nikolaus Maack
>> <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So many people in this newsgroup spend a lot of time talking about art,
>>>but spend an ant's shit amount of time making it.
>>
>>
>> I think that's quite a big conclusion to draw.
>
>At least I'm spending my time drawing. What are you up to, art-wise?
I'm surprised you're interested. Anyway, I'm still preparing for my
"pissing Madonna on roller skates" (could be the title but I typically
don't title my attempts at a painting). I don't work spontaneously
when it comes to painting (only when sketching) and I'm doing some
studies which must result in the drawing which I will transfer to the
panel (still not sure what her hands should do).
I intent to shoot the whole process and put it on my (still empty) web
site with "how to" notes which I hope are helpfull to beginners since
there are quite a number of textures and effects in (chrome, plastic,
rubber, iron, flesh, etc.).
I hope I can finish it in four weeks from now since I'm quite busy
with my job (and this newsgroup).
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
> > I see comments like that as attempts to disarticulate the processes of
> > thinking about and making art - in a critic and, maybe, in a Pollock,
they
> > are indeed disarticulated, but usually they are not. Being able to, by
> > reason of reading, articulation, or other means, about art does not, in
> > itself, disqualify one from being able to produce it - but some who
relish
> > their inarticulation [like Pollock] might wish to claim so.
>
> I don't know if you've noticed, but I'm a very articulate fellow. All
> the same, I see the attempts at defining art a complete waste of time.
> Disembodied, intellectual, desperately objective definitions of
> something so personal and subjective -- it's insanity. It's like trying
> to cut and polish a diamond with a sledgehammer.
>
here? What is the point of wasting your time at one remove?
>
> Usually I would embrace such a futile exercise. If it can't be done,
> let's do it -- that's my motto. But the worst aspect of this attempt at
> defining art is how boring and unimaginative people are as they go about
it.
>
> "Intent plays a part! For if a person isn't attempting to create art,
> they can't create art! So a machine can't make art!"
>
>
> (Another diamond reduced to powder.)
>
>
>
> People have been using artificial intelligence to make art ever since
> the computer was invented. Computer generated music, computer generated
> paintings, all of it has been played with.
>
a result.
>
> There's just one example of lack of perspective.
>
> And then there's Mani's blindness when it comes to the diversity of
> world culture. He seems to genuinely believe that the tribesman from
> the jungles of Borneo and the Parisian cheese-vendor will both
> appreciate the same kind of art -- simply because the art was created
> using skill. Presumably Mani believes the tribesman will throw away all
> of his own work as soon as he sees his first great European art gallery.
>
> And on, and on. Have you ever seen a more futile, endless, meaningless
> struggle? Defining art to these people is taking your personal bias,
> wrapping it up in words, and presenting it to others like a tiny bonbon.
>
wonder why you bother.
World culture is both much less diverse than you imagine - there are around
300 known constants of all human culture - and, in simpler ways, far more
diverse, since everybody has, if you want to see it that way, some separate
culture from the rest, Wittgenstein's private language argument
notwithstanding.
Paul Mesken
D) wrote:
>In article <%NyAa.1153$y77.2...@news20.bellglobal.com>, "Chris"
><n...@this.address> wrote:
>
>>Hmm, it's beginning to look like I'm the only Pollock fan around here; I
>>guess the least I can do is spell his name right.
>
>Searching the web, it seems both Pollock and Pollack are widely supported.
A majority vote in this case doesn't make "Pollack" any better :-)
Mani Deli
wrote:
>Deli says Pollock's work would be great to print on tiles.
never said that! Pollock tiles are a bore, there is far better to
choose from.
> I think
>that's a pretty neat idea. I have black and white tiles and see all
>the dirt on them. If I had "Pollock Tiles" I wouldn't have that
>problem ;-)
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Mani Deli
<nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>People have been using artificial intelligence to make art ever since
>the computer was invented. Computer generated music, computer generated
>paintings, all of it has been played with.
Most computer generated images a far more interesting than most modern
shit pretending to be art.
>And then there's Mani's blindness when it comes to the diversity of
>world culture. He seems to genuinely believe that the tribesman from
>the jungles of Borneo and the Parisian cheese-vendor will both
>appreciate the same kind of art
never said that! Often the Parisian will appreciate skilled work from
Borneo.
>-- simply because the art was created
>using skill. Presumably Mani believes the tribesman will throw away all
>of his own work as soon as he sees his first great European art gallery.
He might just like both. Go to Borneo and tell us the results.
>And on, and on. Have you ever seen a more futile, endless, meaningless
>struggle?
Yes, your artwork.
> Defining art to these people is taking your personal bias,
>wrapping it up in words, and presenting it to others like a tiny bonbon.
>
As I said trying to define ART is a waste of time.
Nikolaus Maack
> All I can say is : each to his own. You certainly showed your desire
> to vent strong opinions about persons finding pleasure in pursuiting
> something you don't find worthy or even desireable to pursuit.
There are encompassing definitions and then there are limiting
definitions. I can't help but get the feeling that most people
attempting to define art are setting up fences, trying to keep the
"riff-raff" out.
Oliver Gili
I couldn't agree with you more
Oliver
Nikolaus Maack
>>There are encompassing definitions and then there are limiting
>>definitions. I can't help but get the feeling that most people
>>attempting to define art are setting up fences, trying to keep the
>>"riff-raff" out.
>>
>> Nik
>>http://www.nikart.ca
>>
>
>
> I couldn't agree with you more
Great! Your kind words have encouraged me, and I must say more.
I think these "fence definitions" of art are a bad idea. They limit the
potential of what art is. They serve the convenient purpose of allowing
the definer to bolster his flagging ego by putting himself at the centre
of a select club -- and as I said, the "fence definition" keeps the
"riff-raff" out.
Defining "art" in the way I suggested earlier -- everything is art --
would allow ANYONE to create it. From the toddler in kindergarden, to
the trained chimp at the zoo, to the computer program noodling on a
computer screen, to the schizophrenic in the asylum, to the bored civil
servant who paints portraits in his spare time. This definition makes
no distinction between the trained professional or the hobbyist. Both
of them create ART.
Which kind of art is WORTH MORE (monkey versus robot) is left up to the
market, the critics, and the masses eagerness to throw their money at
whatever has momentarily caught their interest.
This probably makes far too much sense, and so must be ignored. People
of rec.arts.fine -- please continue defining art in your own particular
narrow, bland, self-absorbed fashion.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Oliver Gili wrote:
> >>There are encompassing definitions and then there are limiting
> >>definitions. I can't help but get the feeling that most people
> >>attempting to define art are setting up fences, trying to keep the
> >>"riff-raff" out.
> >>
> >> Nik
> >>http://www.nikart.ca
> >>
> >
> >
> > I couldn't agree with you more
>
> Great! Your kind words have encouraged me, and I must say more.
>
> I think these "fence definitions" of art are a bad idea. They limit the
> potential of what art is. They serve the convenient purpose of allowing
> the definer to bolster his flagging ego by putting himself at the centre
> of a select club -- and as I said, the "fence definition" keeps the
> "riff-raff" out.
>
>
> of rec.arts.fine -- please continue defining art in your own particular
> narrow, bland, self-absorbed fashion.
>
discussed. It has largely been abandoned not simply to keep out riff-raff
[what would be the point when most definitions still include plenty of
riff-raff!] but also because a definition drawn too widely loses all useful
meaning.
If everything is art then we would need a new word, or words, to discuss
what is different between Michaelangelo's sculpture and mass produced teddy
bears, or sea shells, or the human skeleton.
The discussions are sometimes heated and ultimately not conclusive not
simply because of territorial conflict, but also because the activities
involved are diverse and the limits, of necessity, vague.
I do agree that the more interesting discussions are those of the nature of
aesthetics - where territorial conflict may still be some sort of a
motivator, but the aims are less raw with the instruments of dissection more
subtle.
Nikolaus Maack
> If everything is art then we would need a new word, or words, to discuss
> what is different between Michaelangelo's sculpture and mass produced teddy
> bears, or sea shells, or the human skeleton.
Why would we need a new word? How pointless are the following sentences
already, without qualification?
"I like art."
"I am an artist."
"I collect art."
"The museum was full of art."
"I beat my loved ones over the head with an axe as a form of performance
art and now I'm in jail thanks to the oppressive censorship of the
government."
Trying to come up with a "fence definition" is an attempt at restoring
some shape to a word that has broken out of its limits over and over
again. You just know that if you do put up a fence, some Dadaist, some
Warhol lover, some trouble-maker is going to come along and knock it down.
"Art is about intent? This urinal I found is art. Ha!"
"Art can't be mass-produced? Check out my Brillo box. Ha!"
"Art can't be made my machines? Download my computer program. Ha!"
So why make fences? It's a pointless exercise. Instead of trying to
define "art", try defining what "art of value" is to you, personally. I
believe this is a far more meaningful exercise, as it will lead you on
your own, personal, subjective art journey -- the one we're all
individually on, whether we like to admit it or not.
(Who quoted Wittgenstein at me this week?)
> The discussions are sometimes heated and ultimately not conclusive not
> simply because of territorial conflict, but also because the activities
> involved are diverse and the limits, of necessity, vague.
>
> I do agree that the more interesting discussions are those of the
nature of
> aesthetics - where territorial conflict may still be some sort of a
> motivator, but the aims are less raw with the instruments of
dissection more
> subtle.
Subtle? The only subtlety is psychological slight of hand, as the
person pretends to be undergoing an "objective" exercise as they claim
their bias is a universal one.
Oliver Gili
> So why make fences? It's a pointless exercise. Instead of trying to
> define "art", try defining what "art of value" is to you, personally. I
> believe this is a far more meaningful exercise, as it will lead you on
> your own, personal, subjective art journey -- the one we're all
> individually on, whether we like to admit it or not.
>
Nik
> http://www.nikart.ca
Exactly. the 20th century was the century where the battle of 'what is art'
was fought. Anything can be art, anyone can be an artist. People should
get over this. Stalinist dogmatism is boring, and redundant. If anything it
shows fear of Art, of course its scarily unobjective, of course there are no
absolutes, but this uncertainty should be embraced in the subjective journey
through art. Bullying people in an attempt to make the subjective objective
speaks volumes about what the bully lacks.
Me, my favourite Art is that which fills me with aesthetic rapture, just as
I like music which fills me with aural reverie. These of course are
subjective and personal.
Oliver
Mike Stengl
I'm not so eloquent as many, but there is a culture, perhaps Bali,
where they have no word for art even though (or perhaps because)
everyone in there society does it. Intricately carved statues and such
not sold are often burned for fuel...cause, hey, they'll just carve
another one. Or Li Po burning his poems as he wrote them...I'm not so
elevated as that, my little paintings are precious, but the
discussion/defining of what is and isn't "ART", does seem a waste of
time. I get infuriated at abominations that I see posing as paintings,
but that's just taste, and taste is like opinions is like assholes,
etc. everyone has one, mine just happens to be the best...
Erik A. Mattila
> I'm not so eloquent as many, but there is a culture, perhaps Bali,
> where they have no word for art even though (or perhaps because)
> everyone in there society does it. Intricately carved statues and such
> not sold are often burned for fuel...cause, hey, they'll just carve
> another one. Or Li Po burning his poems as he wrote them...I'm not so
> elevated as that, my little paintings are precious, but the
> discussion/defining of what is and isn't "ART", does seem a waste of
> time. I get infuriated at abominations that I see posing as paintings,
> but that's just taste, and taste is like opinions is like assholes,
> etc. everyone has one, mine just happens to be the best...
Very well said, Mike (for someone who is less eloquent...). "What is
Art?" is an intrinsically flawed question to begin with, or at least
unanswerable.
The linguist Edmund Sapir tackled it in his essay "Culture: Genuine and
Spurrious" written in 1923. He used the term "art" to illustrate what he
wanted to say about the term "culture." Both terms belong to a sort of
language we have that has not explicit meaning, but more or less slip
and slid around the "meaning" universe to fill up voids of
understanding. But he wrote that we agree that "art" is something we
like, so when we go to a gallery and see something we don't like, we
don't say "Well, then, I don't like art." Instead we say "This isn't art."
His argument for the term "culture" was that "culture" is the collected
totatality of all interrelated aspects of life, in so many words - which
was very challenging to the authorative definition of 1923 because it
meant that all human groups could have "culture" on equal terms, rather
than in a hierachy that spanned savagery to civilization. It's
interesting to think of the term "art" in the same way.
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
> Exactly. the 20th century was the century where the battle of 'what is art'
> was fought. Anything can be art, anyone can be an artist. People should
> get over this. Stalinist dogmatism is boring, and redundant. If anything it
> shows fear of Art, of course its scarily unobjective, of course there are no
> absolutes, but this uncertainty should be embraced in the subjective journey
> through art. Bullying people in an attempt to make the subjective objective
> speaks volumes about what the bully lacks.
>
> Me, my favourite Art is that which fills me with aesthetic rapture, just as
> I like music which fills me with aural reverie. These of course are
> subjective and personal.
>
>
> Oliver
Indeed! Ludwig Beethoven's Seventh + Johnny Walker's Red = Art. And it
gets even better with Johnny Boorman's Zardoz playing in the background.
Erik
>
>
Nikolaus Maack
> Exactly. the 20th century was the century where the battle of 'what is art'
> was fought. Anything can be art, anyone can be an artist. People should
> get over this. Stalinist dogmatism is boring, and redundant. If anything it
> shows fear of Art, of course its scarily unobjective, of course there are no
> absolutes, but this uncertainty should be embraced in the subjective journey
> through art. Bullying people in an attempt to make the subjective objective
> speaks volumes about what the bully lacks.
I have to wonder if clinging to objectivity is an insecure person's way
of hiding from their lack of self?
> Me, my favourite Art is that which fills me with aesthetic rapture, just as
> I like music which fills me with aural reverie. These of course are
> subjective and personal.
I like pleasant surprises in art, music, and film. The small satori
that makes everything seem sweet and new.
I also appreciate simplicity and the personal. Which is why I love
haiku, as well as cryptic paintings by obsessive weirdoes.
Seagull Manager
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:bb173q$kpg$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>
"Art is everything" is one of those "fence definitions" (aka "suasive
definitions"), also. It's purpose is to create space in galleries for balls
of fluff, unmade beds, etc., and to push out sculpture and painting.
> If everything is art then we would need a new word, or words, to discuss
> what is different between Michaelangelo's sculpture and mass produced
teddy
> bears, or sea shells, or the human skeleton.
Quite so. Of course, art isn't everything, never has been and never will be.
the teddy bears are probably not art, because they are not made with the
ambition to create high aesthetic value, and sea shells and skeletons are
not art, because they are not artefacts.
Seagull Manager
"Oliver Gili" <Redo...@ogili.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bb2n1g$vpj$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Me, my favourite Art is that which fills me with aesthetic rapture
Mountains and the wind and the sea are not art, though they might fill you
with aesthetic rapture. If you happen not to like the paintings of, say, Jan
Vermeer, they are still art, even if they don't fill you with rapture. Stop
trying to be a Humpty Dumpty, defining words to mean whatever you want,
without regard to ordinary usage.
Seagull Manager
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
news:3ED52130...@oco.net...
> Mike Stengl wrote:
>
> Very well said, Mike (for someone who is less eloquent...). "What is
> Art?" is an intrinsically flawed question to begin with, or at least
> unanswerable.
No, it isn't. Art is artefacts made with the intention that they should be
of high aesthetic value.
The pretense that art cannot be defined is bullshit, a scam devised by 20th
century intellectuals as part of an attempt to usurp control of the artworld
from artists and art lovers.
Erik A. Mattila
Ah, ha...the 'victim/conspiracy' theory. Go study Plato's Ion and Meno
and get back to me.
But what kind of jackboot horseshit is "usurp control" about? That
really says it all, doesn't it? I mean about ArtNazis.
eam
Seagull Manager
"Thur" <a@spamless.z> wrote in message
news:K%OBa.15989$sJ4....@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
> >The pretense that art cannot be defined is bullshit, a scam devised by
20th
> > century intellectuals as part of an attempt to usurp control of the
> artworld
> > from artists and art lovers.
>
> opposite to that required by the Art world.
> e.g. I have heard commentators describe a move in football as art.
Yes, but that's not really a contradiction. The various meanings of "art"
that occur in ordinary speech are systematically related in what might be
visualized as a set of concentric circles of meaning.
At the outermost circle is "skill". Art is skill - especially uncommon
skill, especially of the mental kind, put to some purpose. Anything that
requires skill and allows for expertise is an art. So we may have arts of
cookery, dentistry and politics. Something is "raised to an art" when
someone displays exceptional skill in it. One is "artful" who is wily,
cunning and displays exceptional skill. And so on.
So-called "fine art" is at the centre. What's special about fine art, and
what makes it central, is the freedom. There's no real purpose to it, except
the display of skill. But how do you display skill if you have no purpose?
Skill without purpose is meaningless. So you have to invent a purpose. And
here's the bonus: choosing a purpose in these circumstances also requires
skill. That's where beauty and representation come in. They are sources of
aesthetic value, so they create provide a purposes that is consistent with
freedom, and at the same time display the artists' skill in making the right
choices. It's all a kind of showing off (not "self expression", but "self
presentation"), and in turn, part of the Darwin's famous sexual selection
process.
The "art" we go to see in museums is there because it (purportedly) displays
exceptional skill and exceptional aesthetic value. Painting, graphics and
sculpture are called "art" as a shorthand because no-one bothered to think
up a single word that brought them together while at the same time
distinguishing them from other "high", "noble" or "fine" arts (such as
literature and music).
The casual uses of "art" that you hear, such as descriptions of skillful
moves in football, etc. as art, can always be placed somewhere in the
circle, either near the centre, or near the edge.
> There is no sense in trying to convert the world to one definition...
...unless that definition is valid for all the art in the world.
Nikolaus Maack
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
> news:bb173q$kpg$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>
>
> "Art is everything" is one of those "fence definitions" (aka "suasive
> definitions"), also. It's purpose is to create space in galleries for balls
> of fluff, unmade beds, etc., and to push out sculpture and painting.
Oh dear. Is art only found in art galleries?
A friend of mine once tried to tell me that poetry shouldn't be
whimsical. I replied, "I had no idea that the world of poetry was
running out of room, and certain kinds had to be eliminated."
> Quite so. Of course, art isn't everything, never has been and never will be.
> the teddy bears are probably not art, because they are not made with the
> ambition to create high aesthetic value, and sea shells and skeletons are
> not art, because they are not artefacts.
"I have defined cheese as cheddar, and now all the other cheeses that
once existed have disappeared. How strange. Here is the cheddar, and
here, next to it, is a brick of yellow dairy product that is not cheese."
Seagull Manager
> Seagull Manager wrote:
> >
> > The pretense that art cannot be defined is bullshit, a scam devised by
20th
> > century intellectuals as part of an attempt to usurp control of the
artworld
> > from artists and art lovers.
>
> Ah, ha...the 'victim/conspiracy' theory. Go study Plato's Ion and Meno
> and get back to me.
No need for a conspiracy. Once the "art cannot be defined" idea became
available, it was only natural that those whom it seemed to serve best would
adopt it as a motto, just other definitions are adopted by those whom they
serve best (good at drawing? okay, art is representation, not so good? art
is self-expression, socially conservative? art is that which elevates,
radical? art is that which shocks, etc.) That "art cannot be defined" is an
unwarranted leap to a conclusion that serves some interests and not others.
> Ah, ha...the 'victim/conspiracy' theory. Go study Plato's Ion and Meno
> and get back to me.
A philosopher bamboozling an artist (Ion) in order to define his (the
artist's) practice in a way that suits the philosopher? Okay, how does it
help you?
Paul Mesken
I hear you friend! Everybody can define art and there is such a thing
as consensus about it (however local). If it was beyond definition
then it should have also been beyond recognition. Ofcourse everybody
recognizes art so there is such a thing as a definition, at least one
or more "prototypes".
You know, this whole "art cannot be defined" bull reminds me of the
Dark Ages in Europe when bibles were in latin and could only be
understood by a small circle of people. They told the people what God
expected from them. If people didn't behave the church wanted them to
behave they were excommunicated (thrown out of the church). These
people could no longer hear what God wanted from them so ran the risk
of committing sin. People ofcourse couldn't figure God out themselves
since He was beyond definition (besides : it was also blasphemy to
have thoughts about God Himself).
Now we have a small circle of people (the "art scene") telling us what
pieces of art are and what should be dismissed as its soulless
counterpart "illustration". The definition of Art should ofcourse be a
complete Mystery (else we wouldn't need art critics now, wouldn't we?)
Art is also presented as something very important and the highest of
all human endeavour. Therefor : it is important to know what real Art
is and what merely illustration is. Skill has nothing to do with it
(after all : deciding what is Art and what is not wouldn't be so hard
to do if Skill was the deciding factor).
The analogy is obvious. Being of the opinion that Art cannot be
defined doesn't yield freedom at all. It gives power to a small band
of people to which the public turns when it wants to know whether
something is art or not.
I'm starting to believe the "magic ingredient" should indeed be skill
(which is the old meaning of the word "art").
Paul Mesken
<seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
>news:bb173q$kpg$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>>
>
>"Art is everything" is one of those "fence definitions" (aka "suasive
>definitions"), also. It's purpose is to create space in galleries for balls
>of fluff, unmade beds, etc., and to push out sculpture and painting.
>
Let's for a minute talk about food. "Food is everything". Now if you
throw up your internals then it is of very little comfort to know that
"everything" also includes "not fresh" and "Salmonella infested".
But food is important and that's why we have food inspection.
Seagull Manager
> Seagull Manager wrote:
> > "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
> > news:bb173q$kpg$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> >
> >
> > "Art is everything" is one of those "fence definitions" (aka "suasive
> > definitions"), also. It's purpose is to create space in galleries for
balls
> > of fluff, unmade beds, etc., and to push out sculpture and painting.
>
> Oh dear. Is art only found in art galleries?
Galleries, and whatever other spaces they happen to manage, then.
>
> A friend of mine once tried to tell me that poetry shouldn't be
> whimsical. I replied, "I had no idea that the world of poetry was
> running out of room, and certain kinds had to be eliminated."
>
> > Quite so. Of course, art isn't everything, never has been and never will
be.
> > the teddy bears are probably not art, because they are not made with the
> > ambition to create high aesthetic value, and sea shells and skeletons
are
> > not art, because they are not artefacts.
>
> "I have defined cheese as cheddar, and now all the other cheeses that
> once existed have disappeared. How strange. Here is the cheddar, and
> here, next to it, is a brick of yellow dairy product that is not cheese."
The normal expectation is that a good definition of cheese will include all
that is commonly called cheese and exclude all that is not. The exception is
if some things are erroneously misclassified by common usage, in which case,
there needs to be a convincing argument why the definition is more sound
than the usage. Your definition of art as "everything" deviates from
ordinary usage. Sea shells and skeletons do not count as art in such usage.
If art is defined as "artefacts that reflect the fact that they were made
with the intent that they should have high aesthetic value", then I dare to
suggest that everything that is commonly understood to be art is included
(and I mean art from all cultures and all eras), everything that is commonly
understood not to be art is excluded, and the things that are marginal, or
debated about, are marginal or debatable by this definition. If I'm right,
therefore, this definition is NOT a "suasive definition" or "fence
definition" such as those provided by expressionism, and other schools of
thought.
Let me know if you can find any example that shows the definition to be
unsound.
>
> Nik
> http://www.nikart.ca
>
Erik A. Mattila
> On Fri, 30 May 2003 19:47:21 +0100, "Seagull Manager"
> <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
>>news:3ED52130...@oco.net...
>>
>>>Mike Stengl wrote:
>>>
>>>Very well said, Mike (for someone who is less eloquent...). "What is
>>>Art?" is an intrinsically flawed question to begin with, or at least
>>>unanswerable.
>>
>>No, it isn't. Art is artefacts made with the intention that they should be
>>of high aesthetic value.
>>
>>The pretense that art cannot be defined is bullshit, a scam devised by 20th
>>century intellectuals as part of an attempt to usurp control of the artworld
>
>>from artists and art lovers.
>
> I hear you friend! Everybody can define art and there is such a thing
> as consensus about it (however local). If it was beyond definition
> then it should have also been beyond recognition. Ofcourse everybody
> recognizes art so there is such a thing as a definition, at least one
> or more "prototypes".
Hahaha, but what you hear "is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and
fury, Signifying nothing." S&M is responding to my claim that the
question "What is Art?" is intrinsically flawed. Is that equivocal to
claiming "Art cannot be defined?" I think not...but I suppose I could
be wrong. In fact, if S&M had been engaged enough to conceptually grasp
the meaning of the Sapir quote I supplied, he would have understood that
I am claiming it a flawed question precisely because art is so easily
defined, in too many ways, and in ways that instrinsically oppose one
another.
But I just like to flush out the GesArtpo - you know that. I mean, most
answers to the "What is Art" question are exclusionary, and valorize the
lexicographer's particular interests. As Sapir wrote in 1923 - we all
agree that "art" is something we like, and when we see stuff in the
gallery that we don't like, we think "that isn't art." "Art is
anything" btw isn't a definition, except for Gurdjieff disciples.
I would include myself among the throngs who would look at a Pollock and
like it very much, perhaps be moved by it, or think it a great work of
art. You, and S&M, and others may wish to banish the work to your
imaginary hell of rubish, trash, childish chimp art, or whatever you
have invented to valorize your bias...but it won't change my
appreciation of Pollock, of course...nor my definition of "art" for that
matter.
> You know, this whole "art cannot be defined" bull reminds me of the
> Dark Ages in Europe when bibles were in latin and could only be
> understood by a small circle of people. They told the people what God
> expected from them. If people didn't behave the church wanted them to
> behave they were excommunicated (thrown out of the church). These
> people could no longer hear what God wanted from them so ran the risk
> of committing sin. People ofcourse couldn't figure God out themselves
> since He was beyond definition (besides : it was also blasphemy to
> have thoughts about God Himself).
And now that we are enlightened and everyone can read God is defined?
Hmmm...where are you going with this?
> Now we have a small circle of people (the "art scene") telling us what
> pieces of art are and what should be dismissed as its soulless
> counterpart "illustration". The definition of Art should ofcourse be a
> complete Mystery (else we wouldn't need art critics now, wouldn't we?)
> Art is also presented as something very important and the highest of
> all human endeavour. Therefor : it is important to know what real Art
> is and what merely illustration is. Skill has nothing to do with it
> (after all : deciding what is Art and what is not wouldn't be so hard
> to do if Skill was the deciding factor).
Wait a minute...I don't really hear this at all. I'm hearing the
opposite. The GesArtpo is telling us what is trash, monkey work, skill
less, unworthy of the "art" tag, and so on. This "art scene" you are
imagining really doesn't say that...they just talk about whatever is in
fashion at any given time, including theory and criticism etc. If that
doesn't push your buttons, more power to you. They don't care. Why
should you care what they do, then. I mean, they aren't really keeping
your work out of museums and galleries, are they?
> The analogy is obvious. Being of the opinion that Art cannot be
> defined doesn't yield freedom at all. It gives power to a small band
> of people to which the public turns when it wants to know whether
> something is art or not.
Yes, but "strawman" can be easily defined. Now, back to my point: "What
is Art?" is an intrinsically flawed question. Why? Because it's too
easy to say that, and that, and that is art, and that, and that, and
that isn't art. Who really gives a flying F'er.
> I'm starting to believe the "magic ingredient" should indeed be skill
> (which is the old meaning of the word "art").
Skill is ok, in my book. I even like virtuosity, flayboyant
exhibitionism, ostententatious multiplicity...things like that. But I
like roughness also, the barbarian smudge and savage tint - you know,
the kind of sloppy witch-doctor stuff.
My beef is why Italian Futurists are remembered for 12 legged dogs in
Train Stations and not for the incredible typographic work they did -
some years before the Bauhaus? Wait...is typography art?
Erik
>
Erik A. Mattila
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> news:3ED7C545...@oco.net...
>
>>Seagull Manager wrote:
>>
>>>The pretense that art cannot be defined is bullshit, a scam devised by
>>
> 20th
>
>>>century intellectuals as part of an attempt to usurp control of the
>>
> artworld
>
>>>from artists and art lovers.
>>
>>Ah, ha...the 'victim/conspiracy' theory. Go study Plato's Ion and Meno
>>and get back to me.
>
>
> No need for a conspiracy. Once the "art cannot be defined" idea became
> available, it was only natural that those whom it seemed to serve best would
> adopt it as a motto, just other definitions are adopted by those whom they
> serve best (good at drawing? okay, art is representation, not so good? art
> is self-expression, socially conservative? art is that which elevates,
> radical? art is that which shocks, etc.) That "art cannot be defined" is an
> unwarranted leap to a conclusion that serves some interests and not others.
Out of curiosity, when was the "art cannot be defined" idea made
available? I'm not doubting it exists, but I really don't know where it
came from. Art theory and criticism more or less went hand and hand
with Modnernism, and few that I know of have this "cannot be defined"
component. "Significant form?" "Art for art's sake?" Oh, I like one
that I think is from Myer Shapiro, but I'm not certain: "The theory of
Modern Art is a theory of consumption disquised as a theory of production."
>>Ah, ha...the 'victim/conspiracy' theory. Go study Plato's Ion and Meno
>>and get back to me.
>
>
> A philosopher bamboozling an artist (Ion) in order to define his (the
> artist's) practice in a way that suits the philosopher? Okay, how does it
> help you?
Heehehehe...almost clever, my friend. But Danto can make that claim
legitimately...with regard to Plato, however...well, you have to
consider that in Antiquity and Late Antiquity Philosophy was regarded as
Art, not some other thing that looks at art. In fact it was regarded as
the King of Art.
Ion and Meno is helpful in that it overturns the claim that the "art
cannot be defined" debate is something new, or in any way the scion of
modernism and/or postmodernism.
eam
>
>
>
Thur
In fact Fine Art gets as many challenges on it's definition.
Visual Art rids the definition of the spoken and written word
at least, but is made to include all kinds, such as comic book
illustrations, poster art, sculpture, and even wood chippery
and metalwork, glasswork and pottery, video, etc.
Since nearly all discussions so far have referred exclusively
to painting, then why is no-one using it?
If art is to include so many different activities and products,
and the only point that connects them all is skill, then trying
to express something profound using "Art" is likely to lose
it's way.
I have not found an answer, but how can some abstract art fit
your definition, if it contains no apparent skill?
If this excludes some abstract art, (and I tend to go along with it)
then should r.a.f really be discussing the work of certain well known
painters anyway?
:-) (Steps back after lighting blue touch paper)
>Something is "raised to an art" when someone displays
>exceptional skill in it.
Agreed, and I would add that the activity begins to lose it's
functional purpose in favour of aesthetic values.
Thur
"Seagull Manager" <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote in
message news:bb8htv$rq$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
Christian Tangoe
> On Tue, 27 May 2003 10:17:04 +0800, right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew
> D) wrote:
>
> >In article <%NyAa.1153$y77.2...@news20.bellglobal.com>, "Chris"
> ><n...@this.address> wrote:
> >
> >>Hmm, it's beginning to look like I'm the only Pollock fan around here; I
> >>guess the least I can do is spell his name right.
> >
> >Searching the web, it seems both Pollock and Pollack are widely supported.
>
> A majority vote in this case doesn't make "Pollack" any better :-)
Well, of course. To debate wether Pollock is a great artist or not
is...well, if one likes to swim upstream, just for the sake of it...
One can certainly debate, whether the selection of artists getting
INTO the "hall of fame" is democratic, just and so...
Now wether the people who are already in that hall of fame has a true
right to be there....well, thats very interesting. One can´t kick them
out be ignoring them...One can´t kick them out by debating them, since
they only get stronger in their immortality by the new attention ....
Pollock is famous for (in a certain period of time) to solve a very
special problem in a very special way.
In the skill - will - need triangle in Art there is allways the skill
- will dilemma of "how to get the fucking paint on to the fucking
canvas" so the painting process got independent of the artist and
could really represent the "nonfigurative abstract ultimative". The
will - need element of the time was the (US-)movement in art to
investigate this problem, resulting in vairous abstract artist´s
styles.
As we all know Pollock solved this his own funny way by banging wholes
in jars with (auto?)paint and letting gravity be the brush....
50 years later one can see this as pretty boring decoration. But it
is hard to remove Pollock as a main contributor to modern art.
I think one has to be very carefull not to let STYLISTIC PREFERENCES
judge the work of an artist.
I like realism as made by Michael Ancher AND surrealism as made by
dali AND Pollock AND jorn and Motherwelll AND warhole and Rauschenberg
(and the pile of dust in a gallery.. along with duChamp)
christian Tangoe
Paul Mesken
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>Paul Mesken wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 May 2003 19:47:21 +0100, "Seagull Manager"
>> <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
>>>news:3ED52130...@oco.net...
>>>
>>>>Mike Stengl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Very well said, Mike (for someone who is less eloquent...). "What is
>>>>Art?" is an intrinsically flawed question to begin with, or at least
>>>>unanswerable.
>>>
>>>No, it isn't. Art is artefacts made with the intention that they should be
>>>of high aesthetic value.
>>>
>>>The pretense that art cannot be defined is bullshit, a scam devised by 20th
>>>century intellectuals as part of an attempt to usurp control of the artworld
>>
>>>from artists and art lovers.
>>
>> I hear you friend! Everybody can define art and there is such a thing
>> as consensus about it (however local). If it was beyond definition
>> then it should have also been beyond recognition. Ofcourse everybody
>> recognizes art so there is such a thing as a definition, at least one
>> or more "prototypes".
>
>Hahaha, but what you hear "is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and
>fury, Signifying nothing."
This sounds familiar to my eyes, is it a quote? :-)
> S&M is responding to my claim that the
>question "What is Art?" is intrinsically flawed. Is that equivocal to
>claiming "Art cannot be defined?" I think not...but I suppose I could
>be wrong.
What does it mean when a question is intrinsically flawed? The default
meaning is that there is no answer possible. For a simple 3 word
question like "What is Art?" this can only mean that art has no
definition.
> In fact, if S&M had been engaged enough to conceptually grasp
>the meaning of the Sapir quote I supplied, he would have understood that
>I am claiming it a flawed question precisely because art is so easily
>defined, in too many ways, and in ways that instrinsically oppose one
>another.
This is all getting a little bit subtle. What you're saying is that
the question "What is Art" is flawed because there are too many
answers. Now if they would all cancel each other out and nothing was
left there would indeed be no definition.
However, I believe the majority of _accepted_ answers can be grouped
into one answer, that underlying all legal ideas about art is one
prototypical one. Ofcourse there could also be several. However : the
number is, I believe, finite.
This requires ofcourse quite a broad definition.
The definitions of art we have seen are either enormously broad or are
of the type "Art is everything", "Art is beyond definition", etc.
>But I just like to flush out the GesArtpo - you know that. I mean, most
>answers to the "What is Art" question are exclusionary, and valorize the
>lexicographer's particular interests. As Sapir wrote in 1923 - we all
>agree that "art" is something we like, and when we see stuff in the
>gallery that we don't like, we think "that isn't art." "Art is
>anything" btw isn't a definition, except for Gurdjieff disciples.
Are you saying that a definition of art has personal taste in a
central role? That would be a legal definition ofcourse.
>I would include myself among the throngs who would look at a Pollock and
>like it very much, perhaps be moved by it, or think it a great work of
>art. You, and S&M, and others may wish to banish the work to your
>imaginary hell of rubish, trash, childish chimp art, or whatever you
>have invented to valorize your bias...but it won't change my
>appreciation of Pollock, of course...nor my definition of "art" for that
>matter.
Now now now, we shouldn't get two different things mixed up here :
"the appreciation of art" and "the definition of art" are two
different things even if you would accept that the definition of art
is essentialy about taste.
>Now, back to my point: "What
>is Art?" is an intrinsically flawed question. Why? Because it's too
>easy to say that, and that, and that is art, and that, and that, and
>that isn't art. Who really gives a flying F'er.
Makes it a perfect question to raise in a newsgroup, heated debates
guaranteed :-)
Don't you think it's interesting to see all these different meanings
people attach to something as commonplace as "art"? Not to mention
some fierce reactions to raising the question itself.
>> I'm starting to believe the "magic ingredient" should indeed be skill
>> (which is the old meaning of the word "art").
>
>Skill is ok, in my book. I even like virtuosity, flayboyant
>exhibitionism, ostententatious multiplicity...things like that. But I
>like roughness also, the barbarian smudge and savage tint - you know,
>the kind of sloppy witch-doctor stuff.
Skill can manifest itself in many a form. It is that what is primarily
used to achieve a goal (luck is its companion :-) It is ofcourse not
the same as materials or other such resources, those are used by
skill. The greater the skill, the better a goal can be achieved.
>My beef is why Italian Futurists are remembered for 12 legged dogs in
>Train Stations and not for the incredible typographic work they did -
>some years before the Bauhaus?
>Wait...is typography art?
For that to answer you first have to define art...
Nikolaus Maack
> You know, this whole "art cannot be defined" bull reminds me of the
> Dark Ages in Europe when bibles were in latin and could only be
> understood by a small circle of people.
My intention is the complete opposite of what you're describing. If art
"cannot be defined", then it is up to each particular human being to
determing what they would call art of value. This democratizes art,
taking the definition out of the hands of so-called experts.
If everything is potentially art, then we are all artists, all of us
able to create our own art. We are all, each of us, uniquely, artistic
forces to be reckoned with!
> I'm starting to believe the "magic ingredient" should indeed be skill
> (which is the old meaning of the word "art").
(Oh no -- now we'll have to define "skill"!)
Is the ability to find interesting objects and call them "art" a skill?
Oliver Gili
>
> "Oliver Gili" <Redo...@ogili.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:bb2n1g$vpj$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > Me, my favourite Art is that which fills me with aesthetic rapture
>
> Mountains and the wind and the sea are not art, though they might fill you
> with aesthetic rapture. If you happen not to like the paintings of, say,
Jan
> Vermeer, they are still art, even if they don't fill you with rapture.
DIdn't you read the words 'my favorite' in the sentance 'my favourite Art' ?
Oliver
Paul Mesken
<nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Paul Mesken wrote:
>> You know, this whole "art cannot be defined" bull reminds me of the
>> Dark Ages in Europe when bibles were in latin and could only be
>> understood by a small circle of people.
>
>My intention is the complete opposite of what you're describing. If art
>"cannot be defined", then it is up to each particular human being to
>determing what they would call art of value. This democratizes art,
>taking the definition out of the hands of so-called experts.
Yes, and a great many of us are indulging in giving our definition of
art. Making use of our democratic rights in a way.
It probably eluded you but my definition of art (the "Art" thread's
starting article) started off with an enormous amount of hyperbole
about my capabilities and how my definition would solve any single
problem in r.a.f. and concluded with how my definition is raised above
all doubt and those who don't believe that will suffer in Hell.
Now, does this sound to you like I myself believe my definition of art
is of universal value?
Ofcourse not, I simply want to see what others consider "art" and I
must say that it has been interesting. While I make a strong point of
"intent" (or use), others believe skill to play a pivotal role and I
see wisdom in it, aesthetic values, strive to Excellence, etc.
People always want some definition of whatever.
For instance : if it's Art then it's of value and money can be spend
on it. If it's rubbish then it's worthless and it would be foolish to
spend money on it.
You see? The definition of Art does hold a lot of power. Saying that
art is everything won't be accepted since this would include rubbish.
>If everything is potentially art, then we are all artists, all of us
>able to create our own art. We are all, each of us, uniquely, artistic
>forces to be reckoned with!
This has always been the case but I doubt a lot of people would agree
with your definition of art "Art is everything" for this is not how
most perceive the world. OTOH "Everybody can be an artist" is
something most will agree upon.
> > I'm starting to believe the "magic ingredient" should indeed be skill
> > (which is the old meaning of the word "art").
>
>(Oh no -- now we'll have to define "skill"!)
>
>Is the ability to find interesting objects and call them "art" a skill?
Yes
Oliver Gili
> Oliver Gili wrote:
> > Exactly. the 20th century was the century where the battle of 'what is
art'
> > was fought. Anything can be art, anyone can be an artist. People
should
> > get over this. Stalinist dogmatism is boring, and redundant. If
anything it
> > shows fear of Art, of course its scarily unobjective, of course there
are no
> > absolutes, but this uncertainty should be embraced in the subjective
journey
> > through art. Bullying people in an attempt to make the subjective
objective
> > speaks volumes about what the bully lacks.
>
> I have to wonder if clinging to objectivity is an insecure person's way
> of hiding from their lack of self?
No, I think its an insecure person's way of projecting self.
Oliver
Mani Deli
wrote:
>I'm starting to believe the "magic ingredient" should indeed be skill
>(which is the old meaning of the word "art").
and I add. Show any work considered great besides examples of Modern
Academic Art that lack skill. I've often asked this here and received
no answer.
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Mani Deli
<nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>If everything is potentially art, then we are all artists, all of us
>able to create our own art. We are all, each of us, uniquely, artistic
>forces to be reckoned with!
Perhaps, yes, perhaps no. You won't get a conclusive answer.
>
>Paul Mesken wrote:
> > I'm starting to believe the "magic ingredient" should indeed be skill
> > (which is the old meaning of the word "art").
>
>(Oh no -- now we'll have to define "skill"!)
No we won't. We can ask people what they think. Just like we can ask
people what they thing is art. We need not press either for a
definition.
I'm not interested in ART. I'm interested in the qualities that make
fine artwork. Some of that can be explained. That is always the job
one who produces artwork.
Erik A. Mattila
> (Oh no -- now we'll have to define "skill"!)
>
> Is the ability to find interesting objects and call them "art" a skill?
>
> Nik
> http://www.nikart.ca
Good point, Nik. Personally, I think Pollock was skillful. People who
deny this, I think, are looking at the fact that anyone can grab a can
of paint and dribble it on a canvas. But anyone can grab a pencil,
paintbrush, or pen and make marks, also. So we can eliminate "anyone
can do this or that" from the skill framework. At least that's a start
for a def.
Erik
>
>
>
Erik A. Mattila
>>Hahaha, but what you hear "is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and
>>fury, Signifying nothing."
>
>
> This sounds familiar to my eyes, is it a quote? :-)
By virtue of the quotation marks, I would say "yes." ;-)
>> S&M is responding to my claim that the
>>question "What is Art?" is intrinsically flawed. Is that equivocal to
>>claiming "Art cannot be defined?" I think not...but I suppose I could
>>be wrong.
>
> What does it mean when a question is intrinsically flawed? The default
> meaning is that there is no answer possible. For a simple 3 word
> question like "What is Art?" this can only mean that art has no
> definition.
I don't think so. I'm actually thinking of the Frankfurt School, where
the search for answers was abandoned in favor of the search for better
questions. In this specific case, the multiplicity of possible answers
tend to dilute the value of any possible meaning.
>> In fact, if S&M had been engaged enough to conceptually grasp
>>the meaning of the Sapir quote I supplied, he would have understood that
>>I am claiming it a flawed question precisely because art is so easily
>>defined, in too many ways, and in ways that instrinsically oppose one
>>another.
>
> This is all getting a little bit subtle. What you're saying is that
> the question "What is Art" is flawed because there are too many
> answers. Now if they would all cancel each other out and nothing was
> left there would indeed be no definition.
Not at all, Paul. Think of the Asian parable of the Blind Priests and
the Elephant. Do you know it? Without getting too distracted, the
Priest who bumped into the Elephant's leg exclaimed "An elephant is like
a tree trunk" and the one who grabbed his tail argued "No, it's like a
rope" and the one who felt its trunk said "You're both wrong, it is like
a snake!" and so on. Of course all the priests are correct, but no
closer to understanding what an elephant is like.
>
> However, I believe the majority of _accepted_ answers can be grouped
> into one answer, that underlying all legal ideas about art is one
> prototypical one. Ofcourse there could also be several. However : the
> number is, I believe, finite.
I don't agree with that at all. But it would be a good project to
attempt to distil all theories of art into a unified field theory. The
question is how much you would have to expunge from each theory to get
them to cooperate.
> This requires ofcourse quite a broad definition.
>
> The definitions of art we have seen are either enormously broad or are
> of the type "Art is everything", "Art is beyond definition", etc.
We should probably stop here and distinguish between a definition and a
theory. Most of what we have, even recently on this ng, are not
"definitions" but "theories." That said, there's been a lot of
intellectual work by many on collecting and listing the major types of
theories of art. When we hear people expounding, especially when they
really haven't studied the problem, we more than often hear mixes of
various types of theories that, when played out fully, are
contradictory. For example:
http://retiary.org/art_theories/theories_of_art.html
Mimetic theories
Expressive theories
Formalist theories
Processional theories
Aesthetic theories
Pragmatic theories
There's another, not counted on the above cited web page, called
"Institutional Theories" which is more or less what you are challenging,
insofar as citing the "art scene" as the hegemon for imposing the "big
ART" standard on society.
A "definition" is a bit different, and shouldn't get too far away from a
dictionary. In other words, "Art" can be defined in several ways, and
in the immediate context of type of theories such as listed above.
>>But I just like to flush out the GesArtpo - you know that. I mean, most
>>answers to the "What is Art" question are exclusionary, and valorize the
>>lexicographer's particular interests. As Sapir wrote in 1923 - we all
>>agree that "art" is something we like, and when we see stuff in the
>>gallery that we don't like, we think "that isn't art." "Art is
>>anything" btw isn't a definition, except for Gurdjieff disciples.
>
> Are you saying that a definition of art has personal taste in a
> central role? That would be a legal definition ofcourse.
Of course it could be a matter of taste, but not necessarily so. I
could be from conviction, for example. "I believe that artist's need to
go through 7 years of agonizing redundancy in order to qualify as
artist." Or, William J. Bennet might argue, under the venue of "moral
clarity" that art is one thing and one thing only, and everything else
is a liberal plot. I mean, there are several plausible grounds for
prefering a type or period of works of art over others...what's
difficult is quantifying "legitimacy" of one criteria over another.
>>I would include myself among the throngs who would look at a Pollock and
>>like it very much, perhaps be moved by it, or think it a great work of
>>art. You, and S&M, and others may wish to banish the work to your
>>imaginary hell of rubish, trash, childish chimp art, or whatever you
>>have invented to valorize your bias...but it won't change my
>>appreciation of Pollock, of course...nor my definition of "art" for that
>>matter.
> Now now now, we shouldn't get two different things mixed up here :
> "the appreciation of art" and "the definition of art" are two
> different things even if you would accept that the definition of art
> is essentialy about taste.
But when one "defines" art along exclusionary lines -- "Pollock isn't an
artist because he has not demonstrated the ostentatious display of
virtuosity" -- then we are talking about definitions and not "appreciation."
>>Now, back to my point: "What
>>is Art?" is an intrinsically flawed question. Why? Because it's too
>>easy to say that, and that, and that is art, and that, and that, and
>>that isn't art. Who really gives a flying F'er.
>
> Makes it a perfect question to raise in a newsgroup, heated debates
> guaranteed :-)
>
> Don't you think it's interesting to see all these different meanings
> people attach to something as commonplace as "art"? Not to mention
> some fierce reactions to raising the question itself.
Yes, it is interesting. Personally, though, I think the better question
is how art hegemony works in culture really works. That's something
that may have value to a aspiring artist, who really doesn't need a
definition of "art" to carry on.
>>>I'm starting to believe the "magic ingredient" should indeed be skill
>>>(which is the old meaning of the word "art").
>>
>>Skill is ok, in my book. I even like virtuosity, flayboyant
>>exhibitionism, ostententatious multiplicity...things like that. But I
>>like roughness also, the barbarian smudge and savage tint - you know,
>>the kind of sloppy witch-doctor stuff.
>
> Skill can manifest itself in many a form. It is that what is primarily
> used to achieve a goal (luck is its companion :-) It is ofcourse not
> the same as materials or other such resources, those are used by
> skill. The greater the skill, the better a goal can be achieved.
Indeed...
>>My beef is why Italian Futurists are remembered for 12 legged dogs in
>>Train Stations and not for the incredible typographic work they did -
>>some years before the Bauhaus?
>
>>Wait...is typography art?
>
> For that to answer you first have to define art...
Not me, I'm a Situationist.
Erik
Paul Mesken
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>Paul Mesken wrote:
>
>>>Hahaha, but what you hear "is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and
>>>fury, Signifying nothing."
>>
>>
>> This sounds familiar to my eyes, is it a quote? :-)
>
>By virtue of the quotation marks, I would say "yes." ;-)
>
>>> S&M is responding to my claim that the
>>>question "What is Art?" is intrinsically flawed. Is that equivocal to
>>>claiming "Art cannot be defined?" I think not...but I suppose I could
>>>be wrong.
>>
>> What does it mean when a question is intrinsically flawed? The default
>> meaning is that there is no answer possible. For a simple 3 word
>> question like "What is Art?" this can only mean that art has no
>> definition.
>
>I don't think so. I'm actually thinking of the Frankfurt School, where
>the search for answers was abandoned in favor of the search for better
>questions. In this specific case, the multiplicity of possible answers
>tend to dilute the value of any possible meaning.
This reminds me of the fictional computer "Deep Thought" (the IBM
chess computer "Deep Blue" was named in honor of it) which was made to
supply the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and
Everything. It took seven-and-a-half million years to come up with the
answer "42" (it's from Douglas Adams's "Hitch Hiker's Guide to the
Galaxy")
>>> In fact, if S&M had been engaged enough to conceptually grasp
>>>the meaning of the Sapir quote I supplied, he would have understood that
>>>I am claiming it a flawed question precisely because art is so easily
>>>defined, in too many ways, and in ways that instrinsically oppose one
>>>another.
>>
>> This is all getting a little bit subtle. What you're saying is that
>> the question "What is Art" is flawed because there are too many
>> answers. Now if they would all cancel each other out and nothing was
>> left there would indeed be no definition.
>
>Not at all, Paul. Think of the Asian parable of the Blind Priests and
>the Elephant. Do you know it? Without getting too distracted, the
>Priest who bumped into the Elephant's leg exclaimed "An elephant is like
>a tree trunk" and the one who grabbed his tail argued "No, it's like a
>rope" and the one who felt its trunk said "You're both wrong, it is like
>a snake!" and so on. Of course all the priests are correct, but no
>closer to understanding what an elephant is like.
Ah, but does this mean that the question "What is an elephant?" is
intrinsically flawed? I don't think so. Not in the sense that one
cannot give a satisfying answer to the question.
You see, your blind priests can see only part of the whole and come up
with different answers to the question but this doesn't mean the
question is intrinsically flawed. It only means each priest only knows
part of the answer. All of their answers combined is the complete
answer.
>> However, I believe the majority of _accepted_ answers can be grouped
>> into one answer, that underlying all legal ideas about art is one
>> prototypical one. Ofcourse there could also be several. However : the
>> number is, I believe, finite.
>
>I don't agree with that at all. But it would be a good project to
>attempt to distil all theories of art into a unified field theory. The
>question is how much you would have to expunge from each theory to get
>them to cooperate.
It's not necessary to make each and every theory cooperate with the
rest. Take our priests : "a snake-like tree trunk feeling like a
rope", even though it forces all 3 definitions into one it doesn't
appeal to each individual priest. We simply have to list them and
observe whether there's one or some patterns that we can describe.
>> This requires ofcourse quite a broad definition.
>>
>> The definitions of art we have seen are either enormously broad or are
>> of the type "Art is everything", "Art is beyond definition", etc.
>
>We should probably stop here and distinguish between a definition and a
>theory. Most of what we have, even recently on this ng, are not
>"definitions" but "theories."
Then we use the word "theory" from now on.
>That said, there's been a lot of
>intellectual work by many on collecting and listing the major types of
>theories of art. When we hear people expounding, especially when they
>really haven't studied the problem, we more than often hear mixes of
>various types of theories that, when played out fully, are
>contradictory. For example:
>
>http://retiary.org/art_theories/theories_of_art.html
>Mimetic theories
>Expressive theories
>Formalist theories
>Processional theories
>Aesthetic theories
>Pragmatic theories
Well, there you have it. A small list of prototypes. These theories
are all narrower than my own (which include about everything :-)
>>>But I just like to flush out the GesArtpo - you know that. I mean, most
>>>answers to the "What is Art" question are exclusionary, and valorize the
>>>lexicographer's particular interests. As Sapir wrote in 1923 - we all
>>>agree that "art" is something we like, and when we see stuff in the
>>>gallery that we don't like, we think "that isn't art." "Art is
>>>anything" btw isn't a definition, except for Gurdjieff disciples.
>>
>> Are you saying that a definition of art has personal taste in a
>> central role? That would be a legal definition ofcourse.
>
>Of course it could be a matter of taste, but not necessarily so. I
>could be from conviction, for example. "I believe that artist's need to
>go through 7 years of agonizing redundancy in order to qualify as
>artist." Or, William J. Bennet might argue, under the venue of "moral
>clarity" that art is one thing and one thing only, and everything else
>is a liberal plot. I mean, there are several plausible grounds for
>prefering a type or period of works of art over others...what's
>difficult is quantifying "legitimacy" of one criteria over another.
Yes, the legitimacy issue is the most difficult to crack. Or better :
what is one's personal conviction and what is objective? (in as far
people are able of objectivity).
>>>I would include myself among the throngs who would look at a Pollock and
>>>like it very much, perhaps be moved by it, or think it a great work of
>>>art. You, and S&M, and others may wish to banish the work to your
>>>imaginary hell of rubish, trash, childish chimp art, or whatever you
>>>have invented to valorize your bias...but it won't change my
>>>appreciation of Pollock, of course...nor my definition of "art" for that
>>>matter.
>
>> Now now now, we shouldn't get two different things mixed up here :
>> "the appreciation of art" and "the definition of art" are two
>> different things even if you would accept that the definition of art
>> is essentialy about taste.
>
>But when one "defines" art along exclusionary lines -- "Pollock isn't an
>artist because he has not demonstrated the ostentatious display of
>virtuosity" -- then we are talking about definitions and not "appreciation."
That's not along exclusionary lines. If a theory or definition comes
up with criteria that establish what falls outside of art then it's
exclusionary. It's like the law, it doesn't tell you what to do but it
tells you what you shouldn't do :-)
>>>Now, back to my point: "What
>>>is Art?" is an intrinsically flawed question. Why? Because it's too
>>>easy to say that, and that, and that is art, and that, and that, and
>>>that isn't art. Who really gives a flying F'er.
>>
>> Makes it a perfect question to raise in a newsgroup, heated debates
>> guaranteed :-)
>>
>> Don't you think it's interesting to see all these different meanings
>> people attach to something as commonplace as "art"? Not to mention
>> some fierce reactions to raising the question itself.
>
>Yes, it is interesting. Personally, though, I think the better question
>is how art hegemony works in culture really works. That's something
>that may have value to a aspiring artist, who really doesn't need a
>definition of "art" to carry on.
Yeah, that's one of the problems of the theory. It's hardly of any use
to artists (but it is of use to the ones wanting to buy art).
Paul Mesken
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>Nikolaus Maack wrote:
>
>> (Oh no -- now we'll have to define "skill"!)
>>
>> Is the ability to find interesting objects and call them "art" a skill?
>>
>> Nik
>> http://www.nikart.ca
>
>Good point, Nik. Personally, I think Pollock was skillful. People who
>deny this, I think, are looking at the fact that anyone can grab a can
>of paint and dribble it on a canvas.
Er.. basically... yes!
>But anyone can grab a pencil,
>paintbrush, or pen and make marks, also.
Yes (barring an incomplete or badly damaged human body)
>So we can eliminate "anyone
>can do this or that" from the skill framework. At least that's a start
>for a def.
Uh.. No! There's a difference between merely putting down marks (or
pouring paint in Pollock's case) and putting them down in such a way
that can only come about by invoking great skill.
Erik A. Mattila
> x-no-archive: yes
> Can I ask if Pollock's skill can be detected in his famous
> 'dribble' art?
yes
> Could you be certain that the skill you detect is the same as
> another who also appreciates the work?
yes
> In other words, is this skill real or imagined?
real
> I once saw two University people on Open Uni (UK tv) discussing
> one of his large canvases, but I could not even accept that
> they were discussing the same work that was being shown,
> or that they were discussing the same work as each other.
> I often get that feeling about abstract art.
> :-)
Maybe it just ain't your cup-O-tea.
> I once suggested that like the Chinese and Japanese, a text
> could be painted in a corner or down the side of a work, preferably
> an abstract work, which would guide the viewer as to what it
> was meant to be or what message it was meant to carry, etc.
> I find it difficult to believe that an abstract can be successfully decoded
> back to the artist's intentions without close guidance by the artist.
> If, as some have suggested, there is no meaning to an abstract,
> then it becomes less clear just how the work rates above wallpaper.
> Thur
But you don't need any 'text' to appreciate a Pollock. You just grok
it. It's simple. If you want to talk about it, however, words are
handy, but they don't need to be inscribed on the painting. That's why
a lot of A&E painters shied away from titles, after all.
Erik
>
>
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> news:3ED90409...@oco.net...
Erik A. Mattila
Yessir. That is what I am saying. And it is in that "difference" that
the discussion lays, not in the act of dribbling, marking, or drooling
itself. Thus we get past the "anyone could do that" threshold right off
the bat.
As it stands, the claim is that Pollack is unskillful - but since we've
eliminted the "anyone can do that" factor, why is he thought to be
unskillful?
Erik
>
>
Paul Mesken
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
Okay, let's get this straight coz this discourse is heading at
somewhere I don't like ;-)
You're saying that Pollock is condemned by people as unskilled because
of his choice to pour paint (instead of applying it by a brush for
instance) but this is not how it should be interpreted.
Those people could just as well have said "everyone can hold a brush".
That's not the point. The point is that a lot of people can't make his
work into anything *more* than _merely_ "pouring paint" (in the sense
like a child could pour paint).
They believe *merely* "pouring paint" is all that there is to his work
and, yes, everyone can pour paint and therefor they believe his work
didn't require any skill.
>As it stands, the claim is that Pollack is unskillful - but since we've
>eliminted the "anyone can do that" factor, why is he thought to be
>unskillful?
Well, not all think like that (clearly). The ones saying about
Pollock's work that anyone can pour paint don't see that Pollock does
something special when pouring paint that is beyond the "mere pouring
of paint".
Few would say of Rembrandt : "Heck, that ain't special, anyone can
work a brush". But this is because Rembrandt worked with the brush in
such a way that is given to only a few talented ones.
Nice try though Erik :-)
Seagull Manager
> Seagull Manager wrote:
> > "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> > news:3ED7C545...@oco.net...
> >
>
> available? I'm not doubting it exists, but I really don't know where it
> came from.
Probably since Morris Weitz published a paper in 1956 arguing as much.
> Art theory and criticism more or less went hand and hand
> with Modnernism, and few that I know of have this "cannot be defined"
> component. "Significant form?" "Art for art's sake?" Oh, I like one
> that I think is from Myer Shapiro, but I'm not certain: "The theory of
> Modern Art is a theory of consumption disquised as a theory of
production."
Seems unlikely. "Art for art's sake" was a slogan of Aestheticism popular
during the last quarter of the 19th century. Meyer Shapiro was writing
several decades later.
>
> >>Ah, ha...the 'victim/conspiracy' theory. Go study Plato's Ion and Meno
> >>and get back to me.
> >
> >
> > A philosopher bamboozling an artist (Ion) in order to define his (the
> > artist's) practice in a way that suits the philosopher? Okay, how does
it
> > help you?
>
> Heehehehe...almost clever, my friend. But Danto can make that claim
> legitimately...with regard to Plato, however...well, you have to
> consider that in Antiquity and Late Antiquity Philosophy was regarded as
> Art, not some other thing that looks at art. In fact it was regarded as
> the King of Art.
Philosophy was correctly regarded as an art.
> Ion and Meno is helpful in that it overturns the claim that the "art
> cannot be defined" debate is something new, or in any way the scion of
> modernism and/or postmodernism.
The problem wasn't a perceived undefinability of art (the definition of art
was not even seen as particularly problematic), but that Socrates was unable
to see the craft in poetry, so he attributed success in poetry to
inspiration.
Erik A. Mattila
But that's it in a nutshell, Paul. Rembrandt's skill is obvious,
Pollock's not. Or put it another way...how many children, apes,
indiots, iconoclasts and so on have made paintings as nice as Pollocks,
in spite of the chours that chants "A Monkey can do that" or "anyone can
dribble paint" and so on?
Notice I'm not denying that skill should be in the "art" equation. It's
just that I think it's not that explicit what "skill" is.
Erik
>
Erik A. Mattila
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> news:3ED8597B...@oco.net...
>
>>Seagull Manager wrote:
>>
>>>"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
>>>news:3ED7C545...@oco.net...
>>>
>>
>>Out of curiosity, when was the "art cannot be defined" idea made
>>available? I'm not doubting it exists, but I really don't know where it
>>came from.
>
>
> Probably since Morris Weitz published a paper in 1956 arguing as much.
I'm not at home with antiessentialist analytic philosophy, but I would
hazard to guess that Weitz was addressing "undefinability" in a very
specialized fashion - that is the priority of description over
interpretation. A "definition" is an "interpretation", in other words.
X = Y, along that line. So I guess you could argue that Einstein
also argued against definition by saying there is no simultaniety in the
universe; nothing "is" something else.
But you should thank your lucky stars for Dickie's Institutional Theory,
then, since he reinstated the importance of definitions. (just a little
irony there.)
>> Art theory and criticism more or less went hand and hand
>>with Modnernism, and few that I know of have this "cannot be defined"
>>component. "Significant form?" "Art for art's sake?" Oh, I like one
>>that I think is from Myer Shapiro, but I'm not certain: "The theory of
>>Modern Art is a theory of consumption disquised as a theory of
>
> production."
>
> Seems unlikely. "Art for art's sake" was a slogan of Aestheticism popular
> during the last quarter of the 19th century. Meyer Shapiro was writing
> several decades later.
You're not reading the sentence correctly..the colon is between "Meyer
Shapiro and the "consumption/production" theory, not the "Art for Art's
Sake" theory.
>>>>Ah, ha...the 'victim/conspiracy' theory. Go study Plato's Ion and Meno
>>>>and get back to me.
>>>
>>>
>>>A philosopher bamboozling an artist (Ion) in order to define his (the
>>>artist's) practice in a way that suits the philosopher? Okay, how does
>>
> it
>
>>>help you?
>>
>>Heehehehe...almost clever, my friend. But Danto can make that claim
>>legitimately...with regard to Plato, however...well, you have to
>>consider that in Antiquity and Late Antiquity Philosophy was regarded as
>>Art, not some other thing that looks at art. In fact it was regarded as
>>the King of Art.
>
>
> Philosophy was correctly regarded as an art.
>
>
>>Ion and Meno is helpful in that it overturns the claim that the "art
>>cannot be defined" debate is something new, or in any way the scion of
>>modernism and/or postmodernism.
>
>
> The problem wasn't a perceived undefinability of art (the definition of art
> was not even seen as particularly problematic), but that Socrates was unable
> to see the craft in poetry, so he attributed success in poetry to
> inspiration.
Sure it was. In Ion the argument is that the real-deal is in fact not
in "art" (as it was defined) but in chain from the poet to the Gods.
Since we use "Art" today to signify the "real deal" it shows the debate
is rather antique.
Erik
>
>
Nikolaus Maack
> Philosophy was correctly regarded as an art.
Why? Anyone can think.
(That was sarcasm, by the way.)
> The problem wasn't a perceived undefinability of art (the definition of art
> was not even seen as particularly problematic), but that Socrates was unable
> to see the craft in poetry, so he attributed success in poetry to
> inspiration.
That fucking Socrates! I knew it was his fault! Goddamn loser. And he
fucked little boys, too!
Linda Hand
>But you don't need any 'text' to appreciate a Pollock. You just grok
>it. It's simple. If you want to talk about it, however, words are
>handy, but they don't need to be inscribed on the painting.
When viewing one of Pollock's "mature" works,
it would make more sense, to me, to discuss
one's own emotional reactions to it than to
try and discuss the work per se...
Linda Hand
>But that's it in a nutshell, Paul.
I think you two are having the classic "glass half
full/half empty" conversation here...
Paul Mesken
There are several problems :
1 - The mere fact that it looks like anyone could make it (that stuff
about the monkeys is hyperbole ofcourse) already puts the skill of the
artist under suspicion.
2 - Your personal observation that Pollock's work is nice clashes with
mine that it has no aesthetic value (notice that I'm not saying
anything about the skill, just my reaction to the paintings)
3 - The fact that it is unique doesn't make it any better
We could attribute our positive or negative reactions to Pollock's
work to his skill but this doesn't get us nowhere.
>Notice I'm not denying that skill should be in the "art" equation. It's
>just that I think it's not that explicit what "skill" is.
But are you saying that the chours that chant that "anyone can dribble
paint" are wrong in that Pollock's work cannot be approached by just
anyone?
Or are you saying that the skills of Pollock are not in the execution
of the paintings but merely in its conception?
Paul Mesken
Mani Deli
>Rembrandt's skill is obvious,
>Pollock's not.
-because Pollock has none! Skill in painting is obvious to most
observers. They have no trouble saying whether they think anyone can
do that and they are usually right.
> Or put it another way...how many children, apes,
>indiots, iconoclasts and so on have made paintings as nice as Pollocks,
Apes are always better than Pollock. If you were to take some
children's drawings and hang them as Pollock I believe they would pass
as fine work for most artzy fartzies.
>in spite of the chours that chants "A Monkey can do that" or "anyone can
>dribble paint" and so on?
Obviously (as they say here) you don't UNDERSTAND chimpanzee
painting.
>
>Notice I'm not denying that skill should be in the "art" equation. It's
>just that I think it's not that explicit what "skill" is.
>
As I said the janitor of the building can see when the nose is off in
a student's drawing. You don't need an art teacher for that. A lack of
skill is apparent without any discussion about art.
Mani Deli
wrote:
>When viewing one of Pollock's "mature" works,
>it would make more sense, to me, to discuss
>one's own emotional reactions to it than to
>try and discuss the work per se...
>
Art critics are delighted with this point of view as long as they can
prevent any negative reactions getting into the media.
Erik A. Mattila
> On Sat, 31 May 2003 23:33:23 -0700, "Erik A. Mattila"
> <emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>
>
>>But that's it in a nutshell, Paul. Rembrandt's skill is obvious,
>>Pollock's not. Or put it another way...how many children, apes,
>>indiots, iconoclasts and so on have made paintings as nice as Pollocks,
>>in spite of the chours that chants "A Monkey can do that" or "anyone can
>>dribble paint" and so on?
>
>
> There are several problems :
>
> 1 - The mere fact that it looks like anyone could make it (that stuff
> about the monkeys is hyperbole ofcourse) already puts the skill of the
> artist under suspicion.
> 2 - Your personal observation that Pollock's work is nice clashes with
> mine that it has no aesthetic value (notice that I'm not saying
> anything about the skill, just my reaction to the paintings)
> 3 - The fact that it is unique doesn't make it any better
>
> We could attribute our positive or negative reactions to Pollock's
> work to his skill but this doesn't get us nowhere.
Yes, I see there are several problems - but just cut it down to the
simple observation that one says "a child can do that" as a critique,
and cannot produce an example of a child doing that, or something even
similar.
And another thing...you've surely heard the phrase that acknowledges
great skill "She/he makes it look easy."
>
>
>>Notice I'm not denying that skill should be in the "art" equation. It's
>>just that I think it's not that explicit what "skill" is.
>
>
> But are you saying that the chours that chant that "anyone can dribble
> paint" are wrong in that Pollock's work cannot be approached by just
> anyone?
>
> Or are you saying that the skills of Pollock are not in the execution
> of the paintings but merely in its conception?
Neither, really. I'm saying that "skill" isn't that great a criteria by
which to judge art. I have some favorite renderings, for example, that
I admire because of their explicit display of skill in rendering - that
is what the works of art are about. Evaluating them next of other
favorites which may have other strategies isn't sensible.
Come to think of it, "skill" has become an object of art in itself from
time to time.
Erik
>
Erik A. Mattila
Yeah, but too bad you have the half-empty glass.
>
Paul Mesken
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>Paul Mesken wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 May 2003 23:33:23 -0700, "Erik A. Mattila"
>> <emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>But that's it in a nutshell, Paul. Rembrandt's skill is obvious,
>>>Pollock's not. Or put it another way...how many children, apes,
>>>indiots, iconoclasts and so on have made paintings as nice as Pollocks,
>>>in spite of the chours that chants "A Monkey can do that" or "anyone can
>>>dribble paint" and so on?
>>
>>
>> There are several problems :
>>
>> 1 - The mere fact that it looks like anyone could make it (that stuff
>> about the monkeys is hyperbole ofcourse) already puts the skill of the
>> artist under suspicion.
>> 2 - Your personal observation that Pollock's work is nice clashes with
>> mine that it has no aesthetic value (notice that I'm not saying
>> anything about the skill, just my reaction to the paintings)
>> 3 - The fact that it is unique doesn't make it any better
>>
>> We could attribute our positive or negative reactions to Pollock's
>> work to his skill but this doesn't get us nowhere.
>
>Yes, I see there are several problems - but just cut it down to the
>simple observation that one says "a child can do that" as a critique,
>and cannot produce an example of a child doing that, or something even
>similar.
So, basically you're saying that the observation that what Pollock
does requires no skill is wrong or at least founded on quick sand. You
want hard proof even though a lot of people believe it not to require
any skill above what everyone can do.
I know Norman Rockwell did a "Pollock" as a background for his
painting "The Connoisseur" (1962), he even used Pollock's method.
But then again : Rockwell is one of the most skilled painters I can
think of. The man could do practically anything.
I could volunteer for the job but I'm not unskilled so I don't know
whether that would count as proof (hey, I could even drop smoked
cigarettes on the canvas, just like Pollock did :-)
I must admit that I don't know of any "Pollocks" made by unskilled
persons. Perhaps somebody else here could produce such an example (or
even better, a "Pollock" made by a monkey :-)
Nevertheless : do you believe Pollock used a greater than normal
amount of skill in the execution of his paintings?
>And another thing...you've surely heard the phrase that acknowledges
>great skill "She/he makes it look easy."
That's said of actions, not paintings. If I see a snooker player like
Stephen Hendry or Ronnie O'Sullivan knocking in one ball after the
other then I indeed say "He makes it look so easy" while in fact it is
not.
>> But are you saying that the chours that chant that "anyone can dribble
>> paint" are wrong in that Pollock's work cannot be approached by just
>> anyone?
>>
>> Or are you saying that the skills of Pollock are not in the execution
>> of the paintings but merely in its conception?
>
>Neither, really. I'm saying that "skill" isn't that great a criteria by
>which to judge art.
We could get some agreement there but IMO a lack of skill should be
redeemed by an abundance of something else. I don't see that
"something else" in Pollock's work. Perhaps I'm blind to its beauty
and miss a lot of fun because of that ;-)
Paul Mesken
That's how you look at it, I say it's half-full ;-)
Erik A. Mattila
How can that be...I have the half-full one.
>
Linda Hand
>How can that be...I have the half-full one.
ENOUGH ALREADY! Hold the damned glass
up over your head and look through the
bottom and neither of you will know the
difference...
Erik A. Mattila
Negatory. I'm saying that "skill" isn't a useful measure, and can be
misleading,
>
> I know Norman Rockwell did a "Pollock" as a background for his
> painting "The Connoisseur" (1962), he even used Pollock's method.
C'mon, you're pulling my leg (logos). This was a cover for Saturday
Evening Post. I can't find the size of the original on the web (maybe
you know), but generally the industry standard was to work 1/3 larger
than reporduction size. That would make the original less than 2'x 2'-
can you imagine Pollock performing action painting on that tiny of a
surface? Besides, Rockwell's pntg. doesn't remotely resemble a Pollock,
unless you are totally superficial about it.
But if you like modern art spoofs, try Robert P. Davis' "Day of the
Painter" 1960. It's not out on vhs or dvd (a short film) but maybe in a
library. It's really funny.
>
> But then again : Rockwell is one of the most skilled painters I can
> think of. The man could do practically anything.
BTW, Rockwell should be viewed in context - I mean there is a wonderful
tradition of American Illustrators (as there is elsewhere, of course)
and when Rockwell is viewed among his peers and predecessors his light
shines much less brightly. I'm talking about figures such as Meade
Schaeffer, H.C. Christy, Dean Cromwell, JC Lyendecker, Max Parish, N.C.
Wyeth and so on.
> I could volunteer for the job but I'm not unskilled so I don't know
> whether that would count as proof (hey, I could even drop smoked
> cigarettes on the canvas, just like Pollock did :-)
I think it would be pretty difficult, especially considering the element
of chance. But look, I'm reaching back into some of my own experiences
on this. I used to (when my eyes were good) do very intricate technical
pen drawings - they would take hundreds of hours to complete. But
somewhere along the line I noticed that I could get away with murder in
the "overt display of skill" department, because the excessive detail
hid as much as it revealed. Nevertheless, it was a challenge to get the
overall drawing right - I mean from a distant view where you were seeing
the whole thing rather than a tour of myriad marks, some better drawn
than others. That's what leads me to say the drip, splash, dash or
whatever methods of action painting and A&E are not so important. It's
the overall look of the work that counts. That's where I think Pollock
shines forth. So in a Hieronymous Bosch we can see all this wonderful
detain, but taken as a whole, "Earthly Delights" isn't a particularly
powerful work, imo. Of course I love the work, but that's another matter.
> I must admit that I don't know of any "Pollocks" made by unskilled
> persons. Perhaps somebody else here could produce such an example (or
> even better, a "Pollock" made by a monkey :-)
Many artists throughout history have worked very hard to make things
look simple. Sometimes a painting's "gestural qualities" are quite
contrived in the making. Or take Sumi brush work (I had a little
training in that.) A "bamboo" drawing is painted in a matter of
seconds, with a little orchestra of "split fountain" ink on the brush, a
movement and variation of verticle pressures. A blink of an eye. But
it takes thousands of drawings - throw aways - to get good at it.
> Nevertheless : do you believe Pollock used a greater than normal
> amount of skill in the execution of his paintings?
The concept of a "normal amount of skill" is really meaningless to me,
Paul. I kid you not - it just doesn't make sense to me. But I'm a
victim of my experience, education and training: I view a painting as a
place-holder in a complex matrix of history, happenstance, skill,
intent, biography, politics and so on. In 1984 or 85 New Yorker
published a really terrific essay about Harold Sharpinski, who was one
of Pollock's crowd of A&E's. But Sharpinski had to go to Army Reserve
duty the two weeks that Castelli gave the A&E's their big break. So he
got left out, completely, and continued on painting as a completely
unknown New York Abstract Expressionist.
>>And another thing...you've surely heard the phrase that acknowledges
>>great skill "She/he makes it look easy."
>
> That's said of actions, not paintings. If I see a snooker player like
> Stephen Hendry or Ronnie O'Sullivan knocking in one ball after the
> other then I indeed say "He makes it look so easy" while in fact it is
> not.
Well, I've hear it applied to painters, photographers and scuplptors
plenty of times. Maybe we're visiting cultural frontiers here. (I was
always amazed that all the proverbs in "Netherlandish Proverbs" were so
commonplace in American culture.)
>>>But are you saying that the chours that chant that "anyone can dribble
>>>paint" are wrong in that Pollock's work cannot be approached by just
>>>anyone?
>>>
>>>Or are you saying that the skills of Pollock are not in the execution
>>>of the paintings but merely in its conception?
>>
>>Neither, really. I'm saying that "skill" isn't that great a criteria by
>>which to judge art.
> We could get some agreement there but IMO a lack of skill should be
> redeemed by an abundance of something else. I don't see that
> "something else" in Pollock's work. Perhaps I'm blind to its beauty
> and miss a lot of fun because of that ;-)
Yes, but we each choose our own battlefields to die on.
Erik
>
>
Seagull Manager
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
news:3ED942B8...@oco.net...
> Paul Mesken wrote:
>
> As it stands, the claim is that Pollack is unskillful - but since we've
> eliminted the "anyone can do that" factor, why is he thought to be
> unskillful?
How and when did you eliminate the "anyone can do that" factor? It has been
demonstrated more than once that anyone can, to the extent that a willing
individual can be trained to paint in a Pollockian or other Abstract
Expressionist manner in a matter of weeks or even days, well enough to fool
critics.
Seagull Manager
"Paul Mesken" <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
news:bijidvovnp9vnuedn...@4ax.com...
>
> They believe *merely* "pouring paint" is all that there is to his work
> and, yes, everyone can pour paint and therefor they believe his work
> didn't require any skill.
And rightly so. There's no evidence in the work that it is anything more
than that. Furthermore, Pollock's apologists contradict themselves in their
explanations of what Pollock is doing, suggesting that they're not relying
on reliable evidence, either.
> Few would say of Rembrandt : "Heck, that ain't special, anyone can
> work a brush". But this is because Rembrandt worked with the brush in
> such a way that is given to only a few talented ones.
There's evidence that he's trying to do difficult things with the paint
(such as represent subjects and convey ideas vividly at the same time as
making the paint surface itself beautiful), and succeeding. What is Pollock
trying to do with his paint? Is he succeeding? How well? There's no
consensus on the answers, because there's no evidence in the work that he's
doing anything at all besides decorating a canvas in a not-too-difficult
way.
Chris
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
news:3EDA914F...@oco.net...
> C'mon, you're pulling my leg (logos). This was a cover for Saturday
> Evening Post. I can't find the size of the original on the web (maybe
> you know), but generally the industry standard was to work 1/3 larger
> than reporduction size. That would make the original less than 2'x 2'-
> can you imagine Pollock performing action painting on that tiny of a
> surface? Besides, Rockwell's pntg. doesn't remotely resemble a Pollock,
> unless you are totally superficial about it.
>
The painting used in "The Connaisseur" is 2 feet by 2 feet..
There's an interesting article on the painting by Wanda M. Corn called "Ways
of Seeing" in the catalog for the exhibition "Norman Rockwell: Pictures for
the American People".. It's a good read. But among other things she points
out that Rockwell was highly skilled at miniturization of classical artists;
and it wiuld seem that he took the same meticulous care with this painting
as he did with the others. It's known for example, that he did a number of
preparatory paintings attempting to create a similar style. He also had a
little fun, getting himself photograhed in poses similar to the Namuth
photo's (with a pipe, instead of Pollock's cigarrete). .
Chris
Erik A. Mattila
Really. Where? When? Back up your claim. Even ole Norman didn't do
too well.
Erik
>
>
>
Erik A. Mattila
Chris wrote:
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> news:3EDA914F...@oco.net...
>
>>C'mon, you're pulling my leg (logos). This was a cover for Saturday
>>Evening Post. I can't find the size of the original on the web (maybe
>>you know), but generally the industry standard was to work 1/3 larger
>>than reporduction size. That would make the original less than 2'x 2'-
>>can you imagine Pollock performing action painting on that tiny of a
>>surface? Besides, Rockwell's pntg. doesn't remotely resemble a Pollock,
>>unless you are totally superficial about it.
>>
>
>
> The painting used in "The Connaisseur" is 2 feet by 2 feet..
Hey, not a bad guess on my part, is it?
>
> There's an interesting article on the painting by Wanda M. Corn called "Ways
> of Seeing" in the catalog for the exhibition "Norman Rockwell: Pictures for
> the American People".. It's a good read. But among other things she points
> out that Rockwell was highly skilled at miniturization of classical artists;
> and it wiuld seem that he took the same meticulous care with this painting
> as he did with the others. It's known for example, that he did a number of
> preparatory paintings attempting to create a similar style. He also had a
> little fun, getting himself photograhed in poses similar to the Namuth
> photo's (with a pipe, instead of Pollock's cigarrete). .
>
> Chris
Yeah, but the painting illustrated in this painting doesn't even look
like a Pollock. I doubt very seriously that Rockwell intended it to be
a Pollock. My guess he was just after a generalized A&E look. Besides,
1962 was so post-pollock. A&E is generally periodized 1944-59. But
Rockwell, keen as he was on pop-americana, chose this "has-been"
movement for his spoof, since it was so well-known by 1962 as an object
of ridicule by "right-minded" americans.
Rockwell would be interesting to study, if his work was not so boring.
For example, look at his "Inventor" 1953 and tell me he didn't hack Van
Gogh's "Bedroom in Arles" series?
http://www.dennosmuseum.org/education/rockwell.html
eam
>
>
Nikolaus Maack
> How and when did you eliminate the "anyone can do that" factor? It has been
> demonstrated more than once that anyone can, to the extent that a willing
> individual can be trained to paint in a Pollockian or other Abstract
> Expressionist manner in a matter of weeks or even days, well enough to fool
> critics.
So what? I don't even mean that sarcastically. Why does it matter if
"anyone can do that"? What difference does it make?
Chris
>
> Rockwell would be interesting to study, if his work was not so boring.
> For example, look at his "Inventor" 1953 and tell me he didn't hack Van
> Gogh's "Bedroom in Arles" series?
> http://www.dennosmuseum.org/education/rockwell.html
>
One thing Rockwell was also noted for was his sense of artistic humor - I'd
agree that was certainly an example of it. I think the chair in particular
nails it down.
Anyway, give that book I mentioned a try (I assume that's it's probably
available in local libraries). You might find a different take on Rockwell
rather interesting.
Chris
Erik A. Mattila
You know, there aren't any decent libraries in my area...can you believe
that. But I'm sure there are a lot of fascinating things to say about
Rockwell. And his work offer great clues to artists, especially about
the control of value in color.
I attended some classes with David Hollowell at UC Davis some years ago,
and he was really involved with controlling value. He even had fashoned
cards with greyscales w/ peepholes etc. to determine the values of the
colors he used. I thought it was way overboard, but the results are
pretty impressive. Here's a look at some of his work:
http://www.davidhollowell.com/
Erik
Paul Mesken
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>I attended some classes with David Hollowell at UC Davis some years ago,
>and he was really involved with controlling value. He even had fashoned
>cards with greyscales w/ peepholes etc. to determine the values of the
>colors he used. I thought it was way overboard, but the results are
>pretty impressive.
That's an excellent idea! I can't believe I never came up with that. I
have a great number of test boards with all of my pigments with
different values on them but I never thought of drilling peepholes in
them (and that for someone with such a bad color sense like me :-)
Starting tomorrow I will cut up a large masonite plate I have in
little pieces (3 x 3 inches should be good), drill a hole through the
middle, gesso them and paint each of them on one side with the colors
(and some mixes) I have in different values (6-8 values should be
more than enough for each color). On the other side I'll mention the
color, its ASTM number and the manufacturer.
Having such "color chips" is also better than my test boards which
contain up to 36 colored squares, it's easier to compare the different
colors since each has its own little panel.
Hm, perhaps I should also do some doubles with different mediums, the
medium can make a color appear different.
Even though the masonite is quite thin (2 millimeters or something) I
think the peephole should widen to the back. Perhaps I should drill
several peepholes in it with different diameters.
[ looking at my 30+ pigments ]
Could take a while before I'm done though :-)
Great idea, thanks Erik!
Seagull Manager
"Nikolaus Maack" <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3EDB2F72...@sympatico.ca...
>
> So what? I don't even mean that sarcastically. Why does it matter if
> "anyone can do that"? What difference does it make?
It puts Pollock's seriousness in doubt.
Seagull Manager
>
> Rockwell would be interesting to study, if his work was not so boring.
You may find him boring, but others obviously don't. His works can fetch as
much as $5m at auction; googling "norman rockwell" returns 164,000 links
compared to 35,000 for "mark rothko", and monographs and reproductions of
his works are enormously popular.
Seagull Manager
I disagree with your comment on Norman Rockwell's mock-Pollock. The worst
that can be said of it is that it is prettier than the average real Pollock,
but that's probably deliberate. Pollock goes through several styles within
his "drip" phase, and the Rockwell parody looks most like something Pollock
might have done in the years 1949 to 1952.
Of course, I doubt that you would accept that anything looked like a Pollock
if you knew in advance that it was not by him. The only way to convince you
would be to hoodwink you, or to hoodwink more than one established expert.
This has been done. I remember a TV documentary from a few years ago which
organized a hoax that made fools of a couple of prominent critics. I believe
it was made by Muriel Gray. The difficulty is in finding a link or a
reference to it.
Meanwhile, have a look at this:
http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/society_culture/but_is_it_jackson_pollock.htm
...that's right, an alleged Pollock of unknown provenance, whose
fake/genuine standing has not been resolved after ten years of debate by
experts. If Pollock is quite so very unforgeable as you insist, why should
there be any dispute?
Australian forger William Blundell is known to have created and successfully
passed fake Jackson Pollocks. Blundell was a professional forger, though, so
I admit that doesn't prove a naive person could do it, even though the
prolific Blundell was not exceptionally skillful. However, it is worth
remembering that forgers like Blundell specialize in the moderns because
they are much easier to imitate than old masters.
There are very few serious attempts to imitate Pollock, because it it taboo
to imitate the signature style of any Abstract Expressionist. No artist with
ambition would try it. Here's a half-cocked attempt by a fairly talented
amateur:
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Housing/1331/Miscart.html (half way
down the page)
I reckon with a little coaching, the creator of that painting could do it.
Mani Deli
craft.
Erik A. Mattila
Well, yes, "Rosie The Riveter" did fetch $4.959 million at Sothby's last
year, up from his previous high of $937k for "The Watchmaker" in 1996.
Ranger Investment Firm of Dallas bought it. It's a great step forward,
obviously, and it will be interesting to see if it was more than a
fluke. A couple of weeks ago, however, Rothko's #9 1958 went for
$16,359,500 at Christies, Warhol's "Marlon" 1966 (a screen print) went
for $5,047,500; Frank Stella's "Bethlehem Hospital"1959 $4,375,500;
Rothko's Brown and blacks in red, 1957, $6,727,500; Yves Klein, "re 2"
1958m $5,271,500; Pollock's "Number 17, 1949, $5,272,000 (Sothby's)
Anyway, it fun looking these up on www.artnet.com. But here's something
interesting: Rockwell's "Rosie the Riveter" jumped out on the auction
block because the painting is such an American icon. When you look at
the lists of painting on these auction reports, you can see that the
"major" paintings in the artist's careers are more sought after -
something right out of the art history text. This becomes the bases for
the argument against the "text" support of modern art - but we see the
same thing happening with the Rockwell. So you can't have it both ways.
If you want to dance around the Maypole because a Rockwell sold for 5
million, fine, but just recognize that the "art world" or "art scene" is
doing it's work - "it" really doesn't care what sort of artist is
involved, as it's all about "whatever the market will bear" "supply and
demandd" etc.
When Jasper Johns first crossed the 1 million dollar threshold he was
asked if it validated his work as an artist. He answered "no. The art
market has nothing to do with the artist's work...it's about business,
investment, capital."
Erik
>
>
>
Erik A. Mattila
I don't agree. I don't think Rockwell was really intending to ape
Pollock - he was after a generic "action painting" look. Obviously, he
could have come closer if it was in his interest to do so.
> Of course, I doubt that you would accept that anything looked like a Pollock
> if you knew in advance that it was not by him. The only way to convince you
> would be to hoodwink you, or to hoodwink more than one established expert.
Which is the case with any forgery. What's your point?
> This has been done. I remember a TV documentary from a few years ago which
> organized a hoax that made fools of a couple of prominent critics. I believe
> it was made by Muriel Gray. The difficulty is in finding a link or a
> reference to it.
>
> Meanwhile, have a look at this:
>
> http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/society_culture/but_is_it_jackson_pollock.htm
>
> ...that's right, an alleged Pollock of unknown provenance, whose
> fake/genuine standing has not been resolved after ten years of debate by
> experts. If Pollock is quite so very unforgeable as you insist, why should
> there be any dispute?
Again, what's the point. Who's claiming that Pollock isn't forgeable?
Not me. I was challenging the "anyone can do that" platitude.
> Australian forger William Blundell is known to have created and successfully
> passed fake Jackson Pollocks. Blundell was a professional forger, though, so
> I admit that doesn't prove a naive person could do it, even though the
> prolific Blundell was not exceptionally skillful. However, it is worth
> remembering that forgers like Blundell specialize in the moderns because
> they are much easier to imitate than old masters.
Fine..
> There are very few serious attempts to imitate Pollock, because it it taboo
> to imitate the signature style of any Abstract Expressionist. No artist with
> ambition would try it. Here's a half-cocked attempt by a fairly talented
> amateur:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Housing/1331/Miscart.html (half way
> down the page)
>
> I reckon with a little coaching, the creator of that painting could do it.
But still, we're dealing with the "anyone can do that" syndrome. You
know, like saying any kid can paint like Cy Twombly. Show me evidence
of this.
Erik
>
>
>
Nikolaus Maack
How so?
If an artist puts passion and fire and personal meaning into their art,
why should it matter if someone else could potentially come along and be
able to do it too, if they so chose? Again -- so what? Who cares?
How does this determine an artist's "seriousness"? I don't see that at all.
Oliver Gili
> Oliver Gili wrote:
>
> > Exactly. the 20th century was the century where the battle of 'what is
art'
> > was fought. Anything can be art, anyone can be an artist. People
should
> > get over this. Stalinist dogmatism is boring, and redundant. If
anything it
> > shows fear of Art, of course its scarily unobjective, of course there
are no
> > absolutes, but this uncertainty should be embraced in the subjective
journey
> > through art. Bullying people in an attempt to make the subjective
objective
> > speaks volumes about what the bully lacks.
> >
> > Me, my favourite Art is that which fills me with aesthetic rapture, just
as
> > I like music which fills me with aural reverie. These of course are
> > subjective and personal.
> >
> >
> > Oliver
>
> Indeed! Ludwig Beethoven's Seventh + Johnny Walker's Red = Art. And it
> gets even better with Johnny Boorman's Zardoz playing in the background.
>
> Erik
>
Allthough Zardoz probably has a superb early synth based soundtrack... me
I'm digging early techno ('primative' polyrythmic structures dressed up in
shiney electronic technology) refreshingly future-faced
Oliver
Linda Hand
seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk says...
>You may find him boring, but others obviously don't.
Rockwell himself avoided being referred to
as an 'artist' - preferring to be called by
what he was - 'illustrator.' To make comparisons
between his works and that of contemporary
artists is to make the mistake of the
commoner in the USA who will refer to
Rockwell as "America's best artist."
Linda Hand
says...
>I read somewhere (sorry, it was on the web but I did not think
>I would be quoting it) that Twombly freely admitted that scratchings
>in toilets were part of his inspiration.
>They certainly have a look of an hurried and untutored hand.
You've not brought up the latter-day works
of Philip Guston in this discussion, so I will.
Some of his 'figures' look to me as if he
was looking in the toilet bowl at his own
dump results for inspiration. Could any kid
do as well? I dunno...little bitty kids like
to smear their own feces around when they
inevitably get hold of some of it.
Seagull Manager
> Seagull Manager wrote:
> > "Nikolaus Maack" <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:3EDB2F72...@sympatico.ca...
> >
> >>So what? I don't even mean that sarcastically. Why does it matter if
> >>"anyone can do that"? What difference does it make?
> >
> > It puts Pollock's seriousness in doubt.
>
> How so?
>
How do I know if Pollock put "passion and fire and personal meaning" into
his art? I only have other people's word for it; there's no evidence in the
work itself. He could have done it in his sleep, almost.
Seagull Manager
> Seagull Manager wrote:
>
> I don't agree. I don't think Rockwell was really intending to ape
> Pollock - he was after a generic "action painting" look. Obviously, he
> could have come closer if it was in his interest to do so.
Not all that generic, though, eh? I mean, one doesn't think of DeKooning or
Franz Kline when looking at that picture, or does one?
Seagull Manager
> A couple of weeks ago, however, Rothko's #9 1958 went for
> $16,359,500 at Christies...
I never said Rockwell beats the "big canvas" painters on the market. I
merely pointed out that there's huge interest in his work, citing auction
prices as just one of several pieces of evidence.
> Rockwell's "Rosie the Riveter" jumped out on the auction
> block because the painting is such an American icon.
Firm proof that Rockwell is not boring to everyone.
> If you want to dance around the Maypole because a Rockwell sold for 5
> million
I'm not doing. It's got nothing to do with me. I don't own any Rockwell's
and nor have I plans to buy any.#
> ...the "art world" or "art scene" is
> doing it's work - "it" really doesn't care what sort of artist is
> involved, as it's all about "whatever the market will bear" "supply and
> demandd" etc.
That's not the whole story. Obviously, prices are boosted by speculation,
but the speculation is based on interest in the actual work itself.
Regardless of any considered judgement of the aesthetic merits of a
particular artists' work, that artist's prices reflect the level of interest
in his or her work.
>
> When Jasper Johns first crossed the 1 million dollar threshold he was
> asked if it validated his work as an artist. He answered "no. The art
> market has nothing to do with the artist's work...it's about business,
> investment, capital."
He's right and he's wrong. It does confirm that he's managed to impress some
people; but it does not confirm that his work has real merit, when all is
considered.
Erik A. Mattila
> x-no-archive: yes
> A report in the last week announced that 'minor' Gainsboroughs
> can be had for 1000 E.pounds. All due to a slump in demand
> from the USA now that such pictures represented some aspect
> of a class system that they do not like.
> The commentator added that this will not last, and this was a good
> time to invest, especially in the 'major' works, which will recover in
> price, soonest.
> Meanwhile, Gainsborough rests peacefully.
> Thur
hmmm...I wonder if a slump in CEO salaries, after all the scandals, may
be the cause? I'm just guessing, but I think these guys are having to
give money back to shareholders instead of buying paintings.
Erik
>
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> news:3EDC4A8A...@oco.net...
>
>>>snip
Erik A. Mattila
> x-no-archive: yes
> I read somewhere (sorry, it was on the web but I did not think
> I would be quoting it) that Twombly freely admitted that scratchings
> in toilets were part of his inspiration.
> They certainly have a look of an hurried and untutored hand.
> Perhaps (in LA?)your toilets are favoured by artists, but here in UK,
> Twombly has his soulmates in every public toilet.
> e.g (although usually in monochrome)
> http://www.artchive.com/artchive/T/twombly/twombly_the_italians.jpg.html
> Thur
Yeah, and Twombly sales are off, I noticed. Only 1.5 million.
>
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> news:3EDC4D4F...@oco.net...
>
>>>snip
Erik A. Mattila
>>Indeed! Ludwig Beethoven's Seventh + Johnny Walker's Red = Art. And it
>> gets even better with Johnny Boorman's Zardoz playing in the background.
>>
>>Erik
>>
>
>
> Allthough Zardoz probably has a superb early synth based soundtrack... me
> I'm digging early techno ('primative' polyrythmic structures dressed up in
> shiney electronic technology) refreshingly future-faced
>
> Oliver
You mean like Martin Denny on harmonium?
Erik
>
>
Erik A. Mattila
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> news:3EDC4A8A...@oco.net...
>
>
>>A couple of weeks ago, however, Rothko's #9 1958 went for
>>$16,359,500 at Christies...
>
>
> I never said Rockwell beats the "big canvas" painters on the market. I
> merely pointed out that there's huge interest in his work, citing auction
> prices as just one of several pieces of evidence.
Yes, but you said Rothko was a has-been due to Google hits - so what way
do you want it? If auction records are evidence of Norm's popularity,
it must also be evidence of Mark's, right?
>>Rockwell's "Rosie the Riveter" jumped out on the auction
>>block because the painting is such an American icon.
> Firm proof that Rockwell is not boring to everyone.
I'm content to be the only person in the world who is bored by Rockwell.
That's all I said, btw.
>> If you want to dance around the Maypole because a Rockwell sold for 5
>>million
>
> I'm not doing. It's got nothing to do with me. I don't own any Rockwell's
> and nor have I plans to buy any.#
Gee, aren't you sort of missing the point of what I wrote? I was more
or less building the case that the "art world," which is often
characterized as the villain that is keeping good art from the
victimized art lover, is also acting to inflate Rockwell's work by 500%
in two years.
>>...the "art world" or "art scene" is
>>doing it's work - "it" really doesn't care what sort of artist is
>>involved, as it's all about "whatever the market will bear" "supply and
>>demandd" etc.
>
>
> That's not the whole story. Obviously, prices are boosted by speculation,
> but the speculation is based on interest in the actual work itself.
> Regardless of any considered judgement of the aesthetic merits of a
> particular artists' work, that artist's prices reflect the level of interest
> in his or her work.
But only the level of interest of those who are purchasing the work.
You can't equate auction prices with mass appeal, although big purchases
do tend to inscribe "authenticity" on the public mind - as evidenced by
your argument promoting Rockwell here. That is why the history of art
and the history of collecting are so inextricably intertwined.
>>When Jasper Johns first crossed the 1 million dollar threshold he was
>>asked if it validated his work as an artist. He answered "no. The art
>>market has nothing to do with the artist's work...it's about business,
>>investment, capital."
>
> He's right and he's wrong. It does confirm that he's managed to impress some
> people; but it does not confirm that his work has real merit, when all is
> considered.
As we could say about Rockwell also, of course.
Erik
>
>
>