Self-declared artists are arrogant
Brian Shapiro
arrogant and full of themselves. Anyone agree?
Mattison
: I often think that people who declare themselves to be "artists" are
: arrogant and full of themselves. Anyone agree?
I find most people who say they are artists are not. Most are wannabes
with nothing to show for the thought. They often look like idiots when
talking to real artists. There should be a lic. for it.
Mattison Fitzgerald
The artist makes the art and the community makes the artist.
Linda Thomas
> I often think that people who declare themselves to be "artists" are
> arrogant and full of themselves. Anyone agree?
Absolutely. My neighbor calls himself an *engineer* - and a self-anointed
*accountant* lives down the street. I also think that so-called *garbage
collectors* and *airline pilots* have a hell of a nerve.
Linda
--
-------------------- http://www.metronet.Com/ --------------------
Andrew Werby
<ba...@uclink4.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> I often think that people who declare themselves to be "artists" are
> arrogant and full of themselves. Anyone agree?
[It's certainly a difficult field for someone with low self-esteem to do
well in. Were you thinking of declaring yourself an artist, but decided
you weren't any good at art? You see the problem here?]
Andrew Werby
UNITED ARTWORKS- Sculpture, Jewelry, and other art stuff
http://unitedartworks.com
http://www.computersculpture.com for 3d design tools
Brian Shapiro
all day doing nothing, and you ask him why he doesn't get a job and he
replies "I have a job, I am a philosopher!" In modern times, its a similar
thing with artists. Imagine that bum maybe not just sitting around, but
collecting garbage in piles. This time he will say, "I have a job, I am an
artist!" (referring to the garbage piles)
The truth is, despite what the modern art crowd likes to believe, the terms
'artist' and 'philosopher' are annointments by society.
--Brian Shapiro
Andrew Werby <dre...@lanminds.com> wrote in message
news:drewid-1904...@caulk26.ppp.lmi.net...
Brian Shapiro
*skill* required in those jobs. But since the modern art crowd doesn't
believe in skill, the comparisons you list are utterly worthless.
--Brian
Linda Thomas <lth...@metnet.com> wrote in message
news:19990419102004.344$N...@newsreader.com...
> "Brian Shapiro" <ba...@uclink4.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> > I often think that people who declare themselves to be "artists" are
> > arrogant and full of themselves. Anyone agree?
>
Roger
importantly, I hadn't put in enough work, or had I 100% committed myself
to my work.
some time ago, I made a decision as large and imprtant as marriage. I
decide to be an artist. not sorta, not a hobbyist. I decide to marry my
work, and now it comes before anybody or anything, including myself
personally. There are many times I would love to go drink or go out with
friends- but I paint (or animate in my case), or study other artists.
is it arrogant to call yourself married? i made a decsion for life.
am I great? who knows? I am an infant with much potential, and plan to
never stop a pursuit, and look up to select other artists.
it used to be arrogant, because it wasn't true. now it is. also, it
helps to sell, and be given teh satisfaction that others value my work
enough to part with their time, and then hang it on their wall with
respect.
(hehehe, reading this on break, while working incdentally, heheheh)
r
--
******* Roger Vetruba *******
http://www.Toonshoppe.com
http://www.Luckycard.com
http://www.ReviewEngine.com
April Showers
says...
>
>I often think that people who declare themselves to be "artists" are
>arrogant and full of themselves. Anyone agree?
My monitor is now emitting a wierd green glow as I
respond to this poster.
emat...@tomatoweb.com
mat...@netcom.com (Mattison) wrote:
> Brian Shapiro (ba...@uclink4.berkeley.edu) wrote:
> : I often think that people who declare themselves to be "artists" are
> : arrogant and full of themselves. Anyone agree?
>
> with nothing to show for the thought. They often look like idiots when
> talking to real artists. There should be a lic. for it.
>
> Mattison Fitzgerald
> The artist makes the art and the community makes the artist.
>
And who will run the bureau which issues and maintain these licences? You?
Me? It's an interesting thought. But this is essentially what the "Cowboy
Artists of America" did, Mattison. They formed their group, and each
contributed heavily to a pr blitz which was aimed at legitimizing the CBA
membership as 'official' (i.e. licensed) Western artists, to the exclusion of
others. It was actually collective bargaining -- a very rare enterprize for
a group of artists, who traditionally shun the organized. And they did
pretty well -- the CBA stamp resulted in money, a lot of money, for its
members. But you can ask Kay about this -- it happened in her neighborhood.
Well, that was just a thought.
Erik Mattila
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
A.A. Raimes
>I often think that people who declare themselves to be "artists" are
>arrogant and full of themselves. Anyone agree?
>
>
all those who define themselves as such, whatever their training or
practise. It recognises a *professional artist* as an artist who enters
into formal agreements with other parties as part of their working
practise. It also supports the principle that every professional
relationship between a visual artist and another person or organisation
should be clear, unambiguous and in writing and it acts to ensure
British artists are protected as such.
Artists have the right to be treated as professionals and to be
protected from exploitation. Try getting a mortgage or insurance when
you call yourself an *artist*... in Britain both of those come with huge
penalties. My own income, since abandoning the Sunday club painting 7
years ago, has amounted to less than 20 percent of the income that I
would have received from my previous profession as a trained chef.
That's a short falling of around 100,000 pounds. This is no hobby and if
being arrogant means standing up for the principles of art as a
profession then count me in.
Alison A Raimes
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
lth...@metnet.com(Linda Thomas) wrote:
> "Brian Shapiro" <ba...@uclink4.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> > I often think that people who declare themselves to be "artists" are
> > arrogant and full of themselves. Anyone agree?
>
> *accountant* lives down the street. I also think that so-called *garbage
> collectors* and *airline pilots* have a hell of a nerve.
Looks like someone stuck a nerve.....
Most people can agree upon what an engineer is and does. Same is true
with an accountant etc. Try getting a consensus for something being "art".
"Artist" is currently being avoided by many painters like "Doctor" is
being avoided like a lot of MDs (thanks to all the idiot PhDs who's
egos needed the boost).
I agree with the original poster.
Marilyn
>
> In article <7femeo$dga$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>, Brian Shapiro
> <ba...@uclink4.berkeley.edu> writes
> >arrogant and full of themselves. Anyone agree?
> >
> >
> all those who define themselves as such, whatever their training or
> practise. It recognises a *professional artist* as an artist who enters
> into formal agreements with other parties as part of their working
> practise. It also supports the principle that every professional
> relationship between a visual artist and another person or organisation
> should be clear, unambiguous and in writing and it acts to ensure
> British artists are protected as such.
>
> Artists have the right to be treated as professionals and to be
> protected from exploitation. Try getting a mortgage or insurance when
> you call yourself an *artist*... in Britain both of those come with huge
> penalties. My own income, since abandoning the Sunday club painting 7
> years ago, has amounted to less than 20 percent of the income that I
> would have received from my previous profession as a trained chef.
> That's a short falling of around 100,000 pounds. This is no hobby and if
> being arrogant means standing up for the principles of art as a
> profession then count me in.
>
> Alison A Raimes
> ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
> http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
In Canada there is a definition devised by Revenue Canada for
income tax purposes. This definition is derived from the United
Nations' definition. I'm not sure of the wording, but there
are ten criteria like
"owns and maintains a studio"
"spends x amount of hours performing the work"
Usually, I say I am a painter. (And yes, I also paint walls.)
More often I don't declare myself to be anything, and let others
define me, and they do. For those who know me, it seems obvious.
M.
Linda Thomas
There are indeed modern artists who don't believe in skill. We call them
*bad artists.* Modern art requires an enormous amount of skill to execute
well - but, if that skill is not used to create realistic figurative
work, amateurs and most non-artists assume that no skill is required.
As with any art form, skill is not sufficient - but it is a necessary
foundation. When I was teaching, I required my students to learn drawing,
color, etc., before they could begin the *modern* work they were itching
to do. I pissed a lot of people off, and a lot of students left to go to
*no skill* teachers - but the ones who were left obtained the skills to
produce any kind of art they wanted.
Linda
"Brian Shapiro" <ba...@uclink4.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> Oh if you want to bring up THOSE comparisons, lets talk about the aspect
> of *skill* required in those jobs. But since the modern art crowd doesn't
> believe in skill, the comparisons you list are utterly worthless.
>
> --Brian
>
> Linda Thomas <lth...@metnet.com> wrote in message
> news:19990419102004.344$N...@newsreader.com...
> > "Brian Shapiro" <ba...@uclink4.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> > > I often think that people who declare themselves to be "artists" are
> > > arrogant and full of themselves. Anyone agree?
> >
> > Absolutely. My neighbor calls himself an *engineer* - and a
> > self-anointed *accountant* lives down the street. I also think that
> > so-called *garbage collectors* and *airline pilots* have a hell of a
> > nerve.
> >
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
lth...@metnet.com(Linda Thomas) wrote:
> Brian -
>
> There are indeed modern artists who don't believe in skill. We call them
> *bad artists.*
How does one differentiate? :P
> Modern art requires an enormous amount of skill to execute
> well
I think it would be good to execute more of it. :P
> - but, if that skill is not used to create realistic figurative
> work, amateurs and most non-artists assume that no skill is required.
This is called an assumption on your part. The problem is that few "modern"
artists ever demonstrated much technical ability.
> As with any art form, skill is not sufficient - but it is a necessary
> foundation.
Quite true.
> When I was teaching, I required my students to learn drawing,
> color, etc., before they could begin the *modern* work they were itching
> to do.
I assume you refer to theory and not practical work.
> I pissed a lot of people off, and a lot of students left to go to
> *no skill* teachers - but the ones who were left obtained the skills to
> produce any kind of art they wanted.
Irrespective of what they learn, few people ever attain both technical
skill and sufficient vision to be considered good "artists". I've seen
many people who were good technicians and made pleasant paintings -- which
made wonderful decorations.
The p[eople without technical skill made horrid paintings which required long
statements to try to convince one that it was "art".
>
> Linda
Larry Seiler
> being avoided like a lot of MDs (thanks to all the idiot PhDs who's
> egos needed the boost).
>
> I agree with the original poster.
hahaha....well, I can certainly understand all that is being said and
tossed about here.
What is ironic for me is that for the first near 15 years in art as a
profession, I could not bring myself to call myself an "artist." Though
that is how others saw me. I thought of the title as a suggestion of
having "arrived".....! I had too many intentions and demands of myself to
develop and grow to feel comfortable with that assessment. YET, at the
same time.....I had this gnawing void of accepting myself...of who or what
I did....and finding it easier to side track in many directions such as
office administration, art education, counseling, etc; I was somewhat many
persons.....
well...okay,
"Roses are red, violets are blue,
I'm schizophrenic.....
...so am I !"
At any rate....I have finally come to accept that which I do defines
something of who I ascribe to become...and finally *whew!)...okay, I'm an
artist.
For me....great freedom and peace of mind came from that.
Hope that doesn't equate to arrogance! peace,
Larry
Larry Seiler
artist's web site at- http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
WetCanvas Artists page-
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Gallery/S/Larry_Seiler/index.html
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress
depends on the unreasonable man."
George Bernard Shaw
peter nelson
>Brian -
>
>There are indeed modern artists who don't believe in skill. We call them
>well - but, if that skill is not used to create realistic figurative
>work, amateurs and most non-artists assume that no skill is required.
This isn't always true. Do you really think that, say, the monochrome
canvasses that have been appearing in recent decades and getting
rave reviews by some art critics but quizzical looks by the public really
require much skill? I paint on colored gessos and my studio is filled
with canvasses that are indistinguishable from these works, except that
in my case they are awaiting further application of paint!
Also, how much skill is required to do what Joan Mitchell does?
Last week I was visiting my wife's company and in the lobby on the
wall they had paintings made by children in the company daycare
center, and I swear they looked like this:
http://artchive.com/artchive/M/mitchell/mitchell_ici.jpg.html
And, come on, if someone found a scrap of paper with this on it:
http://artchive.com/artchive/T/twombly/twombly_the_italians.jpg.html
while cleaning out an old office, would they think it was anything
other than the scribbles and doodles someone made while talking
on the phone or watching TV? But the art critic community refuses
to call these "bad artists".
And it's not at all clear that what Pollock or Rothko are best known
for require much skill, either.
N.B. that I'm not knocking ALL abstract expressionism, just noting
that not ALL of it requires skill.
---peter
peter nelson
>some time ago, I made a decision as large and imprtant as marriage. I
>decide to be an artist. not sorta, not a hobbyist. I decide to marry my
>work, and now it comes before anybody or anything, including myself
>personally. There are many times I would love to go drink or go out with
>friends- but I paint (or animate in my case), or study other artists.
Is it what you do for a living? All the other examples a previous
poster gave (engineer, accountant, etc) are things they did for
a living. Does that matter?
>is it arrogant to call yourself married? i made a decsion for life.
There's a slight difference in the sense that marriage is a
formally-defined state of existence with a specified legal meaning.
An individual can't just declare himself married. An issue in
the same-sex community is that they CAN'T just declare themselves
married.
It's an interesting question. Suppose someone waits tables for a
living but spends all their spare time painting. Let's suppose
they've never sold (or even ATTEMPTED to sell) a work? Is it
more accurate for him to call himself an artist or a waiter? (not that
they're mutually exclusive). If no modifier is placed in front of the
term - ("amateur", "professional") does it make any difference?
---peter
peter nelson
April Showers wrote in message <371bd...@oracle.zianet.com>...
>>arrogant and full of themselves. Anyone agree?
>
>respond to this poster.
Is your name really "April Showers" or is that just a nom de 'net?
---peter
peter nelson
>In article <7femeo$dga$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>, Brian Shapiro
><ba...@uclink4.berkeley.edu> writes
>>I often think that people who declare themselves to be "artists" are
>>arrogant and full of themselves. Anyone agree?
>>
>all those who define themselves as such, whatever their training or
>practise. It recognises a *professional artist* as an artist who enters
>into formal agreements with other parties as part of their working
>practise. It also supports the principle that every professional
>relationship between a visual artist and another person or organisation
>should be clear, unambiguous and in writing and it acts to ensure
>British artists are protected as such.
>
>Artists have the right to be treated as professionals and to be
>protected from exploitation. Try getting a mortgage or insurance when
>you call yourself an *artist*...
Over here they look at your income to qualify you for a mortgage.
If you are self-employed (artist or engineer) they want to see
proof of steady income over a period of time.
> in Britain both of those
come with huge
>penalties. My own income, since abandoning the Sunday club painting 7
>years ago, has amounted to less than 20 percent of the income that I
>would have received from my previous profession as a trained chef.
>That's a short falling of around 100,000 pounds.
So let's see, this means you would have expected to make around
125,000 pounds in those 7 years. Around 18,000 pounds -
something like $28,800 here. In the US that would have qualified
you for a $600P+I mortgage - not enough to buy a median-priced
house. Chef's don't make much over there, do they? You should be
a chef over here - the pay is better. On the other hand, it also implies
you've averaged about 3500 pounds/year since then. How does
anyone live on that?
---peter
peter nelson
>A.A. Raimes wrote:
>Usually, I say I am a painter. (And yes, I also paint walls.)
>More often I don't declare myself to be anything, and let others
>define me, and they do. For those who know me, it seems obvious.
>M.
You could be both kinds of painter at the same time A local artist
in the town where we live painted the walls in our house in several
rooms with his art. Sure beats wallpaper!!
---peter
Linda Thomas
for the Twombly link - I didn't have it, and promptly saved The Italians
to use as my PC screen's background.
"peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> Linda Thomas wrote in message <19990420091645.901$7...@newsreader.com>...
> >Brian -
> >
> >There are indeed modern artists who don't believe in skill. We call them
> >*bad artists.* Modern art requires an enormous amount of skill to
> >execute well - but, if that skill is not used to create realistic
> >figurative work, amateurs and most non-artists assume that no skill is
> >required.
>
> This isn't always true. Do you really think that, say, the monochrome
> canvasses that have been appearing in recent decades and getting
> rave reviews by some art critics but quizzical looks by the public really
> require much skill? I paint on colored gessos and my studio is filled
> with canvasses that are indistinguishable from these works, except that
> in my case they are awaiting further application of paint!
Skill involves far more than possessing the draftsmanship necessary
to create convincing realism. The
success of monochrome paintings depends on the artist's choice of color,
size, and placement. Context can be an important factor in some types of
modern art - a broken pipe in a junkyard can become art because the artist
has exercised skill in selecting it from all the other objects, and also
skill in placing it in a gallery, studio, or museum for display.
> Also, how much skill is required to do what Joan Mitchell does?
> Last week I was visiting my wife's company and in the lobby on the
> wall they had paintings made by children in the company daycare
> center, and I swear they looked like this:
> http://artchive.com/artchive/M/mitchell/mitchell_ici.jpg.html
A lot of conventional skill is involved here: color and composition are
the critical elements. (BTW, thanks for this link, too.) Folks who try to
make this kind of art because they believe that no skill is involved just
make a mess. Many people can't tell the difference. This is not folk
wisdom, it is the result of both ignorance and a closed mind. I say a
closed mind because it has been my experience that looking at modern art
with an open mind is more important than years of study in appreciating it.
(Although formal study doesn't hurt!)
When you know what you're looking at, the difference between a Mitchell or
a Twombly and a child's painting is very clear indeed. What you are
objecting to is the absence of the conventional forms and compositions
you are used to seeing in conventional figurative
painting.
>
> And, come on, if someone found a scrap of paper with this on it:
> http://artchive.com/artchive/T/twombly/twombly_the_italians.jpg.html
> while cleaning out an old office, would they think it was anything
> other than the scribbles and doodles someone made while talking
> on the phone or watching TV? But the art critic community refuses
> to call these "bad artists".
You could learn a few things from the art community. Twombly's work is
fiendishly difficult to bring off, as anyone who has tried to paint that
way will tell you. The line between what he is doing and the scrawl of a
failed piece is fine indeed. But it is there.
> And it's not at all clear that what Pollock or Rothko are best known
> for require much skill, either.
Not clear to whom? You? The difference between a Pollock or Rothko and an
imitation is the difference between a living being and a corpse. The
comment often heard in this group, *anyone could do it* is just not true.
> N.B. that I'm not knocking ALL abstract expressionism, just noting
> that not ALL of it requires skill.
You could learn a lot and get a lot of enjoyment out of modern art. You are
missing quite a bit by assuming that you somehow know best - that your
reactions to art are definitive. This prevents you from learning anything.
I've seen some of your
posts in this group and I suppose it's fanciful of me to think that what
I've said would have any impact on you at all - you're too full of
yourself. But maybe someone else will read this and look at modern art with
a bit more openmindedness.
Linda
>
> ---peter
Doctor Ego
> April Showers wrote in message <371bd...@oracle.zianet.com>...
> >In article <7femeo$dga$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>, ba...@uclink4.berkeley.edu
> >says...
> >>
> >>I often think that people who declare themselves to be "artists" are
> >>arrogant and full of themselves. Anyone agree?
> >
> >respond to this poster.
>
> Is your name really "April Showers" or is that just a nom de 'net?
>
> ---peter
Golly, no, I think it's her real name.
Fucking retard.
Doctor Ego
Marilyn
>
> Linda Thomas wrote in message <19990420091645.901$7...@newsreader.com>...
> >Brian -
> >
> >There are indeed modern artists who don't believe in skill. We call them
> >*bad artists.* Modern art requires an enormous amount of skill to execute
> >well - but, if that skill is not used to create realistic figurative
> >work, amateurs and most non-artists assume that no skill is required.
>
> This isn't always true. Do you really think that, say, the monochrome
> canvasses that have been appearing in recent decades and getting
> rave reviews by some art critics but quizzical looks by the public really
> require much skill? I paint on colored gessos and my studio is filled
> with canvasses that are indistinguishable from these works, except that
> in my case they are awaiting further application of paint!
>
> Last week I was visiting my wife's company and in the lobby on the
> wall they had paintings made by children in the company daycare
> center, and I swear they looked like this:
> http://artchive.com/artchive/M/mitchell/mitchell_ici.jpg.html
>
> http://artchive.com/artchive/T/twombly/twombly_the_italians.jpg.html
> while cleaning out an old office, would they think it was anything
> other than the scribbles and doodles someone made while talking
> on the phone or watching TV? But the art critic community refuses
> to call these "bad artists".
>
> for require much skill, either.
>
> that not ALL of it requires skill.
>
There you go again.
These people you call unskilled are aknowledged artists.
Their work has been
interpreted by people with extensive background in art history,
and art theory, and aesthetics, and technique.
But you don't like what they do, therefore they have no skill.
M.
peter nelson
>>
>> ---peter
>
>Golly, no, I think it's her real name.
>Fucking retard.
Is your name really Fucking retard?
---peter
peter nelson
>> Also, how much skill is required to do what Joan Mitchell does?
>> Last week I was visiting my wife's company and in the lobby on the
>> wall they had paintings made by children in the company daycare
>> center, and I swear they looked like this:
>> http://artchive.com/artchive/M/mitchell/mitchell_ici.jpg.html
>
>the critical elements. (BTW, thanks for this link, too.) Folks who try to
>make this kind of art because they believe that no skill is involved just
>make a mess. Many people can't tell the difference.
I'd think you'd have a hard time demonstrating that there
IS a difference. I think it would be interesting to devise a
sort of Turing Test for this stuff and see if a difference can be
discerned by someone who has never seen her art.
>When you know what you're looking at, the difference between
>a Mitchell or a Twombly and a child's painting is very clear indeed.
Feel free to try to put it into words.
. . .
>You could learn a few things from the art community. Twombly's work is
>fiendishly difficult to bring off, as anyone who has tried to paint that
>way will tell you. The line between what he is doing and the scrawl of a
>failed piece is fine indeed. But it is there.
Again, feel free to try to describe or explain it. Talk is cheap
until they start to tax the Internet.
---peter
peter nelson
Marilyn wrote in message <371CFB...@bc.ca>...
>peter nelson wrote:
>> Also, how much skill is required to do what Joan Mitchell does?
>> Last week I was visiting my wife's company and in the lobby on the
>> wall they had paintings made by children in the company daycare
>> center, and I swear they looked like this:
>> http://artchive.com/artchive/M/mitchell/mitchell_ici.jpg.html
>>
>> And, come on, if someone found a scrap of paper with this on it:
>> http://artchive.com/artchive/T/twombly/twombly_the_italians.jpg.html
>> while cleaning out an old office, would they think it was anything
>> other than the scribbles and doodles someone made while talking
>> on the phone or watching TV? But the art critic community refuses
>> to call these "bad artists".
. . .
>There you go again.
>These people you call unskilled are aknowledged artists.
>>Their work has been
>interpreted by people with extensive background in art history,
>and art theory, and aesthetics, and technique.
In debating this is what is known as an "argument from
authority". It doesn't carry much weight. It usually
signifies that the speaker can't think of any way to support
their point directly so they have to claim that some other,
smarter person has worked it all out.
Why don't you try telling us what distinguishes the above
two works from unskilled scrawls in your own words?
---peter
Marilyn
You don't accept consensus,
and you don't accept (art) authority
and you don't accept what you term (art) academia,
why on earth
would you accept what I would write?
M.
Brian Shapiro
> to create convincing realism. The
> success of monochrome paintings depends on the artist's choice of color,
> size, and placement.
What do you mean by 'skill'? Is this really something you have to 'train'
in? I am not a practicing 'artist' but I find myself to be able to design
things well in accordance with color, size, and placement. I put these
things to use whenever it is necessary, in the creation of documents,
computer programs GUIs, or websites. I also am able to tell that others
can't coordinate these elements as well. Does this mean I have more 'skill'
than them? Also, these three things---color, size, and placement---used to
be more important before modern art, where a major concern was the harmony
of elements in the painting, which would create something at least asthetic.
However, many modern artists have earned their name in creating purposely
ugly and discordant paintings. What do these have to do with color, size and
placement? Any slob can make things look ugly and discordant.
> You could learn a few things from the art community. Twombly's work is
> fiendishly difficult to bring off, as anyone who has tried to paint that
> way will tell you. The line between what he is doing and the scrawl of a
> failed piece is fine indeed. But it is there.
It is also fiendishly difficult to forge handwriting accurately---what is
your point? In fact, maybe Twombly's work would be more like a child's than
you would admit---for Picasso said that he spent his life trying to draw
like a child (no kidding).
> You could learn a lot and get a lot of enjoyment out of modern art. You
are
> missing quite a bit by assuming that you somehow know best - that your
> reactions to art are definitive. This prevents you from learning anything.
You assume that all people who don't like modern art don't understand it. I
understand the intent of modern artists, just like I understand the intent
of nazis. I don't like either modern artists or nazis. (Note, I didn't use
nazis as an example because I think the two are similar, so don't get your
feathers ruffled).
--Brian Shapiro
Brian Shapiro
background. ;_) I am hoping to put up a Mark Tansey website with his
artworks as soon as I can... you can't find much from him on the web at this
point.
As a side note, and I don't mean this to be snide... I have no idea why
someone would go to the trouble of scanning in Mondrians; you can create a
facsimile of them in less than a minute in Windows Paint. ;-)
--Brian Shapiro
Linda Thomas <lth...@metnet.com> wrote in message
news:19990420175155.652$q...@newsreader.com...
> I'll probably regret answering this post, but here goes. By the way,
thanks
> for the Twombly link - I didn't have it, and promptly saved The Italians
> to use as my PC screen's background.
>
>
> "peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> > Linda Thomas wrote in message <19990420091645.901$7...@newsreader.com>...
> > >Brian -
> > >
> > >There are indeed modern artists who don't believe in skill. We call
them
> > >*bad artists.* Modern art requires an enormous amount of skill to
> > >execute well - but, if that skill is not used to create realistic
> > >figurative work, amateurs and most non-artists assume that no skill is
> > >required.
> >
> > This isn't always true. Do you really think that, say, the monochrome
> > canvasses that have been appearing in recent decades and getting
> > rave reviews by some art critics but quizzical looks by the public
really
> > require much skill? I paint on colored gessos and my studio is filled
> > with canvasses that are indistinguishable from these works, except that
> > in my case they are awaiting further application of paint!
>
> Skill involves far more than possessing the draftsmanship necessary
> to create convincing realism. The
> success of monochrome paintings depends on the artist's choice of color,
> size, and placement. Context can be an important factor in some types of
> modern art - a broken pipe in a junkyard can become art because the artist
> has exercised skill in selecting it from all the other objects, and also
> skill in placing it in a gallery, studio, or museum for display.
>
> > Also, how much skill is required to do what Joan Mitchell does?
> > Last week I was visiting my wife's company and in the lobby on the
> > wall they had paintings made by children in the company daycare
> > center, and I swear they looked like this:
> > http://artchive.com/artchive/M/mitchell/mitchell_ici.jpg.html
>
> A lot of conventional skill is involved here: color and composition are
> the critical elements. (BTW, thanks for this link, too.) Folks who try to
> make this kind of art because they believe that no skill is involved just
> make a mess. Many people can't tell the difference. This is not folk
> wisdom, it is the result of both ignorance and a closed mind. I say a
> closed mind because it has been my experience that looking at modern art
> with an open mind is more important than years of study in appreciating
it.
> (Although formal study doesn't hurt!)
>
> When you know what you're looking at, the difference between a Mitchell or
> a Twombly and a child's painting is very clear indeed. What you are
> objecting to is the absence of the conventional forms and compositions
> you are used to seeing in conventional figurative
> painting.
>
> >
> > And, come on, if someone found a scrap of paper with this on it:
> > http://artchive.com/artchive/T/twombly/twombly_the_italians.jpg.html
> > while cleaning out an old office, would they think it was anything
> > other than the scribbles and doodles someone made while talking
> > on the phone or watching TV? But the art critic community refuses
> > to call these "bad artists".
>
> You could learn a few things from the art community. Twombly's work is
> fiendishly difficult to bring off, as anyone who has tried to paint that
> way will tell you. The line between what he is doing and the scrawl of a
> failed piece is fine indeed. But it is there.
>
>
> > And it's not at all clear that what Pollock or Rothko are best known
> > for require much skill, either.
>
> Not clear to whom? You? The difference between a Pollock or Rothko and an
> imitation is the difference between a living being and a corpse. The
> comment often heard in this group, *anyone could do it* is just not true.
>
>
> > N.B. that I'm not knocking ALL abstract expressionism, just noting
> > that not ALL of it requires skill.
>
> You could learn a lot and get a lot of enjoyment out of modern art. You
are
> missing quite a bit by assuming that you somehow know best - that your
> reactions to art are definitive. This prevents you from learning anything.
>
Roger
and to answer your question, yes, I do this for my primary income. not
exactly consitent, but enough to feed and house this college student :)
Mattison
GIVE THIS IDIOT PETER HIS SILICON VALLEY AWARD FOR OUTSTANDING INTHE
CULTURAL ILLITS AWARD AND IDIOT DEPARTMENT!!
oh yea and a brush and canvass.
Mattison Fitzgerald
and we want to watch you paint 2
: "peter nelson"
Mattison
: > arrogant and full of themselves. Anyone agree?
: Absolutely. My neighbor calls himself an *engineer* - and a self-anointed
: *accountant* lives down the street. I also think that so-called *garbage
: collectors* and *airline pilots* have a hell of a nerve.
YEAH!
Teh NERVE of them!
Mattison
Mattison
: In article <mattartF...@netcom.com>,
: mat...@netcom.com (Mattison) wrote:
: > Brian Shapiro (ba...@uclink4.berkeley.edu) wrote:
: > : I often think that people who declare themselves to be "artists" are
: > : arrogant and full of themselves. Anyone agree?
: >
: > with nothing to show for the thought. They often look like idiots when
: > talking to real artists. There should be a lic. for it.
: >
: > Mattison Fitzgerald
: > The artist makes the art and the community makes the artist.
: >
: And who will run the bureau which issues and maintain these licences? You?
: Me? It's an interesting thought. But this is essentially what the "Cowboy
: Well, that was just a thought.
: Erik Mattila
I figure UF451 will be the authroity. It is the unoffical visual artists
union I started a few years ago in this group.
We should have CA Lawyers for the arts start it and make it begin
through an arm at the musicians union since they are used to these sorts
of issues artists face.
Mattison Fitzgerald
Artist
http;//www.rhinodev.com/M
PAINS! Its art not sharware!
A.A. Raimes
<pne...@ultranet.com> writes
>Over here they look at your income to qualify you for a mortgage.
>If you are self-employed (artist or engineer) they want to see
>proof of steady income over a period of time.
Same over here - unfortunately income from art is seldom *regular*. Even
worse when they fill in the forms there is no category for *artist* so
they categorise you as a *craftsman*.
>
>So let's see, this means you would have expected to make around
>125,000 pounds in those 7 years. Around 18,000 pounds -
>something like $28,800 here. In the US that would have qualified
>you for a $600P+I mortgage - not enough to buy a median-priced
>house. Chef's don't make much over there, do they? You should be
>a chef over here - the pay is better. On the other hand, it also implies
>you've averaged about 3500 pounds/year since then. How does
>anyone live on that?
>
>
>---peter
18,000 *is* considered to be a decent salary for someone like a chef in
the UK. Teachers and nurses earn around 14,000. In the UK a salary of
18,000 pounds qualifies you for a mortgage of approx. 58,000 which in
some places in London will get you a one bed apartment and in other
parts of the country a two bed house. When I worked as a chef in the USA
I earned as much as 50,000 dollars a year - tax free because I worked on
a British registered yacht. During the last 7 years I have borrowed
10,000 pounds from various funds available for this in order to complete
my art studies, which is not repayable until I earn just under the
national average wage. Last year as a support teacher I earned 6,000.
The stakes are upped these days with a studio to pay for that has rent
of 2,500 per annum to pay. I expect this year to earn, between my
painting and my van driving, around 10,000 pounds and a few hand outs
from family in the understanding one day it may be worth it ! It already
is. Better cross post this to my new accountant I guess ... especially
as he works for paintings.
peter nelson
>
>GIVE THIS IDIOT PETER HIS SILICON VALLEY AWARD FOR OUTSTANDING INTHE
>CULTURAL ILLITS AWARD AND IDIOT DEPARTMENT!!
>
>oh yea and a brush and canvass.
Is that what someone gets for not kow-towing to the Art Priesthood?
Feel free to point out, using the examples given, what distinguishes
them from childrens drawings, or in the second example, from the
scribbles and doodles common in engineering meeting rooms.
Ad hominem attacks in capital lettersare usually an admission that
you can't support your viewpoint using any more rational approach.
---peter
peter nelson
>> >There you go again.
>> >These people you call unskilled are aknowledged artists.
>> >>Their work has been
>> >interpreted by people with extensive background in art history,
>> >and art theory, and aesthetics, and technique.
>>
>> In debating this is what is known as an "argument from
>> authority". It doesn't carry much weight. It usually
>> signifies that the speaker can't think of any way to support
>> their point directly so they have to claim that some other,
>> smarter person has worked it all out.
>>
>> Why don't you try telling us what distinguishes the above
>> two works from unskilled scrawls in your own words?
>>
>> ---peter
>
>
>You don't accept consensus,
Consensus among whom? "The authorities"? Why should I?
>and you don't accept (art) authority and you don't accept what
>you term (art) academia, why on earth would you accept what
>I would write?
It depends on what you wrote.
So far we have one person (me) saying that the emperor has no
clothes, and a bunch of others saying yes he does. But none of
them have been able to produce a thread of actual textile on
this emperor. Instead of TELLING us that it has merit because
you or someone says so, simply SHOW us something that about
either of the two works that demonstrates merit or distinguishes
them from something which would be produced by a child or
naive, unartistic adult.
---peter
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
"peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> Mattison wrote in message ...
> >
> >GIVE THIS IDIOT PETER HIS SILICON VALLEY AWARD FOR OUTSTANDING INTHE
> >CULTURAL ILLITS AWARD AND IDIOT DEPARTMENT!!
> >
> >oh yea and a brush and canvass.
>
> Is that what someone gets for not kow-towing to the Art Priesthood?
Mattie is a complete, blithering twitch, *and* her work sucks.
She can't even aspire to being part of the "Art Priesthood".
> Feel free to point out, using the examples given, what distinguishes
> them from childrens drawings, or in the second example, from the
> scribbles and doodles common in engineering meeting rooms.
>
> Ad hominem attacks in capital lettersare usually an admission that
> you can't support your viewpoint using any more rational approach.
You assume that she is trying to. She isn't. She posts here when she's
looking for some attention or wants something. Right now, she wants
something.
Linda Thomas
now. The giveaways are phrases such as *please tell us how* etc.
Linda
"peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> Mattison wrote in message ...
> >
> >GIVE THIS IDIOT PETER HIS SILICON VALLEY AWARD FOR OUTSTANDING INTHE
> >CULTURAL ILLITS AWARD AND IDIOT DEPARTMENT!!
> >
> >oh yea and a brush and canvass.
>
> Is that what someone gets for not kow-towing to the Art Priesthood?
>
> Feel free to point out, using the examples given, what distinguishes
> them from childrens drawings, or in the second example, from the
> scribbles and doodles common in engineering meeting rooms.
>
> Ad hominem attacks in capital lettersare usually an admission that
> you can't support your viewpoint using any more rational approach.
>
> ---peter
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
lth...@metnet.com(Linda Thomas) wrote:
> Okay, Mani - we're on to you. You can stop calling yourself Peter Nelson
> now. The giveaways are phrases such as *please tell us how* etc.
Assume he is mani, how does that invalidate his point?
And, FWIW, I'm mani. Peter is Larry.
>
> Linda
>
> "peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> > Mattison wrote in message ...
> > >
> > >GIVE THIS IDIOT PETER HIS SILICON VALLEY AWARD FOR OUTSTANDING INTHE
> > >CULTURAL ILLITS AWARD AND IDIOT DEPARTMENT!!
> > >
> > >oh yea and a brush and canvass.
> >
> > Is that what someone gets for not kow-towing to the Art Priesthood?
> >
> > Feel free to point out, using the examples given, what distinguishes
> > them from childrens drawings, or in the second example, from the
> > scribbles and doodles common in engineering meeting rooms.
> >
> > Ad hominem attacks in capital lettersare usually an admission that
> > you can't support your viewpoint using any more rational approach.
> >
> > ---peter
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Linda Thomas
> In article <19990421102846.039$O...@newsreader.com>,
> lth...@metnet.com(Linda Thomas) wrote:
> > Okay, Mani - we're on to you. You can stop calling yourself Peter
> > Nelson now. The giveaways are phrases such as *please tell us how* etc.
>
> Assume he is mani, how does that invalidate his point?
>
> And, FWIW, I'm mani. Peter is Larry.
Okay - now please identify Moe and Curly.
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
--
Linda Thomas
*Time is never wasted when you're wasted all the time.
--Catherine Zandonella*
Marilyn
You have no library in your suburban paradise? Is it a gated
community and you are sealed inside?
If the question you pose rankles you, go and look up these painters
and find out for yourself.
You are not alone on this newsgroup in your opinions, you are in
the majority, "part of a mob."
Marilyn
mdeli
> The
>success of monochrome paintings depends on the artist's choice of color,
>size, and placement.
The success of any monochrome painting has to do with one thing alone
HYPE.. It always fails when there's no hype.
>Context can be an important factor in some types of
>modern art - a broken pipe in a junkyard can become art because the artist
>has exercised skill in selecting it from all the other objects, and also
>skill in placing it in a gallery, studio, or museum for display.
Of course its ART. Only its lousy art. Did this person ever see a good
window dressing?
>
>A lot of conventional skill is involved here: color and composition are
>the critical elements. (BTW, thanks for this link, too.) Folks who try to
>make this kind of art because they believe that no skill is involved just
>make a mess.
---Just Like the Modern Artists who make it into the museums
>Many people can't tell the difference. This is not folk
>wisdom, it is the result of both ignorance and a closed mind. I say a
>closed mind because it has been my experience that looking at modern art
>with an open mind is more important than years of study in appreciating it.
>(Although formal study doesn't hurt!)
Some people's minds are so open that their brains ran out.
>When you know what you're looking at, the difference between a Mitchell or
>a Twombly and a child's painting is very clear indeed.
Yes, these artists are older and less skilled than children or
chimpanzees for that matter..
>What you are
>objecting to is the absence of the conventional forms and compositions
>you are used to seeing in conventional figurative
>painting.
He's objecting to a lack of skill.
>>
>> And, come on, if someone found a scrap of paper with this on it:
>> http://artchive.com/artchive/T/twombly/twombly_the_italians.jpg.html
>> while cleaning out an old office, would they think it was anything
>> other than the scribbles and doodles someone made while talking
>> on the phone or watching TV? But the art critic community refuses
>> to call these "bad artists".
>
>You could learn a few things from the art community.
Yes Peter. This person is card carrying member of the "art community,"
and you aren't. Get with it and "learn."
> Twombly's work is
>fiendishly difficult to bring off, as anyone who has tried to paint that
>way will tell you.
I'm sure if you were to show us your work we would know right away why
you imagine it to be "fiendishly difficult."
>The line between what he is doing and the scrawl of a
>failed piece is fine indeed. But it is there.
Its as fine as the cloth in the Emperor's new clothes.
>
>> And it's not at all clear that what Pollock or Rothko are best known
>> for require much skill, either.
>
>Not clear to whom? You?
>The difference between a Pollock or Rothko and an
>imitation is the difference between a living being and a corpse. The
>comment often heard in this group, *anyone could do it* is just not true.
>
>
>> N.B. that I'm not knocking ALL abstract expressionism, just noting
>> that not ALL of it requires skill.
I think AE is all a load of crap.
>You could learn a lot and get a lot of enjoyment out of modern art. You are
>missing quite a bit by assuming that you somehow know best - that your
>reactions to art are definitive. This prevents you from learning anything.
Sounds like a religious tract. I like the "This prevents you from
learning anything," statement.
Peter take note. According to this poster you are an insensitive clod
who can't "learn anything."
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
mdeli
>>peter nelson wrote:
>> >interpreted by people with extensive background in art history,
>> >and art theory, and aesthetics, and technique.
>>
>> In debating this is what is known as an "argument from
>> authority". It doesn't carry much weight. It usually
>> signifies that the speaker can't think of any way to support
>> their point directly so they have to claim that some other,
>> smarter person has worked it all out.
>>
>> Why don't you try telling us what distinguishes the above
>> two works from unskilled scrawls in your own words?
>>
>> ---peter
Don't tell me you expect an answer to this sort of question from an
Artzy fartzy.
Art authority and self appointed Generalissimo of Modernism: Marilyn
answers
>You don't accept consensus,
>and you don't accept (art) authority
>and you don't accept what you term (art) academia,
>why on earth
>would you accept what I would write?
You are utterly incapable of answering his questions.
peter nelson
>peter nelson wrote:
>>
>> >> Why don't you try telling us what distinguishes the above
>> >> two works from unskilled scrawls in your own words?
>> >>
>> >> ---peter
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> >you term (art) academia, why on earth would you accept what
>> >I would write?
>>
>>
>> So far we have one person (me) saying that the emperor has no
>> clothes, and a bunch of others saying yes he does. But none of
>> them have been able to produce a thread of actual textile on
>> this emperor. Instead of TELLING us that it has merit because
>> you or someone says so, simply SHOW us something that about
>> either of the two works that demonstrates merit or distinguishes
>> them from something which would be produced by a child or
>> naive, unartistic adult.
>>
>> ---peter
>
>
>You have no library in your suburban paradise? Is it a gated
>community and you are sealed inside?
In other words, you don't know, either.
>If the question you pose rankles you, go and look up these painters
>and find out for yourself.
What question? I made a statement - the two works I provided
links to require no more skill than a child or naive, unartistic
adult could provide.
YOU asserted that there is something to these works so
the onus is on you to tell us what it is.
This is exactly the same as if I produce a box, open it in
front of a crowd, and proclaim it to be empty. You look
at the open box and proclaim it to have something in it,
but refuse to tell us what it contains.
---peter
peter nelson
>So a painting may well address the 'problem' and the 'body of work' which
>deals with the 'problem.' Both Twombly and Mitchell work within this type
of
>art practice. What becomes very difficult is when an individual piece is
>taken out of the context of the artistic problem and the body of work.
So you're saying that this would not look like it was done in a
kindergarten if we understood the "problem" it was trying to
address. This sounds like a rationalization to me. What
ever happened to "art as art" that people were promoting here
a few weeks ago? And what is the "problem" that these are
trying to address? Does this mean that they only sell these
pieces by as a set so they can be viewed "in context"?
> It is merely historical that we can see a representation of St.
> Sebastian, Venus de Milo, or a view of Padua, standing on its
> merits as a representation (independant of the artists body of
> work)
What do you mean by "it is historical"? Anyway, something
doesn't have to be representational to stand on its own. I
would also note that in the museums where I have seen works
of this ilk they are typically displayed singly (i.e., not "in context").
> on the one hand, and see what we interpret as scribbles or
> messes without consideration of the 'problem' and
>'body' on the other hand.
Sure. And now we await Marilyn telling us what the that
problem is. But I don't think she can. She likes it because
"the authorities" tell her it's good.
>It is a matter of the exercise of personal taste and conviction to accept
or
>not accept the idea of the problem and body of work (or painting that leans
>heavily on these things as part of its validation). But once the
individual
>makes this choice, it would seem to be proper to accept the consequences of
>that choice.
You're still arguing from authority. If it does solve or address some
problem then it should be possible to state what that problem is so
we can see if it "succeeds". But I don't think there's anyone on this ng
who has a clue what problem it addresses. They just assume it does
because:
A) An "authority" said so, and
B) because it's so hideous on its own that there *must* be some
better explanation.
> What I mean is that the only valid criticism of an
artist such
>as Twombly is "I don't accept the validity of the artistic problem and body
>of work as systems of legitimazation for a work of art. I think a work or
>art should stand on its own feet as a unique entity." The discussion can't
>really go beyond this statement of position. Meaningful debate about this
>would need to address the art historical turn which brought about the ideas
>of the 'problem' and 'body of work.'
But you're still assuming that it DOES make more sense in
some larger intellectual context. No one has presented a shred
of evidence to that effect.
...
>Of course many people don't like the idea of art discourse, which has been
>incorporated into art itself (the self-consciousness of art).
The self consciousness of the ARTIST, perhaps, but art has no
consciousness. Art can make self-REFERENCE, but this is an
entirely different matter. And this art doesn't do that. Pop art,
does, perhaps.
>
But perhaps it
>is more easily understood if other academic fields are considered. Any
>student of Anthropology, for example, understands that the graduate
>curriculum offered is just as much a study of the science of anthropology
>itself as it is with fossils and ethnic groups.
This is true for all fields. You can't study physics without
learning, in the process, what the epistemological basis of science
is. But every time you bring up that sort of comparison - what
was it last time - molecular biology or something? - I always
have to remind you that the epistemological basis of THOSE fields
of study can be demonstrated as true empirically. Not so with
art.
>I'm just challenging the legitimacy of regarding an individual work such as
>the Twombly cited on this thread, and making some sort of meaningful
critique
>by taking it out of context of Twombly's problem and body of work.
It's legitimate to do so to the extent that the artist is willing to
sell it that way. If Hemingway was willing to sell his works
to the public by the sentence we could criticize him on the same
basis. But he sold it by the novel (or short story). That's the
atomic unit - that's 1 Hemingway. If a Hemingway novel made
no sense on its own, and looked like a 3rd grade homework
assignment but only sprung to life when we read his entire
body of work THEN we would have an equivalent situation.
> Not that someone shouldn't have standards
>and taste, it's just that it really doesn't mean much to offer personal
>preference as criticism.
You call it criticism; I call it an observation - "the work is
indistinguishable from what the Daycare center produced last
week." As an observation it is accurate.
---peter
Marilyn
I refused the position of defending one or two paintings
of two reknowned gestural abstract painters. It isn't a question
of personal aesthetics on my part. It is that they have stature as artists
as you say, with a body of work which has been "interpreted."
I'm still working on the statement that Pollock had no drawing ability
in another post.
Marilyn
emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
>
> In article <7fkl42$il2$1...@antiochus.ultra.net>,
> "peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>
> > So far we have one person (me) saying that the emperor has no
> > clothes, and a bunch of others saying yes he does. But none of
> > them have been able to produce a thread of actual textile on
> > this emperor. Instead of TELLING us that it has merit because
> > you or someone says so, simply SHOW us something that about
> > either of the two works that demonstrates merit or distinguishes
> > them from something which would be produced by a child or
> > naive, unartistic adult.
> >
> > ---peter
> >
> I just can't stand it any longer (joking)!
>
> There are two axioms to contemporary art, the artistic problem and the body of
> work. This is more or less the direction that art has gone in during the past
> century or so.
>
> So a painting may well address the 'problem' and the 'body of work' which
> deals with the 'problem.' Both Twombly and Mitchell work within this type of
> art practice. What becomes very difficult is when an individual piece is
> taken out of the context of the artistic problem and the body of work. It is
> merely historical that we can see a representation of St. Sebastian, Venus de
> Milo, or a view of Padua, standing on its merits as a representation
> (independant of the artists body of work) on the one hand, and see what we
> interpret as scribbles or messes without consideration of the 'problem' and
> 'body' on the other hand.
>
> It is a matter of the exercise of personal taste and conviction to accept or
> not accept the idea of the problem and body of work (or painting that leans
> heavily on these things as part of its validation). But once the individual
> makes this choice, it would seem to be proper to accept the consequences of
> that choice. What I mean is that the only valid criticism of an artist such
> as Twombly is "I don't accept the validity of the artistic problem and body
> of work as systems of legitimazation for a work of art. I think a work or
> art should stand on its own feet as a unique entity." The discussion can't
> really go beyond this statement of position. Meaningful debate about this
> would need to address the art historical turn which brought about the ideas
> of the 'problem' and 'body of work.'
>
> The position of art in society is always in flux, and what we are talking
> about is the changes that have taken place in the past century. To some
> extent, it is out of our hands, as modern and post modern art is an
> established tradition, has great legitimacy by way of convention and
> consensus, and whatever position we take in debate, the process of change in
> the relationship of art and society will continue, probably in ways that are
> difficult to anticipate.
>
> Of course many people don't like the idea of art discourse, which has been
> incorporated into art itself (the self-consciousness of art). But perhaps it
> is more easily understood if other academic fields are considered. Any
> student of Anthropology, for example, understands that the graduate
> curriculum offered is just as much a study of the science of anthropology
> itself as it is with fossils and ethnic groups. True also with Art History
> -- having studied this on a graduate level I can say that what is required is
> the history of art history, as well as the objects of interest to an art
> historian. Why should it be different for art studio? Perhaps the great
> impetus for change in the practice of art during the past century is its
> introduction into school systems as a curriculum- an academic field in
> itself.
>
> I'm just challenging the legitimacy of regarding an individual work such as
> the Twombly cited on this thread, and making some sort of meaningful critique
> by taking it out of context of Twombly's problem and body of work. It's
> quite a futile exercise, in my opinion. It leads to the kind of Dick and
> Jane art criticism which has no real value to anyone, since it only says "I
> like this, and I don't like that." Not that someone shouldn't have standards
> and taste, it's just that it really doesn't mean much to offer personal
> preference as criticism. Criticism, or a critique, is of course not a
> statement about personal preferences or what's good or bad. A critique is a
> statement about how something came to be -- what are its terms, its
> conditions, its significance or lack of significance. Kant's "Critique of
> Pure Reason" wasn't a statement that he didn't like reason, it was an effort
> to describe how and what the concept of 'reason' was during his time.
>
> With this in mind, I'm looking at the two 'camps' represented in these posts,
> and one takes the position, basically, that a work of art should stand on its
> own, independent of any discourse, and the other accepts the legitimacy of
> modern art being tied to a discourse. These ideas (discourse) are
> productively debatable, but it the discussion is taken to a more specific
> level of judging an individual work of art whose significance is tied to
> discourse, the debate becomes meaningless. Not exactly meaningless, of
> course, since a declaration of personal preference always has meaning, it's
> just that the whole debate can never rise to a higher level than personal
> taste.
>
> A critique of Twombly or Mitchell naturally requires some understanding of
> their respective problems and collective solutions. With this understanding,
> both artists become very fascinating, and you can begin to understand why at
> least a sub-cultural consensus points to significance. Without that
> understanding, not much can be said about the work of these artists. To take
> the position that this disqualifies their works as art is th end of debate --
> there's not much more to say about the matter. But the holder of such a
> position should also understand, empirically, that there are many individuals
> who are quite comfortable with the idea of discourse as an informing
> principle of the painting.
>
> Erik Mattila
emat...@tomatoweb.com
bean...@my-dejanews.com
Linda Thomas
I generally like your posts, but this time you outdid yourself. I printed
it out and will show it to my friends.
I couldn't think of adding anything. Thanks.
emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
> In article <7fkl42$il2$1...@antiochus.ultra.net>,
> "peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>
<snip of snippy preppie shit>
> > ---peter
> >
> I just can't stand it any longer (joking)!
>
> There are two axioms to contemporary art, the artistic problem and the
> body of work. This is more or less the direction that art has gone in
> during the past century or so.
>
<snip of great post - my stupid server won't let me reply to long posts
without cutting>
> Erik Mattila
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
--
emat...@tomatoweb.com
"peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> So you're saying that this would not look like it was done in a
> kindergarten if we understood the "problem" it was trying to
> address. This sounds like a rationalization to me. What
> ever happened to "art as art" that people were promoting here
> a few weeks ago? And what is the "problem" that these are
> trying to address? Does this mean that they only sell these
> pieces by as a set so they can be viewed "in context"?
Twombly's work does not look like kindergarten work to me, and I am a great
afficianado of children's art. I'm fascinated, for example, with the impact
of acculturation on children's art. The preschool art is fresh, vivid and
outrageously imaginative, but by the second and third grade the child is
instructed that this tree goes here, the sky there, the water her and so
forth, and the art becomes dull, predictable, and prosaic. This might be an
insight into what Twombly's 'artistic' problem is. Someone recently wrote in
this ng that Picasso wanted to 'paint like a child' as if that was not worthy
of being an artistic problem.
Since the Twombly that we looked at is representative of a large collection
done by many artists other than Twombly (I hesitate to call it a style or
genre), you need to look at a lot of that work, engage in the discourse about
it, and develop some sense of the 'problem.' I have not specifically done
this, but I can give you my general sense of the 'problem.' It is to
disentangle artwork from whatever 'determines' marks to be accepted as 'a
work of art.' Sort of a search for a common denominator, so to speak. How
can 'painting' be reduced to its bare essentials and still be painting? What
is the border or demarcation between a painting and a non-painting (note that
this type of painting emerged out of the "Bad Art" movement of the
seventies). If an artist deletes everything from a painting that functions
as a 'sign' that says "painting," what do you have left. Perhaps the deepest
inquiry is your question itself "what distinguishes the work from a
kindergartener's scribbles? (Maybe it only that it was done by an adult,
eh?) Anyway, I'm sticking my neck out here, since, as I said, I have never
followed this specific question in my studies. I'm sure there are many who
would disagree with me and offer better accounts of the 'problem.' What's of
value to this discussion is that these questions become the part and parcel
of the discourse that the painting is connected to.
Well, part of the 'work' of selling paintings is maintaining and servicing a
contact list of art patrons. Typically, once a gallery owner agrees to
represent and artist, her/his list is utilized and the patron is contacted
with a sales pitch about why a particular patron's collection would be
incomplete without including a representation of Artist X's work. In the
course of this sales contact, the 'discourse' is key to the success of a
sale. The patron is pleased with the discourse, since she/he is already
committed to understanding the particular quirks of the particular art
collected. Equally, ideas about the artistic problem and the artist's body
of work are important to the discourse. So these things circulate within this
sub-culture. The show or exhibit that is mounted in the physical space of
the commercial gallery is just the tip of the iceberg. Keep in mind that I
am talking about marketing artwork that has a discourse attached. I think in
other art marketing niches different sales strategies are employed. Take
Maritime art for example. I have a friend, the Norwegian painter Hans
Skaalgaard, who has his wife, Minion, market his work, and she operates
within a very tight sphere of collectors of Maritime art (that you don't hear
much about publically) and you guessed it -- the 'discourse' is about
Maritime art. Most people who are willing to shell out five or six figures
for a work of art are seriously engaged in the discourse which pertains to
their specific interests.
>
> What do you mean by "it is historical"? Anyway, something
> doesn't have to be representational to stand on its own. I
> would also note that in the museums where I have seen works
> of this ilk they are typically displayed singly (i.e., not "in context").
By 'historical' I mean that the appearance of Giotto's paintings on the wall
of a church, or the 'Circle of the Medici" are historical events, which have
caused the phenomonology of the work of art (among other historical events,
of course). I don't it's necessary to argue representation -- I'm only
acknowledging the distinctions you have made -- i.e. your views of what
constitutes a legitimate work of art. I understand that you aren't confined
to illusionistic art (I don't like the term 'representational' that much
since in another discourse all art is representational).
Sure, many museums display only one Rembrant in a room full of Dutch Masters.
This says nothing. If the viewer isn't aware of Rembrant's 'body of work'
then so be it. It's always delightful, however, to see a Rembrandt when you
are aware of his 'body of work..' Some even claim that this enhances the
experience. It's always worked for me. So all that can be said about this
is that fewer people are aware of Twombly's 'body of work' than Rembrandt's.
Take the Barbizon's, for example -- their forte was depicting the commoner at
work, which outraged a lot of French viewers in those days. If you got to a
museum and see a Millet without knowing this, it's that much less that you'll
recieve from the experience of viewing art.
> You're still arguing from authority. If it does solve or address some
> problem then it should be possible to state what that problem is so
> we can see if it "succeeds". But I don't think there's anyone on this ng
> who has a clue what problem it addresses. They just assume it does
> because:
> A) An "authority" said so, and
> B) because it's so hideous on its own that there *must* be some
> better explanation.
Well, here's a basic disagreement -- probably out of context for this thread.
I sincerely believe that there is not one single work of art in existence
that is capable of standing 'on its own.' There are works of art that
signify popular conceptions of art more than others, to the degree that they
appear to 'stand on their own,' but these too are heavily dependent on a
given culture's collective values and concepts about a work of art. In that
sense any discussion about the superiority of one work of art over another
must have some sort of 'authority' at its foundation. So the Hight Priests
of Modernism are not much different from the High Priests of Classicism, or
whatever legitimizing principle we may use to validate our respective views
and values.
What I mean is that the only valid criticism of an
> artist such
> >as Twombly is "I don't accept the validity of the artistic problem and body
> >of work as systems of legitimazation for a work of art. I think a work or
> >art should stand on its own feet as a unique entity." The discussion can't
> >really go beyond this statement of position. Meaningful debate about this
> >would need to address the art historical turn which brought about the ideas
> >of the 'problem' and 'body of work.'
>
> But you're still assuming that it DOES make more sense in
> some larger intellectual context. No one has presented a shred
> of evidence to that effect.
I don't feel I'm assuming anything, Peter. I'm certain it makes more sense.
What is 'sense,' anyway? But you are right, no one has presented an
explanation of Twombly's or Mitchell's respective 'problems.' I've made a
clumsy attempt, but I've really never addressed these issue so I'm drawing on
a very general knowledge about these specific artists. Others may be in the
same position as I am, but less willing to stick their necks out. But the
other thing is that anyone can get down to a library and start reading on
Twombly and come out of the experience with an understanding of what he has
been doing. It doesn't mean you'll come out loving Twombly -- you'll just
have some knowledge about it.
> The self consciousness of the ARTIST, perhaps, but art has no
> consciousness. Art can make self-REFERENCE, but this is an
> entirely different matter. And this art doesn't do that. Pop art,
> does, perhaps.
Of course art has self consciousness -- is aware of itself, which is another
way of citing self-referenciality. I suppose the idea stems from Gestalt
psychology, the concept of a family or an institution having a functional
personality. But if I am correct about describing Twombly's artistic problem
as a way in which questions about art are addressed in a body of work, then
that is exactly self- referenciality, since the 'art' is not about the world,
but about art itself. Let me add that I actually liked Twombly's painting
(and I don't always like works of art that I accept as valid and legitimate).
I liked it because I'm used to seeing paintings that look like this, and out
of that experience Twombly's stands out as particularly successful.
> This is true for all fields. You can't study physics without
> learning, in the process, what the epistemological basis of science
> is. But every time you bring up that sort of comparison - what
> was it last time - molecular biology or something? - I always
> have to remind you that the epistemological basis of THOSE fields
> of study can be demonstrated as true empirically. Not so with
> art.
I cited 'molecular biology' as an example of a field that uses specialzed
terminology, and compared that with Art History and Criticism, which also
uses specialized terminology. That's a legitimate comparison on the face of
it, which has nothing to do with epistomological pedigrees. I simply cannot
follow your logic here when you state (or imply) that art cannot become
self-referencial because it lacks an epistomological pedegree that science
has. Art history and criticism belong to the social sciences, and history,
anthropology, sociology (as you say 'all fields') and as such has the same
potential as 'all fields' towards self-referenciality. Even if you want to
segregate art practice from the broader institution of the arts, it still
follows that it can, and has, become self- referencial in many of its
aspects.
>
> It's legitimate to do so to the extent that the artist is willing to
> sell it that way. If Hemingway was willing to sell his works
> to the public by the sentence we could criticize him on the same
> basis. But he sold it by the novel (or short story). That's the
> atomic unit - that's 1 Hemingway. If a Hemingway novel made
> no sense on its own, and looked like a 3rd grade homework
> assignment but only sprung to life when we read his entire
> body of work THEN we would have an equivalent situation.
But you're just supporting my point, Peter. If you can't deal with the
'discourse' then there's little to discuss beyond "I like this,I don't like
that." If Hemingway developed a secret code and wrote his novels, their
greatness would only be enjoyed by those who cracked the code. Subsequently
the literary criticism of Hemingway would either be "this work, when
translated, is this or that" or "Hemmingway's work is crap because no one can
read it." Or maybe a better crit would be "Hemmingway shouldn't have written
in a secret code -- how can he call himself a writer?"
And furthermore, all I've been saying is that the 'atomic unit' of Twombly
may be 25 or 50 units. Collectors ultimately end up with only a token of the
whole. But the point is that given the collector's engagement with the
discourse, that token is meaningful and fulfils the expectation of collecting
in the first place. (You have to remember that one important that a person
would pay as much as they would pay for a Twombly is because they can move
capital world-wide free of tax and tarriff.)
>
> Not that someone shouldn't have standards
> >and taste, it's just that it really doesn't mean much to offer personal
> >preference as criticism.
>
> You call it criticism; I call it an observation - "the work is
> indistinguishable from what the Daycare center produced last
> week." As an observation it is accurate.
>
Funny, I can distinguish it. But an observation is what? Usually someone
says "I make my observation based on...." If you are saying that you can't
see the difference between Twombly's and typical children's art, then I just
think you are not looking at the right things.
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
>
(...)
> > >You don't accept consensus,
> >
> > Consensus among whom? "The authorities"? Why should I?
> >
> > >and you don't accept (art) authority and you don't accept what
> > >you term (art) academia, why on earth would you accept what
> > >I would write?
> >
> > It depends on what you wrote.
> >
> > So far we have one person (me) saying that the emperor has no
> > clothes, and a bunch of others saying yes he does. But none of
> > them have been able to produce a thread of actual textile on
> > this emperor. Instead of TELLING us that it has merit because
> > you or someone says so, simply SHOW us something that about
> > either of the two works that demonstrates merit or distinguishes
> > them from something which would be produced by a child or
> > naive, unartistic adult.
> >
> > ---peter
>
> You have no library in your suburban paradise? Is it a gated
> community and you are sealed inside?
This means that marilyn's opinion is better than your opinion because
she lives on the "mean streets" :P
> If the question you pose rankles you, go and look up these painters
> and find out for yourself.
:P
> You are not alone on this newsgroup in your opinions, you are in
> the majority, "part of a mob."
This means that she's dismissing you... you are now part of the unwashed
masses and obviously incapable of understanding the more wonderous things
in our society -- as does marilyn. :P
Congratulations!
Ariane
On Wed, 21 Apr 1999, peter nelson wrote:
> >> So far we have one person (me) saying that the emperor has no
> >> clothes, and a bunch of others saying yes he does. But none of
> >> them have been able to produce a thread of actual textile on
> >> this emperor. Instead of TELLING us that it has merit because
> >> you or someone says so, simply SHOW us something that about
> >> either of the two works that demonstrates merit or distinguishes
> >> them from something which would be produced by a child or
> >> naive, unartistic adult.
> >>
> >> ---peter
A === Child's art, art naif, primitivism: technique is not the golden
standard for objectively judging art. Preference for technique is only
that.
> >You have no library in your suburban paradise? Is it a gated
> >community and you are sealed inside?
>
> In other words, you don't know, either.
>
> >If the question you pose rankles you, go and look up these painters
> >and find out for yourself.
>
> What question? I made a statement - the two works I provided
> links to require no more skill than a child or naive, unartistic
> adult could provide.
> YOU asserted that there is something to these works so
> the onus is on you to tell us what it is.
A === What if, like the Tao, `it' can't be simply told as if one were
ordering a quarter pounder w/cheese?
> This is exactly the same as if I produce a box, open it in
> front of a crowd, and proclaim it to be empty. You look
> at the open box and proclaim it to have something in it,
> but refuse to tell us what it contains.
>
> ---peter
=== False analogy, art cannot be bounded in a `box,' despite the fact that
this is precisely what the technicians would like....
hasta luego
A.
dan...@erols.com
,<SNIP -below Peter is referring to Erik's post >
>
> You call it criticism; I call it an observation - "the work is
> indistinguishable from what the Daycare center produced last
> week." As an observation it is accurate.
This is the heart of the matter. Work such as Twombly's is indeed
indistinguishable from children's scrawls - to you, Peter.
Years ago it appeared to me that certain examples of modern dance were the
same as average people fooling around on the stage.
Then I met a woman who had been a dancer. She took me to performances,
showed me tapes, drew diagrams, gave me books to read, etc. I dutifully
went along with it because I wanted to sleep with the woman. Gradually I
began to see what the dances meant, and they took on great beauty for me.
I could
not readily explain the difference between modern dance and ordinary
movement - especially in a few paragraphs - but I can now recognize and
appreciate it, because I allowed myself to be educated.
As to speaking from authority - yes. People who have spent their lives and
educations in a field are entitled to speak with authority. This doesn't
mean they will always be right, of course. But their words are worth
attending. I heard that you
are a software engineer. If you want to tell me about computer programming
I will pay very close attention to what you have to say - and probably
learn something, since this is your profession and you are entitled to
speak with authority.
Some books that will help: About Modern Art, by David Sylvester; Modern Art
by Meyer Shapiro. The Sylvester book is new and is worth going out of your
way to buy and read. The Shapiro book is has well-deserved status as a
classic and is available in paperback.
I married the dancer, by the way.
Regards,
Dan
>
> ---peter
emat...@tomatoweb.com
Marilyn <m...@bc.ca> wrote:
> Nice work Erik, from you position sitting on the fence.
> I refused the position of defending one or two paintings
> of two reknowned gestural abstract painters. It isn't a question
> of personal aesthetics on my part. It is that they have stature as artists
> as you say, with a body of work which has been "interpreted."
> I'm still working on the statement that Pollock had no drawing ability
> in another post.
>
> Marilyn
>
'fence' is (I like to imagine myself inhabiting a world without fences).
The first Pollocks I saw face to face were at the SFMOMA in 1959 or 60. The
exhibition was called "Psychoanalytic Drawings." In 1959, by the way, you
weren't worth your intellectual salt unless you were going through
psychoanalysis -- it was quite in-vogue. But the drawings were wonderful,
and easily indicative of pronounced drawing skills. Since there is little
evidence of drawing in drip paintings and 'action paintings' it 'seems'
relevant to say 'Jackson couldn't draw,' if that is all one knows about his
work. That's the problem from learning art history from survey courses and
books.
Erik
Marilyn
> >
> 'splain 'sitting on the fence?' Better yet, describe what you believe the
> 'fence' is (I like to imagine myself inhabiting a world without fences).
I was just being flippant. Reminds me of the song "Don't Fence Me In."
You took the time and patience to write your post about Twombly
& Joan Mitchell.
My response is usually, who am I to defend these famous accomplished people.
Yes I accept reviews of their work by people like John Ashberry, the poet
and art critic or his friend James Schulyler.
> The first Pollocks I saw face to face were at the SFMOMA in 1959 or 60. The
> exhibition was called "Psychoanalytic Drawings." In 1959, by the way, you
> weren't worth your intellectual salt unless you were going through
> psychoanalysis -- it was quite in-vogue. But the drawings were wonderful,
> and easily indicative of pronounced drawing skills. Since there is little
> evidence of drawing in drip paintings and 'action paintings' it 'seems'
> relevant to say 'Jackson couldn't draw,' if that is all one knows about his
> work. That's the problem from learning art history from survey courses and
> books.
It could be said that P. manipulation of the paint was a form of drawing.
M.
Marilyn Welch
If you don't get through on an individual basis, you've given
the group two good references.
The latest book on Modern Art which I unwrapped at Chapters,
had a listing of Grandma Moses, in the index, while I was
looking for Ed Moses, contemporary California painter.
By the way, Coagula's latest issue features a David Bowie interview,
quite a coup!
Marilyn
peter nelson
>Years ago it appeared to me that certain examples of modern dance were the
>same as average people fooling around on the stage.
>Then I met a woman who had been a dancer. She took me to performances,
>showed me tapes, drew diagrams, gave me books to read, etc. I dutifully
>went along with it because I wanted to sleep with the woman. Gradually I
>began to see what the dances meant, and they took on great beauty for me.
>
>I could
>not readily explain the difference between modern dance and ordinary
>movement - especially in a few paragraphs - but I can now recognize and
>appreciate it, because I allowed myself to be educated.
Or indocrinated. If you can't explain it - there there is at
least the possibility that it's not really there except in your
imagination.
>As to speaking from authority - yes. People who have spent their lives and
>educations in a field are entitled to speak with authority. This doesn't
>mean they will always be right, of course. But their words are worth
>attending.
Why? I mean literally - why? The words of a physicist are worth
attending only because physics can demonstrate that it is a
formal system of theoretical models which can be empirically
shown to answer identifiable questions.
> I heard that you are a software engineer. If you want to tell me
> about computer programming I will pay very close attention to
> what you have to say - and probably learn something, since
> this is your profession and you are entitled to speak with authority.
Only to the extent that I can demonstrably write a working
computer program, not because I have the title "software engineer".
I've read several books like the ones you describe. They dance
around the issue the way ematilla did in his response to my
posting. Quote: "It is to disentangle artwork from whatever
'determines' marks to be accepted as 'a work of art.' Sort of
a search for a common denominator, so to speak. How can
'painting' be reduced to its bare essentials and still be painting?"
There's no indication of whether the artist ANSWERED the question
or how we can tell by looking at it what the answer was.
This is the Achilles heel of "art" which is meant to be understood
INTELLECTUALLY rather than in the more traditional terms of
aesthetics or symbolism or technique. The latter can all stand on
their own and be appreciated AS PAINTINGS. But once you
start intellectualizing, once you turn the process of painting into
some sort of formal investigation into specific questions then
it has to live in the world of any other investigative process.
It then is has to stand up to intellectual scrutiny and intellectual
discipline. It becomes a sort of epistemology which can then be
judged like any other epistemology - on the strength of the
clarity of its questions and correctness of its answers. This
involves a degree of rigor and formalism that the books, at least,
don't reveal.
---peter
peter nelson
>Excellent post, written with tact, patience & persuasion.
>>Years ago it appeared to me that certain examples of modern dance
>> were the same as average people fooling around on the stage.
>>Then I met a woman who had been a dancer. She took me to
>>performances, showed me tapes, drew diagrams, gave me
>>books to read, etc. I dutifully went along with it because I
>>wanted to sleep with the woman. Gradually I began to see
>>what the dances meant, and they took on great beauty for me.
>>
>>I could not readily explain the difference between modern
>>dance and ordinary movement - especially in a few paragraphs
First of all, as an annual subscriber to a modern dance series
in the Boston area (Emerson Dance Umbrella) I don't see any
comparison between dance and ordinary movement. To
suggest that what Pilobolus or Baryshnikov or the average
Butoh dancers do on stage is anything like what people walking
down the street do is ludicrous. Moreover, part of what
makes it significant is the same as what makes great painting
significant: SKILL. Untrained people couldn't do it if they wanted!
But the other problem is that his argument ISN'T persuasive.
He says he now sees the "meaning"; but he can't tell us.
So the meaning is inside of him and will appraently remain there
because he can't express it. So how do we know it's there?
For any argument in any endeavor (science, politics,
philosophy, etc) to be persuasive it has to be EXPRESSED.
No philosopher can get very far by saying "I have a great
thought but I can't express it".
Part of the power of art is that it can SURPRISE us. Part
of what's amazing about good modern dance is that it DOESN'T
look at ALL like everyday movement.
---peter
Dan Fox
> dan...@erols.com wrote in message
> <19990422091503.430$N...@newsreader.com>...
> >"peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
This guy is beyond redemption. Erik! Marilyn! Ariane! You are
braver than I. I'm going back to the studio where I belong. See ya
on the back channel. Erik - If you wanna e-mail me I'd be honored to
correspond.
Later (much later),
Dan
<snip>
> >I could
> >not readily explain the difference between modern dance and ordinary
> >movement - especially in a few paragraphs - but I can now recognize and
> >appreciate it, because I allowed myself to be educated.
>
> Or indocrinated. If you can't explain it - there there is at
> least the possibility that it's not really there except in your
> imagination.
>
<snip>
> ---peter
emat...@tomatoweb.com
"peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> I've read several books like the ones you describe. They dance
> around the issue the way ematilla did in his response to my
> posting. Quote: "It is to disentangle artwork from whatever
> 'determines' marks to be accepted as 'a work of art.' Sort of
> a search for a common denominator, so to speak. How can
> 'painting' be reduced to its bare essentials and still be painting?"
>
> There's no indication of whether the artist ANSWERED the question
> or how we can tell by looking at it what the answer was.
The blatant indication that the artist succeeded, Peter, is your equivocating
the piece with a child's art, is it not? Kind of like a rattlesnake right
out there in front of you, poised to strike. I wasn't dancing around the
issue. I am not accountable for your lack of vision.
>
> This is the Achilles heel of "art" which is meant to be understood
> INTELLECTUALLY rather than in the more traditional terms of
> aesthetics or symbolism or technique. The latter can all stand on
> their own and be appreciated AS PAINTINGS. But once you
> start intellectualizing, once you turn the process of painting into
> some sort of formal investigation into specific questions then
> it has to live in the world of any other investigative process.
> It then is has to stand up to intellectual scrutiny and intellectual
> discipline. It becomes a sort of epistemology which can then be
> judged like any other epistemology - on the strength of the
> clarity of its questions and correctness of its answers. This
> involves a degree of rigor and formalism that the books, at least,
> don't reveal.
>
It kind of sounds like you're writing the "Mien Kampf" of art appreciation
here, Peter. The fact of the matter is that all paintings are appreciated
intellectually, whether the viewer is aware of it or not. This is more or
less provable to a reasonable person. Try Roger Arnheim for art psychology.
It seems that the core of your rant is actually against social science, which
is a tired old argument in my book. At any rate, I tried to answer your
question, but failed. Good luck in your painting.
A.A. Raimes
writes
>Years ago it appeared to me that certain examples of modern dance were the
>same as average people fooling around on the stage.
>Then I met a woman who had been a dancer. She took me to performances,
>showed me tapes, drew diagrams, gave me books to read, etc. I dutifully
>went along with it because I wanted to sleep with the woman. Gradually I
>began to see what the dances meant, and they took on great beauty for me.
>
>I could
>not readily explain the difference between modern dance and ordinary
>movement - especially in a few paragraphs - but I can now recognize and
>appreciate it, because I allowed myself to be educated.
Dan: I spent three years at University with a dancer who was studying
painting. For her degree show she suddenly combined the two and created
a dance/performance - as I helped her with the mundane things like
switching on and off the tape recorders I learned a lot about the
similarities between painting and dance and choreography. (I didn't pay
attention because I wanted to sleep with her however ... she had a nice
following of men with their tongues hanging out for that) ... but to
enhance my experiences of art, in its widest sense.
>
>As to speaking from authority - yes. People who have spent their lives and
>educations in a field are entitled to speak with authority. This doesn't
>mean they will always be right, of course. But their words are worth
>attending.
I agree entirely. I spent yesterday with an American who studied art in
California during the fifties and now lives and works in Canadian as an
art critic and professor of art. We spent most of the day at the
National Gallery and at the Kandinsky works on paper show here in
London. His knowledge of painting techniques and in particular Flemish
art was remarkable ... but after thirty years of teaching I should think
they should be. I certainly didn't agree with a lot of what he told me
in terms of the *art world* of today but learned a great deal from just
being with him and hearing of his experiences.
>Some books that will help: About Modern Art, by David Sylvester; Modern Art
>by Meyer Shapiro. The Sylvester book is new and is worth going out of your
>way to buy and read. The Shapiro book is has well-deserved status as a
>classic and is available in paperback.
>
Nice references, thanks.
>I married the dancer, by the way.
>
The only time I see my friend now is when she is on *Top of the Pops*
now ... she turned finally to singing !
Cheers.
Alison A Raimes
peter nelson
emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote in message <7fpp19$mdv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <tkPT2.19417$tY1....@wbnws01.ne.mediaone.net>,
> "peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>
>> I've read several books like the ones you describe. They dance
>> around the issue the way ematilla did in his response to my
>> posting. Quote: "It is to disentangle artwork from whatever
>> 'determines' marks to be accepted as 'a work of art.' Sort of
>> a search for a common denominator, so to speak. How can
>> 'painting' be reduced to its bare essentials and still be painting?"
>>
>> There's no indication of whether the artist ANSWERED the question
>> or how we can tell by looking at it what the answer was.
>
>The blatant indication that the artist succeeded, Peter, is your
equivocating
>the piece with a child's art, is it not?
Why? If it looks like child's scrawl then he only "suceeded"
if his goal was to make something that looked like a
child's scrawl. But that's not what the critics claim these
artists are trying to do.
>> This is the Achilles heel of "art" which is meant to be understood
>> INTELLECTUALLY rather than in the more traditional terms of
>> aesthetics or symbolism or technique. The latter can all stand on
>> their own and be appreciated AS PAINTINGS. But once you
>> start intellectualizing, once you turn the process of painting into
>> some sort of formal investigation into specific questions then
>> it has to live in the world of any other investigative process.
>> It then is has to stand up to intellectual scrutiny and intellectual
>> discipline. It becomes a sort of epistemology which can then be
>> judged like any other epistemology - on the strength of the
>> clarity of its questions and correctness of its answers. This
>> involves a degree of rigor and formalism that the books, at least,
>> don't reveal.
>>
>
>It kind of sounds like you're writing the "Mien Kampf" of art appreciation
>here, Peter. The fact of the matter is that all paintings are appreciated
>intellectually, whether the viewer is aware of it or not.
By "intellectually", I mean "formally". Traditional art is not
designed to be understood (only) that way. Someone
totally unschooled in art can appreciate the beauty of
a painting or sculpture by one of the Masters. If the artist
was inclined to add symbolism or something to his work
one might get some added appreciation of it by studying
it that way, but it's not necessary.
But if the art can ONLY be understood within the context of
an investigation into a formal question then the artist is attempting
to creat an artistic formalism.
People have written music which didn't "sound like music"
but when you study the pattern of notes mathematically you
go, "oh, I get it". This seems to be the sort of art you are
describing - something which is ONLY designed to be understood
as a formalism. But what I'm saying is that if you read
the books on it, such as the ones you describe, they are
not formal ENOUGH to support that approach. Put simply:
to engage in a formalism you have to be FORMAL. I.e.,
you have to be intellectually rigorous - clear definitions,
consistent use of terms, in a word - scientific. But that's
not what art is about.
>It seems that the core of your rant is actually against social science,
> which is a tired old argument in my book.
"Social science" is not a science. My undergraduate
major was psychology so I know all about it. (from there I
went to neurophysiology) Social and behavioral "scientists"
would LIKE to be scientists but it eludes them. The
issues are much the same as what we're discussing.
No one has ever come up with a set of formalisms that can
provide any more insight into the subject at hand than
what informal approaches can yield. Ditto with art.
---peter
Linda Thomas
Your recent post was one of the
best I've seen; a lot like Erik's in its educational value,
patience, and good
humor. I have the Meyer Shapiro book and am buying the David
Sylvester on your recommendation.
You've got to understand something: a lot of these guys (they
all seem to be guys) on this ng are not here to teach, learn,
or discuss. They are here to show everyone that they are right.
To them, being right means making you wrong. They have no clue
and never will, since learning anything is out of the question.
I hope you'll continue to contribute from time to time. Just
ignore the philistines.
Linda
Dan...@erols.com(Dan Fox) wrote:
> This guy is beyond redemption. Erik! Marilyn! Ariane! You are
> braver than I. I'm going back to the studio where I belong. See ya
> on the back channel. Erik - If you wanna e-mail me I'd be honored to
> correspond.
>
> Later (much later),
>
> Dan
>
> <snip>
>
> > >I could
> > >not readily explain the difference between modern dance and ordinary
> > >movement - especially in a few paragraphs - but I can now recognize
> > >and appreciate it, because I allowed myself to be educated.
> >
Brian Shapiro
> want to face the truth, which is that so-called modern art
> is part of the decline of the west. This decline was, and is,
> fueled by whining liberals who would rather look at fecal
> smears than real art.
Don't waste your time---most people on here are probably happy that the west
declined.
--Brina Shapiro
Doctor Ego
want to face the truth, which is that so-called modern art
is part of the decline of the west. This decline was, and is,
fueled by whining liberals who would rather look at fecal
smears than real art.
These very same people would put our tax dollars into useless
garbage art instead of the weapons systems that keep us safe.
(These same weapons systems that the liberals hate so much keep
them free so they can make their silly art.)
You make fun of Peter Nelson and Mani Deli and the others like
them, but they are the real Americans here. Jackson Pollack and
Mark Rothko were no-talent drunks who never served their country -
or made real art.
Doctor Ego
emat...@tomatoweb.com
here to show everyone that they are right" meaning 'correct' not 'right' as in
'right wing politics.'
emat...@tomatoweb.com
"peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> >It seems that the core of your rant is actually against social science,
> > which is a tired old argument in my book.
>
> "Social science" is not a science. My undergraduate
> major was psychology so I know all about it. (from there I
> went to neurophysiology) Social and behavioral "scientists"
> would LIKE to be scientists but it eludes them. The
> issues are much the same as what we're discussing.
> No one has ever come up with a set of formalisms that can
> provide any more insight into the subject at hand than
> what informal approaches can yield. Ditto with art.
>
Well, that gets us down to the brass tacks, then. I agree with you, and I've
often criticized the social sciences for their 'will to science' since they
do deal with the intangibles of the human personality, individually and
collectively. The rest of the argument would have to be, since this is the
case, do the social sciences have any value after their disassociation with
'science?'
In Art History this comes into play, especially if you look at George Kubler,
ArchDeacon of PreColumbian art. Kubler is interesting, since he had one foot
in Art History, and the other in Archaeology. So he often attacks 'humanism'
which is much more prelevant in France and Germany, insofar as Art History is
concerned. His diatribes against the French Teotihuacan scholar, Laurette
Sejourne, are very interesting reading. The issue was whether it was
legitimate for an archaeologist to interpret culture (Sejourne) or simply be
satisfied with counting and classifying artefacts (Kubler).
You may be interested in reading Kubler's theoretical monograph, The Shape of
Time. He tries his hardest to stick to science in his description and
definition of art and art history (if you can imagine that). The problem I
had with this book was that it implied, if you carried out its premise, a
historical connective tissue between Roman landscape painting and Richard
Diebenkorn, which I could not see or believe in.
mdeli
IF IT NEEDS A LONG SERMON TO PROCLAIM ITS ART ITS PROBABLY BULLSHIT.
emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
>There are two axioms to contemporary art, the artistic problem and the body of
>work. This is more or less the direction that art has gone in during the past
>century or so.
The only thing that counts is what's on the wall.
>So a painting may well address the 'problem' and the 'body of work' which
>deals with the 'problem.'
If the artist has a "problem." its only of interest if it shows in his
work.
> Both Twombly and Mitchell work within this type of
>art practice. What becomes very difficult is when an individual piece is
>taken out of the context of the artistic problem and the body of work.
Wrong. What becomes difficult is when a so called artwork necessitates
your sort of bullshit.
>It is
>merely historical that we can see a representation of St. Sebastian, Venus de
>Milo, or a view of Padua, standing on its merits as a representation.
You left out skill originality, complexity, detail and technique. Non
of this is evident in the idiots you defend.
>(independant of the artists body of work) on the one hand, and see what we
>interpret as scribbles or messes without consideration of the 'problem' and
>'body' on the other hand.
>It is a matter of the exercise of personal taste and conviction to accept or
>not accept the idea of the problem and body of work (or painting that leans
>heavily on these things as part of its validation).
The "problem" is your's and the body of work is generally nihilism.
> But once the individual
>makes this choice, it would seem to be proper to accept the consequences of
>that choice. What I mean is that the only valid criticism of an artist such
>as Twombly is "I don't accept the validity of the artistic problem and body
>of work as systems of legitimazation for a work of art. I think a work or
>art should stand on its own feet as a unique entity." The discussion can't
>really go beyond this statement of position. Meaningful debate about this
>would need to address the art historical turn which brought about the ideas
>of the 'problem' and 'body of work.'
Can you imagine standing in front of a big schmier in the museum and
someone unloads the above statement on you?
>The position of art in society is always in flux, and what we are talking
>about is the changes that have taken place in the past century.
Its always in Flux. So what?
>To some
>extent, it is out of our hands, as modern and post modern art is an
>established tradition, has great legitimacy by way of convention and
>consensus, and whatever position we take in debate, the process of change in
>the relationship of art and society will continue, probably in ways that are
>difficult to anticipate.
stating the obvious as usual.
>I'm just challenging the legitimacy of regarding an individual work such as
>the Twombly cited on this thread, and making some sort of meaningful critique
>by taking it out of context of Twombly's problem and body of work. It's
>quite a futile exercise, in my opinion. It leads to the kind of Dick and
>Jane art criticism which has no real value to anyone, since it only says "I
>like this, and I don't like that." Not that someone shouldn't have standards
>and taste, it's just that it really doesn't mean much to offer personal
>preference as criticism. Criticism, or a critique, is of course not a
>statement about personal preferences or what's good or bad. A critique is a
>statement about how something came to be -- what are its terms, its
>conditions, its significance or lack of significance. Kant's "Critique of
>Pure Reason" wasn't a statement that he didn't like reason, it was an effort
>to describe how and what the concept of 'reason' was during his time.
This guy sure can inflate a wad when he says nothing.
>
>With this in mind, I'm looking at the two 'camps' represented in these posts,
>and one takes the position, basically, that a work of art should stand on its
>own, independent of any discourse, and the other accepts the legitimacy of
>modern art being tied to a discourse.
Modern Art isindeed little more than discourse while most of the
artwork is of of no interest whatever. However, cCompared to your
convoluted "discourse," even that artwork is preferable.
>
>A critique of Twombly or Mitchell naturally requires some understanding of
>their respective problems and collective solutions.
Name three of their "problems" and a couple of "solutions."
> With this understanding,
>both artists become very fascinating, and you can begin to understand why at
>least a sub-cultural consensus points to significance.
What "understanding."
>Without that
>understanding, not much can be said about the work of these artists. To take
>the position that this disqualifies their works as art is th end of debate --
>there's not much more to say about the matter.
-Sure, If you never mention skill, inimitability, technique and never
compare these works to floor covering and designer bed sheets.