i

[rfau...@aol.com]

i

[Bob Speel]

In article: <19961109142...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
rfau...@aol.com writes:
>
> i
>
>

j

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Speel b...@speel.demon.co.uk
http://www.speel.demon.co.uk

"ignorant but never silent"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[dwi...@nas.com]

In article <19961109142...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
rfau...@aol.com wrote:

> i

I can see from the style of your i that you're a real "fine" artist.
You've come a long way! Now, if you can just turn yourself inside-out....

[David Harleyson]

In article <dwilson-1511...@dialup29.nas.com>, dwi...@nas.com says...

>I can see from the style of your i that you're a real "fine" artist.

A true minimalist, no doubt -- as opposed to a false minimalist.
But on the other hand, a minimalist would probably have
represented the art with l instead of with i
D.H.

[tutt...@bvu.edu]

no the true minimalist would have used . insted!!

===============================================================================
JAMIE TUTTLE
tutt...@bvu.edu
"King Tutt"
QUESTION THE OBVIOUS!!??
===============================================================================

[David Harleyson]

In article <1996Nov18.1...@bvu.edu>, tutt...@bvu.edu says...

>no the true minimalist would have used . insted!!

Possibly, and I thought of that, but a . doesn't show on
my screen as easily as a l so I chose the latter for
purposes of clear representation. You're right though.
Although I could argue that most minimalist work I am
familiar with is more rectalinear than round. Wonder why
round is not represented as often? Anyone care to
debate which is "more" minimal ?? D.H.

[jkea...@aol.com]

In article <56sgri$o...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, no...@email.com (David

Harleyson)(aka Jay Elless, aka Yolanda Liberte, aka Rose Madder) writes:

>Although I could argue that most minimalist work I am
>familiar with is more rectalinear than round. Wonder why
>round is not represented as often? Anyone care to
>debate which is "more" minimal ?? D.H.
>
>

Maybe minimalists need to use a straightedge to draw. Could be they're
incapable of drawing curvilinear shapes. There are plenty of compasses and
circle/ellipse templates available, though.

To rise to the bait, however, I think the circle is more minimal. The
corners of non-curved forms complicate the forms.

J.K.

[kajoj...@aol.com]

In article <19961119212...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
jkea...@aol.com writes:

>
>>Although I could argue that most minimalist work I am
>>familiar with is more rectalinear than round. Wonder why
>>round is not represented as often? Anyone care to
>>debate which is "more" minimal ?? D.H.
>>
>>
>
>Maybe minimalists need to use a straightedge to draw. Could be they're
>incapable of drawing curvilinear shapes. There are plenty of compasses
and
>circle/ellipse templates available, though.
>
>To rise to the bait, however, I think the circle is more minimal. The
>corners of non-curved forms complicate the forms.
>
>J.K.
>
>

Interesting...

I've been calling my abstract 'fields' minimal, though there's more there
than first meets the eye - and lately have introduced round or eliptical
forms (some see them as fruit or eggs, but that's just my joke - they are
simply minimal forms.) At what point would the paintings no longer be
called minimal? To answer my own question - as soon as the forms are
added. How about - minimal still life?

Nevermind - go on with the discussion -

.............Karen Jacobs.................................
http://members.aol.com/kajojacobs/index.htm

[jkea...@aol.com]

In article <19961120021...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
kajoj...@aol.com writes:

> How about - minimal still life?
>
>

Sounds like those white geometric shapes you draw in Art 101. Of course,
no minimalist worth bothering about would use color.

j

[dwi...@nas.com]

In article <19961120021...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
kajoj...@aol.com wrote:

> I've been calling my abstract 'fields' minimal, though there's more there
> than first meets the eye - and lately have introduced round or eliptical
> forms (some see them as fruit or eggs, but that's just my joke - they are
> simply minimal forms.) At what point would the paintings no longer be
> called minimal? To answer my own question - as soon as the forms are

> added. How about - minimal still life?

>
> Nevermind - go on with the discussion -
>
> .............Karen Jacobs.................................
> http://members.aol.com/kajojacobs/index.htm

Minimal might mean when the form makes no reference to anything outside of
itself.

[kajoj...@aol.com]

In article <dwilson-2111...@dialup19.nas.com>, dwi...@nas.com
writes:

>
>Minimal might mean when the form makes no reference to anything outside
of
>itself.

So, if the form (a circle) just happened to resemble, say, an orange - it
would no longer be considered minimal?

.............Karen Jacobs.................................
http://members.aol.com/kajojacobs/index.htm

[Christoph Hollender]

On 19 Nov 1996 21:18:06 GMT,
jkea...@aol.com <jkea...@aol.com> wrote:

>Maybe minimalists need to use a straightedge to draw. Could be they're
>incapable of drawing curvilinear shapes. There are plenty of compasses and
>circle/ellipse templates available, though.
>
>To rise to the bait, however, I think the circle is more minimal. The
>corners of non-curved forms complicate the forms.

Minimalism, as I see it, is not about being as minimal as you can
possibly be, but about getting the most out of very little. In this
sense a cube (I prefer to discuss this matter in terms of sculpture)
offers zillions of slightly different aspects when viewed from
different points in space, whereas the appearance of a sphere does not
depend on your point of view but is always the same.

OTOH I suppose that circles were kind of off-limits for minimalists
since Roy Lichtenstein came off with those amazing dots in his
blown-up comic strip paintings. I suppose that Lichtenstein's success
implied something like that points, circles, or dots are "coded" Pop
Art, so they couldn't be representative of Minimal.

christoph hollender
............................................................
"Some day we will try to do as many things as are possible
And perhaps we shall succeed at a handful of them."
............................................................
hol...@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de

[David Harleyson]

In article <19961125130...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, kajoj...@aol.com says...

>"...The main revelation for me, though, was a very simple painting that
>Elizabeth Murray made. It was a circle in a square - a very traditional
>Minimal format, having to do with a sort of perfect geometry. The thing
>was that Elizabeth's circle didn't fit the square; it punched out on the
>edges. And I remember looking at this painting and thinking: Minimalism
>is over. The circle no longer fits."

One can argue this absurdly, as well as abstractly, obtusely, and yes,
even minimally. Wonder about putting circles on a circular canvas
versus a rectangular one though. Most artists use a rectangular
format for presenting their work. I guess putting a circle on a circle
would evoke thoughts of targets ala Johns. On the other hand, I don't
think I've ever seen rectangles on a circular canvas, which reminds
me of how I feel about living in this circular environment we inhabit. D.H.

[kajoj...@aol.com]

In article <34394....@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de>, "Christoph
Hollender" <hol...@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> writes:

>>(JKerman said)

>>To rise to the bait, however, I think the circle is more minimal. The
>>corners of non-curved forms complicate the forms.

===============
>(Christoph Hollender said)

>Minimalism, as I see it, is not about being as minimal as you can
>possibly be, but about getting the most out of very little. In this
>sense a cube (I prefer to discuss this matter in terms of sculpture)
>offers zillions of slightly different aspects when viewed from
>different points in space, whereas the appearance of a sphere does not
>depend on your point of view but is always the same.
>
>OTOH I suppose that circles were kind of off-limits for minimalists
>since Roy Lichtenstein came off with those amazing dots in his
>blown-up comic strip paintings. I suppose that Lichtenstein's success
>implied something like that points, circles, or dots are "coded" Pop
>Art, so they couldn't be representative of Minimal.
>
>christoph hollender

=======================
Comment by Eric Fischl in Art in America (Nov):

"...The main revelation for me, though, was a very simple painting that
Elizabeth Murray made. It was a circle in a square - a very traditional
Minimal format, having to do with a sort of perfect geometry. The thing
was that Elizabeth's circle didn't fit the square; it punched out on the
edges. And I remember looking at this painting and thinking: Minimalism
is over. The circle no longer fits."

Doesn't answer my question, but I thought it interesting and sort of
relevant.

.............Karen Jacobs.................................
http://members.aol.com/kajojacobs/index.htm

[dwi...@nas.com]

In article <19961122011...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
kajoj...@aol.com wrote:

If the form of a circle resembles an orange then it is not minimal. If the
form of a circle is orange - it is an orange circle - a planar region
bound by a circle - it is minimal.

[Mike Lattis]

I think this is one of those concepts you could argue back and forth
infinitely and never gain any ground. Partly, this is because there
are many ways of defining minimalism, and there are many different
aspects of the artistic process which can be minimal (i.e., are we
talking in terms of composition, or of the object itself, or of the
artist's involvement, etc.). It seems in this case we are concerned
with two-dimensional objects, am I right? In that case, I'd have to
say a circle is a more minimal form than a rectilinear shape (even a
square). The least of anything you can have is nothing, right? But
minimalism as we are debating it here implies that there is SOMETHING,
right? So the most minimal two-dimensional form must emanate from a
one-dimensional point. That point has no shape, but we'll assume that
it exists at the center of our presumed minimal shape. It seems to
me, then, that the least complex shape would be one that is comprised
of points which extend at equal distances from the focal center (the
point). This radial arrangement of points would comprise a circle.
To form a square (or any other shape) would require a more complicated
arrangement of points (i.e., extending from the central point at an
INFINITE number of different distances). Also, in a circle there are
no angles, and angles are an added complexity in form, so the circle
again takes the prize.

I believe, in three-dimensional terms, a similar argument applies;
that is, the sphere is more minimal than any other three-dimensional
shape.

Also, I suppose the amount of two-dimensional space the object
occupies (i.e., its size) contributes to its "minimalness." In order
to be truly minimal, it would have to be infinitely small. Assuming
the radius of the circle is "x," that x-value would have to be the
limit of x as x approaches zero.

Sorry to bring up calculus...

what do you all think?

michael l.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lattis
lume...@udel.edu

========================
Your mamma's avant-garde
========================

[David Harleyson]

In article <329CD4...@udel.edu>, Lume...@udel.edu says...

>I think this is one of those concepts you could argue back and forth
>infinitely and never gain any ground.

>Sorry to bring up calculus...
>what do you all think?

I think you brought a mathematician's analysis to the argument
in a very succinct way. Congratulations. I wholeheartedly, if not
wholebrainily, agree. D.H.

[Mdeli]

Minimalism a subset of the overall 20th century style
best labeled as Bullshitism.

In works of painting and sculpture the minimalist
presents representations of practically nothing in
terms of technique, skill and subject matter, this with
the highest artistic pretensions.

All theories presented to support minimalism
essentially claim that by giving the viewer works
reduced to practically nothing there remains the
inference that they really contain the essence of
almost everything.

Minimalism, in order to keep a fickle mystically
gullible audience in line requires a maximalism of
words from a coterie of holy critics and a high class
boiler room sales force .

There are actually two distinct kinds of minimalists;
successes and failures. Both produce essentially the
same type of product. The number of minimalist
successes is small in proportion to the large masses of
failures.

Successful minimalists enjoy a constant din of
ecstatic praise from the holiest critics and a steady
flow of checks from rich investors while the failures
remain impoverished but loyal to the cult of mystical
modernism. They never fathom why they are failures
among the successes.

A few failures do manage to teach minimalism to
students who will eventually try there hand at becoming
successful minimalists.

Mani DeLi

--If it needs a long sermon to proclaim its art its
probably bullshit

[Mike Lattis]

sorry to double post, but after I sent the last message, I discovered
a problem in my previous statement. Well, not a problem so much as an
error. I said the minimal 2-d shape would have to emanate from a
one-dimensional point, but the truth is that a point is
zero-dimensional. The rest of the argument still applies, I think.

[wy...@aol.com]

Good grief, you've found amother place to peddle your know-nothing
diatribes. Please go away!
wynn k

[Erik Johnson]

> Good grief, you've found amother place to peddle your know-nothing
> diatribes. Please go away!

Hey, I find myself agreeing with Mani more and more often (though
often I find Mani's tone to be extreme). I would prefer that
he/she/it not go away. I agree with MD that 'Minimilism' as I've
seen is more often than not a load of pretentious bs.

-Erik Johnson
er...@phidias.colorado.edu
http://phidias.colorado.edu/vgallery.html

[dwi...@nas.com]

In article <57cbjg$l...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, no...@email.com (David
Harleyson) wrote:

> In article <19961125130...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
kajoj...@aol.com says...

>

> One can argue this absurdly, as well as abstractly, obtusely, and yes,
> even minimally. Wonder about putting circles on a circular canvas
> versus a rectangular one though. Most artists use a rectangular
> format for presenting their work. I guess putting a circle on a circle
> would evoke thoughts of targets ala Johns. On the other hand, I don't
> think I've ever seen rectangles on a circular canvas, which reminds
> me of how I feel about living in this circular environment we inhabit. D.H.

You've raised some interesting points here ie. the shaped canvas and
relationships of form within the painting. Now my understanding of
minimalism is minimal but it seems to me that the search for 'essential'
was the point to minimal works. Kind of like trying to reduce the
relationship between the object and the viewer to its fundamental state.
Objectness and subjectness. That point at which the subject and the object
become the point of the work. Anything beyond that becomes a matter of
interpretation. Subject to the vagaries of perception and intellect. I
think this is an admirable approach since it leads to a kind of silence of
the mind. It can also lead, it seems to me, to a structural analysis of
the more formal characteristics of a work. For example: The line, the
shape and color on the object side and perceptual processes, cognition,
aprehension, language and memory to name a few on the subject side. When
approached in this way, the work can tend to disappear though.

As for the shaped canvas. I once had an instructor who said "configuration
is not an issue since the shaped canvasses of Stella and others." I
struggled with this idea for years since it seemed to me that the shape of
the canvas is important. I now believe I'm right and he was right. It
isn't an issue that needs reviewing these days but the shape and structure
of a canvas can be important within the context of what the painter is
trying to achieve. Did you ever wonder why the painting is usually
rectangular?

As for relationships of form within the painting. This seems to me to be
anathema to minimalism when carried to its extreem. Any relationships of
form established within the painting is less than minimal.

[David Harleyson]

In article <dwilson-2811...@dialup02.nas.com>, dwi...@nas.com says...

>Did you ever wonder why the painting is usually
>rectangular?

So, what's the answer? I always assumed it was because the
preferred shape for windows and doors throughout the ages
has been rectangular. And the picture frame becomes the
window on the world created by the artist. D.H.

[wy...@aol.com]

re Minimalism: If any term is inappropriate for Minimalism, it is
"pretentious".
wynn k

[David Harleyson]

In article <19961129030...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, wy...@aol.com says...

>re Minimalism: If any term is inappropriate for Minimalism, it is
>"pretentious".

I was thinking the same thing about "No skill--No art" and the
broken record that keeps repeating it -- endlessly, it seems. D.H.

[Mdeli]

>> Good grief, you've found amother place to peddle your know-nothing
>> diatribes. Please go away!

In answer to the above -Erik wrote:
>Hey, I find myself agreeing with Mani more and more often (though
>often I find Mani's tone to be extreme). I would prefer that
>he/she/it not go away. I agree with MD that 'Minimilism' as I've
>seen is more often than not a load of pretentious bs.

Why I write in a tone you call extreme:

I lived in New York City for many years. There, among
honest people, one gets a certain truth experience
because one can say what one thinks as directly as
possible and not have to mince words.

While I attended art school there, I thought that the
work of most of the students was just plane lousy and
that their knowledge and intellect was inversely
proportional to their pretensions. I think this holds
for the few Modern Academic successes as well as its
ragged army of failures. In school there was an
unwritten code of politeness; a student will compliment
you if you compliment him and never say anything
negative. I found this ludicrous and destructive.

This code has carried itself into the world of Modern
Academic Art. If you criticize something you don’t
like, directly, concisely and to the point, the modern
aesthete complains that he is offended and often lets
go an Artspeak blast. Should you dare be negative, what
is really expected is polite, indecisive, preferably
circuitous criticism in low key tones. It should sound
modest and full of doubt. Read Robert Hughes’ crit of
Dines in Time magazine.

After reading a forty year continuous torrent of
ecstatic praise for the most idiotic examples of
so-called-art, written in a holier-than-thou style,
supported by a logic that shouldn’t fool an average ten
year old, I think its time for some counter-jargon.
Modern Academic Art deserves a good kick from satire
before one goes into a more rational analysis.

The few scholarly anti Modern Academic Art articles I
have read are inflated, needlessly hair splitting, and
coached in a language which polite scholars consider
erudite. I consider these idiotic, tame and generally
missing the point. In fact hardly anyone ever reads
that stuff.

Up until now, those who find the state of accepted art
much as I do, are generally too chicken to say much of
anything. I think they suffer from intellectual
insecurity and constipated politeness together with an
innate fear of criticizing what they see as mystical
religious tendencies.

A good example of directness concisely stated is my tag
line "no skill no art." Is that really so extreme? The
artzy fartzies here have been complaining about it for
two years. All you have to do is look at their artwork
on the web pages here and read some of their idiotic
manifestoes and you will know why. These works excel in
incompetence, unoriginality and total conformity.

When a work shows no sign of skill one doesn’t need to
write massive apologetic tomes to point this out. The
word "crap" says it all; even more concisely than the
words of the little girl in the "Emperor’s New
Clothes."

Mani DeLi
---if it requires a long sermon to proclaim it art its
probably bullshit

[G*rd*n]

Could we say that the Wall -- the Vietnam War Memorial -- is
minimalist?

--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ gcf @ panix.com }"{

[David Harleyson]

In article <57o3i7$r...@panix2.panix.com>, +@+.+ says...

>Could we say that the Wall -- the Vietnam War Memorial -- is
>minimalist?

The Vietnam War Memorial was/is inspired genius. It can't be
categorized in art terms. Observe those who visit there on
any given day and you'll understand what I mean. D.H.

[dwi...@nas.com]

In article <57kod5$p...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, no...@email.com (David
Harleyson) wrote:

>
> >Did you ever wonder why the painting is usually
> >rectangular?
>
> So, what's the answer? I always assumed it was because the
> preferred shape for windows and doors throughout the ages
> has been rectangular. And the picture frame becomes the
> window on the world created by the artist. D.H.

I think this may be something we all assume to be true. If it is the case,
the artists "window on the world" changed dramatically at the turn of the
century. The "window on the world" lost its frame, flattened, became
depthless and moved in another direction. Toward the "object" and the
"subject". Yet it remains, in general, rectangular. Of course this is
speculation; but it may be a reflection of the structure of our
conciousness. The template, so to speak, upon which our mental
constructions are based. The rectangular plane in opposition to nature....
This doesn't make much sense... so I'll stop here.

[G*rd*n]

G*rd*n: says...

| >Could we say that the Wall -- the Vietnam War Memorial -- is
| >minimalist?

no...@email.com (David Harleyson):

| The Vietnam War Memorial was/is inspired genius. It can't be
| categorized in art terms. Observe those who visit there on
| any given day and you'll understand what I mean.

Yes, of course. And yet it seems to me it fits into the
category of minimalism. The reason I ask is that people
have been slagging minimalism in this newsgroup pretty
heavily, and I'd like them to confront the Wall and tell us
either why it's not minimalist, or, if it is minimalist, why
it's obviously such a great work of art to so many people of
so many different kinds. How about it, guys?

[Christoph Hollender]

On Thu, 28 Nov 1996 13:44:02 -0500 (EST),
"artisan" <dsc...@knox.net> wrote:

> I tried an interesting experiment with sixty students concerning
>the question: Can the circle be considered minimal art in nature.
>I gave the students the assignment to create a minimalist drawing. I
>used Piet Mondrian's work as the example. As you know, Mondrian never
>used the circle and I never mentioned the circle when giving the
>assignment. I just said to use very basic shapes. Over half the
>students felt a very strong need to use the circle in their compositions.
>I felt this ruined the simplicity of the creation while they fought
>hard to keep the circle saying it was necessary to the composition.
>Have I been wrong all these years? I said, If you keep the circle it
>is not minimal art. Comments welcome.
> Artisan

Interesting indeed. The most intriguing part seems to be in the
premise of your "experiment":
>Can the circle be considered minimal art in nature?

Now what indeed would that be, minimal art in nature?

What has nature to do with minimal art?

And why shoud nature -- something claaed nature ?? -- emerge if your
students do some drawing assignment after having been exposed to
Mondrian?

In short, what do you mean by "nature"?

[David Harleyson]

In article <57q37s$k...@panix2.panix.com>, +@+.+ says...

>I'd like them to confront the Wall and tell us
>either why it's not minimalist, or, if it is minimalist, why
>it's obviously such a great work of art to so many people of
>so many different kinds. How about it, guys?

Well, in terms of making a MAJOR impact on people while using
a MINIMAL format, the Wall does that. In artsy terms, one could
easily argue that it is minimal in a formal way. It's most assuredly
a <site specific> work that would be out of place if installed
elsewhere. It's unpretentiousness is one of the beauties of the
work when seen in relationship to the VERY pretentious Washington
monument, next to which it is located. Had the Wall been placed
next to the Iwo Jima monument, there might have been even more of
a contrast -- who knows.

Maya Lin took
a terrific amount of B.S. over her original proposal, and the work
still draws plenty of negative criticism from Viet Nam vets, as
well as others. Hence the reason for the truly tacky bronze that
was later added to the site adjacent to the Wall depicting men
in uniform, wounded and otherwise. I was disgusted that the
art commission responsible for the wall caved in to criticism
and commissioned the tacky bronze. Now there is all the hue
and cry that women who served in 'Nam are not properly
represented and another bronze is needed . . . etc.

The original wall has been described as everything from a
"Black mark on society" (and worse) to the most glowing of
compliments. Maya Lin's more recent works have caused
equal polarity -- but there is no doubt that she is inspired
and her works, wherever they have been installed, have been
inspiring to many others who can appreciate the artistic as
well as the sentimental in her designs. D.H.

[Joseph Francis Jacobs]

Kajojacobs reporting in from deep in the heart of Texas where REAL ART
is being made by 6 and 9 year olds with boxes, scotch tape, magic
markers and unlimited imagination and enthusiasm. Now if I can find a
way to take just a little of that back to my studio...

Hope your turkey wasn't tofu...

Karen

[Michael Gerard Maranda]

In <32443....@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> "Christoph Hollender" <hol...@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> writes:

>On Thu, 28 Nov 1996 13:44:02 -0500 (EST),
>"artisan" <dsc...@knox.net> wrote:

>> I tried an interesting experiment with sixty students concerning
>>the question: Can the circle be considered minimal art in nature.
>>I gave the students the assignment to create a minimalist drawing. I
>>used Piet Mondrian's work as the example. As you know, Mondrian never
>>used the circle and I never mentioned the circle when giving the
>>assignment. I just said to use very basic shapes. Over half the
>>students felt a very strong need to use the circle in their compositions.
>>I felt this ruined the simplicity of the creation while they fought
>>hard to keep the circle saying it was necessary to the composition.
>>Have I been wrong all these years? I said, If you keep the circle it
>>is not minimal art. Comments welcome.
>> Artisan

Ahhh ... I now understand why I oculdn't understand what everyone was saying
about minimalism. There is definitely a terminology problem here.

When I think of minimalism, I think of a specific period (the late late
60's and early seventies), a specific group of artists, a specific
historical moment. When you think minimalism you think "aesthete" or
"barren".

There is a difference, however.

--

[dwi...@nas.com]

In article <57o3i7$r...@panix2.panix.com>, +@+.+ (G*rd*n) wrote:

> Could we say that the Wall -- the Vietnam War Memorial -- is
> minimalist?

We could say it but it wouldn't be true. Too much there to think about.

[dwi...@nas.com]

The wall

I mean to say the wall is not a minmalist expression. It is a gravestone.
In memory of our nation. A mortal wound to the body politic. An unsightly
gash created by a blunt and rusty knife weilded by ignorance. We pay our
respects to those who have fallen and see our selves, the living dead,
mirrored in its reflective surface. The pain and suffering and anguish and
tears; we carry them with us now....

[Brother Alphabet]

On Wed, 27 Nov 1996, Mdeli wrote:

> In works of painting and sculpture the minimalist
> presents representations of practically nothing in

> terms of...subject matter

You were correct in terms of subject matter, because that was sort of the
point.

> technique, skill and...

Minimalist works might show varying technique and skill, but the artist
must have knowledge and ability on order to produce a sucessful, if also
minimal, composition.

> this with
> the highest artistic pretensions.

In specific cases this is true, but not in every case.

> All theories presented to support minimalism
> essentially claim that by giving the viewer works
> reduced to practically nothing there remains the
> inference that they really contain the essence of
> almost everything.

Why is this difficult for you to gather?
How big is the void of the universe? It could be infinitely large or
small, full or empty...We only know what we choose to accept from
science. If someone tries to apply a specfic meaning to a virtually blank
canvas, I would have to take your side on the issue. However, leaving the
meaning/experience to the phenomenon you state above is expected of any
type of work.

> Minimalism, in order to keep a fickle mystically
> gullible audience in line requires a maximalism of
> words from a coterie of holy critics and a high class
> boiler room sales force .

Hehehe.
I agree with you here. I have heard a whole lot of talking trying to
justify non-art (bullshittist works) as valid (and valuable). This
applies to much more than minimal work, and also more appropriately to
modern photo-art and postmodernist architecture/art/etc.

> There are actually two distinct kinds of minimalists;
> successes and failures.

These two distinctions apply to everyone everywhere.

> A few failures do manage to teach minimalism to
> students who will eventually try there hand at becoming
> successful minimalists.

Successes and failures of all genres end up teaching. Why do you make all
these blanket statements all the time? Your writings would be 50% less
inflammable if you'd be more specific. (Of course, that wouldn't be any
fun.)

Hutto

[jkea...@aol.com]

In article <57pppq$7...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, no...@email.com (David
Harleyson) writes:

>>Could we say that the Wall -- the Vietnam War Memorial -- is
>>minimalist?
>

>The Vietnam War Memorial was/is inspired genius. It can't be
>categorized in art terms. Observe those who visit there on

>any given day and you'll understand what I mean. D.H.
>
>
>

The only way to prove this contention would be to construct a second, more
traditional memorial and compare the results. Vietnam veterans have been
treated as (and many continue to act like) victims, which is as likely a
cause of the emotional reactions one sees at the memorial as the design of
the memorial itself.

Jim Kearman
(Vietnam, 1968-69)

[Christoph Hollender]

On 30 Nov 1996 17:10:18 GMT,
David Harleyson <no...@email.com > wrote:

> +@+.+ (G*rd*n) says...

>
>>Could we say that the Wall -- the Vietnam War Memorial -- is
>>minimalist?
>
>The Vietnam War Memorial was/is inspired genius. It can't be
>categorized in art terms. Observe those who visit there on
>any given day and you'll understand what I mean. D.H.

I wouldn't say that the Wall is minimalist. I wouldn't say it's
*inspired genius* either. But like any piece of art, architecture etc.
it *can* be discussed in art terms, if you discount some of its social
and/or psychological aspects.

It's really hard to say anything about people's reaction to the
Memorial, as long as it would seem that an important number of
visitors are deeply emotionally involved with what the Memorial stands
for; either because they have been participants in the war, or because
they have friends or family members whose names are there on the wall.
Thus they would react not only, not primarily to the Memorial but
rather to their -- mostly personal -- memories evoked by the Memorial.

(Of course it's the purpose of a memorial to evoke memories, personal
and/or collective; and thus one could say that the Wall does indeed
fulfill its function as a memorial in an admirable way. But this fact
should not necessarily relate to an artistic evaluation of the Wall.)

To return to the original question: I wouldn't call the Wall
*minimalist* because, among other reasons, it is too obviously related
to other points of interest at the Mall (Lincoln Memorial etc.) in a
way that goes beyond minimalist thought. Also, it can't help being
fraught with enormous loads of personal and political implications,
which again keeps it from being minimal.

Though I have to admit that in a way it is a perfect rendering of the
"low profile" foreign politics adopted at a certain time in the 70ies.

christoph hollender
............................................................
"Some day we will try to do as many things as are possible
And perhaps we shall succeed at a handful of them."
............................................................
hol...@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de

++++ stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal ++++
++++ if you agree copy these 3 sentences in your own sig ++++
++++ more info: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm ++++

[kajoj...@aol.com]

In article <dwilson-3011...@dialup03.nas.com>, dwi...@nas.com
writes:

Your questions and your responses are fascinating...and my contribution is
just too, too obvious...but doesn't the ease (minimal effort) of
constructing a rectangular vs a circular support have something to do with
the shape prevelance?

.............Karen Jacobs.................................
http://members.aol.com/kajojacobs/index.htm

[G*rd*n]

The point I wanted to make about The Vietnam War Memorial is
that it appears to be formally minimalist, yet it contradicts
often-seen condemnations of minimalism -- that minimalist
works must be meaningless both intellectually and emotionally,
that they will always be unpopular and inaccessible, and so
forth. The Wall is not unpopular, inaccessible, unmoving,
or incomprehensible.

However, I'm unfamiliar with the argument that a work which
is attached to a narrative, as the Wall certainly is, cannot
be minimalist because of that attachment. Any Vietnam War
Memorial would have such an attachment, whatever its style.
In fact, any work of art, minimalist or not, has a narrative
attached to it, at the very least the this-is-art narrative.
So I don't think this is a relevant distinction.

[Regiment's Hobby Shop]

----------------------------------
Trust you, Karen, to notice the King has no clothes....

I've been reading the posts on minimalism with interest, also. Over the
holidays I had a long talk with my brother (who teaches college level
fine arts and paints Ab. Expressionist) about movements, and pigeonholes,
and artistic labels on all of the above. He has made a career decision
to be poor but pure, and to strive for artistic obscurity with his very
large canvases of nothing in particular. I, on the other hand, have
decided to lower my ideals and raise my income by forgoing my
traditional, representational style (I'm a portraitist, and still
consider portraits the highest form of 2D art, but that's another
rant...) and attempt to be on the cutting edge of the newest wave. But
what is the next movement, where is the edge cutting??

After catching up with the last weeks posts on minimalism, I've decided
that I will found a movement call "Maximalism". After a cursory look at
some old art mags I'm pretty confident the term has not been used..yet.
If it has, I'll come up with another.
Here is how I think I'll be portrayed in future art criticism--

Maximalism as a movement began in the late '90's as a reaction to
mid-century academic acceptance of Abstract Expressionism and Minimalism.
Most Maximalists adhere to a strict orthodoxy that involves using very
small canvases crowded with a variety of convoluted representational
imagery. Nothing on the canvas is meant to be interpreted and
interpretation, by the viewer or by critics and analysts, is vigorously
discouraged. The crowding of the canvas, often to the deteriment of
composition and clarity, was a result of the artist attempting to, in an
obvious and unambiguous fashion, explain exactly the purpose and meaning
of the artwork so that any dolt can "get it" immediatly, without any
hesitation or uncertainty. Maximialism gained widespread popularity
since it required no thinking and left no individual in the
uncomfortable position of having an unorthodox opinion, or worst yet, no
opinion at all. However Maximalism was doomed to have a short life in
the artistic world. Since art teachers, critics and assorted experts
where no longer needed to create or appreciate the new movement, various
museums and universities quietly began to remove tenured positions from
their rosters as a cost cutting move. Reacting to the loss of
livelihood, a cell of disgrunted docents and art magazine reviewers
invited the leading Maximalists to an exhibition (the exhibition entry
fees were waived and the exhibition was billed as "invitational only",
creating an irresistable lure to any artist), where they were then
kidnapped, bound, gagged and coated in plaster and installed as a circa
1980 sculpture in the Houston Museum of Art, effectively decapitating the
Maximialist movement.

Could happen.

AT
---------------
*We are the Borg. Resistance is futile.*

[kajoj...@aol.com]

In article <581ru1$4...@ns3.n-link.com>, Regiment's Hobby Shop
<game...@n-link.com> writes:

>Over the
>holidays I had a long talk with my brother (who teaches college level
>fine arts and paints Ab. Expressionist) about movements, and pigeonholes,

>and artistic labels on all of the above. He has made a career decision
>to be poor but pure, and to strive for artistic obscurity with his very
>large canvases of nothing in particular. I, on the other hand, have
>decided to lower my ideals and raise my income by forgoing my
>traditional, representational style

(...snip...)

Reacting to the loss of
>livelihood, a cell of disgrunted docents and art magazine reviewers
>invited the leading Maximalists to an exhibition (the exhibition entry
>fees were waived and the exhibition was billed as "invitational only",
>creating an irresistable lure to any artist), where they were then
>kidnapped, bound, gagged and coated in plaster and installed as a circa
>1980 sculpture in the Houston Museum of Art, effectively decapitating the

>Maximialist movement.

You and your brother must have some very interesting conversations!

.............Karen Jacobs.................................
http://members.aol.com/kajojacobs/index.htm

[Ehud Tal]

G*rd*n wrote:
>
> The point I wanted to make about The Vietnam War Memorial is
> that it appears to be formally minimalist, yet it contradicts
> often-seen condemnations of minimalism -- that minimalist
> works must be meaningless both intellectually and emotionally,
> that they will always be unpopular and inaccessible, and so
> forth. The Wall is not unpopular, inaccessible, unmoving,
> or incomprehensible.

The question to be raised here is: "is minimalism art at all?". Since
the monument is obviously art (moving people like it does...), and
minimalism is obviously "anti-art", The wall is more worthy of the term
"basic", "primal" or just "simple", and less of the postmodern BS.

The effect the wall creates is many times stronger than that of
'minimalism'. It manifests the feelings towards that particular war in a
very touching and accurate way. The monument's simplicity is therefore
also ironically juxtaposed with the 'standard', heroic, pathos-filled
war monuments, like the one placed a few steps away from it: the unknown
soldier monument.

Ehud Tal
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/8111
bbb...@geocities.com

[wsparker]

Mdeli wrote:
>
> Minimalism bullshit

... .

[dwi...@nas.com]

...but doesn't the ease (minimal effort) of
>constructing a rectangular vs a circular support have something to do with
>the shape prevelance?

No...Do you really believe that? It seems to me that if painters of any
age wanted circular supports they could have hired-out to have them made.
The only thing I have to support my contention though, is the world around
me. I don't know about you, but everywhere I look I see the rectangular
plane. Manifesting itself in everything but nature. While your observation
may be true for some, it seems to me that in making a painting the
rectangular configuration is a "convention" not a necessity. The
configuration of the support is irrelevent. But, when we think of the
"minimalist painting" we must consider those things that are only
absolutely necessary for the objects existence. Can the minimalist
painting exist without the rectangular support? Or does it loose its
integrity and become something else? A sculpture for example. The
minimalist painting when considered as an object, manifests itself in
three dimensions. The juxtaposition of rectangular planes so as to effect
an object of a certain width height and depth. Its color is irrelevent.
The number of its surfaces (each rectangular) equals 14. Of which, by
convention, 9 are denied. Why? If we attempt to de-construct the
minimalist painting and analyze its various parts we eventually arive at
14 rectangular planes. Can each of those planes, when taken individually,
be considered minimal paintings? Now compare the circular painting to the
rectangular painting. It has 5 surfaces (3 of which are denied). Three
rectangular planes and two circular planes. Upon analysis, the circular
painting cannot be a minimalist painting because it is composed of more
than one shape. The circle and the rectangle. This configuration by its
nature establishes relationships between two different shapes and is
therefore not minimal. Of course.... this doesn't make sense either so
I'll stop here. Minimalist paintings are about the painting as object and
all other paintings are about something else.

[koos]

The Wall, if it is art at all, is a piece of conceptual art.

Koos Kakkies

On Mon, 02 Dec 1996 05:32:25 -0700, dwi...@nas.com wrote:

>In article <57o3i7$r...@panix2.panix.com>, +@+.+ (G*rd*n) wrote:
>

>> Could we say that the Wall -- the Vietnam War Memorial -- is
>> minimalist?
>

[G*rd*n]

+@+.+ (G*rd*n) wrote:
| >> Could we say that the Wall -- the Vietnam War Memorial -- is
| >> minimalist?

| >We could say it but it wouldn't be true. Too much there to think about.

cvb...@burger.naspers.co.za (koos):

| The Wall, if it is art at all, is a piece of conceptual art.

I'd like to hear your definition of "art", since it puts
the Vietnam War Memorial in doubt, and of "conceptual art"
as well. The Wall is about the last thing I'd call
conceptual art. Formally, it seems to fall right into the
definition of minimalism, and I can't understand why the
minimalism-bashers haven't either gotten it out of the bag
or started bashing it.

[kajoj...@aol.com]

In article <dwilson-0512...@dialup21.nas.com>, dwi...@nas.com
writes:

dwilson - Did you ever wonder why the painting is usually
> >rectangular?
>
D.H. - So, what's the answer? I always assumed it was because the

> preferred shape for windows and doors throughout the ages
> has been rectangular. And the picture frame becomes the
> window on the world created by the artist. D.H.

dwilson - Of course this is

speculation; but it may be a reflection of the structure of our
conciousness. The template, so to speak, upon which our mental
constructions are based. The rectangular plane in opposition to nature....

This doesn't make much sense... so I'll stop here.>>>
>
Karen - ...but doesn't the ease (minimal effort) of

>>constructing a rectangular vs a circular support have something to do
with
>>the shape prevelance?
>

dwilson - No...Do you really believe that? It seems to me that if painters

of any
>age wanted circular supports they could have hired-out to have them
made.

In answer to your original question, yes, I do believe most paintings are
rectangular because of convienience. Circular supports are, more often
than not, considered "gimmicky," probably because of skewed compositional
elements (which, I realize, is a non-issue in regards to minimalism.)

(...snip stuff defered to dwilson...) Upon analysis, the circular

>painting cannot be a minimalist painting because it is composed of more
>than one shape. The circle and the rectangle. This configuration by its
>nature establishes relationships between two different shapes and is
>therefore not minimal.

I doubt that your intention was to clarify Ellsworth Kelly's shapes, but
in a strange way, you have.

Of course.... this doesn't make sense either so
>I'll stop here. Minimalist paintings are about the painting as object and
>all other paintings are about something else.
>
>

Now why didn't you just say that in the first place? Your last sentence
does make sense!

(PS - So what are Mercy and Tom up to these days? I miss their
adventures.)

.............Karen Jacobs.................................
http://members.aol.com/kajojacobs/index.htm

[kajoj...@aol.com]

But you knew that...

In a message dated 96-12-06 20:22:17 EST, you write:

<<
Hi Karen,

Sorry to have missed you on your recent visit to the
great and friendly state of Texas. Where were you?
I hope you had ample time to take in the Houston art
scene aside from the Menil and its neighbors. Did
you by chance get to San Antonio? Or Austin?

I have been meaning to ask, ever since you put up
your Web page -- have you ever shown in a gallery
in Austin? There was work very similar to what I saw
on your pages in a gallery here several years ago,
before the city bought Republic Plaza and kicked all
the galleries out onto the street. The work I remember
was large watercolors, very boldly done, of flowers and
foliage -- very rich, deep colors and very photographic
presentations. Not at all O'Keefe-like. D.H.

>>

I know this post is going to bounce - but what the heck -

Yes, I think we gave it a good shot in Houston. Had my well-researched
www.printouts and a map - took in most of the contemporary galleries and
the
Contemporary Museum - nice to see a show (Lari Pittman) in person before
ArtNews or whatever presents it on the cover. Rather have seen Kelly or
Johns, though.

We have grandkids in Dallas and visit a couple of times a year. Have
covered
the museums in D-FW but not the galleries. Never enough time. I've heard
Austin is beautiful - visited San Antonio twice, the Alamo, not the art,
however. The watercolors you saw in Austin were, regretably, not mine.
There seem to be a multitude of artists doing large realistic floral
watercolors these days so I switched to abstracts and canvas - never been
satisfied being part of a crowd - (she said, as she prepared to paint yet
another decorative hydrangea. [rational: they pay for the grandkid's piano
lessons] )

I'll count on you to give me the latest data on must-see's next time we
get
out that way. Thanks for the note.

.............Karen Jacobs.................................
http://members.aol.com/kajojacobs/index.htm

[dwi...@nas.com]

In article <19961207014...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
kajoj...@aol.com wrote:

>
> In answer to your original question, yes, I do believe most paintings are
> rectangular because of convienience. Circular supports are, more often
> than not, considered "gimmicky," probably because of skewed compositional
> elements (which, I realize, is a non-issue in regards to minimalism.)

Please explain "skewed comopsitional elements" and how they are different
in circular paintings?.. and your idea of gimicky is interesting to me
also. When do we decide something is gimmicky? When it doesn"t conform to
convention?
>

>
> I doubt that your intention was to clarify Ellsworth Kelly's shapes, but
> in a strange way, you have.

Heard the name don't remember the paintings. Don't know his words. Help? I
try not to speak from an historical perspective. I know its difficult
though.

> Now why didn't you just say that in the first place? Your last sentence
> does make sense!

Well if I made a flat out statement like the above we wouldn't be as apt
to explore the painting would we? Contentious lot that we appear to be.

>
>
> (PS - So what are Mercy and Tom up to these days? I miss their
> adventures.)

Oh. Now there's a long story begging to be written and I'll be getting to
it as soon as I find more time.....

[Mdeli]

Minimalism, is the direction of all Modern Academic
Art.

The idea rests on the pseudo philosophical idea, that
by eliminating as much as possible from an artwork, the
artist in effect has preserved the essence of
practically everything .

Modern Academic Art of this century started by modestly
eliminating what was in the past considered essential
to an artwork. Gradually the minimalist painter
produced works exhibiting a minimal of skill, ideas,
and intellect. His only talent if any lay in the
verbiage he produced in order to excuse the lack of
content in his artwork.

This has given writers an opportunity to practice
Maximalism; that is the ability to expand ad nausium
what can be written in a few words. It has also given
museum curators an opportunity to express their
favoritism.

The successful minimalist is a rare specimen. He is
ultimately gauged by how much currency he can get out
of a rich buyer who is betting that the value his
purchase has not yet reached its maximum.

The vast majority of minimalists are failures who
complain that they are neither the subject of
maxamilist writers, the beneficiaries of rich buyers or
the darlings of museum curators. They never seem to
understand why they earn such minimal amounts of money.

Mani DeLi.
...no skill no art

[jkea...@aol.com]

In article <58n7mo$k...@news.interlog.com>, hu...@interlog.com (Mdeli)
writes:

>The successful minimalist is a rare specimen.

One advantage of painting truly minimalist work is, it goes with almost
any decor. That should make it easier to sell! (Just kidding...)

This thread points out, again, the difference between being creative vs
being different. Every white-trash AOLer should know the difference. Then
there's the spectre of "popular taste."

Every art student who practices gesture drawing is doing minimalism. At
some point, though, you have to say, "Is that a charcoal gesture drawing
or were your hands dirty when you took out the paper?"

This is not to say that "reduced content" art, if you will, cannot
succeed. I hate to drag cinema or tv commercials into this group, but
consider how the length of a "shot" has diminished since the early days of
cinema. Ten-second tv commercials would have failed in 1950. Viewers have
become accustomed to absorbing the information more quickly. Similarly,
those who view the fine arts may develop an ability to get more
information from a minimalist work than would have been possible in the
past.

The problem with all non-representational art is, it's more difficult to
determine if the artist is shamming. If you look at a Raphael or Vermeer,
or a photorealist work, it's easy to see the craft, because the work is
representative of our three-dimensional "real" world. We each have to
develop an aesthetic of non-representational art. Ultimately, though, the
appreciation of non-representational art, including most minimalism,
becomes highly subjective, more so than with representational art, I
believe. Some people don't like minimalism, but I think they need to make
a better case than to attack it merely on technical grounds. Using the
photorealists as a benchmark, you could as easily attack Raphael.

Jim Kearman

[G*rd*n]

hu...@interlog.com (Mdeli)

| >The successful minimalist is a rare specimen.

jkea...@aol.com:

| One advantage of painting truly minimalist work is, it goes with almost
| any decor. That should make it easier to sell! (Just kidding...)

| ...

If you go down to your local mall, you'll probably see a
certain amount of minimalist art among the bug-eyed
kittens, crying clowns, Ansel Adams prints, and Van Gogh
irises. It does go over the couch, easily and well. I've
also noticed designs obviously derived from minimalist art
on industrial buildings, clothing, and women's fingernails.

So it's successful as decor, and it's successful as
monumental art (the Vietnam War Memorial). Successful
minimalists may be rare, but I doubt if they're rarer than
specimens of any of the other subspecies.

[dwi...@nas.com]

> --
> }"{ G*rd*n }"{ gcf @ panix.com }"{

What is art? I'm affraid, like many other things, it can only be defined
by its examples. Even when confronted by contemporary art the only thing
we have to go on is historical fact. When we evaluate a work of art we try
to place it in the context of the history of art. This gives us some
grounding, so to speak, and enables us to properly frame our thoughts. For
example: This is a painting upon wich color has been applied in some
manner to affect visual stimululation and its subsequent mental processes.
These in turn result in the apprehension of the object as a whole entity.
Further, this painting is similar to paintings done durring the mid 20th
century....we then define it in more specific terms ie. the school or the
painter and if we're well informed the intelectual matrix which surrounds
it. As for the work; there appears to be two process at work which define
its eventual configuration. The additive process and of course the
reductive process. I don't think I need to explain the differences between
the two other than to say that minimalism rests somewhere toward the end
of the reductive spectrum. The only art more reductive than minimalism is
conceptualism or the next step, not art at all. This last is the most
difficult to comprehend since it must, in order to remain art, have some
grounding in history.....

[G*rd*n]

| > | >> Could we say that the Wall -- the Vietnam War Memorial -- is
| > | >> minimalist?

| > | >We could say it but it wouldn't be true. Too much there to think about.

cvb...@burger.naspers.co.za (koos):
| > | The Wall, if it is art at all, is a piece of conceptual art.

+@+.+ (G*rd*n) wrote:
| > I'd like to hear your definition of "art", since it puts
| > the Vietnam War Memorial in doubt, and of "conceptual art"
| > as well. The Wall is about the last thing I'd call
| > conceptual art. Formally, it seems to fall right into the
| > definition of minimalism, and I can't understand why the
| > minimalism-bashers haven't either gotten it out of the bag
| > or started bashing it.

dwi...@nas.com:

| What is art? I'm affraid, like many other things, it can only be defined
| by its examples. Even when confronted by contemporary art the only thing
| we have to go on is historical fact. When we evaluate a work of art we try
| to place it in the context of the history of art. This gives us some
| grounding, so to speak, and enables us to properly frame our thoughts. For
| example: This is a painting upon wich color has been applied in some
| manner to affect visual stimululation and its subsequent mental processes.
| These in turn result in the apprehension of the object as a whole entity.
| Further, this painting is similar to paintings done durring the mid 20th
| century....we then define it in more specific terms ie. the school or the
| painter and if we're well informed the intelectual matrix which surrounds
| it. As for the work; there appears to be two process at work which define
| its eventual configuration. The additive process and of course the
| reductive process. I don't think I need to explain the differences between
| the two other than to say that minimalism rests somewhere toward the end
| of the reductive spectrum. The only art more reductive than minimalism is
| conceptualism or the next step, not art at all. This last is the most
| difficult to comprehend since it must, in order to remain art, have some
| grounding in history.....

I don't see minimalism as particularly reductive. It's true
that a particular minimalist piece might require much less
labor than a typical realist work, but this could simply be
a matter of industrial efficiency. You still have the
physical fact of the object, however minimalist its design
may be (as opposed to conceptual art, where there is (often)
no object.)

The reason I asked koos for a definition of art was
that he seemed to doubt that the Vietnam War Memorial was
art; to me it's a given that it's art -- something
deliberately constructed to have certain aesthetic
qualities. However, I'd like to understand the views that
it's not art, or that it is art but it's not minimalist
art. And I think it would be interesting if some of our
regular anti-minimalists would come to critical grips with
it, since it seems to contradict their theories.

[David Harleyson]

In article <5917m9$g...@panix2.panix.com>, g...@panix.com says...

>The reason I asked koos for a definition of art was
>that he seemed to doubt that the Vietnam War Memorial was
>art; to me it's a given that it's art -- something
>deliberately constructed to have certain aesthetic
>qualities. However, I'd like to understand the views that
>it's not art, or that it is art but it's not minimalist
>art.

I'm not sure that it isn't just as much about architecture
as it is about art, but then architecture is considered one
of the many branches on the ART tree anyway. Interesting
that no one would argue whether or not the bronze group
added to the memorial is sculpture, but would argue over
whether The Wall itself is sculpture, minimalist, etc. D.H.

[ellie clemens]

In article <58n7mo$k...@news.interlog.com>, hu...@interlog.com (Mdeli) says:
>
>Minimalism, is the direction of all Modern Academic
>Art.
>
>The idea rests on the pseudo philosophical idea, that
>by eliminating as much as possible from an artwork, the
>artist in effect has preserved the essence of
>practically everything .

Mani, if you are going to castigate artists for not learning their
craft, why don't you follow your own advice and learn the grammar
rules of your language. One of the simplest rules, that even those
with no ear at all for language can follow, is that one should never
place a comma between a subject and its verb when no other words
separate them. If you don't understand this abstractly, I'll point
out your errors: there should be no comma separating "Minimalism"
and "is". There also should not be a comma separating "idea" and
"that".

How can you dictate rules for artists when you don't follow rules in
your own "art"?

[DAN WILSON]

In article <dwilson-0912...@dialup00.nas.com>, dwi...@nas.com wrote:

> In article <19961207014...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> kajoj...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
> >
> > In answer to your original question, yes, I do believe most paintings are
> > rectangular because of convienience. Circular supports are, more often
> > than not, considered "gimmicky," probably because of skewed compositional
> > elements (which, I realize, is a non-issue in regards to minimalism.)
>
>
> Please explain "skewed comopsitional elements" and how they are different
> in circular paintings?.. and your idea of gimicky is interesting to me
> also. When do we decide something is gimmicky? When it doesn"t conform to
> convention?
> >

zi'v given the idea of the gimmick more thought and have come to the
conclusion that the gimmick is connected to craft and therefore cannot
have a connection to art. The idea of skewed compositional elements still
eludes me though...

[kajoj...@aol.com]

In article <dwilson-1512...@dialup24.nas.com>,
dwi...@mail.nas.com (DAN WILSON) writes:

>> >
>> > In answer to your original question, yes, I do believe most paintings
are
>> > rectangular because of convienience. Circular supports are, more
often
>> > than not, considered "gimmicky," probably because of skewed
compositional
>> > elements (which, I realize, is a non-issue in regards to minimalism.)
>>
>>
>> Please explain "skewed comopsitional elements" and how they are
different
>> in circular paintings?.. and your idea of gimicky is interesting to me
>> also. When do we decide something is gimmicky? When it doesn"t conform
to
>> convention?
>> >
>
>
>zi'v given the idea of the gimmick more thought and have come to the
>conclusion that the gimmick is connected to craft and therefore cannot
>have a connection to art. The idea of skewed compositional elements still
>eludes me though...
>
>

Gimmick = craft? Likely.
SCE's? Compositional challenges beyond the norm; which way is up, etc.
As I said: a non-issue in regards to minimalism.

Surely you are not asking me to delve into compositional elements - I long
ago committed them to intuition - if necessary, one of the bvu.edu kids
can help you. As to the "skewed" part:

skew (sky¡) verb
skewed, skewing, skews verb, intransitive
1. To take an oblique course or direction.
2. To look obliquely or sideways.

verb, transitive
1. To turn or place at an angle.
2. To give a bias to; distort.

adjective
1. Placed or turned to one side; asymmetrical.
2. Distorted or biased in meaning or effect.
3. Having a part that diverges, as in gearing.
4. a. Mathematics. Neither parallel nor intersecting. Used of
straight lines in space. b. Statistics. Not symmetrical about the mean.
Used of distributions.

noun
An oblique or slanting movement, position, or direction.

Glad to help -

.............Karen Jacobs.................................
http://members.aol.com/kajojacobs/index.htm

[Mdeli]

jkea...@aol.com wrote:
>Viewers have
>become accustomed to absorbing the information more quickly.

Viewers have gotten used to looking at most Modern
Academic paintings for about fifteen seconds because
that is all their information content requires.

> Similarly,
>those who view the fine arts may develop an ability to get more
>information from a minimalist work than would have been possible in the
>past.

>The problem with all non-representational art is, it's more difficult to
>determine if the artist is shamming.

Critics claim to be sensitive enough to distinguish the
museum quality schmier from mere crap. Who’s shamming?

> If you look at a Raphael or Vermeer,
>or a photorealist work, it's easy to see the craft, because the work is
>representative of our three-dimensional "real" world. We each have to
>develop an aesthetic of non-representational art.

We haven’t developed an "aesthetic of
non-representational art" in the last 70 years because
there ain’t none.

There is lots of fine non representational art: Art
Deco and Nouveau. There is all sorts of abstraction in
fine illustration. We don’t have to develop anything in
order to appreciate fine design. What one has to
develop in order to appreciate Modern Academic Art is a
huge tolerance for nebulous Artspeak.

>Ultimately, though, the
>appreciation of non-representational art, including most minimalism,
>becomes highly subjective, more so than with representational art, I
>believe. Some people don't like minimalism, but I think they need to make
>a better case than to attack it merely on technical grounds. Using the
>photorealists as a benchmark, you could as easily attack Raphael.

I attack modernistic minimalism as lacking in skill
just for starters. It also lacks content, creativity
and intellect. Its a put-on.

It is completely valid to reduce an image to its
minimum if it contains artistic qualities, starting
with technique. I sight oriental minimalism, Japanese
prints and even cartoons and comic books. Abstract
minimalism, the oldest of the fine arts can be found in
Japanese textile design all the way to ancient Greek
decoration.

Modern Academic schmier, splat and stripes etc.
minimalism isn’t minimalism in any artistic sense. It
always needs an Artspeak sermon in order to describe
its supposed merits to an impressionable viewer.

The Modern style minimalists value lies in his ability
to instill self delusion. Its success at this will
prove to be temporary.

Mani DeLi
...no skill no art

[jkea...@aol.com]

In article <594v86$n...@news.interlog.com>, hu...@interlog.com (Mdeli)
writes:

>
>Viewers have gotten used to looking at most Modern
>Academic paintings for about fifteen seconds because
>that is all their information content requires.
>
>

Most museum goers spend less than 15 seconds in front of everything in the
place, so that's not a valid criterion.

To intelligently view art requires education. Yes, any Westerner can look
at a Vermeer or a Rembrandt and, because the subject matter and
representational style is known, take something away from the work. But is
what you take away all there is to be had? Not usually. Enter art history.

Yes, I believe it is necessary to know some art history to appreciate art,
but I doubt any reader of this newsgroup will disagree. An unsophisticated
resident of an undeveloped region would probably not appreciate an old
master painting any more than you appreciate a Pollock or a de Kooning.

Non-representational art has all the problems associated with a deeper
appreciation of representational art: there may be more there than meets
the eye on first examination, but it lacks the representational style that
engages unsophisticated viewers.

Once representational art had been done, and it was done nearly as well in
the 19th century as it ever could be, abstract and non-representational
art naturally followed.
Abstract expressionism followed the holocausts of WW2 and accompanied the
early years of the Cold War and McCarthyism (Joseph McCarthy was a
paranoid right-wing US senator who convened hearings ostensibly to
investigate and expose Communist infiltration of the US government; any
creative person tagged by his committee was quietly "blacklisted," meaning
you couldn't work. Although McCarthy was ultimately denounced and
repudiated, the "Red Scare" stigma continued into the 1980s, by which time
most of those accused of communist sympathies were dead). Mani, I believe
you were working during this period (late 40s/early 50s); given your
opinion of the art done then, perhaps you can tell us of your experiences
in that political/social climate. I was just a kid; I've read about the
time, but I'd like to hear the artists' POV, especially since yours is
probably different from the "academic" version. (The Abstract
Expressionists were totally outside the academic sphere during their
period, though, right?)

JK

"The mind cannot truly see what the hand cannot draw." --Charles Bell

[David Harleyson]

In article <Pine.SUN.3.95L.96121...@konichiwa.cc.columbia.edu>,
rl...@columbia.edu says...

> I don't think we see things in the circle. We see things in the
>horizontal rectangle, with the edges blurred out. I'm aware of things to
>my sides but I don't really look up and down... there's something edgy
>about circle canvases, like they've chopped out a part of my vision.

A lot of art incorporates what is referred to as vignetting. That is,
a somewhat circular composition in the midst of a large expanse
of open canvas or photo or whatever. You see it a lot in portrait
photos done in a romantic way -- soft blurring of space around
the head in a more or less circular form. The vignette is independent
of the overall shape of canvas, frame, or other surround. D.H.

[DAN WILSON]

>
> Surely you are not asking me to delve into compositional elements - I long
> ago committed them to intuition - if necessary, one of the bvu.edu kids
> can help you.

when we speak of an intuitive approach to composition are we making
decisions about the arrangement of compositional elements within a
painting based on some knowledge that is not accessed by reason? What is
its source? Is this approach a reaction to rationality? Or, is it a
reaction to the pervasive structure of our common vision (way of seeing)
based on linear perspective? I guess you were speaking of compositional
elements when taken as a whole.

The rectanglular configuration more closely reflects the structure of
this formula (linear perspective) since any horizontal, verticle and
diagonal lines within the painting can be extended by automatic inference
beyond its edges into the environment which is itself a reflection of
this way of seeing. The circular configuration cannot do this. This might
explain the uncomfortable feeling * gets when viewing circular
configurations. They are in opposition to the underlying structure of our
way of seeing. The only circular painting I can imagine that might
overcome this uncomfortableness would be a colored field . This would
create an object (painting) within a larger field (the environment)
thereby becoming a compositional element within a larger context (field).
We can extend this to a collection of lines shapes and colors (colored
field paintings) arranged either rationally or intuitively in a three
dimensional matrix and still maintain the painting's integrety since each
of its parts is composed of paintings. The only requirement for such
paintings is thay they be viewed from one position which we establish in a
formal way. Traditionaly paintings are viewed from the front...... I guess
this might go a little bit beyond minimalism.

[Ehud Tal]

jkea...@aol.com wrote:
>
> In article <594v86$n...@news.interlog.com>, hu...@interlog.com (Mdeli)
> writes:
>
> >
> >Viewers have gotten used to looking at most Modern
> >Academic paintings for about fifteen seconds because
> >that is all their information content requires.
> >
> >
> Most museum goers spend less than 15 seconds in front of everything in the
> place, so that's not a valid criterion.
>
> To intelligently view art requires education. Yes, any Westerner can look
> at a Vermeer or a Rembrandt and, because the subject matter and
> representational style is known, take something away from the work. But is
> what you take away all there is to be had? Not usually. Enter art history.
>
> Yes, I believe it is necessary to know some art history to appreciate art,
> but I doubt any reader of this newsgroup will disagree.

I do not think knowledge of art history should be a 'conditio sine qua
non' (a strict condition), just as knoledge of latin should not be a
condition for "taking something away" from a nsgrp posting. when all an
"art"work has to show are allusions and homages, symbols and metaphores,
or when those become the point of it, then it becomes shallow "art"
(though a brilliant intellectual patronization!).

> An unsophisticated
> resident of an undeveloped region would probably not appreciate an old
> master painting any more than you appreciate a Pollock or a de Kooning.

I disagree. while a 'resident of an undeveloped region' (PC talk)
wouldn't know the difference between a urinal factory's dumpster and
your regular "art" gallery, he would see the sensuous beauty of Tician's
"Venus of Urbino", or Mane's "Olimpia", even without knowing the
symbolism or homages there. this is exactly the point: a 'resident of an
undeveloped region' would, in fact, experience art in what *is* art, and
will be a lot clearer about what he knows where we should put our blank
canvases, urinals, readymades, schmiers and schpritzes.

> Non-representational art has all the problems associated with a deeper
> appreciation of representational art: there may be more there than meets
> the eye on first examination, but it lacks the representational style that
> engages unsophisticated viewers.

The term "Non-representational art" is a useless oxymoron, not any
different from: "non-mechanical machine" or "non-pumping pump".

Ehud Tal
http://www.geocities.com/~bbbsot

[Bruce Attah]

In article <19961217155...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
jkea...@aol.com wrote:

> An unsophisticated
> resident of an undeveloped region would probably not appreciate an old
> master painting any more than you appreciate a Pollock or a de Kooning.

This is a testable assertion, and I have tested it myself. Your typical
"unsophisticated resident of an undeveloped region" -- or the one's I've
met, at least -- would have no difficulty in seeing the charm of an old
master painting.

An indirect test you can carry out yourself is to observe, from books and
magazines, what art is like in those "undeveloped regions". If you look
at what is going on in art outside the West, you will find that there are
three tendencies:

1. Some artists, in thrall to the West, closely imitate current or recent
Western styles. This is less common in the less developed parts of the
world.

2. A much larger number of artists attempt to base their work on the
traditional art forms of their region, often updating it to suit the
market in which they wish to sell.

3. Another very large section paints in a carefully realistic style,
clearly reflecting aims compatible with pre-modern Western art. These
artists are often among the most popular in their home country, and often
have not enjoyed the dubious benefit of an art school education.

This is happening pretty much everywhere. Why is realism popular
worldwide, given that it was foreign everwhere except in Europe and North
America until this century, and fashionably discredited during the period
of greatest Western influence in those regions?

[jkea...@aol.com]

In article
<Bruce.Attah-19...@support-neptune.isltd.insignia.com>,
Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah) writes:

>jkea...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> An unsophisticated
>> resident of an undeveloped region would probably not appreciate an old
>> master painting any more than you appreciate a Pollock or a de Kooning.

>
>This is a testable assertion, and I have tested it myself. Your typical
>"unsophisticated resident of an undeveloped region" -- or the one's I've
>met, at least -- would have no difficulty in seeing the charm of an old
>master painting.
>
>

I was trying to be politically correct. I meant to refer to someone with
no prior experience of Western art. Someone, who, shown a photograph of
herself, would not recognize it.

In the scenarios you suggest, I agree with you.

JK

[wsparker]

Bruce Attah wrote:
>
> In article <19961217155...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,

> jkea...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > An unsophisticated
> > resident of an undeveloped region would probably not appreciate an old
> > master painting any more than you appreciate a Pollock or a de Kooning.
>
> This is a testable assertion, and I have tested it myself. Your typical
> "unsophisticated resident of an undeveloped region" -- or the one's I've
> met, at least -- would have no difficulty in seeing the charm of an old
> master painting.

This is interesting. May we know whom are these people and where do they
reside? Would you define "undeveloped" as having absolutely no contact
with the west?

"Seeing the charm," what do they see?

The ways and means of the west present an intensely attractive if not
pernicious influence on probably every culture which has at least a
televison set in the village. Therefore should one call these small
communities undeveloped? To do so would be to stack the deck in favor of
arguing the realism of western art has something more than just an
acquired resonance... .

Though I do find your observations interesting, and I trust your
judgement in making them, it is not clear to me what you conclude from
your informal study.

> Why is realism popular
> worldwide, given that it was foreign everwhere except in Europe and North
> America until this century, and fashionably discredited during the period
> of greatest Western influence in those regions?

Perhaps the west is everso popular and since western art is equated with
realism all of your infield observations would follow.

The claim that it was "fashionably discredited," though you did not
state by whom nor what effect that discreditation had overall, would be
irrelevant, since the scope of that discreditation was miniscule,
compared to the continuing dominance of realism.

Certainly any small avant-garde movement reacting against the dominance
of realism in Europe, at the time you imply, would not be detected and
certainly not assimilated by such "unsophisticated residents of an
undeveloped region."

IOW, realism was then and is still now the major european cultural
export to these "undeveloped" regions.

Is this what you would conclude?

Or are you attempting to make a case for the superiority of realism over
all other forms of art because "unsophisticated" people from other
worlds *seem* to take so immediately to it?

[Mdeli]

jkea...@aol.com wrote:
>Once representational art had been done, and it was done nearly as well in
>the 19th century as it ever could be, abstract and non-representational
>art naturally followed.

Wrong. The opposite is true. For starters take a good
look at a 16th century Persian carpet.

> Mani, I believe
>you were working during this period (late 40s/early 50s); given your
>opinion of the art done then, perhaps you can tell us of your experiences
>in that political/social climate.

I was an art student in the 50’s.

As I said many times here, as much fine artwork was
probably produced in this century as ever before. It
just isn’t the crap that inhabits the Modern Academic
sections of our museums at present. I might point out
that in earlier days the MOMA showed artists the likes
of like Jarred French, Blume, Dali, Disney Weyth and
many others whose work relied on a foundation of skill
along with their usual twaddle.

At that time a viewer had a chance to see all styles
and decide for himself. This only occurs on rare
occasions now. The same is true for the Metropolitan
Museum’s American collection which has many fine works
from this time which it now relegates to the basement.

Then things got schmiery and we got stuff like Le Brun
and Jack Levene all the way to de Kooning. I remember
there was also lots of forgotten crap abstraction
(better than the present crap) which can be found in
old issues of Art News. I still have some catalogs
containing the names of lots of losers in the Modern
Academic Art lottery.

> I was just a kid; I've read about the
>time, but I'd like to hear the artists' POV, especially since yours is
>probably different from the "academic" version. (The Abstract
>Expressionists were totally outside the academic sphere during their
>period, though, right?)

The first school I attended was taken over be artzy
fartzies who knew about as much about technique as
Pollock and shared his drawing skills. They taught a
creed not a craft. Things haven’t changed much in this
respect. I describe some interesting adventures about
this in my Book "No skill no Art." Should I get time to
finish editing it, I’ll be advertising it on the net.

[drookes]

jkea...@aol.com wrote:
>
> In article <594v86$n...@news.interlog.com>, hu...@interlog.com (Mdeli)
> writes:
>
> >
> >Viewers have gotten used to looking at most Modern
> >Academic paintings for about fifteen seconds because
> >that is all their information content requires.
> >
> >
> Most museum goers spend less than 15 seconds in front of everything in the
> place, so that's not a valid criterion.
>
> To intelligently view art requires education. Yes, any Westerner can look
> at a Vermeer or a Rembrandt and, because the subject matter and
> representational style is known, take something away from the work. But is
> what you take away all there is to be had? Not usually. Enter art history.
>
> Yes, I believe it is necessary to know some art history to appreciate art,

> but I doubt any reader of this newsgroup will disagree. An unsophisticated

> resident of an undeveloped region would probably not appreciate an old
> master painting any more than you appreciate a Pollock or a de Kooning.
>

> Non-representational art has all the problems associated with a deeper
> appreciation of representational art: there may be more there than meets
> the eye on first examination, but it lacks the representational style that
> engages unsophisticated viewers.
>

> Once representational art had been done, and it was done nearly as well in
> the 19th century as it ever could be, abstract and non-representational
> art naturally followed.

> Abstract expressionism followed the holocausts of WW2 and accompanied the
> early years of the Cold War and McCarthyism (Joseph McCarthy was a
> paranoid right-wing US senator who convened hearings ostensibly to
> investigate and expose Communist infiltration of the US government; any
> creative person tagged by his committee was quietly "blacklisted," meaning
> you couldn't work. Although McCarthy was ultimately denounced and
> repudiated, the "Red Scare" stigma continued into the 1980s, by which time

> most of those accused of communist sympathies were dead). Mani, I believe

> you were working during this period (late 40s/early 50s); given your
> opinion of the art done then, perhaps you can tell us of your experiences

> in that political/social climate. I was just a kid; I've read about the

> time, but I'd like to hear the artists' POV, especially since yours is
> probably different from the "academic" version. (The Abstract
> Expressionists were totally outside the academic sphere during their
> period, though, right?)
>

> JK
>
> "The mind cannot truly see what the hand cannot draw." --Charles Bell

It is difficult to convey an evaluation of Abstract Expressionism (as an
example) because it has no basis to evaluate other than the artist's on
criteria. And getting is second hand from a so called art critic gives
it close to zero meaning. Of course there are some clever reviewers out
there and their words are like gospel to many.

One can see to some extent if Rembrandt or Cezanne were having a tough
day of it. But do you know if Avery or Stills was out of sorts with one
of their works? Whether one thinks that A.E. is the great con of the
century or that it is the true culmination of art at this point of time,
it is too personal to really get a hold on. Other than, of course, its
hold on the viewer at that time and place. Each viewer having a
different slant.

Perhaps representational art hit its peak at the end of the last
century. At least what is witnessed after that bears truth in that
evaluation. Yet, as in writing a novel or performing a dance, there
should be no boundaries or time limits in a period of the arts.
Representational art has still a large place in our world. Most of it
is dreadful simply because of abismal training. But it can still
"speak" to the eyes most eloquently if executed with knowledge, passion
and respect. H.B.

[wsparker]

drookes wrote:

> > "The mind cannot truly see what the hand cannot draw." --Charles Bell

Who is he? This Charles Bell. I must consider the sourse; this broad
statement seems to be masquerading as a truism.

>
> Perhaps representational art hit its peak at the end of the last
> century. At least what is witnessed after that bears truth in that
> evaluation.

I wouldn't call it a "peak" as much as I would call it a "monopoly" in
the 19th C. It peaked in the Renaissance didn't it? If peaking were
innovation, discovery, and new optimism because of representation.

> Representational art has still a large place in our world. Most of it
> is dreadful simply because of abismal training.

Dreadful for whom? How about "naive" art? Outsider art? How about a
child's representation of his home. Is his art abysmal for lack of
training? No, the child isn't really an artist is he?

> But it can still
> "speak" to the eyes most eloquently if executed with knowledge, passion
> and respect.

Knowledge, yes; passion, I guess; but, "respect" for what exactly?

[Mdeli]

* <rl...@columbia.edu> wrote:

>On Wed, 11 Dec 1996, Mdeli wrote:

>> The successful minimalist is a rare specimen. He is
>> ultimately gauged by how much currency he can get out
>> of a rich buyer who is betting that the value his
>> purchase has not yet reached its maximum.
>>

> You know everyone keeps saying this over and over again. Well
>where do you think the good art is nowadays? Seriously...

Have a look at the work of Anita Kunz in Jan 6 Time
magazine for starters. Then move on to Illustrators
Annual.

No bullshit necessary here.

[Bruce Attah]

In article <32C27E...@olympus.net>, w...@olympus.net wrote:

> drookes wrote:
>
> > > "The mind cannot truly see what the hand cannot draw." --Charles Bell
>
> Who is he? This Charles Bell. I must consider the sourse; this broad
> statement seems to be masquerading as a truism.

A quote from Duchamp is Truth Itself. A quote that doesn't agree with
Duchamp is a broad statement wearing a mask. Your inconsistency reveals
itself all to nakedly.

Trust that the quotation given above contains more than a grain of truth.
I suppose you are fairly lousy at drawing, or you wouldn't doubt it.

> Dreadful for whom? How about "naive" art? Outsider art?

This art you mention is sometimes better than the crap produced by many
art school graduates, but the reason is not the bad drawing. I note your
astute placement of quotation marks around the word "naive"; a wise move,
since a lot of "naive" art is considerably less naive than it pretends to
be.

> How about a
> child's representation of his home. Is his art abysmal for lack of
> training? No, the child isn't really an artist is he?

Some of you guys have a strange fixation on children's drawings. I think
it needs to be made clear that there is nothing more wonderful about
children's drawings than there is about children's cooking, or singing, or
tailoring or pottery or any other expression of childish "creativity".
Sure it possesses charm, but I would no more wish to find the museums
filled with children's drawings than I would wish to drive a car across a
bridge built with children's engineering. Perhaps a restaurant serving
children's cooking would be a good idea. What say you?

> > But it can still
> > "speak" to the eyes most eloquently if executed with knowledge, passion
> > and respect.
>
> Knowledge, yes; passion, I guess; but, "respect" for what exactly?

Maybe this question indicates what is lacking in your own outlook.

[wsparker]

Bruce Attah wrote:
>
> In article <32C27E...@olympus.net>, w...@olympus.net wrote:
>
> > drookes wrote:
> >
> > > > "The mind cannot truly see what the hand cannot draw." --Charles Bell
> >
> > Who is he? This Charles Bell. I must consider the sourse; this broad
> > statement seems to be masquerading as a truism.
>
> A quote from Duchamp is Truth Itself. A quote that doesn't agree with
> Duchamp is a broad statement wearing a mask. Your inconsistency reveals
> itself all to nakedly.

What a thing to say, a totally irrelevant comment. I know you enjoy
putting people down and being saracstic, but I thought we were friends?

I am simply asking who he is!

>
> Trust that the quotation given above contains more than a grain of truth.
> I suppose you are fairly lousy at drawing, or you wouldn't doubt it.

I doubt the absolutism of the above "truism." It seems very limited, to
wit: Einstein couldn't see much, could he?

Don't suppose that I am lousy at drawing! It tells me more about how you
may think!

>
> Some of you guys have a strange fixation on children's drawings. I think
> it needs to be made clear that there is nothing more wonderful about
> children's drawings than there is about children's cooking, or singing, or
> tailoring or pottery or any other expression of childish "creativity".
> Sure it possesses charm, but I would no more wish to find the museums
> filled with children's drawings than I would wish to drive a car across a
> bridge built with children's engineering.

You don't need museums for kids art it is on every refridgerator on the
western world. What you need to see is that an aesthetic impulse is a
unique feature of human beings and we are going to have to loosen up
our definitions of art making.

> Perhaps a restaurant serving
> children's cooking would be a good idea. What say you?

I say you think you prevail in using an age old technique of extending
the metaphor 'til it is absurd! Too bad you missed that I never implied
kids' art should be up there with the Mona Lisa!

> > > But it can still
> > > "speak" to the eyes most eloquently if executed with knowledge, passion
> > > and respect.
> >
> > Knowledge, yes; passion, I guess; but, "respect" for what exactly?

>
> Maybe this question indicates what is lacking in your own outlook.

Though the connection to what was said and what you say subsequently is
totally absent, I will say this: Yes, I respect unyielding authoritarian
thinking like I respect mad dog(mas): I keep my distance!

[wsparker]