Art student
Joy Inthasan
"Hi" fellow art lovers
My name is Joy and I'm currently studying
fine Arts at college and this is my second year, I would like to ask other
students or artists (if possible) about the fine arts industry. "Is it's
possible for young students or graduates to make it in the artworld"?,
right now I'm feeling doubtful about getting a job and that all this
studying would develope into ash.
So if there's any artists or fellow
students out there who can ease my worries and inform me on how I can
become an establish artist, please guide this lost artist.
Joy (Australia)
swa...@bit.net.au
walt parker
Joy Inthasan wrote:
>
> "Hi" fellow art lovers
> My name is Joy and I'm currently studying
> fine Arts at college and this is my second year, I would like to ask other
> students or artists (if possible) about the fine arts industry. "Is it's
> possible for young students or graduates to make it in the artworld"?,
The local galleries are always looking for some "new" work to sell. If
your work fits into their established taste, maybe you'll get your
chance to feel fifteen minutes of fame. The more galleries in your town
the better chance you'll find one with taste for your work.
Or, produce art that looks like Art ought to look like and start to
market your product. If you WANT to manufacture paintings for the lowest
common denominator of aesthetic apprehension, AND run an advertising and
promotion operation for your product... .
Or do what most of the kids (your age) whom I once knew did. Shun more
practical college studies and commit to making your art, enjoy the
Bohemian lifestyle, feel justification in numbers for letting the world
pass you buy, miss several golden opportunities to secure your future.
Feel the momentary exhilaration of getting the temporary low paying,
dead-end job as a museum docent.
Eventually, they get tired of having no money, living a marginal
existence as, one by one their peers drop off and stop making art, As
their youthful idealism fades and pressures mount, they have kids or
find offers they can't refuse (like a job with the postal service that
comes with benefits). When this happens the most powerful psychic
function of a committment to artmaking as a young adult becomes clearer.
Look at some past catalogs of group shows of emerging artists and wonder
what happened to 98% of all the names in the shows.
> right now I'm feeling doubtful about getting a job and that all this
> studying would develope into ash.
see above.
> So if there's any artists or fellow
> students out there who can ease my worries and inform me on how I can
> become an establish artist, please guide this lost artist.
My best advice isn't what you are asking for, but here goes: find a way
to be creative in high technology. Or see the aesthetics in the
performance of your tasks as a physician, or loosen up your personal
requirements for the aethetic in your life and merge with something that
can lead to a challenging form of employment.
mdeli
On 12 Feb 1998 13:01:43 GMT, "Joy Inthasan"
<Joy.In...@qld.mondial.net.au> wrote:
>"Hi" fellow art lovers
> My name is Joy and I'm currently studying
>fine Arts at college and this is my second year, I would like to ask other
>students or artists (if possible) about the fine arts industry. "Is it's
>possible for young students or graduates to make it in the artworld"?,
>right now I'm feeling doubtful about getting a job and that all this
>studying would develope into ash.
> So if there's any artists or fellow
>students out there who can ease my worries and inform me on how I can
>become an establish artist, please guide this lost artist.
>
> Joy (Australia)
> swa...@bit.net.au
Here are some suggestion to students when they try to find a school.
- Don't attend a school without first seeing the work of its students.
Ask yourself whether they can do something that you can't do. Then ask
yourself whether they can do something you want to do. Make sure you
feel that the student work is superior to yours. If you feel you can
do better work than the teacher or his students, forget it.
Carefully look at the work of senior students. If it doesn't look
professional and is full of drawing errors, get another school or
study another profession.
-Never blindly imitate a teacher to gain approval. If good grades are
dependent on this, as is often the case, get out of there fast.
Fooling the teacher amounts to fooling yourself. Good grades or
certificates from prestigious art schools will not help you in the
long run. Unless you have spectacular connections, you will be judged
solely by the quality of your work.
-If your teacher is extremely nice, utterly charming and glamorous,
always remember that this is no criterion for judgment. Never blindly
commit yourself to a teacher.
-Always keep an eye on what others are doing; other students can often
teach you more than the instructors.
-Try to get work in your field if you can, even while attending
school. Even if it is lowly work you will most likely learn much more
about your profession which you can't get in school. Cash in on your
abilities as early as you can.
-Leave school as soon as you feel that you have acquired the knowledge
you needed to become professional or find that you aren't improving
any more. Remember that except for inmates, who are committed to these
institutions for life, school is a temporary state of affairs.
In art certificates of learning are worthless. The only thing that is
judged is what you can do.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Alan
I'm here to tell you there is life beyond art school. How do you make a
living at art???? Here are a few key words: Tenacity, talent, marketing.
Learn all that you can learn to develop that talent whatever it is you
specialize in (sculpture, painting, computer art, portrait, abstract,
etc...) be the best you can at it, in fact be better than anyone else at it.
I guess if I could tell you one thing that'll make your career in
art...VOLUNTEER!!!! There is NOTHING you will do that will give you more
opportunities than this. Example: My Priest was remodeling our church
rectory, I volunteered to help with recreating a stencil that was originally
on the wall. I did the work free and it took about a week of my time
(30hrs). Not only was it fun and educational, but my Priest a year later
asked me to design a stencil for the remodeling of our church, AT $20 AN
HOUR!!!! This will turn into a possible $4-5000 job over about a month and
a half when it's all said and done, not to mention more opportunities
similar and more people who will see my work.
Get out and join an art club, work with your community theatre school plays,
organize town murals, whatever it takes!
Hope this helps you and others, Joy. Don't give up the dream.
Alan
visit Shadows and Light.........
http://home1.gte.net/ajreeve
Joy Inthasan wrote in message <01bd37ae$74b99b00$17b83ecb@default>...
il...@hotmail.com
mdeli wrote:
>
(snip)
Just wanted to take the opportunity to second all of the above, with the
one exception being to "Cash in on your abilities as early as you can".
This has to do with my own feelings about too tightly binding the values
of art to the values of the market place. Otherwise, I fully agree with
Mani's points.
I would also add these to the list:
- Never settle for the standards needed to "do well"-- learn more and do
more than you have to. As Mani suggested, the diploma and grades in
themselves mean nothing. Good intentions mean nothing. The work falls
or stands on its own, pure and simple. And in the end, it is up to you
to be driven to go beyond what is expected.
- Remember, beginning painting is at least your first five years. That
courses are labled "Beginning, Intrermediate, Advanced" is an illusion;
no student coming out of an undergraduate program ia an advanced
painter, and no graduate student is a master. The reality is that most
of your development will take place beyond the classroom, and you will
need to learn how to be your own teacher and your own critic. I find
that most students actually do have a sense of what is wrong with their
paintings, they just want to see if they can get away with it. And,
unfortunately, most do get away with it, so it is up to you to set your
own high standards.
-If you find that you only draw for a drawing class and paint for a
painting class, then I would say you are not destined to go very far.
Students that don't draw and paint in the summer beacause "school is
out" think of art as just another class. You should be drawing and
painting at every opportunity, in school or out. This is an attitude
shared by all serious music students, who will grab at every chance to
play and practice, but is sorely lacking among art students.
-Learn as much as you can outside of art. Be as cultured and educated
as possible about as much as possible: science, history, psychology,
literature, music, a foreign language, etc. Being an artist is no
excuse for being intellectually lazy, and the more you know, the more
sharp your mental skills, the more depth you will be able to bring to
your work.
Isaac
il...@hotmail.com
Brother Alphabet
On 12 Feb 1998, Joy Inthasan wrote:
> "Is it possible for young students or graduates to make it in the
> artworld"?
First, answer this question: Why are you studying art, to get a job, or to
learn to be a better artist?
A student of fine arts should have different objectives than those of his
or her collegiate colleagues. The point of the education should not be to
be valuable in the workplace. You can take for granted that you are going
to be worth virtually nothing in terms of an annual salary.
Let's take as given that you will graduate from your college and be
absolutely jobless, and without prospect for a job of any sort.
Does this idea bother you? Let's say that the only work you can find for
two years is working at fast-food restaurants. Does this bother you?
If any of those things bothers you severely, you should perhaps look for
another area of study. Of course, anyone who is realistic will be a little
concerned with where money will come from, but if it is an immense fear,
then you will need to either conquer it or change your objectives to some
that will not cause you to have to confront that circumstance.
Before I end too negatively, I can assure you that there are some decent
jobs out there that you can get with your art degree. In many cases,
artists can serve companies in more ways than people trained in specific
areas...Sales, marketing, advertising...The obvious, graphic design and
illustration...Internet jobs are wide open...Animation, multimedia,
production arts, video, photography...All of these things are only
increasing in importance in this 'information era'...All you need to do is
master various technologies and apply your creativity to what you learn.
But, these are all asides to the ideal if you are a fine artist.
I do web design, and I enjoy it, but it isn't keeping me alive. It is only
keeping me clothed, housed and fed.
Hutto
-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-
"I paint what I think, not what I see..." - Pablo Picasso
"You're not the boss of me!..." - J. A. Hutto (Pre age 3)
http://www2.msstate.edu/~jah10 + ja...@ra.msstate.edu
Brother Alphabet
On Sun, 15 Feb 1998, mdeli wrote:
> -Leave school as soon as you feel that you have acquired the knowledge
> you needed to become professional or find that you aren't improving
> any more. Remember that except for inmates, who are committed to these
> institutions for life, school is a temporary state of affairs.
People who think this way are usually humorously arrogant and without
actual ability other than the capacity to fantasize themselves into
grandiose and unrealistic positions.
I did this myself, so don't get all testy.
I learned the hard way that I was an arrogant little toad with no idea how
to paint. A 19 year old cannot honestly claim to know more than a
professor who has been painting for 40 years...(I am taking for granted
that we aren't talking about a schmuck professor, but one who is
reasonably admired by the student...)
I left school saying "What do they know?"
And while I was gone, I realized that whatever they knew, I still didn't
know. Having a mentor is a priveledge, and the time it takes to get a
degree is still too short.
I wonder, Mani de Li...Did you get to the point at which you felt superior
to your professors? And, if so, could you please name the school that
hired such sad excuses for professors?
Hehe.
D F Russell
Brother Alphabet <ja...@isis.msstate.edu> wrote:
>On Sun, 15 Feb 1998, mdeli wrote:
>
>> -Leave school as soon as you feel that you have acquired the knowledge
>> you needed to become professional or find that you aren't improving
>> any more. Remember that except for inmates, who are committed to these
>> institutions for life, school is a temporary state of affairs.
>
>People who think this way are usually humorously arrogant and without
>actual ability other than the capacity to fantasize themselves into
>grandiose and unrealistic positions.
Speculation and personal opinion... you're allowed; but don't mistake
it for anything other than that.
>
>I did this myself, so don't get all testy.
>I learned the hard way that I was an arrogant little toad with no idea how
>to paint. A 19 year old cannot honestly claim to know more than a
>professor who has been painting for 40 years...(I am taking for granted
>that we aren't talking about a schmuck professor, but one who is
>reasonably admired by the student...)
You've just stated that the student couldn't possibly know much.
With that thought in mind, what difference could it make if that
student "admired" the professor or not? :)
I would acknowledge that anyone with ability and potential probably
knows more at 40 than he does at 19.
However, I've seen very few art professors who were good at anything
other than spewing high-minded sounding nonsense to the co-eds. It is
easy to see how a talented 19 year old could be a better technical
painter than a 40 year old professor. That doesn't mean that 19 year
old won't improve.
>
>I left school saying "What do they know?"
>And while I was gone, I realized that whatever they knew, I still didn't
>know. Having a mentor is a priveledge, and the time it takes to get a
>degree is still too short.
All this means is that you weren't as hot as you thought. It doesn't
imply that the professors were any good :)
>
>I wonder, Mani de Li...Did you get to the point at which you felt superior
>to your professors? And, if so, could you please name the school that
>hired such sad excuses for professors?
:-) Rather old rhetorical gambit....
"I wonder, have you stopped beating your wife? And, if so, did you
feel better about yourself when you did?"
Brother Alphabet
The point about diplomas meaning nothing is incorrect.
In the design market, unless you're connected, you won't get decent work
without a degree. Your portfolio means nothing because there are a few
thousand other people out there with portfolios and degrees.
Here is a real-world example:
Without a degree, I did design work...subcontract basis...paid on wage
scale.....
With degree, I oversee design work, and make nearly 20K more per year.
A degree means nothing??
Of course, the degree alone did not get me the job. Real world experience
is better than classes...and I have had lots of experience...but:
The best jobs will be listed as requiring at least a bachelors degree, and
it is illegal for a company to hire below the listed qualifications. So,
you will either have to lie on your resume or work for peanuts. Working
for peanuts is not pleasant. Lying on your resume can get you fired, and
sometimes prosecuted.
I can understand thegeneral disdain for the educational system, but this
is all a game anyway. Better to play the game by the rules when the rules
will get you further than defiance. In the eyes of employers, degrees mean
accomplishment, credibility, reliability. They also mean you're worth more
to start salary-wise. Couple your degree with as much real-life experience
as you can get in the 2 or 3 years you have left and you have it made.
None of this applies to Fine Art, sadly.
To make it in fine arts takes more luck than skill.
Brother Alphabet
On Tue, 17 Feb 1998, D F Russell wrote:
> Speculation and personal opinion... you're allowed; but don't mistake
> it for anything other than that.
No, it's personal opinion based on observation and first hand experience.
My personal opinion can be generally regarded as fact.
Item 1. M. de Li, according to his own reccommended view, should be either
better than his professors and without degree, or with degree as a
product of whatever educational environment was present.
Item 2. M. de Li's paintings are...you be the judge.
Put the 2 and 2 together, see if the idea holds water.
> You've just stated that the student couldn't possibly know much.
> With that thought in mind, what difference could it make if that
> student "admired" the professor or not? :)
A student would still know who was better or worse than he or she,
right?
> However, I've seen very few art professors who were good at anything
> other than spewing high-minded sounding nonsense to the co-eds.
Then you chose a bad school. I have only met one nonsense-spewing
professor and he quit because no one wanted to hear his post-modern bull.
> It is easy to see how a talented 19 year old could be a better technical
> painter than a 40 year old professor. That doesn't mean that 19 year
> old won't improve.
Being a good technical painter means jack if you haven't the insight to
use the technical skills with. Good technical painting is like vacation
snapshot photography, paint by number, coloring books...Big deal, you can
stay between the lines...Big deal you made an apple look like an apple.
> All this means is that you weren't as hot as you thought. It doesn't
> imply that the professors were any good :)
I don't think I'm 'hot' at all. I thought I knew how the world would
operate, and I thought they had spent too long safely hidden away in the
academic system...I thought I would be able to cleave myself a niche
without paying the dues...The quality of my work is not the issue. I
realized after I was sitting in a hole in the earth broke and eating
nothing but rice and drinking nothing but tap water that the lessons they
tried to teach me were right and that I had been a moron for not listening
to and heeding their advice.
> :-) Rather old rhetorical gambit....
It isn't anything beyond the truth.
Hutto
D F Russell
Brother Alphabet <ja...@isis.msstate.edu> wrote:
>
>On Tue, 17 Feb 1998, D F Russell wrote:
>
>> Speculation and personal opinion... you're allowed; but don't mistake
>> it for anything other than that.
>
>No, it's personal opinion based on observation and first hand experience.
And that makes you different from other people how?
>My personal opinion can be generally regarded as fact.
:>) Well, I guess I can't argue with that.
>
>Item 1. M. de Li, according to his own reccommended view, should be either
> better than his professors and without degree, or with degree as a
> product of whatever educational environment was present.
>
>Item 2. M. de Li's paintings are...you be the judge.
I like A. Wyeth, so my opinion is probably not worth much :-)
>
>Put the 2 and 2 together, see if the idea holds water.
One could make a reasonable case for either side of the argument...
and not be able to substantiate either.
>
>> You've just stated that the student couldn't possibly know much.
>> With that thought in mind, what difference could it make if that
>> student "admired" the professor or not? :)
>
>A student would still know who was better or worse than he or she,
>right?
Actually, no. Particularly after listening to what Mr. Deli refers
to as "artspeak" for a few semesters :-)
>
>> However, I've seen very few art professors who were good at anything
>> other than spewing high-minded sounding nonsense to the co-eds.
>
>Then you chose a bad school. I have only met one nonsense-spewing
>professor and he quit because no one wanted to hear his post-modern bull.
"Paint a marriage proposal."
Somehow, I think it's a bit more widespread than a single school .
But that's my personal opinion and I'm allowed.
>
>> It is easy to see how a talented 19 year old could be a better technical
>> painter than a 40 year old professor. That doesn't mean that 19 year
>> old won't improve.
>
>Being a good technical painter means jack if you haven't the insight to
>use the technical skills with.
For a painter, it means a lot more than having "insight" and no
technical skill. I believe that is Mr. Deli's point. I happen to
agree with it.
>Good technical painting is like vacation
>snapshot photography, paint by number, coloring books...Big deal, you can
>stay between the lines...Big deal you made an apple look like an apple.
"Methinks he doth protest too much." :)
>
>> All this means is that you weren't as hot as you thought. It doesn't
>> imply that the professors were any good :)
>
>I don't think I'm 'hot' at all. I thought I knew how the world would
>operate
You were probably wrong.
>, and I thought they had spent too long safely hidden away in the
>academic system...
You were right.
>I thought I would be able to cleave myself a niche
>without paying the dues...
See above about "probably wrong" :)
>The quality of my work is not the issue. I
>realized after I was sitting in a hole in the earth broke and eating
>nothing but rice and drinking nothing but tap water that the lessons they
>tried to teach me were right and that I had been a moron for not listening
>to and heeding their advice.
Maybe. Possibly you're just being bitter?
>
>> :-) Rather old rhetorical gambit....
>
>It isn't anything beyond the truth.
"Truth" is often very different to different people. Wisdom is
understanging that.
Vince Rhea
This is great advice no matter what you do. The time has come where one
should not just go to school. So important to determine what one needs and
find it, work at it and not have only a diploma to show for the time
spent.There is that saying that I'm sure has been posted here--Work with
your hands and you're a laborer, work with your hands and mind and you're a
craftsman, work with your hands, mind andsoul and you're an artist--It's
stated in different ways,but means much the same.
Jeanne
il...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > -Leave school as soon as you feel that you have acquired the knowledge
> > you needed to become professional or find that you aren't improving
> > any more. Remember that except for inmates, who are committed to these
> > institutions for life, school is a temporary state of affairs.
> >
Brother Alphabet
On Wed, 18 Feb 1998, mdeli wrote:
> One studies art in order to make a living at something one likes
> doing. Better artists generally make a better living.
If this was true, I'd be a millionaire. My work is better than a huge
percentage of the stuff that sells in galleries these days.
> Yes. They should expect to learn the crafts involved in making
> artwork. That is indeed different than chemistry etc.
I have been to many cities in which I have purchased many newspapers in
which I have browsed many classified ad sections in which I have found
zero, count 'em, zero ads stating "Fine Art Painter Wanted. Apply in
person to 'Benefactor'". There just is not such a thing as a 'painting
job' unless you're talking about the outsides of buildings.
> >The point of the education should not be to
> >be valuable in the workplace. You can take for granted that you are going
> >to be worth virtually nothing in terms of an annual salary.
> Can you imagine how far into the realm of idiotic fantasy anyone has
> to go in order to be impressed by this.
Since you dwell therein, why don't you tell us?
> This statement belongs in the
> college catalog. Perhaps art schools might add a course in "guarenteed
> failure."
Not making money from painting is not the same thing as failure.
I don't know why I'm telling you this. You should know from first-hand
experience how it is to be unable to sell your work.
> If it doesn't bother you why attend school?
To take 'Fry Daddy 101'.
> And some here wonder why university art classes aren't overcrowded.
The ones here are.
> Yes but in order to do any of the above well you need to learn the
> reqiured skills.
I doubted your brilliance until I read this line. Gee. You sure do have
the bases covered. Here I was thinking you didn't need to know how to
operate a camera to be a photographer. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
> The teachers who assures you of your coming financial
> failure probably has a strong input into producing that outcome.
The teacher was: The Society of the United States of America.
> And what is "the ideal?"
To stand on your head and sing 'Oh Susannah' while twirling hoola hoops on
both ankles. Takes years of dedicated practice.
It would be so nice if Mani de Li went outside one day and found a clue.
Brother Alphabet
On Tue, 17 Feb 1998, D F Russell wrote:
> And that makes you different from other people how?
Did I claim to be different than other people? No.
> >My personal opinion can be generally regarded as fact.
> :>) Well, I guess I can't argue with that.
That's true.
> I like A. Wyeth, so my opinion is probably not worth much :-)
You have no capacity to critically examine artwork beyond Andrew Wyeth (A
genius)?
> One could make a reasonable case for either side of the argument...
> and not be able to substantiate either.
A teen being better than his/her mentor is the exception to the rule, it
is not a standard that occurs for everyone. Personally, I don't care if
people shirk their degrees left and right. For that matter, I wish most
everyone would drop out of school and just go do hard labor someplace.
More opportunities for me.
> Actually, no. Particularly after listening to what Mr. Deli refers
> to as "artspeak" for a few semesters :-)
Side Point: Mani de Li did not invent 'artspeak' so lets not
grant him that credit.
I have never had to endure such treatment in my classes. Manu de Li
stretches the truth beyond recognition as a habit. ArtSpeak usually comes
from pompous crap schools like those in the Ivy League, and those in New
York or California. Or, it comes from morons who think they know things
(like Mani de Li) who do nothing but write about painting while wishing
they could actually paint. Or, it comes from egghead historian types who
would rather invent history than convey it. Or, it comes from crafty
dealers and curators who want to appear in the credits somewhere or who
want governemnt grant money.
> "Paint a marriage proposal."
What does the color blue smell like?
What is the sound of one hand clapping?
> Somehow, I think it's a bit more widespread than a single school .
> But that's my personal opinion and I'm allowed.
I'm sure it occurs in more than one school, but it does not occur in EVERY
school.
> For a painter, it means a lot more than having "insight" and no
> technical skill. I believe that is Mr. Deli's point. I happen to
> agree with it.
Having only one of either is worthless.
Mani de Li does not allow for the varied manifestations of skill.
I could paint stupid fruitbowls all day long, but I don't WANT to. Since I
don't, my skill supposedly vanishes? Plus, Mani de Li couldn't paint 'will
work for food' on the back of a piece of cardboard. He doesnt even live up
to his own standards.
> Maybe. Possibly you're just being bitter?
Bitter about what?
I am annoyed that some backwater lunatic can sell in New York while I'm
told I'm TOO YOUNG.....???
I am outraged that a pile of poop is shown at the Whitney while I am told
my paintings are 'Too raw and urban' to be exhibited in UPTOWN NEW
ORLEANS....???
I am furious that some idiot in tights can videotape himself
fingerpainting random words on a white wall and be written up in national
magazines as a 'performance artist' while I had to bum money for food...
But bitter? No.
> "Truth" is often very different to different people. Wisdom is
> understanging that.
The wise don't go around telling people what wisdom is.
No, reality has different forms...Truth is absolute.
How individuals perceive their surroundings is their own reality.
One individual could see the oncoming train as red. Another could see it
as blue...That's reality...superficial and pointless...The truth is that
if they dont get off of the tracks, they're gonna get run over...Truth.
Practical. Undeniable.
ms-devilspin
Most people watch you after you finish art school. If your still producing
work and trying 5years! later, then people may start to take notice.
What uni art you at in Australia?
mdeli
On Mon, 16 Feb 1998 15:25:05 -0600, in rec.arts.fine you wrote:
>On Sun, 15 Feb 1998, mdeli wrote:
>
>> -Leave school as soon as you feel that you have acquired the knowledge
>> you needed to become professional or find that you aren't improving
>> any more. Remember that except for inmates, who are committed to these
>> institutions for life, school is a temporary state of affairs.
>
>People who think this way are usually humorously arrogant and without
>actual ability other than the capacity to fantasize themselves into
>grandiose and unrealistic positions.
?
>I did this myself, so don't get all testy.
>I learned the hard way that I was an arrogant little toad with no idea how
>to paint. A 19 year old cannot honestly claim to know more than a
>professor who has been painting for 40 years...(I am taking for granted
>that we aren't talking about a schmuck professor, but one who is
>reasonably admired by the student...)
I've seen lots of schmucks who were admired by students.
>I left school saying "What do they know?"
>And while I was gone, I realized that whatever they knew, I still didn't
>know. Having a mentor is a priveledge, and the time it takes to get a
>degree is still too short.
That depends on the teacher doesn't it?
>
>I wonder, Mani de Li...Did you get to the point at which you felt superior
>to your professors?
I felt they weren't teaching me anything. Superiority didn't cross my
mind. I realized I had a lot to learn. What did cross my mind was the
question where could I go to learn what I wanted?
>And, if so, could you please name the school that
>hired such sad excuses for professors?
Yes, I attended Cooper Union. The teachers of drawing and painting at
weren't professors. However, If you were saw the show of graduating
students at that time it was obvious that they hadn't learned to draw
or much of anything else. Having seen the work of teachers there it
wasn't hard to understand why.
>Hehe.
>
>Hutto
My book which will be advertised on the net very soon has about 50
pages about my amusing art school adventures and contains some
worthwhile advice for art students who don't wish to blow a lot of
money and time.
Mani DeLi http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
...no skill no art
mdeli
>
>On 12 Feb 1998, Joy Inthasan wrote:
>
>> "Is it possible for young students or graduates to make it in the
>> artworld"?
>
>First, answer this question: Why are you studying art, to get a job, or to
>learn to be a better artist?
>
One studies art in order to make a living at something one likes
doing. Better artists generally make a better living.
>A student of fine arts should have different objectives than those of his
>or her collegiate colleagues.
Yes. They should expect to learn the crafts involved in making
artwork. That is indeed different than chemistry etc.
>The point of the education should not be to
>be valuable in the workplace. You can take for granted that you are going
>to be worth virtually nothing in terms of an annual salary.
Can you imagine how far into the realm of idiotic fantasy anyone has
to go in order to be impressed by this. This statement belongs in the
college catalog. Perhaps art schools might add a course in "guarenteed
failure."
>Let's take as given that you will graduate from your college and be
>absolutely jobless, and without prospect for a job of any sort.
>Does this idea bother you? Let's say that the only work you can find for
>two years is working at fast-food restaurants. Does this bother you?
If it doesn't bother you why attend school?
>If any of those things bothers you severely, you should perhaps look for
>another area of study. Of course, anyone who is realistic will be a little
>concerned with where money will come from, but if it is an immense fear,
>then you will need to either conquer it or change your objectives to some
>that will not cause you to have to confront that circumstance.
And some here wonder why university art classes aren't overcrowded.
>
>Before I end too negatively, I can assure you that there are some decent
>jobs out there that you can get with your art degree. In many cases,
>artists can serve companies in more ways than people trained in specific
>areas...Sales, marketing, advertising...The obvious, graphic design and
>illustration...Internet jobs are wide open...Animation, multimedia,
>production arts, video, photography...All of these things are only
>increasing in importance in this 'information era'...All you need to do is
>master various technologies and apply your creativity to what you learn.
Yes but in order to do any of the above well you need to learn the
reqiured skills. The teachers who assures you of your coming financial
failure probably has a strong input into producing that outcome.
>
>But, these are all asides to the ideal if you are a fine artist.
And what is "the ideal?"
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
D F Russell
Brother Alphabet <ja...@isis.msstate.edu> wrote:
>
>On Tue, 17 Feb 1998, D F Russell wrote:
>
>> And that makes you different from other people how?
>
>Did I claim to be different than other people? No.
OK. So you agree that you come by your personal opinions just like
everyone else does. Good.
>
>> >My personal opinion can be generally regarded as fact.
>> :>) Well, I guess I can't argue with that.
>
>That's true.
<LOL>
>
>> I like A. Wyeth, so my opinion is probably not worth much :-)
>
>You have no capacity to critically examine artwork beyond Andrew Wyeth (A
>genius)?
<LOL>
"Beyond"..... :>)
Careful.... your bias is showing :)
>
>> One could make a reasonable case for either side of the argument...
>> and not be able to substantiate either.
>
>A teen being better than his/her mentor is the exception to the rule, it
>is not a standard that occurs for everyone.
Probably true. But it does happen.
> Personally, I don't care if
>people shirk their degrees left and right. For that matter, I wish most
>everyone would drop out of school and just go do hard labor someplace.
>More opportunities for me.
So, you're just in it for the money then? How sad.
>
>> Actually, no. Particularly after listening to what Mr. Deli refers
>> to as "artspeak" for a few semesters :-)
>
>Side Point: Mani de Li did not invent 'artspeak' so lets not
>grant him that credit.
Where did I say he did? I'm simply defining the terms.
>
>I have never had to endure such treatment in my classes. Manu de Li
>stretches the truth beyond recognition as a habit.
As I said, "truth" has many forms. Possibly he feels the same about
you?
> ArtSpeak usually comes
>from pompous crap schools like those in the Ivy League, and those in New
>York or California. Or, it comes from morons who think they know things
>(like Mani de Li)
And others :)
> who do nothing but write about painting while wishing
>they could actually paint. Or, it comes from egghead historian types who
>would rather invent history than convey it. Or, it comes from crafty
>dealers and curators who want to appear in the credits somewhere or who
>want governemnt grant money.
Sounds like a large portion of the art crowd, eh?
>
>> "Paint a marriage proposal."
>What does the color blue smell like?
>What is the sound of one hand clapping?
<LOL>
The comparison of a Zen koan and artspeak probably supports Deli's
arguments a lot more than it does yours.
The Rinzai school of Zen used intentionally absurd riddles or koans;
that is, there *is* no meaning. That's the meaning.
Or by this do you mean that art professors are really teaching Zen?
:)
>
>> Somehow, I think it's a bit more widespread than a single school .
>> But that's my personal opinion and I'm allowed.
>
>I'm sure it occurs in more than one school, but it does not occur in EVERY
>school.
Where did I say it did? My point was that it's common. Since you're
arguing that it doesn't occur in "EVERY" school, I guess we've
probably agreed on the frequency :)
>
>> For a painter, it means a lot more than having "insight" and no
>> technical skill. I believe that is Mr. Deli's point. I happen to
>> agree with it.
>
>Having only one of either is worthless.
Not to most people. Many people buy paintings because they match the
color of their couch -- and are quite pleased to have them. Probably
a lot more so than if they were given an original Kandinsky :)
>Mani de Li does not allow for the varied manifestations of skill.
I've not seen him say that. What he has said is that a lot of what is
talked up by the art critics is crap. I've not seen anyone put forth
a valid counter-argument.
>I could paint stupid fruitbowls all day long, but I don't WANT to.
It's your right.
> Since I
>don't, my skill supposedly vanishes? Plus, Mani de Li couldn't paint 'will
>work for food' on the back of a piece of cardboard. He doesnt even live up
>to his own standards.
If one was required to be able to paint like Ingress to be permitted
to express an opinion, all art critics would be out of jobs.
Please note that you permit yourself the freedom to be critical of
other people's work -- would you take something for yourself that you
won't permit for other people?
>
>> Maybe. Possibly you're just being bitter?
>
>Bitter about what?
>I am annoyed that some backwater lunatic can sell in New York while I'm
>told I'm TOO YOUNG.....???
Hmmmmmm.... sounds bitter to me.
>
>I am outraged that a pile of poop is shown at the Whitney while I am told
>my paintings are 'Too raw and urban' to be exhibited in UPTOWN NEW
>ORLEANS....???
No one ever said, "The world is fair.".
>
>I am furious that some idiot in tights can videotape himself
>fingerpainting random words on a white wall and be written up in national
>magazines as a 'performance artist' while I had to bum money for food...
<LOL>
Do you fail to see yourself in what you say of Deil?
>
>But bitter? No.
I suspect most people reading what you've just written would think
otherwise. But, that's really a semantics issue and not worth
discussing.
>
>> "Truth" is often very different to different people. Wisdom is
>> understanging that.
>
>The wise don't go around telling people what wisdom is.
Or more precisely, expecting them to listen or understand :-)
>
>No, reality has different forms...Truth is absolute.
If it makes you feel warm and fuzzy to believe so...
>How individuals perceive their surroundings is their own reality.
>One individual could see the oncoming train as red. Another could see it
>as blue...That's reality...superficial and pointless...The truth is that
>if they dont get off of the tracks, they're gonna get run over...
So?
>Truth.
>Practical. Undeniable.
Newton's laws are practical...
Fact: the angry young artist schtick has been used too frequently to
really get anyone noticed.
Fact: gallery owners spend a lot of time kissing asses. They have to
kiss both known artists' and buyers' asses. When you're a "nobody",
you're lower on the food chain than they are - the last thing in the
world they're going to listen to is a "nobody" with an attitude
telling them what they should buy/sell.
Brother Alphabet
On Wed, 18 Feb 1998, D F Russell wrote:
> OK. So you agree that you come by your personal opinions just like
> everyone else does. Good.
Well, no, most people hear their opinions said by other people.
> "Beyond"..... :>)
Beyond meaning "other than"...
Since you like Andrew Wyeth, you can't formulate opinions on other
artists' work?
> Probably true. But it does happen.
Yes, it does, but not by formula, and not very often.
> So, you're just in it for the money then? How sad.
Do you think I'd get a 'real job' for any other reason? Doing graphic
design stinks! It's good for a paycheck and that's about it. It pays for
the art supplies, food, rent and clothes.
> As I said, "truth" has many forms. Possibly he feels the same about
> you?
If so, he's wrong.
> Sounds like a large portion of the art crowd, eh?
Must be horrible to be where you are. I never run into those types of
people.
> The comparison of a Zen koan and artspeak probably supports Deli's
> arguments a lot more than it does yours.
I wasn't trying to support an argument. I was just pointing out similar
conceptual scenarios.
> The Rinzai school of Zen used intentionally absurd riddles or koans;
> that is, there *is* no meaning. That's the meaning.
How do you know one hand clapping makes no sound? Have you truly listened?
> Or by this do you mean that art professors are really teaching Zen?
It wouldn't hurt if they did. Zen drawing techniques are great to learn in
conjunction with blind-contour drawing.
> Where did I say it did? My point was that it's common. Since you're
> arguing that it doesn't occur in "EVERY" school, I guess we've
> probably agreed on the frequency :)
"Common" would lead most to believe that it happens in most schools. It
happens in SOME schools, and it shows up in the art media, but it's in the
minority of thought among those who have clues.
> >Having only one of either is worthless.
>
> Not to most people. Many people buy paintings because they match the
> color of their couch -- and are quite pleased to have them. Probably
> a lot more so than if they were given an original Kandinsky :)
What people buy and what is good art is rarely the same thing these days.
A Kandinsky would match any number of couches at once.
> I've not seen him say that. What he has said is that a lot of what is
> talked up by the art critics is crap. I've not seen anyone put forth
> a valid counter-argument.
He's one of the critics.
If he ever does publish his supposed book, the selling point will be his
contrary nonsense. If it sells it will be because people want to 'see what
this fool is saying', not because what he's saying has any value. I have
put forth any number of valid counter points, but they have gone into thin
air. His crusade against Picasso is evidence enough that he has no idea
what he's talking about.
> If one was required to be able to paint like Ingress to be permitted
> to express an opinion, all art critics would be out of jobs.
Who would want to paint like Ingres? It's been done...by Ingres.
A artist loses credibility when he or she promotes an ideal without
being able to show him/herself as the first example of that ideal. De Li
promotes Bourgereau as the ideal, yet paints like a bad rip off of a
wannabe Dali. Or worse, he paints intellectually masturbatory nonsense
like that toilet paper roll Mondrian travesty.
> Please note that you permit yourself the freedom to be critical of
> other people's work -- would you take something for yourself that you
> won't permit for other people?
I criticize, and I am fully open to criticism.
I can defend what I do, and I can prove myself.
I would also not claim to be a better artist than I actually was.
I know my strengths as well as my weaknesses and can confirm or admit to
either.
Given those things, of course I would not take something for myself that I
would not permit for others, as long as they hold those same personal
standards.
> Hmmmmmm.... sounds bitter to me.
Being righteously angry is not the same as whining. :)
> No one ever said, "The world is fair.".
Do me a favor and stop addressing me in this diminutive manner.
I don't walk around thinking I'm to be handed something.
> Do you fail to see yourself in what you say of Deil?
Yes.
> >The wise don't go around telling people what wisdom is.
> Or more precisely, expecting them to listen or understand :-)
Ah. Damn, you're wise.
> If it makes you feel warm and fuzzy to believe so...
I don't get into warm and fuzzy.
> >How individuals perceive their surroundings is their own reality.
> >One individual could see the oncoming train as red. Another could see it
> >as blue...That's reality...superficial and pointless...The truth is that
> >if they dont get off of the tracks, they're gonna get run over...
>
> So?
So nothing. Reality is flexible, truth is not.
> Newton's laws are practical...
Not really. Gravity kind of sucks.
> Fact: the angry young artist schtick has been used too frequently to
> really get anyone noticed.
I agree. I can't stand angry young artists.
> Fact: gallery owners spend a lot of time kissing asses. They have to
> kiss both known artists' and buyers' asses. When you're a "nobody",
> you're lower on the food chain than they are - the last thing in the
> world they're going to listen to is a "nobody" with an attitude
> telling them what they should buy/sell.
That would depend on what the attitude was.
I do not consider myself a nobody. If you approach someone with the idea
that you're nothing, then you're nothing. I can walk into a gallery and
show them examples of work that is better than the work on their walls. If
they don't want it, I'm not breaking down and crying, I'm walking down the
street to the next decent place. If that doesn't work, to the next...If
none of it works...A private show...I have no time to be nobody. I don't
NEED people to kiss my ass, just like I don't NEED to kiss anyone else's.
They are in it to sell, I am in it to show. If the two coincide, good for
both of us. If not, it's just business. They hang what they think will
sell. I was rejected by a friend of mine who owns a gallery. He didn't
think the stuff would sell. I can understand that. It's business. On those
terms, I don't mind it.
On a different channel, the academic artistic morality network, I get
irritated when 'outsider' art or something like that gets to hang in a
gallery, but I know why it's there...because it sells...it's a trendy
thing...
D F Russell
Brother Alphabet <ja...@isis.msstate.edu> wrote:
>
>On Wed, 18 Feb 1998, D F Russell wrote:
>
>> OK. So you agree that you come by your personal opinions just like
>> everyone else does. Good.
>
>Well, no, most people hear their opinions said by other people.
>
>> "Beyond"..... :>)
>
>Beyond meaning "other than"...
:-) it does have a few other implications also.
>Since you like Andrew Wyeth, you can't formulate opinions on other
>artists' work?
Yes. I can. The fact that I've told you I like Wyeth should allow
you to easily understand my personal preference/bias :-)
>
>> Probably true. But it does happen.
>
>Yes, it does, but not by formula, and not very often.
Well, it's an opinion and you're permitted one.
>
>> So, you're just in it for the money then? How sad.
>
>Do you think I'd get a 'real job' for any other reason? Doing graphic
>design stinks! It's good for a paycheck and that's about it. It pays for
>the art supplies, food, rent and clothes.
>
>> As I said, "truth" has many forms. Possibly he feels the same about
>> you?
>
>If so, he's wrong.
:-) Possibly he thinks the same about you.
>
>> Sounds like a large portion of the art crowd, eh?
>
>Must be horrible to be where you are. I never run into those types of
>people.
Or at least you don't see them as such :)
>
>> The comparison of a Zen koan and artspeak probably supports Deli's
>> arguments a lot more than it does yours.
>
>I wasn't trying to support an argument. I was just pointing out similar
>conceptual scenarios.
Yes. Mistakenly so. I did find the comparison very appropriate and
funny.
>
>> The Rinzai school of Zen used intentionally absurd riddles or koans;
>> that is, there *is* no meaning. That's the meaning.
>
>How do you know one hand clapping makes no sound? Have you truly listened?
<LOL>
"I am polishing this tile to make a mirror."
>
>> Or by this do you mean that art professors are really teaching Zen?
>
>It wouldn't hurt if they did. Zen drawing techniques are great to learn in
>conjunction with blind-contour drawing.
Yes. But that's obviously not the intent of their nonsense.
>
>> Where did I say it did? My point was that it's common. Since you're
>> arguing that it doesn't occur in "EVERY" school, I guess we've
>> probably agreed on the frequency :)
>
>"Common" would lead most to believe that it happens in most schools. It
>happens in SOME schools, and it shows up in the art media, but it's in the
>minority of thought among those who have clues.
Using your definition, I'd say it's common, IMO
>
>> >Having only one of either is worthless.
>>
>> Not to most people. Many people buy paintings because they match the
>> color of their couch -- and are quite pleased to have them. Probably
>> a lot more so than if they were given an original Kandinsky :)
>
>What people buy and what is good art is rarely the same thing these days.
Possibly not to you.
>
>A Kandinsky would match any number of couches at once.
<LOL>
Or none.
>
>> I've not seen him say that. What he has said is that a lot of what is
>> talked up by the art critics is crap. I've not seen anyone put forth
>> a valid counter-argument.
>
>He's one of the critics.
>If he ever does publish his supposed book, the selling point will be his
>contrary nonsense. If it sells it will be because people want to 'see what
>this fool is saying', not because what he's saying has any value. I have
>put forth any number of valid counter points, but they have gone into thin
>air. His crusade against Picasso is evidence enough that he has no idea
>what he's talking about.
Assume $ is his point. Why begrudge him? You've already said you're
in it for the money.....
>
>> If one was required to be able to paint like Ingress to be permitted
>> to express an opinion, all art critics would be out of jobs.
>
>Who would want to paint like Ingres?
Lot's of people.
> It's been done...by Ingres.
And that ability would obviously make one worthless as a painter,
right? :)
>A artist loses credibility when he or she promotes an ideal without
>being able to show him/herself as the first example of that ideal.
<LOL> what does the absract intellectual concept of "an ideal" have to
do with a painting?
> De Li
>promotes Bourgereau as the ideal, yet paints like a bad rip off of a
>wannabe Dali. Or worse, he paints intellectually masturbatory nonsense
>like that toilet paper roll Mondrian travesty.
Again, your point?
The fact that you don't like his paintings has nothing to do with his
point(s) regarding many "modern" paintings. An opinion you seem to
share......
>
>> Please note that you permit yourself the freedom to be critical of
>> other people's work -- would you take something for yourself that you
>> won't permit for other people?
>
>I criticize, and I am fully open to criticism.
>I can defend what I do, and I can prove myself.
>I would also not claim to be a better artist than I actually was.
>I know my strengths as well as my weaknesses and can confirm or admit to
>either.
If it makes you happy to believe it......
>
>Given those things, of course I would not take something for myself that I
>would not permit for others, as long as they hold those same personal
>standards.
Then since you've just agreed that Deli also has a right to an
opinion, possibly you'd consider dropping what would seem to be
personal attacks in response to his posts?
They probably harm you more than they do him....
>
>> Hmmmmmm.... sounds bitter to me.
>
>Being righteously angry is not the same as whining. :)
Sophistry... even if modified by the ":)"
>
>> No one ever said, "The world is fair.".
>
>Do me a favor and stop addressing me in this diminutive manner.
>I don't walk around thinking I'm to be handed something.
Where did I say you were?
>
>> Do you fail to see yourself in what you say of Deil?
>
>Yes.
Rhetorical question. Didn't require an answer :)
>
>> >The wise don't go around telling people what wisdom is.
>> Or more precisely, expecting them to listen or understand :-)
>
>Ah. Damn, you're wise.
<LOL> At least enough to not be annoyed by this.
>
>> If it makes you feel warm and fuzzy to believe so...
>
>I don't get into warm and fuzzy.
Yes. The Angry Young Artist thing....
>
>> >How individuals perceive their surroundings is their own reality.
>> >One individual could see the oncoming train as red. Another could see it
>> >as blue...That's reality...superficial and pointless...The truth is that
>> >if they dont get off of the tracks, they're gonna get run over...
>>
>> So?
>
>So nothing. Reality is flexible, truth is not.
It's an opinion. You're alowed.
>
>> Newton's laws are practical...
>
>Not really. Gravity kind of sucks.
Quite right... in several meanings of the word :)
But the point is that even though they're pratical they aren't the
"truth" (as we currently see it to be :-)
>
>> Fact: the angry young artist schtick has been used too frequently to
>> really get anyone noticed.
>
>I agree. I can't stand angry young artists.
<LOL>
>
>> Fact: gallery owners spend a lot of time kissing asses. They have to
>> kiss both known artists' and buyers' asses. When you're a "nobody",
>> you're lower on the food chain than they are - the last thing in the
>> world they're going to listen to is a "nobody" with an attitude
>> telling them what they should buy/sell.
>
>That would depend on what the attitude was.
Not to the gallery owner. Their only interest is whether or not they
can sell your paintings.
>I do not consider myself a nobody.
What you think is obviously irrelevant to the gallery owner... and
they're the ones who can put you where you seem to want to go.
> If you approach someone with the idea
>that you're nothing, then you're nothing. I can walk into a gallery and
>show them examples of work that is better than the work on their walls.
Curious, isn't this the same attitude you attribute to Deli -- and
deride him for?
Rhetorical question. No answer required :)
>If
>they don't want it, I'm not breaking down and crying, I'm walking down the
>street to the next decent place. If that doesn't work, to the next...If
>none of it works...A private show...I have no time to be nobody.
A lot of people are.
> I don't
>NEED people to kiss my ass, just like I don't NEED to kiss anyone else's.
What you "NEED" is irrelevant.
>
>They are in it to sell,
Yes. And *what* they sell is largely irrelevant to them. The fact
that you think your stuff is better than most other peoples makes you
just like everyone else :-)
>I am in it to show.
I thought you said you were in it for the money?
>On a different channel, the academic artistic morality network, I get
>irritated when 'outsider' art or something like that gets to hang in a
>gallery, but I know why it's there...because it sells...it's a trendy
>thing...
So?
Brother Alphabet
On Wed, 18 Feb 1998, D F Russell wrote:
> :-) it does have a few other implications also.
If you wish, I will go and get the Webster's and type out ALL the possible
meanings of the word. I used the word in the context of "besides, other
than".
> Yes. I can. The fact that I've told you I like Wyeth should allow
> you to easily understand my personal preference/bias :-)
I like Wyeth, I like Picasso, I like Klimt...I like plenty of different
artists from different times and with different styles. My bias is
based on quality, not style. Wyeth is a genius. He has mastered reality to
the point at which it becomes unreality. But, he is the only Andrew Wyeth
there is. How can you base a preference or bias on a singular entity?
When I look at a work I see technique and composition. A figure
masterfully rendered with minimal line is as technically profound as the
highly detailed Wyeth paintings. If you limit your eye, you limit your
mind.
> Well, it's an opinion and you're permitted one.
I really don't feel that I require your permission or acknowledgement in
this regard.
> >If so, he's wrong.
>
> :-) Possibly he thinks the same about you.
Possibly. Probably. Who cares? He's wrong about that, too.
> Or at least you don't see them as such :)
Yeah. You're right. I can't recognize B.S. when I hear it. Notice my
acceptance of your comment? There's the evidence.
> Yes. But that's obviously not the intent of their nonsense.
Where did you find the time and money to take every art class in the
world?
> Using your definition, I'd say it's common, IMO
Where did you find the time and money to take every art class in the
world?
> >What people buy and what is good art is rarely the same thing these days.
>
> Possibly not to you.
Have you ever seen the work of Moses Tolliver? He's a true visionary. A
brilliant man! Artistic genius. I recommend you buy as much of his work as
possible.
> Assume $ is his point. Why begrudge him? You've already said you're
> in it for the money.....
No, you said that I said that. I do my *job* for the money I need to buy
art supplies, food and pay rent...I am not doing art specifically for
money (Though I would not blow off a sale). I'm currently only showing 2
paintings in a gallery...Everything I have done for the last year with the
exception of the few drawings I put on my webpage has been kept out of the
public. Only a few people have even seen my recent work. I am
experimenting and researching and playing with new media...nothing
oriented around money at all.
But, in regard to your remark, I wouldn't begrudge anyone's making money.
I am a staunch capitalist. By all means, he should sell his book like
mad...may they teach it in the classroom...It would have more positive
effect than negative compared to some of the crap I've read in
theory/history books. I *DO* have a great many positive things to say of
Mani de Li...It's just that it seems not to matter if I agree with him or
disagree. I know that sounds quite contradictory, but in truth the only
points we disagree upon is the scope of skill/talent. He doesnt seem to be
able to accept the fact that skill can apply to modern painting unless it
looks like Rockwell or Bougeureau.
> >Who would want to paint like Ingres?
> Lot's of people.
Lots of people with no soul of their own...I would like to have the
mastery of a medium like any of the greats, but I want to paint like Jason
A. Hutto.
> And that ability would obviously make one worthless as a painter,
> right? :)
Ability is one thing, modelling oneself after another painter is another.
Assimilation, not imitation.
> <LOL> what does the absract intellectual concept of "an ideal" have to
> do with a painting?
That's not what I mean.
Painter A says: "THIS is the way to paint", but painter A doesn't paint
like that...What's the deal?
> Again, your point?
The point is, if yer gonna promote an ideal, lead by example not by empty
words.
> The fact that you don't like his paintings has nothing to do with his
> point(s) regarding many "modern" paintings. An opinion you seem to
> share......
No, he's mostly full of crap about modern paintings. Plus the fact that
his own painting can only be compared to said modern pieces. He certainly
isn't painting classically. The fact that I don't like his paintings has
nothing to do with the reason why I disagree with his points. That fact is
just a bonus when nullifying his beliefs.
> >I criticize, and I am fully open to criticism.
> >I can defend what I do, and I can prove myself.
> >I would also not claim to be a better artist than I actually was.
> >I know my strengths as well as my weaknesses and can confirm or admit to
> >either.
>
> If it makes you happy to believe it......
I have no emotion whatsoever in regard to the above facts. They are just
truths about myself. Were they not true I would have stopped reading this
group years ago. I invite anyone to critique my work. M. de Li says my
drawings are 'crappy'. I don't have a problem with that. They very well
could be crappy. I am happy with most of them, and the others could be
better...If you like, check them out and make your own criticism...
http://www2,msstate.edu/~jah10/art/
> Then since you've just agreed that Deli also has a right to an
> opinion, possibly you'd consider dropping what would seem to be
> personal attacks in response to his posts?
I don't attack his posts as often as I respond to his attacks on mine.
Perhaps you are not aware of the history...I have been involved with this
group for at least five years...I can't recall when Mani de Li showed up,
but ever since he did there has been a back and forth...I have tried a
number of times to offer what were to me reasonable and well founded
compromise zones...They never register, and I don't think it even matters
to the guy. He just wants the attention, the 'sport', and I like
the challenge of arguing with him...or with anyone...Plus, he's just flat
wrong about most of the modern painters he criticizes...
> They probably harm you more than they do him....
I don't see how they do. Except once, my mother actually read one of my
posts in which I was particularly annoyed at something and she had some
things to say to me about my language and tone.
For me it's excersize...I get to argue my points and see if they are
actually as realistic as I think they are...sometimes they
aren't...Sometimes, I make a huge arse of myself, but it's an educational
experience. For me, this newsgroup/forum is the current issues class I was
never able to take.
> Sophistry... even if modified by the ":)"
Pseudointellectual holier-than-thou-ism, especially when begun
with the word "Sophistry"...
> >Do me a favor and stop addressing me in this diminutive manner.
> >I don't walk around thinking I'm to be handed something.
>
> Where did I say you were?
You made the remark "the world isn't fair" as though I had just been
defrosted from a block of ice in which I had been frozen for the last 3000
years.
> >> Do you fail to see yourself in what you say of Deil?
> >Yes.
>
> Rhetorical question. Didn't require an answer :)
You see, a rhetorical question is one which has an obvious answer. For
you, the obvious answer was "no", whereas the actual answer was "yes"
therefore I had to correct your error by answering what would have
otherwise been a rhetorical question indeed.
> >I don't get into warm and fuzzy.
> Yes. The Angry Young Artist thing....
So, you've been around, I take it. You've ingested the universe, found a
balance, been made one with creation and own all-sable brushes...
You obviously know all about me, even though until two days ago I had
never heard a peep from you...Remarkable.
I bet you could even describe what I look like without mistake. I fit all
the stereotypes, right?
If you describe me correctly, I will send you five bucks in cash.
(It's not much, but it's five free dollars)
It must be a detailed description, though, so you can prove how much you
know.
> It's an opinion. You're alowed.
No I'm not. I changed my mind.
> Quite right... in several meanings of the word :)
> But the point is that even though they're pratical they aren't the
> "truth" (as we currently see it to be :-)
Ice is cold. Ice could be considered warm (Or hot) compared to absolute
zero, but that doesn't change the fact that ice is cold.
Fire is hot. Fire could be said to be cold when compared to the surface of
the sun, but fire is still hot.
We all die. We could move on to eternal life, but we still all die.
A raindrop is not a monsoon but is still water.
God exists. You may or may not choose to believe it, but God exists.
Truth is absolute.
> Not to the gallery owner. Their only interest is whether or not they
> can sell your paintings.
Yeah, I know. I said that.
> >I do not consider myself a nobody.
> What you think is obviously irrelevant to the gallery owner... and
> they're the ones who can put you where you seem to want to go.
If they don't like my work, or don't want my work, I don't want to be in
their gallery. Where I "want to go" is on a wall. I want my work to be
hanging in public. A gallery, a restaurant, a bank, I don't care. As long
as it gets put up in front of people.
What is important to me is to be recognized...Not with awards or sales,
but mere recognition...I want to be seen as what I really am, not what my
current job title says I am...I don't want 'fame' as much as I want to be
acknowledged. For some reason, I can't tell if this makes any sense.
> Curious, isn't this the same attitude you attribute to Deli -- and
> deride him for?
>
> Rhetorical question. No answer required :)
Ya see, that isn't a rhetorical question. A rhetorical question is "Is the
pope catholic?"..."Does the sky appear to be blue?"..."Isn't this a
rhetorical question?" (That's a nifty meta-rhetorical question. Cool, hm?)
Your question, on the other hand, does require a response.
You have obviously not paid attention to the things I have said in regard
to the matter. I take issue with M.D. because he present one ideal and
then fails to live up to it. To hold the opinion that my work is better
than or at least as good as work in a specific gallery is up to the work
in question and my ability to analyze the qualitative characteristics of
those works. I don't think I am the greatest, but I do know what's better
than or worse than my own work.
> >If they don't want it, I'm not breaking down and crying, I'm walking
> >down the street to the next decent place. If that doesn't work, to the
> >next...If none of it works...A private show...I have no time to be
> >nobody.
>
> A lot of people are.
A lot of people are what? (Choose One)
A) Breaking down and crying?
B) Walking down the street to the next decent place?
C) Holding private shows?
D) Nobodies?
> What you "NEED" is irrelevant.
No it isn't. I am not making paintings to suit galleries. I am making them
to stay alive, to stay sane...What I need is all that's relevant to what I
do.
> >They are in it to sell,
>
> Yes. And *what* they sell is largely irrelevant to them.
To some galleries, that's about the extent of things. To others, there are
other issues to consider. For instance, I was rejected from one gallery,
even though the owner loved my work, because i did not meet one of their
base requirements: "We do not represent artists who have not been painting
professionally for at least ten years." OK...So I'm up to 9 and a half,
but the place went out of business 3 years ago...Other galleries select
artists by discipline, or by style. It isn't set in stone that what they
sell is irrelevant. Most are conscientious about their reputation in the
area. There are all these specialist galleries that handle only outsider
art, or only impressionist oils, or only bronze works...
> The fact
> that you think your stuff is better than most other peoples makes you
> just like everyone else :-)
Except for the fact that when I make that claim, I'm not blowing smoke.
I don't make a comment like that just to amuse myself...I wouldn't dare
have that opinion if I couldn't back myself up against the collection I
was comparing myself to.
> I thought you said you were in it for the money?
That's what you get for trying to think.
I said I did my job for money. The whole discussion you got that from was
related to careers after art degrees...Not painting.
I made the remark that it would be fine if everyone dropped out of school
and went and did hard labor...I said there would be more opportunities for
me...I did not say that those opportunities would be to sell-out
artistically...The opportunities would be for advancement in a 'job'...
Try to pay attention.
> >On a different channel, the academic artistic morality network, I get
> >irritated when 'outsider' art or something like that gets to hang in a
> >gallery, but I know why it's there...because it sells...it's a trendy
> >thing...
>
> So?
So, nothing. That was just an admission of fact.
I was trying to diffuse the Angry Young Artist notion you had, but I
obviously failed. It is intellectually offensive to me that hacks and
half-wits make killings in the market...but from a business point of view
I completely understand it.
Brother Alphabet
On Thu, 19 Feb 1998, D F Russell wrote:
> >Where did you find the time and money to take every art class in the
> >world?
> If I'm required to have taken "every art class in the world" to state
> an opinion, wouldn't the same be true of your comments?
> You seem to be floundering here... you're not thinking through the
> implications of your statements.
The same would not be true of my comments, I am not floundering, and I am
thinking through the implications of my statements...
You were in support of a generalization about art education, one which
would only be proven by experiencing at the very least, MOST of the art
classes in the world.
I was not making a generalization. I claim that such ArtSpeak balogna does
not occur in such rampant frequency. I have visited classrooms at enough
universities to constitute an accurate statistical random sample.
Therefore, I am at least qualified to state that ArtSpeak is not the
staple of collegiate art education for a significant portion of American
Institutions of Higher Learning. I previously agreed that it occurs in
SOME, but you continue to state that it occurs in MOST. And now you say
that you have a science background? I hope you also have art somewhere
back there, or your credibility will diminish even further.
> >Have you ever seen the work of Moses Tolliver? He's a true visionary. A
> >brilliant man! Artistic genius. I recommend you buy as much of his work as
> >possible.
> No. I haven't. If you provide a location and I'm able, I'll look at
> it. But I don't usually like abstracts/expressionism etc.
I wouldn't bother. He's one of those 'outsiders'. I hate his stuff, but
people buy it like discount beer.
> He's probably a bit more flexible than that... why don't you ask him?
Oh, I have. It was either ignored or unread, but commented upon anyway.
> Different does not equal better.
I agree with that. Same as "new" does not equal "good".
> Ingress learned from someone... and
> probably initially copied someone else's style.
Do we study the student work of Ingres in museums?
How we make it to the starting line is not as important to follow as how
we get where we are going after the gun goes off.
> Like it or not, we don't develop in a vacuum.
I am not disallowing the value of influence, but that isn't the same as
imitation. Any truly great artist learned from the greats that came
before. Picasso said imitating others is not as bad as imitating oneself.
Van Gogh spent who knows how long just replicating prints from the
masters. I have a wide range of influences that I look to quite frequently
for direction...I have even gone so far as to duplicate compositional
schemes from Puvis de Chavannes (sp)...But all of that is excersize, and
not what I apply to formal work in any other form than aquired knowledge.
> >Assimilation, not imitation.
> At some level, they are both the same.
Perhaps, but when one assimilates from a multitude of sources, the
resulting output will not be a copy of any one particular item.
> Please also consider that by "empty words" you [appear] to be
> expressing a personal opinion of Deli's paintings. I say this due to
> some of your prior comments.
The empty words are empty precisely because of his work's quality.
He sets a measure, then falls short. One of the two has to be nonsense.
Either he is painting fantastic imagery in private and putting those
pictures online as a smoke screen, or he is promoting painterly ideals he
is incapable of meeting.
I will make an allowance here because for the life of me, I continue to
identify completely with Mani de Li...In the exact same vein, I maintain a
painterly ideal within myself. It is one that is far beyond my current
ability. It is so unrealistic as to be ridiculous if spoken aloud. I can
say with some assurance that I will never in my life meet the ideal. This
is the driving force, what keeps me dissatisfied with my work, what prods
me forward when I feel like pulling out my hair and quitting...If I make
it to a goal, it doesn't matter, the beastly dream still hates my work, I
can't be satisfied with it...I must do more...It is also what behooves me
to be outspokenly critical of all I intake, especially in the visual
sense...The beastly dream doesn't like people who don't share the
goal...Get better, get better, get better, get better, get better...You
stop, you fail, you stop, you fail, you stop, you fail, you die.
But, to say this to someone in the context of a demand is another story.
It is internalized, it is an individual ideal. It is not even realistic to
expect everyone to have the same goal in mind as mine. The only thing it
is appropriate to expect of anyone claiming to be an artist is that they
work to the best of their ability to master their tools, their media, and
to be conscious of the building blocks of art making...composition, color,
line, value, space...Also, the evidence of spirit is a prerequisite of
mine. That is why I would rather see evidence of a beating dreaming heart
than a technically superb jar of flowers. I do believe that both skill
and soul must exist simultaneously to qualify a work as art-worthy,
though. This is where I see the difference between myself and Mani de Li.
It seems that to him, skill must appear in a fenced-in area. To me, skill
appears in a wide variety of ways and in a wide variety of styles.
He can't see skill in Picasso.
> And understand that what you call a "fact" isn't. It's your personal
> opinion. However firmly it may be held. It is an opinion.
Yes, but my opinion and actual fact are so similar, it's scary.
> His comments here and on his web site typically seem reasonable...
> even though sarcastic. It seems to be a personal style. Much like
> you have one. I think the issue might be that you both seem some
> somewhat confrontational and have very strongly held views.
He is quite reasonable and intelligent on most issues. As I have said, I
only have a problem with one point.
> To be honest, I'm very reluctant to critique anyone -- anyone alive
> anyways. I have looked at both your's and Deli's work, though.
Why the reluctance? I didn't put my stuff out there to just sit there
looking crappy. I'm asking for feedback...I *like* criticism...gives me
viewpoints I can't get on my own. The only thing I hate to hear os someone
saying "It's really nice..." or "It's really.....interesting..." That just
means they either have no earthly idea what to say, or that they hate it
and are protecting your feelings (or more likely afraid to offend) ...I am
far BEYOND the point at which I get offended by commentaries as long as
they are at least commentaries that have been considered, unlike M.D.'s
blanket statement 'your crappy drawings'. I don't think he gave them too
much thought...But like I said, they *could* be crappy, I don't know...
> My apology then.
No need. I am guilty of snipe attacks as well.
> But let me point out that it does take two people to maintain an
> argument.
Otherwise, wheres the fun?
It would bore me to tears arguing with myself.
> If he's wrong, and you know it, smile and ignore him. If that isn't
> possible, personal attacks usually reflect poorly upon more than one
> person.
I like it when I can make eight or ten people look like idiots.
(Joking) I know what you mean. Every now and then I wonder when the crazed
net-fiend will show up to kill me.
> >Pseudointellectual holier-than-thou-ism, especially when begun
> >with the word "Sophistry"...
> No. The word is quite specific -- and it was accurate. It was meant
> in a literal sense without the conotations which you are assigning to
> it.
Ha! You should be fully aware that I made that comment because I
completely forgot what "sophistry" meant.
> Possibly you're reading too much into what I said.
Who? Me? that's ridiculous and completely against my character.
> I'm trying to make a point. I figure if I repeat it enough you'll
> consider it... I might be wrong.
> That being, a lot of what you're calling "fact" is your personal
> opinion.
I know. I have never had a problem with that. Helps me slowly mold the
world into my playground.
> Nope. Haven't the faintest... aside from the observation that you
> probably have high blood pressure :) and are probably male.
No, low blood pressure.
Darn, I was hoping for the full-length description of the mop-headed angry
youth with the plaid and boots and everything.
> How would your physical description follow from your posts?
It wouldn't. I don't describe myself in posts so as not to scare people.
> Only when you use your body temperature as a reference point.
> Something is "cold" by *comparison*.
Dang! Can't we take these things for granted?
> To my knowledge, this is a fact... but it can't be proven...
> at least not without killing everyone :)
There's an idea.
We can just wait for Clinton to provoke the Iraqis to let loose some
anthrax.
> >Truth is absolute.
> Possibly in your use of the term.
> Since I don't agree with it, let's agree to be civil?
Aw, come on!
Civility is for the bored of this discussion...oh wait...that's us.
> I'd rather someone liked my paintings than "recognized" me.
> Then I could do American Express commercials :)
I'll be doing the Nike Air-DeKooning ads.
> >No it isn't. I am not making paintings to suit galleries. I am making them
> >to stay alive, to stay sane...What I need is all that's relevant to what I
> >do.
>
> Not to the gallery owners.
But, the gallery owners are the low-end of the chain, not the other way
around. The driving force of the market is the consumer, obviously. What
does the consumer want? To give money to the gallery guy, or to own a
painting? So, does the gallery guy MAKE the painting or does he just
find/facilitate the purchase of said painting? So who is important? If
there were no paintings, would the owner have a gallery?
Who knows why the buyer wants what he wants?
The owner find out what the buyer wants, gets it, sells it to buyer. This
repeats, the smart owner notices patterns, begins to show artists of the
type the majority of his clientele buys. In reality, this can be done
without a gallery owner. He is just a lucky pawn.
I know of a group in New Orleans who function as freelance brokers for
the collective. No gallery, no commissions, only a portion of the sales
goes to pay for the group's studio complex.
> The reason for it is that McDonalds doesn't think their customers
> would buy it.
In this case, the customers wouldn't know what it was.
Upon the release of the 'mexican' menu items at McD's, I overheard a man
in front of me in line talking to his wife:
Man: "Huh? What? A fa-jeeta? Naw, honey - that's like an aig rowl"
> Which translates into money.
Well, OK - I guess I'll admit that I would like to make a crapload of
money from a job if I'm forced to use my painting time to do it in.
> Difference of opinion: I'm *always* happy to see someone who is good
> -- irrspeective of style. And I'm always happy to see someone who is
> better than me.. there are very few things better than a good
> painting.
No difference I can see.
> "Intellectually offensive" is a large term for angry.
Well, OK, - i.t m.a.k.e.s m.e a.n.g.r.y
> Please consider what I've implied about the tone of your comments.
Aw, mom.
> Probably time to go back to lurking :)
Please don't do that.
I get bored trying to win an arguement with Mani de Li.
Brother Alphabet
On Thu, 19 Feb 1998, mdeli wrote:
> >I could paint stupid fruitbowls all day long, but I don't WANT to.
>
> After seeing your work I'm sure you could paint stupid fruitbowls.
> Perhaps even as stupid as Matisse. But I doubt that you can do
> anything less stupid.
Hmm.
See, I am debating whether or not to finish my crit of your limp so-called
paintings, but it gave me a headache last time trying to think of
something halfway close to unvenemous to say.
It would be just as fun yanking out my toenails as critically
pondering your...things. I guess I could wear dark glasses while looking
at the screen, I am sure your ridiculously foul compositions would show
through. It's the noxious color schemes I can't abide.
I suppose I can be strong about it and just nobly brave the horrors of
your webpage on the principle of fighting against mediocre frauds like
you.
> >- Since I
> >don't, my skill supposedly vanishes?
>
> It never appeared.
Did it not? I was painting better in grade school than you paint now.
The skills you possess are all related to your expert dancing around the
fact that you haven't the faintest idea how to paint, and even with your
head full of high and mighty notions you couldn't identify a useful
composition if it were tattooed on your forehead, labelled in bold print.
> >Plus, Mani de Li couldn't paint 'will
> >work for food' on the back of a piece of cardboard. He doesnt even live up
> >to his own standards.
> Gee I never had reason to try...
Ah, you're just trying to get around admitting you couldn't paint the
sign...
> Are you an expert at this?
I could do it if I had to.
> So, you didn't win the Modern Art Lottery yet.
Your voice probably sounds like that guy who announces those Oxy10 radio
commercials.
"So, you've got a pimple on the night of your big date..."
> Those who can't depend
> on skill have to depend on connections.
Having such skill, please comment upon your remarkable successes...?
I don't recall seeing a list of recent showings on your web pages...For
that matter, I don't recall seeing so much as your real name...
I would imagine that you're just as invisible in the art world as you are
on the net. Maybe I'll get lucky and you'll sign my copy of your 'book'.
> That's the way the modern art cookie crumbles.
Such a crappy metaphor from such a gifted writer.
For shame.
Brother Alphabet
On Thu, 19 Feb 1998, mdeli wrote:
> >> One studies art in order to make a living at something one likes
> >> doing. Better artists generally make a better living.
> >
> >If this was true, I'd be a millionaire. My work is better than a huge
> >percentage of the stuff that sells in galleries these days.
>
> You are naive.
Yo mama.
<Some Mani de Li yadayadayada Modern art whines removed>
> If it doesn't look like a put-on its got no modern art future.
Who gives a flip about a 'modern art future'...I just want a place for my
stuff.
Plus, you just contradicted yourself once again. If better artists make
better livings, what's this bo-log-na about getting worse and worse for
success?
Make up your muddled mind.
D F Russell
Brother Alphabet <ja...@isis.msstate.edu> wrote:
>
>On Wed, 18 Feb 1998, D F Russell wrote:
>
>
>> :-) it does have a few other implications also.
>
>If you wish, I will go and get the Webster's and type out ALL the possible
>meanings of the word. I used the word in the context of "besides, other
>than".
No. I'll take you at your word.
>
>> Yes. I can. The fact that I've told you I like Wyeth should allow
>> you to easily understand my personal preference/bias :-)
>
>I like Wyeth, I like Picasso, I like Klimt...I like plenty of different
>artists from different times and with different styles. My bias is
>based on quality, not style. Wyeth is a genius. He has mastered reality to
>the point at which it becomes unreality. But, he is the only Andrew Wyeth
>there is. How can you base a preference or bias on a singular entity?
N.C. Wyeth, while primarly known for illustrations, was also quite
good. I like Klimt and some of the early Picasso. I think Mr. Deli
might have a point in his comments on the later work.
>
>When I look at a work I see technique and composition. A figure
>masterfully rendered with minimal line is as technically profound as the
>highly detailed Wyeth paintings. If you limit your eye, you limit your
>mind.
I would agree.
>
>> Well, it's an opinion and you're permitted one.
>
>I really don't feel that I require your permission or acknowledgement in
>this regard.
None was offered :-)
>
>> >If so, he's wrong.
>>
>> :-) Possibly he thinks the same about you.
>
>Possibly. Probably. Who cares? He's wrong about that, too.
>
>> Or at least you don't see them as such :)
>
>Yeah. You're right. I can't recognize B.S. when I hear it. Notice my
>acceptance of your comment? There's the evidence.
:-)
>
>> Yes. But that's obviously not the intent of their nonsense.
This comment was made in response to your [apparent] statement that
art professors were using words in a fashion akin to a Zen koan.
>
>Where did you find the time and money to take every art class in the
>world?
Therefore, this statement is not in context of the discussion, and
I'll assume you intended to change the subject or simply
misunderstood.
>
>> Using your definition, I'd say it's common, IMO
>
>Where did you find the time and money to take every art class in the
>world?
Well, here it is in context, so I'll reply.
If I'm required to have taken "every art class in the world" to state
an opinion, wouldn't the same be true of your comments?
You seem to be floundering here... you're not thinking through the
implications of your statements.
>
>> >What people buy and what is good art is rarely the same thing these days.
>>
>> Possibly not to you.
>
>Have you ever seen the work of Moses Tolliver? He's a true visionary. A
>brilliant man! Artistic genius. I recommend you buy as much of his work as
>possible.
No. I haven't. If you provide a location and I'm able, I'll look at
it. But I don't usually like abstracts/expressionism etc.
>
>> Assume $ is his point. Why begrudge him? You've already said you're
>> in it for the money.....
This was said in response to your statement that you'd like a lot of
the art crowd to quit and do hard labor to leave the field open to
you. It seemed a reasonable inference.
>
>No, you said that I said that. I do my *job* for the money
Therefore, this doesn't apply.
> I need to buy
>art supplies, food and pay rent...I am not doing art specifically for
>money (Though I would not blow off a sale). I'm currently only showing 2
>paintings in a gallery...Everything I have done for the last year with the
>exception of the few drawings I put on my webpage has been kept out of the
>public. Only a few people have even seen my recent work. I am
>experimenting and researching and playing with new media...nothing
>oriented around money at all.
OK.
>
>But, in regard to your remark, I wouldn't begrudge anyone's making money.
>I am a staunch capitalist. By all means, he should sell his book like
>mad...may they teach it in the classroom...It would have more positive
>effect than negative compared to some of the crap I've read in
>theory/history books. I *DO* have a great many positive things to say of
>Mani de Li...
OK.
>It's just that it seems not to matter if I agree with him or
>disagree. I know that sounds quite contradictory, but in truth the only
>points we disagree upon is the scope of skill/talent. He doesnt seem to be
>able to accept the fact that skill can apply to modern painting unless it
>looks like Rockwell or Bougeureau.
He's probably a bit more flexible than that... why don't you ask him?
>
>> >Who would want to paint like Ingres?
>> Lot's of people.
>
>Lots of people with no soul of their own...I would like to have the
>mastery of a medium like any of the greats, but I want to paint like Jason
>A. Hutto.
Different does not equal better. Ingress learned from someone... and
probably initially copied someone else's style. Which he used as a
basis for his. Like it or not, we don't develop in a vacuum.
>
>> And that ability would obviously make one worthless as a painter,
>> right? :)
>
>Ability is one thing, modelling oneself after another painter is another.
>Assimilation, not imitation.
At some level, they are both the same.
And, sorry, can't help myself....
"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated." :)
>
>> <LOL> what does the absract intellectual concept of "an ideal" have to
>> do with a painting?
>
>That's not what I mean.
>Painter A says: "THIS is the way to paint", but painter A doesn't paint
>like that...What's the deal?
Nothing. Possibly I misunderstood what you intended.
>
>> Again, your point?
>
>The point is, if yer gonna promote an ideal, lead by example not by empty
>words.
Reasonable point.
Please also consider that by "empty words" you [appear] to be
expressing a personal opinion of Deli's paintings. I say this due to
some of your prior comments.
And understand that what you call a "fact" isn't. It's your personal
opinion. However firmly it may be held. It is an opinion.
>
>> The fact that you don't like his paintings has nothing to do with his
>> point(s) regarding many "modern" paintings. An opinion you seem to
>> share......
>
>No, he's mostly full of crap about modern paintings.
His comments here and on his web site typically seem reasonable...
even though sarcastic. It seems to be a personal style. Much like
you have one. I think the issue might be that you both seem some
somewhat confrontational and have very strongly held views.
Not necessairly a bad thing... as long as you're aware of it.
>Plus the fact that
>his own painting can only be compared to said modern pieces. He certainly
>isn't painting classically. The fact that I don't like his paintings has
>nothing to do with the reason why I disagree with his points. That fact is
>just a bonus when nullifying his beliefs.
I would agree that he doesn't seem to be a "classical" painter.
>
>> >I criticize, and I am fully open to criticism.
>> >I can defend what I do, and I can prove myself.
>> >I would also not claim to be a better artist than I actually was.
>> >I know my strengths as well as my weaknesses and can confirm or admit to
>> >either.
>>
>> If it makes you happy to believe it......
>
>I have no emotion whatsoever in regard to the above facts. They are just
>truths about myself. Were they not true I would have stopped reading this
>group years ago. I invite anyone to critique my work. M. de Li says my
>drawings are 'crappy'. I don't have a problem with that. They very well
>could be crappy. I am happy with most of them, and the others could be
>better...If you like, check them out and make your own criticism...
>http://www2,msstate.edu/~jah10/art/
To be honest, I'm very reluctant to critique anyone -- anyone alive
anyways. I have looked at both your's and Deli's work, though.
>
>> Then since you've just agreed that Deli also has a right to an
>> opinion, possibly you'd consider dropping what would seem to be
>> personal attacks in response to his posts?
>
>I don't attack his posts as often as I respond to his attacks on mine.
My apology then.
But let me point out that it does take two people to maintain an
argument.
>Perhaps you are not aware of the history...I have been involved with this
>group for at least five years...I can't recall when Mani de Li showed up,
>but ever since he did there has been a back and forth...I have tried a
>number of times to offer what were to me reasonable and well founded
>compromise zones...They never register, and I don't think it even matters
>to the guy. He just wants the attention, the 'sport', and I like
>the challenge of arguing with him...or with anyone...Plus, he's just flat
>wrong about most of the modern painters he criticizes...
If he's wrong, and you know it, smile and ignore him. If that isn't
possible, personal attacks usually reflect poorly upon more than one
person.
>
>> They probably harm you more than they do him....
>
>I don't see how they do. Except once, my mother actually read one of my
>posts in which I was particularly annoyed at something and she had some
>things to say to me about my language and tone.
I'd say she was more to the point than I've been :-) But that's
really what I'm trying to point out.
>
>For me it's excersize...I get to argue my points and see if they are
>actually as realistic as I think they are...sometimes they
>aren't...Sometimes, I make a huge arse of myself, but it's an educational
>experience. For me, this newsgroup/forum is the current issues class I was
>never able to take.
>
>> Sophistry... even if modified by the ":)"
>
>Pseudointellectual holier-than-thou-ism, especially when begun
>with the word "Sophistry"...
No. The word is quite specific -- and it was accurate. It was meant
in a literal sense without the conotations which you are assigning to
it.
>
>> >Do me a favor and stop addressing me in this diminutive manner.
>> >I don't walk around thinking I'm to be handed something.
>>
>> Where did I say you were?
>
>You made the remark "the world isn't fair" as though I had just been
>defrosted from a block of ice in which I had been frozen for the last 3000
>years.
Possibly you're reading too much into what I said.
>> >> Do you fail to see yourself in what you say of Deil?
>> >Yes.
>>
>> Rhetorical question. Didn't require an answer :)
>
>You see, a rhetorical question is one which has an obvious answer. For
>you, the obvious answer was "no", whereas the actual answer was "yes"
>therefore I had to correct your error by answering what would have
>otherwise been a rhetorical question indeed.
:-)
I'm trying to make a point. I figure if I repeat it enough you'll
consider it... I might be wrong.
That being, a lot of what you're calling "fact" is your personal
opinion.
>
>> >I don't get into warm and fuzzy.
>> Yes. The Angry Young Artist thing....
>
>So, you've been around, I take it. You've ingested the universe, found a
>balance, been made one with creation and own all-sable brushes...
<LOL>
Actually, rather good sarcasm.
>
>You obviously know all about me, even though until two days ago I had
>never heard a peep from you...Remarkable.
Only what I see in your posts.... and remember your mother agrees with
me :-)
>
>I bet you could even describe what I look like without mistake. I fit all
>the stereotypes, right?
Nope. Haven't the faintest... aside from the observation that you
probably have high blood pressure :) and are probably male.
>
>If you describe me correctly, I will send you five bucks in cash.
>(It's not much, but it's five free dollars)
>It must be a detailed description, though, so you can prove how much you
>know.
How would your physical description follow from your posts?
>
>> It's an opinion. You're alowed.
>
>No I'm not. I changed my mind.
That's the nice thing about opinions. You can change them :-)
>
>> Quite right... in several meanings of the word :)
>> But the point is that even though they're pratical they aren't the
>> "truth" (as we currently see it to be :-)
>
>Ice is cold. Ice could be considered warm (Or hot) compared to absolute
>zero, but that doesn't change the fact that ice is cold.
Only when you use your body temperature as a reference point.
Something is "cold" by *comparison*.
I understand what you mean when you say that something is "cold". But
"cold" isn't a fact, it's a feeling. If you said the ice was 31F,
that would be a fact. It is something which is measurable and
repeatable.
Possibly we're having a semantics discussion concerning the use of the
word "fact". I also have a science background.
>
>Fire is hot. Fire could be said to be cold when compared to the surface of
>the sun, but fire is still hot.
See above.
>
>We all die. We could move on to eternal life, but we still all die.
To my knowledge, this is a fact... but it can't be proven...
at least not without killing everyone :)
>
>A raindrop is not a monsoon but is still water.
>
>God exists. You may or may not choose to believe it, but God exists.
>
>Truth is absolute.
Possibly in your use of the term.
Since I don't agree with it, let's agree to be civil?
>
>> Not to the gallery owner. Their only interest is whether or not they
>> can sell your paintings.
>
>Yeah, I know. I said that.
>
>> >I do not consider myself a nobody.
>> What you think is obviously irrelevant to the gallery owner... and
>> they're the ones who can put you where you seem to want to go.
>
>If they don't like my work, or don't want my work, I don't want to be in
>their gallery. Where I "want to go" is on a wall. I want my work to be
>hanging in public. A gallery, a restaurant, a bank, I don't care. As long
>as it gets put up in front of people.
Reasonable.
>
>What is important to me is to be recognized...Not with awards or sales,
>but mere recognition...I want to be seen as what I really am, not what my
>current job title says I am...I don't want 'fame' as much as I want to be
>acknowledged. For some reason, I can't tell if this makes any sense.
I believe I understand what you're trying to say.
I'd rather someone liked my paintings than "recognized" me.
Then I could do American Express commercials :)
>
>> Curious, isn't this the same attitude you attribute to Deli -- and
>> deride him for?
>>
>> Rhetorical question. No answer required :)
>
>Ya see, that isn't a rhetorical question. A rhetorical question is "Is the
>pope catholic?"..."Does the sky appear to be blue?"..."Isn't this a
>rhetorical question?" (That's a nifty meta-rhetorical question. Cool, hm?)
Re-read my comment above concerning opinions.
>
>Your question, on the other hand, does require a response.
>
>You have obviously not paid attention to the things I have said in regard
>to the matter. I take issue with M.D. because he present one ideal and
>then fails to live up to it. To hold the opinion that my work is better
>than or at least as good as work in a specific gallery is up to the work
>in question and my ability to analyze the qualitative characteristics of
>those works. I don't think I am the greatest, but I do know what's better
>than or worse than my own work.
Which is more or less what Mr. Deli is saying... IMO (just to make it
explicit).
>
>> >If they don't want it, I'm not breaking down and crying, I'm walking
>> >down the street to the next decent place. If that doesn't work, to the
>> >next...If none of it works...A private show...I have no time to be
>> >nobody.
>>
>> A lot of people are.
>
>A lot of people are what? (Choose One)
> A) Breaking down and crying?
> B) Walking down the street to the next decent place?
> C) Holding private shows?
> D) Nobodies?
D.
>
>
>> What you "NEED" is irrelevant.
>
>No it isn't. I am not making paintings to suit galleries. I am making them
>to stay alive, to stay sane...What I need is all that's relevant to what I
>do.
Not to the gallery owners.
>
>> >They are in it to sell,
>>
>> Yes. And *what* they sell is largely irrelevant to them.
>
>To some galleries, that's about the extent of things. To others, there are
>other issues to consider. For instance, I was rejected from one gallery,
>even though the owner loved my work, because i did not meet one of their
>base requirements: "We do not represent artists who have not been painting
>professionally for at least ten years." OK...So I'm up to 9 and a half,
>but the place went out of business 3 years ago...Other galleries select
>artists by discipline, or by style. It isn't set in stone that what they
>sell is irrelevant. Most are conscientious about their reputation in the
>area. There are all these specialist galleries that handle only outsider
>art, or only impressionist oils, or only bronze works...
They have criteria because that's what they wish to be known for.
Much like an artist selects a style, gallery owners tend to select one
also. It's usually determined by some personal interest and a lot of
what their clients expect to see.
Much like you can't buy Beef Wellington at McDonalds.
The reason for it is that McDonalds doesn't think their customers
would buy it. It doesn't make it good or bad. Just inappropriate.
Lots of peole have been told that their work is inappropriate.
Probably everyone at some time or other :)
>
>> The fact
>> that you think your stuff is better than most other peoples makes you
>> just like everyone else :-)
>
>Except for the fact that when I make that claim, I'm not blowing smoke.
My apology for inferring it.
>I don't make a comment like that just to amuse myself...I wouldn't dare
>have that opinion if I couldn't back myself up against the collection I
>was comparing myself to.
>
>> I thought you said you were in it for the money?
>
>That's what you get for trying to think.
Reread above comment.
>I said I did my job for money. The whole discussion you got that from was
>related to careers after art degrees...Not painting.
Actually, no. Reread above comment.
>
>I made the remark that it would be fine if everyone dropped out of school
>and went and did hard labor...I said there would be more opportunities for
>me...
Yes. This is coment I based my statement on.
>I did not say that those opportunities would be to sell-out
>artistically...The opportunities would be for advancement in a 'job'...
Which translates into money.
Difference of opinion: I'm *always* happy to see someone who is good
-- irrspeective of style. And I'm always happy to see someone who is
better than me.. there are very few things better than a good
painting.
>
>Try to pay attention.
<LOL> I was.
>
>> >On a different channel, the academic artistic morality network, I get
>> >irritated when 'outsider' art or something like that gets to hang in a
>> >gallery, but I know why it's there...because it sells...it's a trendy
>> >thing...
>>
>> So?
>
>So, nothing. That was just an admission of fact.
>I was trying to diffuse the Angry Young Artist notion you had, but I
>obviously failed. It is intellectually offensive to me that hacks and
>half-wits make killings in the market...but from a business point of view
>I completely understand it.
"Intellectually offensive" is a large term for angry. But, it's
possible we use words in a different sense... and as I said, this
could be a semantics issue.
Please consider what I've implied about the tone of your comments.
I'm not tring to preach to anyone -- I've made my share of unpleasant
comments -- some would say more than my share :-)
I think your mother might have had a point.
I guess I'm just tired of all of the personal comments.... please
don't take anything I've said as a personal attack/slur, it wasn't
intended that way.
mdeli
>
>The point about diplomas meaning nothing is incorrect.
>
>In the design market, unless you're connected, you won't get decent work
>without a degree. Your portfolio means nothing because there are a few
>thousand other people out there with portfolios and degrees.
So what means nothing? The portfolio or the degree? Design work? I
thought you didn't consider that art.
Doesn't the designer who can draw do better?
>
>Here is a real-world example:
>
>Without a degree, I did design work...subcontract basis...paid on wage
>scale.....
>
>With degree, I oversee design work, and make nearly 20K more per year.
>
>A degree means nothing??
If you are able to hold your job I suspect it has something more to do
with your abilities than your degree.
>Of course, the degree alone did not get me the job. Real world experience
>is better than classes...and I have had lots of experience...but:
>
Really!
>The best jobs will be listed as requiring at least a bachelors degree, and
>it is illegal for a company to hire below the listed qualifications. So,
>you will either have to lie on your resume or work for peanuts. Working
>for peanuts is not pleasant. Lying on your resume can get you fired, and
>sometimes prosecuted.
I know of lots of artists who have no degree and make somewhat more
than peanuts. However you are partially correct a degree will help if
you if you are a designer but its your abilities that will keep your
job.
However if you do real artwork like illustration, comics or show in a
gallery, a degree is of no consequence.
I've also seen lots of art directors and designers whose artwork
isn't worth peanuts.
>I can understand thegeneral disdain for the educational system, but this
>is all a game anyway. Better to play the game by the rules when the rules
>will get you further than defiance.
My whole point is that it doesn't have to be a game.
> In the eyes of employers, degrees mean
>accomplishment, credibility, reliability.
Until you start working at which point you are judged for your skill.
>They also mean you're worth more
>to start salary-wise. Couple your degree with as much real-life experience
>as you can get in the 2 or 3 years you have left and you have it made.
Are you suggesting that being capable of fine work will not allow
advancement unless you have a degree. I wonder how many fine
illustrators or comic artists had to show there degree instead of
their portfolio.
>None of this applies to Fine Art, sadly.
>To make it in fine arts takes more luck than skill.
Especially If you imitate Modern Academic Art.
MAni DeLi
...no skill no art
mdeli
>Mani de Li does not allow for the varied manifestations of skill.
>I could paint stupid fruitbowls all day long, but I don't WANT to.
After seeing your work I'm sure you could paint stupid fruitbowls.
Perhaps even as stupid as Matisse. But I doubt that you can do
anything less stupid.
>- Since I
>don't, my skill supposedly vanishes?
It never appeared.
>Plus, Mani de Li couldn't paint 'will
>work for food' on the back of a piece of cardboard. He doesnt even live up
>to his own standards.
Gee I never had reason to try. Are you an expert at this?
>> Maybe. Possibly you're just being bitter?
>
>Bitter about what?
>I am annoyed that some backwater lunatic can sell in New York while I'm
>told I'm TOO YOUNG.....???
>
>I am outraged that a pile of poop is shown at the Whitney while I am told
>my paintings are 'Too raw and urban' to be exhibited in UPTOWN NEW
>ORLEANS....???
>
>I am furious that some idiot in tights can videotape himself
>fingerpainting random words on a white wall and be written up in national
>magazines as a 'performance artist' while I had to bum money for food...
>
>But bitter? No.
So, you didn't win the Modern Art Lottery yet. Those who can't depend
on skill have to depend on connections. No luck, no connections.
That's the way the modern art cookie crumbles.
Mani DeLi
mdeli
On Tue, 17 Feb 1998 23:24:49 -0600, Brother Alphabet
<ja...@isis.msstate.edu> wrote:
>
>On Wed, 18 Feb 1998, mdeli wrote:
>
>> One studies art in order to make a living at something one likes
>> doing. Better artists generally make a better living.
>
>If this was true, I'd be a millionaire. My work is better than a huge
>percentage of the stuff that sells in galleries these days.
You are naive.
Your work probably is better than most of the stuff in the galleries.
However if you have watched stuff over the years you would realize
that what is required has always been something far worse than what
is in the galleries.
Any sensitive artist is aware of the steady deterioration from the
schmiers of Picasso, to cat vomit with goo-goo eyes of de Kooning to
the minimal chicken scratches of Twombley. And then there is the no
skill realist who wows the crowd by hanging his sub-Hong Kong schlock
upside down etc. Now that's the progress most of the aspiring greats
out there just haven't caught on too.
If you want to win the Modern Academic Art lottery, the idea is to do
painting or an installation that is far worse, not better, as fast as
you can and spend the majority of your time getting to the right
connections.
If it doesn't look like a put-on its got no modern art future.
Mani DeLi
Untouchable
Brother Alphabet wrote in message ...
>
>On Thu, 19 Feb 1998, mdeli wrote:
>> You are naive.
>
>Yo mama.
>
><Some Mani de Li yadayadayada Modern art whines removed>
>
>Make up your muddled mind.
>
>Hutto
etc...etc...
Go sleep.And go to the fresh air.And start to create art for a change.
You cannot catch the bright future reading this sad newsgroup. :)
Vicenzo.
D F Russell
BTW, thanks for putting my name on the banner.
Name recognition and all that :)
In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.980218...@Ra.MsState.Edu>, Brother Alphabet <ja...@isis.msstate.edu> writes:
|> On Thu, 19 Feb 1998, D F Russell wrote:
|>
|> > >Where did you find the time and money to take every art class in the
|> > >world?
|> > If I'm required to have taken "every art class in the world" to state
|> > an opinion, wouldn't the same be true of your comments?
|> > You seem to be floundering here... you're not thinking through the
|> > implications of your statements.
|>
|> The same would not be true of my comments, I am not floundering, and I am
|> thinking through the implications of my statements...
Possibly. To save time, I'm cropping everything I believe to be
personal opinion... or at least that didn't seem to have any resolution.
|> And now you say that you have a science background?
To correct you, I said I *also* have a science background. A background
which several other people here seem to share. All that means is that
I haven't "limited" my "vision" :)
|>
|> > >Have you ever seen the work of Moses Tolliver? He's a true visionary. A
|> > >brilliant man! Artistic genius. I recommend you buy as much of his work as
|> > >possible.
|> > No. I haven't. If you provide a location and I'm able, I'll look at
|> > it. But I don't usually like abstracts/expressionism etc.
|>
|> I wouldn't bother. He's one of those 'outsiders'. I hate his stuff, but
|> people buy it like discount beer.
Curious, above you said he was "a true visionary".
|> > Like it or not, we don't develop in a vacuum.
|>
|> I am not disallowing the value of influence, but that isn't the same as
|> imitation.
Then we have a semantics issue and can both go away happy :)
|> The empty words are empty precisely because of his work's quality.
|> He sets a measure, then falls short.
Many people do. It would seem better to me to set a high mark and
attempt to reach it than the opposite.
[...]
|> to be outspokenly critical of all I intake, especially in the visual
|> sense...The beastly dream doesn't like people who don't share the
|> goal...Get better, get better, get better, get better, get better...You
|> stop, you fail, you stop, you fail, you stop, you fail, you die.
As you said, it would seem we all die.
[...]
|> though. This is where I see the difference between myself and Mani de Li.
|> It seems that to him, skill must appear in a fenced-in area. To me, skill
|> appears in a wide variety of ways and in a wide variety of styles.
|>
|> He can't see skill in Picasso.
If one only picked specific pieces of Picasso's work, it would not
be difficult to say that. I'm sure Picasso had bad days and did some
work which he thought was crap.
|> > opinion. However firmly it may be held. It is an opinion.
|>
|> Yes, but my opinion and actual fact are so similar, it's scary.
Possibly to more people than just yourself :-)
|> > To be honest, I'm very reluctant to critique anyone -- anyone alive
|> > anyways. I have looked at both your's and Deli's work, though.
|>
|> Why the reluctance? I didn't put my stuff out there to just sit there
|> looking crappy.
I did look at them. I'll send you a note offline.
|> I like it when I can make eight or ten people look like idiots.
|> (Joking) I know what you mean. Every now and then I wonder when the crazed
|> net-fiend will show up to kill me.
Don't cross-post to rec.pets.cats -- they just might :)
|> > To my knowledge, this is a fact... but it can't be proven...
|> > at least not without killing everyone :)
|>
|> There's an idea.
|> We can just wait for Clinton to provoke the Iraqis to let loose some
|> anthrax.
Unfortunately, you may have a point. But I try to avoid politics...
|> >
|> > Not to the gallery owners.
|>
|> But, the gallery owners are the low-end of the chain
Not when you're trying to get your work hung.
|>, not the other way
|> around. The driving force of the market is the consumer, obviously. What
|> does the consumer want? To give money to the gallery guy, or to own a
|> painting? So, does the gallery guy MAKE the painting or does he just
|> find/facilitate the purchase of said painting? So who is important? If
|> there were no paintings, would the owner have a gallery?
Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. Marketing people do provide a
valuable service. Besides, do you want to be a marketer :-) ?
|> Who knows why the buyer wants what he wants?
A lot of "art" is bought like other commodities: as an investment...
particularly at the high-end.
|> > Probably time to go back to lurking :)
|>
|> Please don't do that.
|> I get bored trying to win an arguement with Mani de Li.
I have an aversion to long debates
Particularly public ones :)
---
Views expressed are personal and not necessarily shared by my employer.
LARSPAINTR
God will U ever be able to do all what was suggested?
Probably scares one to death...
But my 2c. worth is
simply
Paint painter Paint
Lars
itsalar...@aol.com Delete 'itsa' if sending E mail.