Joseph Marioni
Sally Porter
at the Columbus Museum of Art. I went to his home page to do a little
research. The critics love his work. I don't.
He is a monochrome painter that uses a roller to layer pigment on the
canvas. The paintings are about color on a support. The people who enjoy his
paintings do so because of the color.
My complaint is that Marioni is a craftsperson, not an artist. The
distinction must be made. Art and craft belong in separate categories. The
reviews praising his "art" are nauseating. He should be praised as a
craftsman, not an artist. How many museums filled with canvases of blocks of
color can this country stand? If this is great art, then boxes of brilliant
colored crayons and tubes of paint are too. Why even bother to spread them
on a support?
Check out his work and let me know your thoughts on the subject:
http://www.tiac.net/users/marioni/reviews.html
Sally Porter
Original Acrylic Paintings
http://home.columbus.rr.com/sallyporter/
Blue Moon
sallypor@SPAM_ME_NOTcolumbus.rr.com says...
>My complaint is that Marioni is a craftsperson, not an artist.
And it would appear that Marioni would be the first to
agree with you if the following, copied from the web
site you referred us to, is true:
"He calls himself a painter,
not an artist," says Belz of
Marioni. On a first visit to
Marioni's New York studio,
Belz assumed the sign
outside,"Painter," meant the
space had once belonged to
a commercial painting
company. It hadn't.
In works that at first seem
simple, Marioni teaches you
that red can range from
liturgical solemnity to
flamenco fiesta to something
that makes your eyes feel like
pepper has been rubbed in
them. And he shows that
color can induce emotional
reactions far more complex
than yellow equals happy and
black means sad.
For me the interesting thing about this 'artist' -- and yes,
I believe he is righfully an artist -- is that anyone could
be so obsessive as to produce this kind of work for years
on end without becoming distracted. Amazing. But when I read
of his methods I can see some reasoning in the endless pursuit
of perfection -- in creating the perfect color and the
perfect presentation of same. To each his/her own.
Vi...@ordinaire.com
Thanks for an interesting post. I'm sure you'll get lots of replies! I
looked at both Marioni's site and your site. My opinions follow your
statements.
"Sally Porter" <sallypor@SPAM_ME_NOTcolumbus.rr.com> wrote:
> The critically acclaimed painter, Joseph Marioni, will be soon be
> exhibited at the Columbus Museum of Art. I went to his home page to do a
> little research. The critics love his work. I don't.
>
> He is a monochrome painter that uses a roller to layer pigment on the
> canvas. The paintings are about color on a support. The people who enjoy
> his paintings do so because of the color.
There are many reasons to enjoy these paintings. One is indeed the color.
Another is seeing a particular point of view, or theory, translated into
specific works. In some viewers, the choice of color, the size and
dimensions of the work, and the environment of the work combine to evoke a
sensual and/or intellectual response. This last is difficult to state,
since, as Picasso said, *The important part of a painting is the part you
can't talk about*, meaning, I think, the part that is purely visual.
>
> My complaint is that Marioni is a craftsperson, not an artist. The
> distinction must be made. Art and craft belong in separate categories.
> The reviews praising his "art" are nauseating. He should be praised as a
> craftsman, not an artist. How many museums filled with canvases of blocks
> of color can this country stand? If this is great art, then boxes of
> brilliant colored crayons and tubes of paint are too. Why even bother to
> spread them on a support?
Marioni is a painter, whether his work is good or bad, and whether you like
it or not (it's not my favorite). The reason is stated in one of the
reviews on his page: his work is self-referential. This is the criterion
for a painting versus an illustration or other category of work.
Self-referential in this sense means that the work doesn't depend on
outside references for its validity. Figurative work can be
self-referential as well. For example, a Matisse portrait is a painting
because the artist chose the colors, the proportions, etc., using the
sitter as a resource rather than as an object to be copied faithfully. A
Norman Rockwell, on the other hand, is an illustration or a picture because
it depends on a faithful representation of its subject for its validity.
Check out Larry Seiler's wildlife work (he contributes to this
group and has a website). Larry's stuff is superb, really first-rate. It is
illustration, however, and not painting - because it depends on a faithful
reproduction of the subject for its validity. [Larry - love to hear your
opinion on this topic!]
Yeah, reviews can be pretty silly. I personally can never understand
anything I read in ArtForum. And I am not alone. But that says nothing
about the art, one way or the other.
All this is not to disparage painting, illustration, or craft. Just to
delineate the very specific differences between them.
I also checked out your work, and read your resume. It is amateur painting,
but it appears that you have talent. I recommend you do two things:
First, take art history courses, as many as you can. This is the only way
to understand how art evolved and where the work of the present fits in.
Also, you must know history to inform your own work. (Someone once said
that trying to paint without knowing art history was like trying to be an
economist without knowing about the Crash of '29.)
The second thing you need to do is take some classes in the fundamentals -
your work shows this lack. This can be difficult, since there are a lot of
lousy teachers out there and only a few good ones. Trust your instinct - if
you don't get the specific instructions you need, just general comments,
get another teacher. (This is a whole separate can of worms.)
I speak from experience - 25 years exhibiting in the US and Europe,
teaching, advanced degrees, etc. Hope this helped. I'd enjoy continuing to
discuss art with you!
Vinny
>
> Check out his work and let me know your thoughts on the subject:
> http://www.tiac.net/users/marioni/reviews.html
>
> Sally Porter
> Original Acrylic Paintings
> http://home.columbus.rr.com/sallyporter/
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet for the Web
peter nelson
Sally Porter wrote in message <2FqK2.73$s5.4...@storm.twcol.com>...
>The critically acclaimed painter, Joseph Marioni, will be soon be exhibited
>at the Columbus Museum of Art. I went to his home page to do a little
>research. The critics love his work. I don't.
The home page refers to actual designs on these canvases but all the
pictures look like perfectly uniform colored canvasses. So the best I can
say is that there's nothing obvious about them that suggest that they are
art or Marioni is an artist.
Since I often use colored gessos I apparently have lots of perfectly good
works of "art" around my sydio which I then go and ruin by putting figures,
portraits, and still-lifes on them.
>My complaint is that Marioni is a craftsperson, not an artist. The
>distinction must be made. Art and craft belong in separate categories.
I disagree with this distinction. I recently attended a crafts show
in Massachusetts and saw some beautiful quilts. Many of them were
enormous but made from tiny bits of carefully chosen cloth combining
to form intricate designs. Some of the designs were realistic and
some were abstract. My wife and I live in a large contemporary
where the downstairs is all open-concept and some of the walls
extend over 20 feet high, so we want art that works well at
many scales - i.e., close up, and at a distance. A quilt might
be just the thing.
But I fail to see why a quilt designer who creates images and
designs by the arrangement of different colored pieces of cloth is
any less of an artist than a painter who does the same thing
with different colored paints.
---peter
peter nelson
<19990325140813.179$x...@newsreader.com>...
>Sally -
>
>Marioni is a painter, whether his work is good or bad, and whether you like
>it or not (it's not my favorite). The reason is stated in one of the
>reviews on his page: his work is self-referential. This is the criterion
>for a painting versus an illustration or other category of work.
Whose criterion is this? By this "definition" may famous "paintings"
such as the Mona Lisa are not paintings but merely illustrations.
. . .
>Self-referential in this sense means that the work doesn't depend on
>outside references for its validity. Figurative work can be
>self-referential as well. For example, a Matisse portrait is a painting
>because the artist chose the colors, the proportions, etc., using the
>sitter as a resource rather than as an object to be copied faithfully.
>>>**ALL**<<< painters, artists, illustrators, or whatever you want to
call them do this!! Every painting is an abstraction to some degree,
and often it is not obvious unless you know the subject. I almost
always vary colors, proportions, etc in various ways to achieve
specific effects but anyone who looks at my paintings calls my
work realistic, sometimes even "photorealistic". (photorealistic
is a misnomer anyway because often paintings are MORE
realistic and accurate than a photograph of the same subject)
> A Norman Rockwell, on the other hand, is an illustration or a
> picture because it depends on a faithful representation of its
> subject for its validity.
This sounds like an arbitrary definition
. . .
>All this is not to disparage painting, illustration, or craft. Just to
>delineate the very specific differences between them.
But these appear to be your own, made-up definitions.
---peter
Marilyn
They are not!
I agree with them and most people I know would also agree.
Defensively holding to your entrenched
position:
that your way of painting is the only way,
it might be difficult for you to see the
perfect sense Vinny makes.
Marilyn
Vi...@ordinaire.com
> Vi...@Ordinaire.com wrote in message
> <19990325140813.179$x...@newsreader.com>...
> >Sally -
> >
> >Marioni is a painter, whether his work is good or bad, and whether you
> >like it or not (it's not my favorite). The reason is stated in one of
> >the reviews on his page: his work is self-referential. This is the
> >criterion for a painting versus an illustration or other category of
> >work.
>
> Whose criterion is this? By this "definition" may famous "paintings"
> such as the Mona Lisa are not paintings but merely illustrations.
Not at all. An illustration (or picture's) *sole* purpose is to describe
something that exists in the external world. The sole purpose of a
wildllife illustration of a snowy owl, for example, is to render the owl
exactly as it appears. With the Mona Lisa, we don't care about the model -
if there was one. The work itself gives us pleasure. It is it's own world,
independent of external sources (although it may draw on them).
> . . .
>
> >Self-referential in this sense means that the work doesn't depend on
> >outside references for its validity. Figurative work can be
> >self-referential as well. For example, a Matisse portrait is a painting
> >because the artist chose the colors, the proportions, etc., using the
> >sitter as a resource rather than as an object to be copied faithfully.
>
> >>>**ALL**<<< painters, artists, illustrators, or whatever you want
> >>>to
> call them do this!! Every painting is an abstraction to some degree,
> and often it is not obvious unless you know the subject. I almost
> always vary colors, proportions, etc in various ways to achieve
> specific effects but anyone who looks at my paintings calls my
> work realistic, sometimes even "photorealistic". (photorealistic
> is a misnomer anyway because often paintings are MORE
> realistic and accurate than a photograph of the same subject)
This has nothing to do with abstraction or realism.
>
> > A Norman Rockwell, on the other hand, is an illustration or a
> > picture because it depends on a faithful representation of its
> > subject for its validity.
I think my initial paragraph covers this.
> This sounds like an arbitrary definition
>
> >All this is not to disparage painting, illustration, or craft. Just to
> >delineate the very specific differences between them.
>
> But these appear to be your own, made-up definitions.
I wish! This is pretty standard theory. What you need to do is get some
art education, Peter. As for the subject of this discussion, see the book
Painting and Reality, by Etienne Gilson, for a clear discussion with far
more detail than I could give. He also provides the groundwork that leads
to these definitions, which will give you a better idea where they come
from. Gilson's book is available used from www.bibliofind.com. There are
lots of other texts on the subject; this is just one that I like.
Regards,
Vinny
> ---peter
emat...@tomatoweb.com
Vi...@Ordinaire.com wrote:
> Marioni is a painter, whether his work is good or bad, and whether you like
> it or not (it's not my favorite). The reason is stated in one of the
> reviews on his page: his work is self-referential. This is the criterion
> for a painting versus an illustration or other category of work.
> Self-referential in this sense means that the work doesn't depend on
> outside references for its validity. Figurative work can be
> self-referential as well. For example, a Matisse portrait is a painting
> because the artist chose the colors, the proportions, etc., using the
> sitter as a resource rather than as an object to be copied faithfully. A
> Norman Rockwell, on the other hand, is an illustration or a picture because
> it depends on a faithful representation of its subject for its validity.
>
I'm not raising a question about your use of the term 'self-referencial,'
Vinny, but I would like to point one thing out that could be confusing. The
term is also used in art criticism to mean a painting refering to itself as a
painting, independent of subject matter. To put it in other words, a
painting that has a lot of picture depth can also draw the viewers attention
to the fact that it is a two dimensional surface -- perhaps even an
'illusion'. (like a concert that almost puts you to sleep and suddenly
brings you back to the theatre with the rumblings of the tympany.)
Some of Gauguin's tropicals do this, I think. He constructed flat, almost
tapistry like landscapes, and dropped in figures that were modeled in a very
formal renaissance perspective. For me, at least, it creates kind of a
'push-me, pull-you' flip-flop tension, where the visual field keeps toggling
between some sort of space and some sort of flatness. The
'self-referenciality' of this, I would say, was that part of the toggle when
you understand that you are viewing a flat rectangle.
Erik Mattila
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
peter nelson
<19990326192544.235$f...@newsreader.com>...
>"peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>> >Marioni is a painter, whether his work is good or bad, and whether you
>> >like it or not (it's not my favorite). The reason is stated in one of
>> >the reviews on his page: his work is self-referential. This is the
>> >criterion for a painting versus an illustration or other category of
>> >work.
>>
>> Whose criterion is this? By this "definition" may famous "paintings"
>> such as the Mona Lisa are not paintings but merely illustrations.
>
>Not at all. An illustration (or picture's) *sole* purpose is to describe
>something that exists in the external world. The sole purpose of a
>wildllife illustration of a snowy owl, for example, is to render the owl
>exactly as it appears.
You have a knack for making sweeping claims without
the slightest attempt at justification!
I would suggest that you will have a very hard time
finding an example of the sort of illustrations you
are describing. I'm an avid birdwatcher. The closest
I can think of to such an illustration would be the
renderings in the Peterson's Guides. But even these
are DELIBERATE abstractions designed to overemphasize
what are known as "field marks" in order to aid
identification. Renderings which are too realistic
are not as useful (as anyone who has tried to rely
on the photos in the Audubon guides can attest).
(And indeed, Roger Tory Peterson's works have hung
in many art museums, selected by curators or panels
which disagree with your definition.)
ALL painting is an abstraction because it has to pass
through the mind of the artist who had to make
specific creative decisions about color, posing, design,
technique, etc, etc. If think otherwise then show us
two illustrations of the same subject by different
artists which are identical.
> With the Mona Lisa, we don't care about the model -
>if there was one.
It is generally believed to the wife of a French merchant,
Francesco di Bartolommeo di Zanobi del Giocondo.
Volumes have been written about her "enigmatic smile"
and other features.
The work itself gives us pleasure. It is it's own world,
>independent of external sources (although it may draw on them).
All representational art draws on a combination of the artist's
abstractions of some reality and the reality itself. What
you are saying may apply to totally nonrepresentational
art, but other art always has a tension between reality
and the abstraction of that reality.
>> Every painting is an abstraction to some degree,
>> and often it is not obvious unless you know the subject. I almost
>> always vary colors, proportions, etc in various ways to achieve
>> specific effects but anyone who looks at my paintings calls my
>> work realistic, sometimes even "photorealistic". (photorealistic
>> is a misnomer anyway because often paintings are MORE
>> realistic and accurate than a photograph of the same subject)
>
>This has nothing to do with abstraction or realism.
Another sweeping statement without basis. Do
you speak your own private language or is this English
we're using?
>> But these appear to be your own, made-up definitions.
>
>I wish! This is pretty standard theory. What you need to do
> is get some art education, Peter. As for the subject of this
> discussion, see the book Painting and Reality, by Etienne
> Gilson, for a clear discussion with far more detail than
> I could give.
But these are just HIS opinions. They are not the "standard"
definitions by any means. I can find dozens of
museums in a half hour drive of my house where
they are perfectly happy to call what you call "illustration"
"paintings" and "art".
It sounds like you practicing exactly the sort of academic
thought disconnected from reality that has been plaguing
this board. The correct definition of any word is DEscriptive,
not PREscriptive proicess. It cannot be declared from
on-high, it must respect usage.
---peter
mdeli
>"peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>> Whose criterion is this? By this "definition" may famous "paintings"
>> such as the Mona Lisa are not paintings but merely illustrations.
>
>Not at all. An illustration (or picture's) *sole* purpose is to describe
>something that exists in the external world.
Corot, Ingres, Canaletto, Rembrandt? They are all illustrators
according to this definition.
The term Illustration generally refers to artwork done to clarify or
supplement text or ideas usually for a commercial purpose. It falls
into the category of Commercial Art. Commercial art is art done for
payment.
However most all artwork with minor exceptions, is done for payment
and is thus commercial. The word commercial refers to economics.
Whether an art work possesses merit (is fine art) has nothing to do
with whether it is commercial.
However, when a modern art critic wants to pan a picture which he
feels is politically incorrect he labels it illustration. Illustration
is the Modern Academic Art label equivalent to blasphemy. It is also
used as a derogatory term by art teachers. "We teach Art here not
illustration," is really an excuse used by teachers who don't know
their craft.
There really is no concrete aesthetic distinction between fine art and
illustration.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
peter nelson
Marilyn wrote in message <36FC63...@bc.ca>...
>> > A Norman Rockwell, on the other hand, is an illustration or a
>> > picture because it depends on a faithful representation of its
>> > subject for its validity.
>>
>> This sounds like an arbitrary definition
>>
>> . . .
>>
>> >All this is not to disparage painting, illustration, or craft. Just to
>> >delineate the very specific differences between them.
>>
>> But these appear to be your own, made-up definitions.
>>
>> ---peter
>
>
>They are not!
>I agree with them and most people I know would also agree.
Agree with what? That Rockwell did not do paintings?
Or that he was an illustrator? I agree he was an illustrator.
But to suggest that he was not a painter is absurd on
the face of it. The two categories are not mutually
exclusive.
In any case, the suggestion that "illustration" is somehow
a different category of art than, say, the Mona Lisa, is
elitist nonsense. It is somewhat akin to saying that
Bach's Goldberg Variations are not music because they
were written on commission, or that Debussy's La Mer
is not music because it is descriptive or programmatic.
>Defensively holding to your entrenched
>position: that your way of painting is the only way,
Here's a challenge for you: find even one single line
that I have ever posted which suggests that my painting
is the only way.
All I'm saying is that there is no categorical difference
between the works or Rockwell, DaVinci, Parrish, and
Matisse.
---peter
Marilyn
> Here's a challenge for you: find even one single line
> that I have ever posted which suggests that my painting
> is the only way.
>
> All I'm saying is that there is no categorical difference
> between the works or Rockwell, DaVinci, Parrish, and
> Matisse.
>
> ---peter
I'll take you up on the second paragraph.
It left me speechless. How well can you know the works
of these disparate artists to mention them as one category?
It warrants no further discussion but it reveals a certain
lack of aesthetic discrimination on your part.
Marilyn
Vi...@ordinaire.com
> > All I'm saying is that there is no categorical difference
> > between the works or Rockwell, DaVinci, Parrish, and
> > Matisse.
> >
> > ---peter
>
> I'll take you up on the second paragraph.
> It left me speechless. How well can you know the works
> of these disparate artists to mention them as one category?
> It warrants no further discussion but it reveals a certain
> lack of aesthetic discrimination on your part.
>
> Marilyn
Marilyn -
I agree. This guy just wants to argue, not discuss - and he's
certainly not willing to open his mind to new ideas. I personally got
better things to do - like paint.
Later,
Vinny
Vi...@ordinaire.com
> In article <19990325140813.179$x...@newsreader.com>,
> Vi...@Ordinaire.com wrote:
>
>
> I'm not raising a question about your use of the term 'self-referencial,'
> Vinny, but I would like to point one thing out that could be confusing.
> The term is also used in art criticism to mean a painting refering to
> itself as a painting, independent of subject matter. To put it in other
> words, a painting that has a lot of picture depth can also draw the
> viewers attention to the fact that it is a two dimensional surface --
> perhaps even an 'illusion'. (like a concert that almost puts you to
> sleep and suddenly brings you back to the theatre with the rumblings of
> the tympany.)
>
> Some of Gauguin's tropicals do this, I think. He constructed flat,
> almost tapistry like landscapes, and dropped in figures that were modeled
> in a very formal renaissance perspective. For me, at least, it creates
> kind of a 'push-me, pull-you' flip-flop tension, where the visual field
> keeps toggling between some sort of space and some sort of flatness. The
> 'self-referenciality' of this, I would say, was that part of the toggle
> when you understand that you are viewing a flat rectangle.
>
> Erik Mattila
An excellent point. My use of the term self-referential is a bit inaccurate
from this perspective (pun intended!). What I mean is that painting (or a
work of literature, for that matter) creates its own world. Elements of
that world may resemble the outside world - a woman may have two eyes,
nose, mouth, etc. - but that there is no necessity for this. Physical
distortion, freedom with color, and other liberties are part and parcel of
art. In literature, an author's descriptions of actual places, as well as
customs, dress, speech, and other elements need not resemble their current
or historical counterparts: the book is a self-contained universe,
responsible only to itself. Its purpose, like that of art, is to delight,
not to inform.
Illustration, on the other hand, depends completely on fidelity to the
source for its value. If Norman Rockwell's village folk had had green skin
or distorted proportions, his work would have failed as illustration.
Similarly, someone writing a biography depends on historical accuracy for
the value of the work.
To be fair, I looked up Gilson's work (Painting and Reality) again. The
English translation I have uses the word picture, not illustration, and I
don't have the French edition. Perhaps the distinction is that illustration
is usually done with a secondary purpose - a magazine cover, an
advertisement, or (I would say) a wildlife subject in a descriptive book. A
*picture* might not carry this additional definition.
In any event, it's a complex and very interesting subject - I don't pretend
to have the last word on it. Thanks for an interesting commentary, Eric.
Vinny
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
--
-
Ariane
On Sun, 28 Mar 1999, Marilyn wrote:
> peter nelson wrote:
>
> > All I'm saying is that there is no categorical difference
> > between the works or Rockwell, DaVinci, Parrish, and
> > Matisse.
> >
> > ---peter
>
> I'll take you up on the second paragraph.
> It left me speechless. How well can you know the works
> of these disparate artists to mention them as one category?
> It warrants no further discussion but it reveals a certain
> lack of aesthetic discrimination on your part.
>
> Marilyn
=== Analogously we could also say that there's no categorical difference
between Mozart, Miles Davis, Led Zeppelin, and the Sex Pistols.......Even
if we like them all, there IS a difference between them.....
A.
emat...@tomatoweb.com
Vi...@Ordinaire.com wrote:
> Marilyn <m...@bc.ca> wrote:
>
> > > All I'm saying is that there is no categorical difference
> > > between the works or Rockwell, DaVinci, Parrish, and
> > > Matisse.
> > >
> > > ---peter
> >
> > I'll take you up on the second paragraph.
> > It left me speechless. How well can you know the works
> > of these disparate artists to mention them as one category?
> > It warrants no further discussion but it reveals a certain
> > lack of aesthetic discrimination on your part.
> >
> > Marilyn
>
>
> I agree. This guy just wants to argue, not discuss - and he's
> certainly not willing to open his mind to new ideas. I personally got
> better things to do - like paint.
>
But these are taxonimic distinctions that are being played out here. I could
certainly build a taxonomy where Peter's statement holds true, or sounds
reasonable at least. The works or Rockwell, DaVinci, Parrish, and Matisse
possess common characteristics that could be cited as typological. (I'm
thinking of -N's post of the 'Chinese Philosopher's' system found in Foucault
-- 'from a long way off resemble flies').
But Marilyn's intervention has great merit also, insofar as an important
aspect of the usefulness of a taxonomic structure is consensus and
convention, and the 'authority' of Marilyn's statement derives from
convention. (I'm actually talking about her statement in response to Peter's
claim of 'made-up definitions'--"They are not! I agree with them and most
people I know would also agree".)
Of course Foucault goes on to say that these collective agreements on the
authority of a particular taxonomy underlay the 'episteme', or the essential
belief system of a particular culture. In some ways - very important ways -
our method of organizing the world into these systems describes. And the
systems are never completely static -- for example Linnean Taxonomy is
contstantly being revised, especially now by the intervention of claddistics
and genetic research. I think this is interesting because it is the terrain
where we can talk about cultural determinates of aesthetic value in a very
realistic way.
I would like to add, however, that Norman Rockwell is a very poor example of
an 'illustrator,' in my opinion. The term 'illustrator' derives from the
graphic arts industry -- we used to have 'production artists', 'designers'
and 'illustrators' working in concert to produce advertising design (this has
all changed with greater divisions of labor and the advent of computers).
Rockwell's commissions from the Saturday Evening Post were, in the industry's
terms, commissions for 'illustration.' But what differentiates Rockwell from
an illustrator is the heavy ideological content of his work. Think of it in
terms of Dorfman and Mattleart's "How to Read Donald Duck' classic, where
something as seemingly benign as Walt Disney comics is shown to be a major
instrument of ideological "Yankee Imperialism" in Latin America. I don't
think that this is the work of 'illustrators' at all (unless we think of it
in terms of 'illustrating' ideological propaganda).
Erik Mattila
peter nelson
Marilyn wrote in message <36FE53...@bc.ca>...
>peter nelson wrote:
>
>> Here's a challenge for you: find even one single line
>> that I have ever posted which suggests that my painting
>> is the only way.
>>
>> between the works or Rockwell, DaVinci, Parrish, and
>> Matisse.
> I'll take you up on the second paragraph.
>It left me speechless. How well can you know the works
>of these disparate artists to mention them as one category?
They are all art, and with the exception of some of the works
by Matisse they are all painting. That is what we were
discussing.
Vinny was suggesting that a work such as the Mona Lisa
was categorically different from, say, one by Rockwell.
I say this is elitist nonsense. Obviously they are distinct
in terms of style, treatment, technique, etc. But fundamentally
they are both art and both painting.
---peter
peter nelson
<19990328123435.226$X...@newsreader.com>...
>I agree. This guy just wants to argue, not discuss - and he's
>certainly not willing to open his mind to new ideas. I personally got
>better things to do - like paint.
In other words, you realize you can't defend your position
except by falling back on claims of authority.
When I was in high school in the late 1960's I was generally
pretty well behaved but I did get a detention once for arguing
with my music teacher when he said that Beethoven wrote
music but the Beatles did not. I pointed out that even
Beethoven wrote many works on commission or for commercial
reasons. And he retorted that unlike Beethoven who is
still remembered today, the Beatles would soon be forgotten
once their hits were no longer in the Top 40.
So I have a long history of standing up to artistic snobbery.
---peter
peter nelson
>> > All I'm saying is that there is no categorical difference
>> > between the works or Rockwell, DaVinci, Parrish, and
>> > Matisse.
>> >
>> > ---peter
>>
>> I'll take you up on the second paragraph.
>> It left me speechless. How well can you know the works
>> of these disparate artists to mention them as one category?
>> It warrants no further discussion but it reveals a certain
>> lack of aesthetic discrimination on your part.
>>
>> Marilyn
>
>=== Analogously we could also say that there's no categorical difference
>between Mozart, Miles Davis, Led Zeppelin, and the Sex Pistols.......Even
>if we like them all, there IS a difference between them.....
More to the point they all make music. In at sense they are
all categorically the same. Vinny was claiming that DaVinci
made paintings but Rockwell, et al, did not. This would be a
bit like saying that Mozart made music but Led Zeppelin only
makes sounds.
---peter
Marilyn
>
> Marilyn wrote in message <36FE53...@bc.ca>...
> >peter nelson wrote:
> >
> >> Here's a challenge for you: find even one single line
> >> that I have ever posted which suggests that my painting
> >> is the only way.
> >>
> >> between the works or Rockwell, DaVinci, Parrish, and
> >> Matisse.
>
> >It left me speechless. How well can you know the works
> >of these disparate artists to mention them as one category?
>
> by Matisse they are all painting. That is what we were
> discussing.
>
> Vinny was suggesting that a work such as the Mona Lisa
> was categorically different from, say, one by Rockwell.
> I say this is elitist nonsense. Obviously they are distinct
> in terms of style, treatment, technique, etc. But fundamentally
> they are both art and both painting.
>
> ---peter
Okay, you win, you want to call Rockwell's commercial illustrative
propaganda, "art", that's your right to do so.
You want to put it in the same category as a masterpiece painting
by Leonardo da Vinci, that's your right to do so.
Marilyn
Vi...@ordinaire.com
Your post gave me much food for thought. I'll add my immediate comments
and look forward to your response. In the meantime, I'll be thinking about
these issues - they address some of the problems I've been thinking about
and discussing with other artists for years.
emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
> In article <19990328123435.226$X...@newsreader.com>,
> Vi...@Ordinaire.com wrote:
> > Marilyn <m...@bc.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > > All I'm saying is that there is no categorical difference
> > > > between the works or Rockwell, DaVinci, Parrish, and
> > > > Matisse.
> > > >
> > > > ---peter
> > >
> > > I'll take you up on the second paragraph.
> > > It left me speechless. How well can you know the works
> > > of these disparate artists to mention them as one category?
> > > It warrants no further discussion but it reveals a certain
> > > lack of aesthetic discrimination on your part.
> > >
> > > Marilyn
> >
> > Marilyn -
> >
> > I agree. This guy just wants to argue, not discuss - and he's
> > certainly not willing to open his mind to new ideas. I personally got
> > better things to do - like paint.
> >
>
> But these are taxonimic distinctions that are being played out here. I
> could certainly build a taxonomy where Peter's statement holds true, or
> sounds reasonable at least. The works or Rockwell, DaVinci, Parrish, and
> Matisse possess common characteristics that could be cited as
> typological. (I'm thinking of -N's post of the 'Chinese Philosopher's'
> system found in Foucault -- 'from a long way off resemble flies').
Yes. A superficial taxonomy might specify all those who use paint on a
support, who paint recognizable objects, etc. Certainly Rockwell, Matisse,
Leonardo, and Leroy Neiman all fall into this category - as do painters of
Elvis on black velvet. Further taxonomic distinctions might recognize
abstract painters - which would include not only deKooning and Rothko, but
makers of decorative commercial abstract art.
The fascinating step in positing a taxonomy of art would, I believe,
involve the differentiation between a Rockwell and a Matisse, a velvet
Elvis and a Picasso. Under the superficial taxonomy I just described, they
are the same. They are, of course, as different as men and apes - slight
differences in DNA producing major differences in the result, you might
say.
>
> But Marilyn's intervention has great merit also, insofar as an important
> aspect of the usefulness of a taxonomic structure is consensus and
> convention, and the 'authority' of Marilyn's statement derives from
> convention. (I'm actually talking about her statement in response to
> Peter's claim of 'made-up definitions'--"They are not! I agree with them
> and most people I know would also agree".)
Intervention - yes! I think that Marilyn was speaking to Peter's statement
that what I'd said was only my arbitrary opinions, demonstrably false
since, as she said, many others hold these opinions. However, this says
nothing about the *validity* of my statements. I read recently that 45
percent of Americans believe that the world was created 6,000 years ago, by
God, in seven days. Now, there's a consensus for you! - in favor of patent
nonsense.
The possible consensus (and therefore usefulness) of our painting taxonomy
is limited, I think, by the difficulty
of further differentiating art. Everyone can
agree on simple classifications such as painting/drawing,
figurative/abstract, canvas/paper, and so forth, because these distinctions
are physical, not aesthetic. But given, say, Rockwell and Matisse, how do
we construct elements of our taxonomy to clearly differentiate their work?
> Of course Foucault goes on to say that these collective agreements on the
> authority of a particular taxonomy underlay the 'episteme', or the
> essential belief system of a particular culture. In some ways - very
> important ways - our method of organizing the world into these systems
> describes. And the systems are never completely static -- for example
> Linnean Taxonomy is contstantly being revised, especially now by the
> intervention of claddistics and genetic research. I think this is
> interesting because it is the terrain where we can talk about cultural
> determinates of aesthetic value in a very realistic way.
This paragraph sent me to the dictionary (cladistics!). I suppose we could
say that people who like to look at Rockwell and Disney subscribe to one
belief system, those who like Leroy Neiman and Peter Max to another, and
those who go for Matisse, Rothko, etc., to still another. How culture
determines our aestheic appreciation is probably the key to all of this.
>
> I would like to add, however, that Norman Rockwell is a very poor example
> of an 'illustrator,' in my opinion. The term 'illustrator' derives from
> the graphic arts industry -- we used to have 'production artists',
> 'designers' and 'illustrators' working in concert to produce advertising
> design (this has all changed with greater divisions of labor and the
> advent of computers). Rockwell's commissions from the Saturday Evening
> Post were, in the industry's terms, commissions for 'illustration.' But
> what differentiates Rockwell from an illustrator is the heavy ideological
> content of his work. Think of it in terms of Dorfman and Mattleart's
> "How to Read Donald Duck' classic, where something as seemingly benign as
> Walt Disney comics is shown to be a major instrument of ideological
> "Yankee Imperialism" in Latin America. I don't think that this is the
> work of 'illustrators' at all (unless we think of it in terms of
> 'illustrating' ideological propaganda).
Yeah, I know - but what do we call Rockwell? He's not an artist; he called
himself an illustrator. His work existed only to decorate magazine covers
with illustrations of a fantasy America designed to sell the magazine. How
about *commercial artist* instead?
Then you have other categories like Leroy Neiman, who create commercial art
designed to masquerade as real art to the unsophisticated. Where do we
put their work, and what do we call it?
Thanks for a fascinating post. I'll be thinking about this.
Vinny
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
Marilyn <m...@bc.ca> wrote:
> peter nelson wrote:
> >
> > Marilyn wrote in message <36FE53...@bc.ca>...
> > >peter nelson wrote:
> > >
> > >> Here's a challenge for you: find even one single line
> > >> that I have ever posted which suggests that my painting
> > >> is the only way.
> > >>
> > >> between the works or Rockwell, DaVinci, Parrish, and
> > >> Matisse.
> >
> > >It left me speechless. How well can you know the works
> > >of these disparate artists to mention them as one category?
> >
> > by Matisse they are all painting. That is what we were
> > discussing.
> >
> > Vinny was suggesting that a work such as the Mona Lisa
> > was categorically different from, say, one by Rockwell.
> > I say this is elitist nonsense. Obviously they are distinct
> > in terms of style, treatment, technique, etc. But fundamentally
> > they are both art and both painting.
> >
> > ---peter
>
> Okay, you win, you want to call Rockwell's commercial illustrative
> propaganda, "art", that's your right to do so.
>
> You want to put it in the same category as a masterpiece painting
> by Leonardo da Vinci, that's your right to do so.
If The Piss-Christ is "art," Rockwell is *easily* art.
Get over it.
peter nelson
>peter nelson wrote:>> They are all art, and with the exception of some of
the works
>Okay, you win, you want to call Rockwell's commercial illustrative
>propaganda, "art", that's your right to do so.
>
>You want to put it in the same category as a masterpiece painting
>by Leonardo da Vinci, that's your right to do so.
Good, I'm glad you see it my way. Tastes differ, and as mdeli
is fond of pointing out, skills differ, but fundamentally they are
all artists bringing their particular vision to the canvas.
What does commercial have to do with it, anyway?
You don't think that DaVinci was motivated by
commercial considerations??? By most accounts
the Mona Lisa was commissioned by a merchant
as a painting of his wife. How is this different than
doing a painting for the Saturday Evening Post?
We see this come up again and again. The idea that
art which is done for money is somehow of a lower
order than art which is done for love. And every
single time someone reminds us that almost all the
great painters and great composers worked
for MONEY. What's wrong with that? Artists
gotta eat.
Ditto for propaganda. Michaelangelo's paintings
on the ceiling of the Sistine chapel, not to mention
DaVinci's Last Supper were both propaganda for the
Church. How is this different than Rockwell's Four
Freedom's propaganda?
---peter
Ariane
On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, mdeli wrote:
> On 29 Mar 1999 17:34:24 GMT, Vi...@Ordinaire.com wrote:
> >. But given, say, Rockwell and Matisse, how do
> >we construct elements of our taxonomy to clearly differentiate their work?
>
> Rockwell could draw Matisse couldn't.
(Translation: Rockwell was American, Matisse wasn't).
> > I suppose we could
> >say that people who like to look at Rockwell and Disney subscribe to one
> >belief system, those who like Leroy Neiman and Peter Max to another, and
> >those who go for Matisse, Rothko, etc., to still another. How culture
> >determines our aestheic appreciation is probably the key to all of this.
>
> I think its advertising.
!
> >Yeah, I know - but what do we call Rockwell? He's not an artist; he
> called >himself an illustrator. His work existed only to decorate
> magazine covers >with illustrations of a fantasy America designed to
> sell the magazine. How >about *commercial artist* instead?
>
> How about a popular competent artist.
>
> >Then you have other categories like Leroy Neiman, who create commercial art
> >designed to masquerade as real art to the unsophisticated. Where do we
> >put their work, and what do we call it?
>
> And what do we call a charlatan masquerading as a genius? (Cezanne,
> Matisse, Rothko, Twombly etc.)
=== Beyond you.....
> Why waste effort on what to call artists? (most artzy fartzies here do
> little else) Why not concentrate on the reasons a work is competent
> and interesting to look at.
=== Why not take your own advice? You mention no specific works. Why is
Matisse's `Harmonie en Rouge' so successful? Why does it still attract so
many people (besides bitter artist haters)? Why do Picasso's blue
period self-portraits still attract an audience?
A.
mdeli
>we construct elements of our taxonomy to clearly differentiate their work?
Rockwell could draw Matisse couldn't.
> I suppose we could
>say that people who like to look at Rockwell and Disney subscribe to one
>belief system, those who like Leroy Neiman and Peter Max to another, and
>those who go for Matisse, Rothko, etc., to still another. How culture
>determines our aestheic appreciation is probably the key to all of this.
I think its advertising.
>Yeah, I know - but what do we call Rockwell? He's not an artist; he called
>himself an illustrator. His work existed only to decorate magazine covers
>with illustrations of a fantasy America designed to sell the magazine. How
>about *commercial artist* instead?
How about a popular competent artist.
>Then you have other categories like Leroy Neiman, who create commercial art
>designed to masquerade as real art to the unsophisticated. Where do we
>put their work, and what do we call it?
And what do we call a charlatan masquerading as a genius? (Cezanne,
Matisse, Rothko, Twombly etc.)
Why waste effort on what to call artists? (most artzy fartzies here do
little else) Why not concentrate on the reasons a work is competent
and interesting to look at.
Mani DeLi
mdeli
>propaganda, "art", that's your right to do so.
>
>You want to put it in the same category as a masterpiece painting
>by Leonardo da Vinci, that's your right to do so.
>
Wow, its not often you can get permision from Marilyn. Good for you
Peter.
emat...@tomatoweb.com
Vi...@Ordinaire.com wrote:
> Yes. A superficial taxonomy might specify all those who use paint on a
> support, who paint recognizable objects, etc. Certainly Rockwell, Matisse,
> Leonardo, and Leroy Neiman all fall into this category - as do painters of
> Elvis on black velvet. Further taxonomic distinctions might recognize
> abstract painters - which would include not only deKooning and Rothko, but
> makers of decorative commercial abstract art.
>
> The fascinating step in positing a taxonomy of art would, I believe,
> involve the differentiation between a Rockwell and a Matisse, a velvet
> Elvis and a Picasso. Under the superficial taxonomy I just described, they
> are the same. They are, of course, as different as men and apes - slight
> differences in DNA producing major differences in the result, you might
> say.
One very interesting example is Alfred Barr's taxonomy (family tree) of modern
art ( I can't remember which book it was in, but I think it's this:_
Barr, Alfred Hamilton, 1902-. Cubism and abstract art : painting, sculpture,
constructions, photography, architecture, industrial art, theatre, films,
posters, typography /, Alfred H. Barr, Jr. Cambridge, Mass. : Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press, 1986, c1936. 249 p.
His family tree seems reasonable, even believable, until you look at it
critically. The one question that comes to bear is the legitimacy of the
idea of 'influence.' As the discipline of art history has it, if you claim
that Sequieros, Orozco and Rivera were 'influenced' by Italian Futurism, you
have to present some pretty concrete evidence to back up your claim. So much
of the 'influence' implied in Barr's diagram is merely assumed, based solely
on resembalance. There are a myriad of conditions that could lead up to one
paintng resembling another, so without evidence it is only speculation (like
two artists getting from the same source -- say African Sculpture, for
example -- it this case Barr's diagram should have 'African "Sculpture'
somewhere at the base of the tree with discrete evolutionary branches comming
out of that node.)
Frederic Docksteader created a typological distinction between American
Indian and European painting, based on the lack of Indian painting examples
on a rectangular surface. In this typology of course Rockwell and DaVinci
would occupy the same type. But his typology would fall apart anyway when we
consider the non-rectangular format of much European art and the Indian
murals either in Tewa Pueblos or Bomanpak which of course were rectangular.
But for the purpose of his argument-it was a useful distinction. (I had one
Omaha student write in a paper "I never saw a square buffalo!)
But you know, I ran across this once: The distinction in Linnean taxonomy
between the Bird of Pardise and the Bower Bird is the shape of a bone in the
middle toe. I thought that was interesting because I would be inclined to
differntiate between the two on the basis of feathers.
> > But Marilyn's intervention has great merit also, insofar as an important
> > aspect of the usefulness of a taxonomic structure is consensus and
> > convention, and the 'authority' of Marilyn's statement derives from
> > convention. (I'm actually talking about her statement in response to
> > Peter's claim of 'made-up definitions'--"They are not! I agree with them
> > and most people I know would also agree".)
>
> Intervention - yes! I think that Marilyn was speaking to Peter's statement
> that what I'd said was only my arbitrary opinions, demonstrably false
> since, as she said, many others hold these opinions. However, this says
> nothing about the *validity* of my statements. I read recently that 45
> percent of Americans believe that the world was created 6,000 years ago, by
> God, in seven days. Now, there's a consensus for you! - in favor of patent
> nonsense.
>
> The possible consensus (and therefore usefulness) of our painting taxonomy
> is limited, I think, by the difficulty
> of further differentiating art. Everyone can
> agree on simple classifications such as painting/drawing,
> figurative/abstract, canvas/paper, and so forth, because these distinctions
> are physical, not aesthetic. But given, say, Rockwell and Matisse, how do
> we construct elements of our taxonomy to clearly differentiate their work?
I think you could build a pretty solid typology of positions on 'what is art'
using the posts of this newsgroup for your sample population. I expect that
it would be surprising, as a matter of fact, that there would only be a few
categories in the project. It seems complex on its face, as so many words
are exchanged if various textural environments, but once the 'concepts'
behind various positions are sorted out there would probably be two or three
"kingdoms' in the system, with very short subcategories. And you can
construct a parallel taxonomy of 'concepts' that inform these various
positions. In my own case, for example, I am clearly 'informed' by critical
theory in my idea of 'what is art.' At any rate, the construction of the
typology is always the first step in scholarship. Often, the weakness or
strength of the study itself will be determined by the legitimacy of the
typology.
>
> > Of course Foucault goes on to say that these collective agreements on the
> > authority of a particular taxonomy underlay the 'episteme', or the
> > essential belief system of a particular culture. In some ways - very
> > important ways - our method of organizing the world into these systems
> > describes. And the systems are never completely static -- for example
> > Linnean Taxonomy is contstantly being revised, especially now by the
> > intervention of claddistics and genetic research. I think this is
> > interesting because it is the terrain where we can talk about cultural
> > determinates of aesthetic value in a very realistic way.
>
> This paragraph sent me to the dictionary (cladistics!). I suppose we could
> say that people who like to look at Rockwell and Disney subscribe to one
> belief system, those who like Leroy Neiman and Peter Max to another, and
> those who go for Matisse, Rothko, etc., to still another. How culture
> determines our aestheic appreciation is probably the key to all of this.
I was forced against my will to take a course in Physical Antropology once,
and I was introduced to claddistics, which looked at things differently than
did straight Linnean taxonomy.
But I suppose that different belief systems is at work, but the issue to me
is one of the collapse of categories. What was formerly very useful, i.e.
"ART" has to some extent lost its usefulness, since the categories have
become blurred by recent history.
>
> >
> > I would like to add, however, that Norman Rockwell is a very poor example
> > of an 'illustrator,' in my opinion. The term 'illustrator' derives from
> > the graphic arts industry -- we used to have 'production artists',
> > 'designers' and 'illustrators' working in concert to produce advertising
> > design (this has all changed with greater divisions of labor and the
> > advent of computers). Rockwell's commissions from the Saturday Evening
> > Post were, in the industry's terms, commissions for 'illustration.' But
> > what differentiates Rockwell from an illustrator is the heavy ideological
> > content of his work. Think of it in terms of Dorfman and Mattleart's
> > "How to Read Donald Duck' classic, where something as seemingly benign as
> > Walt Disney comics is shown to be a major instrument of ideological
> > "Yankee Imperialism" in Latin America. I don't think that this is the
> > work of 'illustrators' at all (unless we think of it in terms of
> > 'illustrating' ideological propaganda).
>
> Yeah, I know - but what do we call Rockwell? He's not an artist; he called
> himself an illustrator. His work existed only to decorate magazine covers
> with illustrations of a fantasy America designed to sell the magazine. How
> about *commercial artist* instead?
>
> Then you have other categories like Leroy Neiman, who create commercial art
> designed to masquerade as real art to the unsophisticated. Where do we
> put their work, and what do we call it?
The tactic used by many theorists has been to replace the category "ART" with
a super-category "Visual Culture." This is not to say that the old category
"ART" is alive and well within the new super-category. Again, this move was
to make scholarship intelligible. When you look at an essay like Benjamin's
"The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" you see he's talking
about the collapse of the older category due to the intervention of printing,
film, and mass media -- which challenges us to develop a new taxonomy of
'visual culture.'
So we hang on to the idea that "ART" is a 'one-off' sort of thing, with the
exception of printmaking, which is now engaged in a lot of controversy
because many artists are producing 1000+ 'limited editions' in offset
lithography and so on. Some are shouting 'that's not fair' and others are
laughing all the way to the bank.
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
> > >we construct elements of our taxonomy to clearly differentiate their work?
> >
>
What the fuck is it with Canadians and their hard-on about Americans?
Is this the *ONLY* lame-ass excuse you can *ever* come up with?
Whether you like either Rockwell (I don't) or Matisse (I don't),
Matisse couldn't draw worth a shit. Get over it.
Marilyn
>
> In article <19990329123424.581$r...@newsreader.com>,
> Vi...@Ordinaire.com wrote:
>
> > Intervention - yes! I think that Marilyn was speaking to Peter's statement
> > that what I'd said was only my arbitrary opinions, demonstrably false
> > since, as she said, many others hold these opinions. However, this says
> > nothing about the *validity* of my statements. I read recently that 45
> > percent of Americans believe that the world was created 6,000 years ago, by
> > God, in seven days. Now, there's a consensus for you! - in favor of patent
> > nonsense.
> >
You would take a particular, a consensus among a small group of artists
(who are not conventional thinkers) and you compare that to
a consensus of the American population (a random group supposedly)
45% of whom believe in the creation theory. Now that's patent nonsense.
Marilyn
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
Marilyn <m...@bc.ca> wrote:
> emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <19990329123424.581$r...@newsreader.com>,
> > Vi...@Ordinaire.com wrote:
> >
>
> > > Intervention - yes! I think that Marilyn was speaking to Peter's statement
> > > that what I'd said was only my arbitrary opinions, demonstrably false
> > > since, as she said, many others hold these opinions. However, this says
> > > nothing about the *validity* of my statements. I read recently that 45
> > > percent of Americans believe that the world was created 6,000 years ago,
by
> > > God, in seven days. Now, there's a consensus for you! - in favor of patent
> > > nonsense.
> > >
>
> (who are not conventional thinkers) and you compare that to
> a consensus of the American population (a random group supposedly)
> 45% of whom believe in the creation theory. Now that's patent nonsense.
Yes. It is nonsense. Much like the nonesense about how "domestic violence"
dramatically increases during the superbowl.
I wonder what it is about Americans that makes you spew your nonsense?
Do you hate them because they are more successful than Canadians or is this
just a classic case of sour grapes from another wannabe?
Ariane
On Tue, 30 Mar 1999 burnin...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <3700D6...@bc.ca>,
> Marilyn <m...@bc.ca> wrote:
> > emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Vi...@Ordinaire.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > Intervention - yes! I think that Marilyn was speaking to Peter's statement
> > > > that what I'd said was only my arbitrary opinions, demonstrably false
> > > > since, as she said, many others hold these opinions. However, this says
> > > > nothing about the *validity* of my statements. I read recently that 45
> > > > percent of Americans believe that the world was created 6,000 years ago,
> by
> > > > God, in seven days. Now, there's a consensus for you! - in favor of patent
> > > > nonsense.
> > > >
> >
> > You would take a particular, a consensus among a small group of artists
> > (who are not conventional thinkers) and you compare that to
> > a consensus of the American population (a random group supposedly)
> > 45% of whom believe in the creation theory. Now that's patent nonsense.
>
> Yes. It is nonsense. Much like the nonesense about how "domestic violence"
> dramatically increases during the superbowl.
>
> I wonder what it is about Americans that makes you spew your nonsense?
=== Its got nothing to do with America, its got to do with an analogy
which refers to America by way of illustration. Who are you anyway, the
`America' police?
> Do you hate them because they are more successful than Canadians or is this
> just a classic case of sour grapes from another wannabe?
=== No one hates Americans, its just that dumb ones like you make us
laugh.
Ariane
On Tue, 30 Mar 1999 burnin...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Ariane <da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, mdeli wrote:
> >
> > > On 29 Mar 1999 17:34:24 GMT, Vi...@Ordinaire.com wrote:
> > > >. But given, say, Rockwell and Matisse, how do
> > > >we construct elements of our taxonomy to clearly differentiate their work?
> > >
> > > Rockwell could draw Matisse couldn't.
> >
> > (Translation: Rockwell was American, Matisse wasn't).
>
> What the fuck is it with Canadians and their hard-on about Americans?
> Is this the *ONLY* lame-ass excuse you can *ever* come up with?
=== Calm down uncle sam. I can refer to America if i so choose, Canada's
a free country too amigo. So learn to live with it....
> Whether you like either Rockwell (I don't) or Matisse (I don't),
> Matisse couldn't draw worth a shit. Get over it.
=== Take your own advice...
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
Ariane <da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 30 Mar 1999 burnin...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > In article <3700D6...@bc.ca>,
> > Marilyn <m...@bc.ca> wrote:
>
> > > emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Vi...@Ordinaire.com wrote:
> > > >
statement
> > > > > that what I'd said was only my arbitrary opinions, demonstrably false
> > > > > since, as she said, many others hold these opinions. However, this
says
> > > > > nothing about the *validity* of my statements. I read recently that 45
> > > > > percent of Americans believe that the world was created 6,000 years
ago,
> > by
> > > > > God, in seven days. Now, there's a consensus for you! - in favor of
patent
> > > > > nonsense.
> > > > >
> > >
> > > (who are not conventional thinkers) and you compare that to
> > > a consensus of the American population (a random group supposedly)
> > > 45% of whom believe in the creation theory. Now that's patent nonsense.
> >
> > Yes. It is nonsense. Much like the nonesense about how "domestic violence"
> > dramatically increases during the superbowl.
> >
> > I wonder what it is about Americans that makes you spew your nonsense?
>
> === Its got nothing to do with America
No fucking shit! My point precisely. Why don't you try conveying that to
your stupid fucking pal marilyn?
, its got to do with an analogy
> which refers to America by way of illustration. Who are you anyway, the
> `America' police?
Excuse me?
I'm not the shit-for-brains the keeps dragging up the "American" red-herring
in response to statements -- again, your pal marilyn.
>
> > Do you hate them because they are more successful than Canadians or is this
> > just a classic case of sour grapes from another wannabe?
>
> === No one hates Americans, its just that dumb ones like you make us
> laugh.
LOL You're wasting your time here, honey.
You can't even aspire to my IQ ;P
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
Ariane <da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 30 Mar 1999 burnin...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > Ariane <da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On 29 Mar 1999 17:34:24 GMT, Vi...@Ordinaire.com wrote:
> > > > >we construct elements of our taxonomy to clearly differentiate their
work?
> > > >
> > >
> > > (Translation: Rockwell was American, Matisse wasn't).
> >
> > What the fuck is it with Canadians and their hard-on about Americans?
> > Is this the *ONLY* lame-ass excuse you can *ever* come up with?
>
> === Calm down uncle sam. I can refer to America if i so choose, Canada's
> a free country too amigo. So learn to live with it....
Not biggie.
No one gives much of a shit what Canadians think. You're lower on the
scale than the real French ;P
My point was that your implication was incorrect. The fact that Matisse
couldn't draw worth a shit has nothing to do with America. He was French.
Fucking complain to them.
>
> > Whether you like either Rockwell (I don't) or Matisse (I don't),
> > Matisse couldn't draw worth a shit. Get over it.
>
> === Take your own advice...
Do you always evade responsibilty for your stupid statements?
Or is it just the ones about America?
peter nelson
peter nelson wrote in message <7dp42h$3t9$1...@antiochus.ultra.net>...
>Marilyn wrote in message <36FFB4...@bc.ca>...
>Ditto for propaganda. Michaelangelo's paintings
>on the ceiling of the Sistine chapel, not to mention
>DaVinci's Last Supper were both propaganda for the
>Church. How is this different than Rockwell's Four
>Freedom's propaganda?
I just wanted to add to the majority of European art up
until this century glorified the aristocracy and their
whole world view - also a propagandistic motive.
Nor am I knocking this. The MOTIVATION of an
artist is interesting background information but it
is not ultimately relevant to whether the result is
a good painting. All artists are motivated by
something - money, religion, a desire to communicate
an inner psychological state, social commentary,
an excuse to stare at a naked model for hours,
an urge to work out a childhood trauma, - WHO CARES!
The RESULT is what counts.
---peter
Ariane
On Tue, 30 Mar 1999 burnin...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > > > > On 29 Mar 1999 17:34:24 GMT, Vi...@Ordinaire.com wrote:
> > > > > >. But given, say, Rockwell and Matisse, how do
> > > > > >we construct elements of our taxonomy to clearly differentiate their
> work?
> > > > >
> > > > > Rockwell could draw Matisse couldn't.
> > > >
> > > > (Translation: Rockwell was American, Matisse wasn't).
> > >
> > > What the fuck is it with Canadians and their hard-on about Americans?
> > > Is this the *ONLY* lame-ass excuse you can *ever* come up with?
> >
> > === Calm down uncle sam. I can refer to America if i so choose, Canada's
> > a free country too amigo. So learn to live with it....
> Not biggie.
>
> No one gives much of a shit what Canadians think. You're lower on the
> scale than the real French ;P
=== Whose scale is that? Here's a tip, there is no scale! Except for the
one in your mind.
> My point was that your implication was incorrect. The fact that Matisse
> couldn't draw worth a shit has nothing to do with America. He was French.
> Fucking complain to them.
=== You're the only one complaining. Matisse could draw, and the facts
bear me out. We're talking about him, not the other way around....
> > > Whether you like either Rockwell (I don't) or Matisse (I don't),
> > > Matisse couldn't draw worth a shit. Get over it.
> >
> > === Take your own advice...
>
> Do you always evade responsibilty for your stupid statements?
> Or is it just the ones about America?
== I'm not responsible for the fact that certain people like painters
better than others because of their patriotic biases. What you think of
Matisse or Rockwell is beside the point. And so far as America goes, I'll
say what I want about it, when I want. Period.
Ariane
On Tue, 30 Mar 1999 burnin...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > > I wonder what it is about Americans that makes you spew your nonsense?
> >
> > === Its got nothing to do with America
>
> No fucking shit! My point precisely. Why don't you try conveying that to
> your stupid fucking pal marilyn?
=== She brought up an analogy, nothing more. Why don't you just chill
out? She's not trashing the states, she was talking to Vinny about belief
systems and referred to an analogy to illustate her point. Anyway, anyone
here is free to say that America sucks if they want to. And you're free
to debate them if you so choose. What's the big deal?
> > , its got to do
with an analogy
> > which refers to America by way of illustration. Who are you anyway, the
> > `America' police?
>
> Excuse me?
>
> I'm not the shit-for-brains the keeps dragging up the "American" red-herring
> in response to statements -- again, your pal marilyn.
=== Singular, not plural. One analogy and you go over the deep end.
> > > Do you hate them because they are more successful than Canadians or is this
> > > just a classic case of sour grapes from another wannabe?
> >
> > === No one hates Americans, its just that dumb ones like you make us
> > laugh.
>
> LOL You're wasting your time here, honey.
>
> You can't even aspire to my IQ ;P
=== Yeah well whatever, I wouldn't aspire to anything of yours by the
sounds of it. No one's trashing America, but maybe you should stop being
a good reason to form new prejudices about it!
Kay Kane
of his posts. "Americans" never agree on anything, so don't think he speaks
for the rest of us in the U.S... to my Canadian friends, welcome to
"America", thank you for being our friends even though we tend to be quite
uncouth.
Kay
Ariane wrote in message ...
>
>
>
emat...@tomatoweb.com
"Kay Kane" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
> Burningchrome has been hanging around Karen Horn too much from what I read
> of his posts. "Americans" never agree on anything, so don't think he speaks
> for the rest of us in the U.S... to my Canadian friends, welcome to
> "America", thank you for being our friends even though we tend to be quite
> uncouth.
> Kay
Not me -- I'm always couth. I thought it was couth to try to discuss a benign
subject like typology with Vinney, and now look what has happened. Oh, my!
"She was flushed from the bathroom of my heart" (twang,twang).
Erik
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
>
> > > > > > >we construct elements of our taxonomy to clearly differentiate
their
> > work?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > (Translation: Rockwell was American, Matisse wasn't).
> > > >
>
> > > > What the fuck is it with Canadians and their hard-on about Americans?
> > > > Is this the *ONLY* lame-ass excuse you can *ever* come up with?
> > >
>
> > > === Calm down uncle sam. I can refer to America if i so choose, Canada's
> > > a free country too amigo. So learn to live with it....
>
> > Not biggie.
> >
> > No one gives much of a shit what Canadians think. You're lower on the
> > scale than the real French ;P
>
> === Whose scale is that? Here's a tip, there is no scale! Except for the
> one in your mind.
Another provincial canadian opinion ;P
>
> > My point was that your implication was incorrect. The fact that Matisse
> > couldn't draw worth a shit has nothing to do with America. He was French.
> > Fucking complain to them.
>
> === You're the only one complaining.
Typing, actually. As are you.
> Matisse could draw, and the facts
> bear me out.
Wonderful! Then try presenting a few and get over the fact that Rockwell
was an American.
> We're talking about him, not the other way around....
No you weren't. You dismissed Rockwell as an *American*. Please note
that I don't personally like either. I'm just pointing out how
provincial your statement was... I suppose there is a good reason
that Canada has "provinces" ;-)
I find a discussion of Matisse's talents tremendously easy to ignore.
>
> > > > Whether you like either Rockwell (I don't) or Matisse (I don't),
> > > > Matisse couldn't draw worth a shit. Get over it.
> > >
> > > === Take your own advice...
> >
> > Do you always evade responsibilty for your stupid statements?
> > Or is it just the ones about America?
>
> == I'm not responsible for the fact that certain people like painters
> better than others because of their patriotic biases.
Well, you're certainly responsible for the fact that certain people *dislike*
painters for their national origins. Try rising above your background.
> What you think of
> Matisse or Rockwell is beside the point. And so far as America goes, I'll
> say what I want about it, when I want. Period.
Who cares?
You're a hick that hates artists because of their national origin and
because of that, easy to dismiss as another loon.
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
Ariane <da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 30 Mar 1999 burnin...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > >
> > > === Its got nothing to do with America
> >
> > No fucking shit! My point precisely. Why don't you try conveying that to
> > your stupid fucking pal marilyn?
>
> === She brought up an analogy, nothing more.
What she "brought up" wasn't "an analogy". It might be more appropriately
described as her ignorance -- but then she can't help that.
> Why don't you just chill
> out?
Meaning I have to listen to shit from some hick?
> She's not trashing the states, she was talking to Vinny about belief
> systems and referred to an analogy to illustate her point.
Maybe she should try being a bit more multicultural and inclusive? ;P
> Anyway, anyone
> here is free to say that America sucks if they want to.
Red herring. Besides, as I said, no one gives a shit what Canadians think.
The issue was a dismissal of Rockwell simply because he was an American.
Maybe you guys should start drinking bottled water?
> And you're free
> to debate them if you so choose. What's the big deal?
I don't know. As I said, try asking your fellow cold-american, marilyn.
She's the one with the hard-on for Americans.
I think it's simply a case of severe self-loathing on her part which
she is displacing on Americans. They look like her and are more
successful.
>
> > > , its got to do
> with an analogy
> > > which refers to America by way of illustration. Who are you anyway, the
> > > `America' police?
> >
> > Excuse me?
> >
> > I'm not the shit-for-brains the keeps dragging up the "American" red-herring
> > in response to statements -- again, your pal marilyn.
>
> === Singular, not plural. One analogy and you go over the deep end.
It isn't "one". It's a constant whine from her. We've all seen it and it's
getting quite old.
>
> > > > Do you hate them because they are more successful than Canadians or is
this
> > > > just a classic case of sour grapes from another wannabe?
> > >
> > > === No one hates Americans, its just that dumb ones like you make us
> > > laugh.
> >
> > LOL You're wasting your time here, honey.
> >
> > You can't even aspire to my IQ ;P
>
> === Yeah well whatever, I wouldn't aspire to anything of yours by the
> sounds of it.
At least you recognize your limitations. That's something.
> No one's trashing America,
Marilyn is. That's my objection.
> but maybe you should stop being
> a good reason to form new prejudices about it!
How clinton of you!
In a phrase, suck me.
You want to run your mouth and don't like it when someone pulls you up
for your obvious provincialism -- and then you try to weasel out of your
stupid comments by implying that the other person is doing what you are. ;P
How provincial ;P
So, how do *you* like being subjected to marilyn's treatment of Americans?
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
"Kay Kane" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
> Burningchrome has been hanging around Karen Horn too much from what I read
> of his posts.
Actually, I don't know her but, from her posts, she seems reasonable.
Considering your interest in reducing your tax burden, one would think
you would be more receptive to what she said.
> "Americans" never agree on anything, so don't think he speaks
> for the rest of us in the U.S...
There are times when most of us agree.
> to my Canadian friends, welcome to
> "America", thank you for being our friends even though we tend to be quite
> uncouth.
You need to become a bit more multicultural. It's OK for you to not turn
the other cheek when someone insults you.
If marilyn and her fellow Canadians want to rag on artists simply because
they are Americans, they should not expect to have their statements either
accepted or ignored.
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
"peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>
> peter nelson wrote in message <7dp42h$3t9$1...@antiochus.ultra.net>...
> >Marilyn wrote in message <36FFB4...@bc.ca>...
>
> >Ditto for propaganda. Michaelangelo's paintings
> >on the ceiling of the Sistine chapel, not to mention
> >DaVinci's Last Supper were both propaganda for the
> >Church. How is this different than Rockwell's Four
> >Freedom's propaganda?
>
> I just wanted to add to the majority of European art up
> until this century glorified the aristocracy and their
> whole world view - also a propagandistic motive.
Actually, no. They didn't give a shit what the peasants thought
and they certainly didn't invite the unwashed masses in to view
their collections. Therefore, there was no "propaganda" motive.
>
> Nor am I knocking this. The MOTIVATION of an
> artist is interesting background information but it
> is not ultimately relevant to whether the result is
> a good painting. All artists are motivated by
> something - money, religion, a desire to communicate
> an inner psychological state, social commentary,
> an excuse to stare at a naked model for hours,
> an urge to work out a childhood trauma, - WHO CARES!
>
> The RESULT is what counts.
Quite.
The theory, words, nationality, sex, etc. are all irrelevant.
The only thing that matters is the result.
Vi...@ordinaire.com
I screwed up and deleted your last post on taxonomy. Could you repost
it if you still have it, or do a recap? I find it very interesting, and
sorry for the inconvenience.
To my Canadian friends - I apologize for the behavior of people like
Burning Bright. In a country this big we have all kinds. We sure do.
Vinny
emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
> In article <RfcM2.2408$fb4....@news2.giganews.com>,
> "Kay Kane" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
> > Burningchrome has been hanging around Karen Horn too much from what I
> > read of his posts. "Americans" never agree on anything, so don't think
> > he speaks for the rest of us in the U.S... to my Canadian friends,
> > welcome to "America", thank you for being our friends even though we
> > tend to be quite uncouth.
> > Kay
>
> Not me -- I'm always couth. I thought it was couth to try to discuss a
> benign subject like typology with Vinney, and now look what has happened.
> Oh, my!
>
> "She was flushed from the bathroom of my heart" (twang,twang).
>
> Erik
>
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
Vi...@Ordinaire.com wrote:
(snip)
> To my Canadian friends - I apologize for the behavior of people like
> Burning Bright. In a country this big we have all kinds. We sure do.
Oh! How clinton of you!
Do you *feel* better now?
I mean, that *was* the point of your apology, right?
Hey, you know, why don't you also apologize for the resident canadian
loons who feel compelled to dismiss artists simply because they're US
nationals?
LOL ;P
That should make you feel REALLLLYYY special!
Marilyn
>
> Erik -
>
> I screwed up and deleted your last post on taxonomy. Could you repost
> it if you still have it, or do a recap? I find it very interesting, and
> sorry for the inconvenience.
>
> Burning Bright. In a country this big we have all kinds. We sure do.
>
Thanks Vinny. I like to listen to NPR as an antidote to
some of the crude raving ignorance which appears on this ng.
I enjoyed "meeting" interesting people like you in the back
alleys off this phillistine highway. The drive-by-shooters
make me weary.
As Ariane says:
le printemps est dans l'air!
Marilyn
Ariane
On Wed, 31 Mar 1999 burnin...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <19990331101415.078$4...@newsreader.com>,
> Vi...@Ordinaire.com wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> > To my Canadian friends - I apologize for the behavior of people like
> > Burning Bright. In a country this big we have all kinds. We sure do.
=== Likewise over here.....chaff in any other country is still......
> Oh! How clinton of you!
>
> Do you *feel* better now?
>
> I mean, that *was* the point of your apology, right?
>
> Hey, you know, why don't you also apologize for the resident canadian
> loons who feel compelled to dismiss artists simply because they're US
> nationals?
=== Point was, Mr. high IQ, that mdeli was praising Rockwell over Matisse
solely because he was American while Matisse was French. And the point
was made tongue in cheek. Get it now? (Why is it that ALL the boneheads
on the ng have low reading comp. skills?). So in actual fact, YOU'RE the
only loon here.
> LO L(oser) ;P
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
Ariane <da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 31 Mar 1999 burnin...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > In article <19990331101415.078$4...@newsreader.com>,
> > Vi...@Ordinaire.com wrote:
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> > > To my Canadian friends - I apologize for the behavior of people like
> > > Burning Bright. In a country this big we have all kinds. We sure do.
>
> === Likewise over here.....chaff in any other country is still......
ROTFL ;P
>
> > Oh! How clinton of you!
> >
> > Do you *feel* better now?
> >
> > I mean, that *was* the point of your apology, right?
> >
> > Hey, you know, why don't you also apologize for the resident canadian
> > loons who feel compelled to dismiss artists simply because they're US
> > nationals?
>
> === Point was, Mr. high IQ, that mdeli was praising Rockwell over Matisse
> solely because he was American while Matisse was French.
And my point was that you're full of shit. You are.
Whatever you may or may not say about Mani, he's been equal-opportunity
and consistient with his dislikes.
He's equally flamed Americans, French, etc for the same reasons.
The people with the American fixation seems to be marilyn and possibly you.
> And the point
> was made tongue in cheek.
Sure. Mine was too.
> Get it now? (Why is it that ALL the boneheads
> on the ng have low reading comp. skills?). So in actual fact, YOU'RE the
> only loon here.
LOL ;P
You know, if you practice hard and long enough, you might someday be
able to say you're a stupid bitch. As it is, you're just stupid.
Just joking, of course. ;P
emat...@tomatoweb.com
emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
> In article <19990329123424.581$r...@newsreader.com>,
> Vi...@Ordinaire.com wrote:
(Reposted per Vinny's Request)
Marilyn
>
> On Wed, 31 Mar 1999 burnin...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > In article <19990331101415.078$4...@newsreader.com>,
> > Vi...@Ordinaire.com wrote:
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> > > To my Canadian friends - I apologize for the behavior of people like
> > > Burning Bright. In a country this big we have all kinds. We sure do.
>
> === Likewise over here.....chaff in any other country is still......
>
> >
> > Do you *feel* better now?
> >
> > I mean, that *was* the point of your apology, right?
> >
> > Hey, you know, why don't you also apologize for the resident canadian
> > loons who feel compelled to dismiss artists simply because they're US
> > nationals?
>
> === Point was, Mr. high IQ, that mdeli was praising Rockwell over Matisse
> was made tongue in cheek. Get it now? (Why is it that ALL the boneheads
> on the ng have low reading comp. skills?). So in actual fact, YOU'RE the
> only loon here.
>
> >
> > That should make you feel REALLLLYYY special!
In defense of loons, a very beautiful bird whose haunting call
is familiar to most Canadians. They inhabit fresh water lakes
as clean & beautiful as most Americans see only in their dreams
of pristine nature.
The loon is also on our $1.00 coin, a national symbol of pride
and commerce as well as natural beauty.
So to call the Burning one a loon, Ariane, is a crime against birds in
general.
The thought, however,
of his flying away
or
even being in the sights of
a visiting US hunter's rifle
is somehow pleasing.
Marilyn
Vi...@ordinaire.com
> In article <7dpbv8$d0n$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
> > In article <19990329123424.581$r...@newsreader.com>,
> > Vi...@Ordinaire.com wrote:
>
> (Reposted per Vinny's Request)
Erik -
Thanks for taking the time to repost. Here are my comments - a little bit
on the fly as this is a very busy week for me.
I'm familiar with Barr's book - and I must agree. Physical resemblance in
art can arise from direct influence, from both artists being influenced by
the same precursor, and also by coincidence. Warhol and Lichtenstein were
making the same comic-based art entirely independently in NYC. Neither knew
the other, or had seen his work. It may not be entirely coincidence:
I personally think that culture has a hand in
painting style (and the other arts, of course). With Warhol and
Lichtenstein, Rosenquist, etc., it appears that the time had come for this
kind of art. The impressionists could go outside and paint directly from
nature because, for the first time, paints were available commercially in
tubes.
> > Frederic Docksteader created a typological distinction between American
> > Indian and European painting, based on the lack of Indian painting
> > examples on a rectangular surface. In this typology of course Rockwell
> > and DaVinci would occupy the same type. But his typology would fall
> > apart anyway when we consider the non-rectangular format of much
> > European art and the Indian murals either in Tewa Pueblos or Bomanpak
> > which of course were rectangular. But for the purpose of his
> > argument-it was a useful distinction. (I had one Omaha student write
> > in a paper "I never saw a square buffalo!)
I'll have to think about this. How useful is this sort of distinction, even
if it is valid? I'll get back to you.
> > But you know, I ran across this once: The distinction in Linnean
> > taxonomy between the Bird of Pardise and the Bower Bird is the shape of
> > a bone in the middle toe. I thought that was interesting because I
> > would be inclined to differntiate between the two on the basis of
> > feathers.
I'm pretty ignorant of biological taxonomy and frankly have no clue why
this should be so.
I agree that creating a typology is an essential starting point - but its
validity would depend on the accuracy of the basic elements. If the two or
three kingdoms are not valid, then everything else is wrong - even if the
process is internally consistent. [I may be employing a criterion from hard
science erroneously here.] Barr commits a variation of this error: his
basic assumption [resemblance = influence] is wrong - at least we think it
is!
> > > > Of course Foucault goes on to say that these collective agreements
> > > > on the authority of a particular taxonomy underlay the 'episteme',
> > > > or the essential belief system of a particular culture. In some
> > > > ways - very important ways - our method of organizing the world
> > > > into these systems describes. And the systems are never completely
> > > > static -- for example Linnean Taxonomy is contstantly being
> > > > revised, especially now by the intervention of claddistics and
> > > > genetic research. I think this is interesting because it is the
> > > > terrain where we can talk about cultural determinates of aesthetic
> > > > value in a very realistic way.
> > >
> > > This paragraph sent me to the dictionary (cladistics!). I suppose we
> > > could say that people who like to look at Rockwell and Disney
> > > subscribe to one belief system, those who like Leroy Neiman and Peter
> > > Max to another, and those who go for Matisse, Rothko, etc., to still
> > > another. How culture determines our aestheic appreciation is probably
> > > the key to all of this.
> >
> > I was forced against my will to take a course in Physical Antropology
> > once, and I was introduced to claddistics, which looked at things
> > differently than did straight Linnean taxonomy.
I started out as a physics major - and the influence will never leave me.
It's a mixed blessing.
> > But I suppose that different belief systems is at work, but the issue
> > to me is one of the collapse of categories. What was formerly very
> > useful, i.e. "ART" has to some extent lost its usefulness, since the
> > categories have become blurred by recent history.
Sometimes we ask the wrong questions and create questionable labels.
I'm a fan of Wittgenstein, and like him
feel that misuse of language is the basis of our problems. I don't know
if it makes any sense to ask what art is, or if the word has any useful
meaning at all. Years ago a young art student asked me what the purpose of
the universe was (so charming - like I'd know!). My immediate answer was,
why assume that the universe has a purpose at all? Further thinking about
this led me to realize that we assign very specific purposes to words, then
generalize. A spoon has a purpose because we create it to do specific
things, etc. It is erroneous to assume from that that anything else has a
purpose, particularly entities that are not man-made. Similarly (well, a
little) with art - why assume that there are two categories - art and not
art? Probably the question is usefulness. I see I'm on shaky ground here,
with inexact analogies, so I'll let it go
at that.
Hmmm. I'm ignorant of the theories you're speaking of here (visual culture,
etc.) so again will have to think about this. I'll look up Benjamin's essay
- where would I find it?
thanks again for reposting. I'm learning a lot, and having fun trading
ideas.
Vinny
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
Marilyn <m...@bc.ca> wrote:
> Ariane wrote:
(snip)
>
> In defense of loons, a very beautiful bird whose haunting call
> is familiar to most Canadians.
Yes. Particularly on a lake near sundown. Very striking and
memorable.
> They inhabit fresh water lakes
> as clean & beautiful as most Americans see only in their dreams
> of pristine nature.
Yehp. That's why we see all the Canadians heading down I95 to FLA.
They were tired of seeing all that pristine nature.
> The loon is also on our $1.00 coin, a national symbol of pride
> and commerce as well as natural beauty.
>
> So to call the Burning one a loon, Ariane, is a crime against birds in
> general.
I don't care what you call me :P
>
> The thought, however,
> of his flying away
> or
> even being in the sights of
> a visiting US hunter's rifle
> is somehow pleasing.
Ah, yes. That's my marilyn. The typical leftist twitch. Spouting
love and kindness until you disagree with her and then she wants to
see you dead. What's that word....... hypo.... um.... hypocrite!
Yeah. That's it! Hypocrite!
You see, that's the difference between us, Marilyn. I'd rather not
see you dead or even silenced. I think you have the right to say
whatever you want. No matter how stupid it might be.
But then I guess we can't all be progressive like you ;P
emat...@tomatoweb.com
Vi...@Ordinaire.com wrote:
(I had one Omaha student write
> > > in a paper "I never saw a square buffalo!)
>
> I'll have to think about this. How useful is this sort of distinction, even
> if it is valid? I'll get back to you.
Probably only useful as a way of saying "there's a difference' (and then we
can always find exceptions, of course).
> I agree that creating a typology is an essential starting point - but its
> validity would depend on the accuracy of the basic elements. If the two or
> three kingdoms are not valid, then everything else is wrong - even if the
> process is internally consistent. [I may be employing a criterion from hard
> science erroneously here.] Barr commits a variation of this error: his
> basic assumption [resemblance = influence] is wrong - at least we think it
> is!
When Vladimir Propp wrote "Morphology of the Folktale" he was challenging the
usefulness of previous systems of catalogging and classifying collections of
myths and folklore, notibly the great compendiums created by the Finnish
School of Folklorists as well as the American school (Seth Thomas). What
Propp challenged was classifying according to character types, i.e. stories
about a Prince would be a type, stories about a maiden in distress would be a
type, a king a type, a wizard a type etc. Instead Propp looked at the
function of the character in the story, and he eventually distilled it all
down to 37 (as I recall) characteral functions that are played out endlessly
in folktales, and the identy of the 'actant' is interchangeable - a prince,
king, wizard can all perform the same function in the tale, and often the
difference was just a matter of the local preference of the people who told
the tale.
You can't, however, say Propp was the 'father of structural anthropology'
since Levi-Strauss disagreed with much of his results, although LS didn't
disagree with the method of treating a myth in this way.
> Sometimes we ask the wrong questions and create questionable labels.
> I'm a fan of Wittgenstein, and like him
> feel that misuse of language is the basis of our problems. I don't know
> if it makes any sense to ask what art is, or if the word has any useful
> meaning at all. Years ago a young art student asked me what the purpose of
> the universe was (so charming - like I'd know!). My immediate answer was,
> why assume that the universe has a purpose at all? Further thinking about
> this led me to realize that we assign very specific purposes to words, then
> generalize. A spoon has a purpose because we create it to do specific
> things, etc. It is erroneous to assume from that that anything else has a
> purpose, particularly entities that are not man-made. Similarly (well, a
> little) with art - why assume that there are two categories - art and not
> art? Probably the question is usefulness. I see I'm on shaky ground here,
> with inexact analogies, so I'll let it go
> at that.
>
The purpose of the universe? Some friends and I were sitting around the
campfire talking about various stories of the creation of the world. We all
had our tribal stories to tell, but we were in the Pit River country (NE
California) so we decided to go ask one of the elder's for the official
Achomawi version. His name was Craven Gibson, a man who was born on Alcatraz
Island when it was an Indian Prison, and he was so old that even the old men
around said that Craven was old when they were young. So we went over to his
camp and asked him the next day, and he thought, and thought, and thought
(his face screwing up in perplexity) and finally answered. "There was no
beginning!" he said.
> Hmmm. I'm ignorant of the theories you're speaking of here (visual culture,
> etc.) so again will have to think about this. I'll look up Benjamin's essay
> - where would I find it?
http://pixels.filmtv.ucla.edu/gallery/web/julian_scaff/benjamin/benjamin.html
The complete essay is here on this UCLA site. I actually think some other web
sites have published it online also, but this is the one I have bookmarked.
>
> thanks again for reposting. I'm learning a lot, and having fun trading
> ideas.
>
Me too. I'm wondering about what you have been discussing about this with
your friends over the years. Is it just that old enigma "what is art?" It
may not be answerable at all, but its like Gorbachev said "Communism is an
unattainable goal, but we should never cease striving for it."
mdeli
>> === Point was, Mr. high IQ, that mdeli was praising Rockwell over Matisse
>> solely because he was American while Matisse was French.
Miss low IQ, why not get your quotes correct. I never said anything
of the sort!
If I ever made a statment comparing the two, it was to say that
Rockwell could draw and Matisse couldn't. I judge painting by what's
on the wall. It has nothing to do with nationality
>> And the point
>> was made tongue in cheek. Get it now?
I have a better sense of humor than that., bonehead!
>> (Why is it that ALL the boneheads
>> on the ng have low reading comp. skills?).
like you
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/