Mani - your take on cubism
Richard
What do you think about my life drawing teacher having his students
spend 3 weeks on cubism in life drawing 2, 3, and 4?
Isn't cubism supposed to belong in the realm of painting and not
drawing? I thought life drawing was just supposed to be about drawing
people realistically.
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
Mani Deli
wrote:
>*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
>
>What do you think about my life drawing teacher having his students
>spend 3 weeks on cubism in life drawing 2, 3, and 4?
I think he's wasting your time. Figure drawing for those who haven't
learned to draw is a hoax. You won't be able to draw the figure until
you learn the rules for drawing the chair it's sitting on. They don't
teach that in the Modern Academic system.
>Isn't cubism supposed to belong in the realm of painting and not
>drawing? I thought life drawing was just supposed to be about drawing
>people realistically.
I think cubism is early Modern Academic art bullshit. It is, as
practiced by Picasso and Braque, Axonometric drawing in a shit brown
palette. The best exponent of cubism was Juan Gris who at least added
some good color. He scared the shit out of Picasso.
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Edward G. Nilges
> On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 13:35:37 -0800, Richard <cool_a...@z.com>
> wrote:
>
> >*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
> >
> >
> >What do you think about my life drawing teacher having his students
> >spend 3 weeks on cubism in life drawing 2, 3, and 4?
>
> I think he's wasting your time. Figure drawing for those who haven't
> learned to draw is a hoax. You won't be able to draw the figure until
> you learn the rules for drawing the chair it's sitting on. They don't
> teach that in the Modern Academic system.
I agree with Mani. However, too many art students are filled with
what I would call "art anxiety" (like math anxiety) which results from
variants of Mani's strong belief that you gotta know how to "draw"
like a Western artist.
I subjected myself to the classical regime because the Junior School
of the Art Institute of Chicago did not teach rigorous life drawing,
and my sense that the college-level school was not rigorous made me
decide not to attend.
However, this self-subjection, while it taught me a lot, had the
downside of constraining my art. An uncle is a professional fine
artist and he complains that his precision and "skill" (which is high
and of saleable gallery quality) constrain his ability to break new
ground.
Therefore I showed this ng a few years ago that Mani is in the main
wrong insofar as he maintains that knowing how to draw (like an artist
in the Western European tradition) is a necessary or sufficient
condition for "being an artist." This view is Eurocentric and in some
circles a Fascist view.
It produces artistic anxiety which suppresses the creative spirit and
discourages women and minorities from pursuing artistic careers. It
also produces overrate Surrealist art which is a failed reconciliation
of the artist's art anxiety with his desire to be "original."
Fortunately, David Hockney has confirmed my long held view that the
Western tradition that started with Giotto is mechanistic in the sense
that in it the artist became the model for the machine only to be
replaced by the invention of photography, whereas he was assisted and
enabled by the camera obscura.
This can be seen to be the choice of a mathematical system that
declares that a certain type of isomorphism between paint and line,
and object, to be favored, a choice that dismisses other equally
consistent systems. Which is to say that the isometric perspective of
Gothic miniature painting was probably thought to be "realistic" by
Jean du Berry's patrons in his Gothic books of hours, and the flat
style of Byzantine painting was thought to be "valid" by the
Byzantines.
Isometric perspective can arguably, and recreationally, said to be
MORE realistic than Renaissance perspective. I can well imagine an
artist of late Gothic saying that the problem with Raphael is that the
use of vanishing-line perspective omits the fact that subjects of
painting happen in time.
For example, a pre-Renaissance series of panels of the life of John
the Baptist in the Art Institute NARRATES the story of Salome.
Raphael arguably simplified and down-graded this tradition because a
painting of a Madonna has to assume that the viewer knows that the
Madonna is the Mother of Christ, and has to have read the narrative of
Christ's life.
Painting LOST as well as GAINED in the Renaissance. In this
connection, see C. S. Lewis, a professor of mediaeval and Renaissance
studies in addition to a writer of fantasy and science fiction, who
showed (in his 1954 volume on 16th cent English lit) how Spenser lost
the ability to name and describe reality from a subordinate position,
so concerned he was with "beauty."
Absurdly, Mani wants to revive the state-supported traditions of the
French, of all people, to say who is and who is not an artist. The
revival is a form of grave-robbing with the result of Surrealism, a
sort of Frankenstein of art, which tries to deal with modern realities
with Fascist techniques.
>
> >Isn't cubism supposed to belong in the realm of painting and not
> >drawing? I thought life drawing was just supposed to be about drawing
> >people realistically.
>
> I think cubism is early Modern Academic art bullshit. It is, as
> practiced by Picasso and Braque, Axonometric drawing in a shit brown
> palette. The best exponent of cubism was Juan Gris who at least added
> some good color. He scared the shit out of Picasso.
The portrait of dealer Daniel Henri Kahnweiler that is in the Art
Institute here in Chicago isn't shit, or if it is, it's good shit.
FYI, Picasso downsized his pallet in a second-order REVIVAL of the
academic tradition but on Picasso's own terms.
This burns the ass of artistic Fascists for somewhat the same reason
that the Spanish Nationalists hated the very idea that the Loyalists
had taken over Madrid hotels and provided free meals to workers. For
Picasso's gesture was to take over the sadism ("thou shalt not do x")
of traditional culture and he showed how society need not impose this,
from above.
Picasso had experienced artistic sadism in Madrid in the 1890s, but
unlike Cezanne he had natural "skill." But he knew that being an
artist is not being a human camera obscura and in consequence he could
return in 1916 to a second-order academic discipline ("use monochrome
to show the analysis of form") and make it his own.
Mani, your oedipal war against Modernism is itself getting old in the
way of all flesh, and the new move Frida shows that Modernism now has
grandchildren, who don't regard the old fart as evil in the manner of
the kids.
Didya see Frida yet? And, do you like her work?
> ...no skill no art!
>
> Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Consider that its indecipherabity may be an artifact of your
imbecility!
>
> Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
It still sucks!
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
but I can't help laughing - I know it's not nice - I was taught not to laugh
at fools it's not polite - but I just can't help laughing. If laughter is
good for you then the writings of these two fools is my much needed
medicine. Keep it up - don't stop - I need the laughter - even though I
hear the memory of my parents voices chastising me for my lack of
sensitivity.
keith
Richard <cool_a...@z.com> wrote in message
news:s0qatu4h7vuo6kp1c...@4ax.com...
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
keith (I have saved a copy for future reference)
Edward G. Nilges <spino...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f5dda427.02111...@posting.google.com...
Richard
On 15 Nov 2002 20:10:57 -0800, spino...@yahoo.com (Edward G.
Nilges) wrote:
>Therefore I showed this ng a few years ago that Mani is in the main
>wrong insofar as he maintains that knowing how to draw (like an artist
>in the Western European tradition) is a necessary or sufficient
>condition for "being an artist." This view is Eurocentric and in some
>circles a Fascist view.
So? There's not much great art outside of the western european
tradition. At least fascism is better than communism. Fascism includes
a belief in excellence.
>It produces artistic anxiety which suppresses the creative spirit and
>discourages women and minorities from pursuing artistic careers. It
>also produces overrate Surrealist art which is a failed reconciliation
>of the artist's art anxiety with his desire to be "original."
It doesn't produce any anxiety in ME or my friend Hiram. We are both
serious about art. There are some women and minorities who can draw
well too. There are tons of people of all races who can't draw well
but fill galleries with their crap. There are too many of them
already.
>Fortunately, David Hockney has confirmed my long held view that the
>Western tradition that started with Giotto is mechanistic in the sense
>that in it the artist became the model for the machine only to be
>replaced by the invention of photography, whereas he was assisted and
>enabled by the camera obscura.
If you can draw and paint realistically, you are free to communicate
things from your imagination in a way that is very accessible to
everyone. You don't have to be just a human camera. That's where you
can start, but you can go far beyond that. Whereas people who can't
draw & paint realistically make a bunch of dumb crap that has to be
laboriously explained by art critics because the "art" has failed to
communicate what it's all about due to the "artist's" lack of ability.
>Absurdly, Mani wants to revive the state-supported traditions of the
>French, of all people, to say who is and who is not an artist. The
>revival is a form of grave-robbing with the result of Surrealism, a
>sort of Frankenstein of art, which tries to deal with modern realities
>with Fascist techniques.
I would like to create a new art school that throws out all the modern
art crapola and rebuilds all the old knowledge and skills and
hopefully adds to it. I would call it "The Academy of Beautiful Arts."
There are some great surrealists, like H.R. Giger.
You're just a brainwashed pseudointellectual idiot. Get a clue.
Richard
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 18:39:39 -0500, Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
>I think he's wasting your time. Figure drawing for those who haven't
>learned to draw is a hoax. You won't be able to draw the figure until
>you learn the rules for drawing the chair it's sitting on. They don't
>teach that in the Modern Academic system.
I already did that. I took Drawing 1, which was pretty straightforward
and actually rather intense. I am also going to take Drawing 2 and 3,
which so far I don't think have any modern art bullshit in them. It's
taught by a different teacher, who seems to get good results from his
students.
Sharr Truce
spino...@yahoo.com says...
>Raphael arguably simplified and down-graded this tradition because a
>painting of a Madonna has to assume that the viewer knows that the
>Madonna is the Mother of Christ, and has to have read the narrative of
>Christ's life.
I've re-titled this thread to create
an offshoot as a way of responding to
the above snip from your post, which
prodded my memory.
When I first traveled abroad in Europe
and began visiting the various art
museums there, I had no background in
mythology or religious history, to say
nothing of European aristocratic history
in general. So many of the old master works
I viewed were indecipherable to me.
Good examples are the narrative works
of the Dutch school painters Bosch,
Breughel, et al and the historical
paintings such as "The Beheading of
Lady Jane Grey" by De LaRoche.
In fact, American art that relies on one's
knowledge of "story telling" was once
puzzling to me. I'm referring to works such
as Thos Hart Benton's "Susanna and the Elders."
One of the reasons I attended university
art schools was to "learn" about the
origins of the master works. And to have
access to the classics in literature.
This is something that escapes
notice amongst all the dialogue here
about "learning to create" as the only reason
for seeking a college degree in the arts.
Jim Pennington
I think you may be mistaken when you use the term cubism.
I have a feeling that your teacher is teaching figure construction
using a basic block method.
It's the opposite of responsive drawing, which makes it pretty
uninteresting at first glance.
What I *think* the instructor is teaching is proportions and seeing
the figure as a series of geometric shapes assembled on an armature.
I suggest you pay attention to what is being taught because a solid
understanding of the construction of the figure is essential to produce
a convincing illusion.
If you choose to skip this portion of learning, you will regret it
later when you draw a femur the size of an ulna and you have no idea why
your figure looks so squatty.
Go buy or check out Bridgman's complete guide to drawing from life. I
suspect your teacher may be trying to teach this. After all, he is
teaching figure drawing at a community college so it wouldn't surprise
me if can't draw a line around his foot.
-j
Edward G. Nilges
> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
> On 15 Nov 2002 20:10:57 -0800, spino...@yahoo.com (Edward G.
> Nilges) wrote:
>
> >Therefore I showed this ng a few years ago that Mani is in the main
> >wrong insofar as he maintains that knowing how to draw (like an artist
> >in the Western European tradition) is a necessary or sufficient
> >condition for "being an artist." This view is Eurocentric and in some
> >circles a Fascist view.
>
> So? There's not much great art outside of the western european
> tradition. At least fascism is better than communism. Fascism includes
> a belief in excellence.
Gee, can I quote that idiotic statement?
Where was the "belief in excellence" when the Nazis expelled thousands
of talented scientists and artists in the name of "racial purity?"
In Franco's Spain, where was the "belief in excellence" when the
Catholic Church was allowed to avoid teaching modern science?
In Greece of the 1970s, where was this belief in excellence when the
military government prohibited performance of Greek tragedy?
What curious form of excellence exists in German art of the Nazi era
outside the cinema of Leni Riefenstahl, and how is this art all that
different, in either quality or style, from the Socialist Realist art
of the Soviet Union?
And finally, what sort of excellence did the gas chambers constitute?
Fascism allows small men without internal motors or talent to pretend
to excellence and to take their resentment out on truly talented
people who like Einstein tend not to run with the herd.
>
> >It produces artistic anxiety which suppresses the creative spirit and
> >discourages women and minorities from pursuing artistic careers. It
> >also produces overrate Surrealist art which is a failed reconciliation
> >of the artist's art anxiety with his desire to be "original."
>
> It doesn't produce any anxiety in ME or my friend Hiram. We are both
> serious about art. There are some women and minorities who can draw
> well too. There are tons of people of all races who can't draw well
> but fill galleries with their crap. There are too many of them
> already.
>
Your friend Hitler could both draw and paint, so I guess he must have
been an "artist."
> >Fortunately, David Hockney has confirmed my long held view that the
> >Western tradition that started with Giotto is mechanistic in the sense
> >that in it the artist became the model for the machine only to be
> >replaced by the invention of photography, whereas he was assisted and
> >enabled by the camera obscura.
>
> If you can draw and paint realistically, you are free to communicate
> things from your imagination in a way that is very accessible to
> everyone. You don't have to be just a human camera. That's where you
> can start, but you can go far beyond that. Whereas people who can't
> draw & paint realistically make a bunch of dumb crap that has to be
> laboriously explained by art critics because the "art" has failed to
> communicate what it's all about due to the "artist's" lack of ability.
>
Perhaps it has to be "laboriously explained" to you. My experience is
quite different. My kid was bored by the traditional and realistic
galleries of the Metropolitan Museum but perked up bigtime when we
entered the 20th century galleries. He preferred the modern and
abstract without knowing any art criticism because he hadn't unlearned
how to see.
> >Absurdly, Mani wants to revive the state-supported traditions of the
> >French, of all people, to say who is and who is not an artist. The
> >revival is a form of grave-robbing with the result of Surrealism, a
> >sort of Frankenstein of art, which tries to deal with modern realities
> >with Fascist techniques.
>
> I would like to create a new art school that throws out all the modern
> art crapola and rebuilds all the old knowledge and skills and
> hopefully adds to it. I would call it "The Academy of Beautiful Arts."
>
You and Hitler would have got along well.
> There are some great surrealists, like H.R. Giger.
>
What's interesting about this example is that Giger communicates
hatred which may be the only emotion you actually feel, and the only
emotion which makes you feel alive. Giger did the aliens for the
Sigourney Weaver film which appealed to people so deadened by work
that they need to be galvanized, like the legs of dying frogs.
Edward G. Nilges
> A well thought out mature response - congratulations.
>
> keith (I have saved a copy for future reference)
Thanks for your support. I think there is something about artists and
the internet such that the latter has a tendency to turn the former
into nut conservatives.
Artistic conservatism of the sort that proclaims "no skill no art" did
not predate the invention of the photography although it was
universally expected that the artist would attend a trade school or
serve and apprenticeship. The "no skill no art" BS is hyperanxious
about the fact that Photoshop ELIMINATES people who have skill but no
art.
I labored for years in egg tempera and acrylic to get the effect I
refer to as "crepuscular" on my Web site
http://members.screenz.com/edNilges, only to find that I could achieve
the same effect in Photoshop in seconds. Any value therefore exists
in the idea of light and not in my "skill."
Edward G. Nilges
> One idiot asks the opinion of another idiot - the blind leading the blind -
> but I can't help laughing - I know it's not nice - I was taught not to laugh
> at fools it's not polite - but I just can't help laughing. If laughter is
> good for you then the writings of these two fools is my much needed
> medicine. Keep it up - don't stop - I need the laughter - even though I
> hear the memory of my parents voices chastising me for my lack of
> sensitivity.
The phenomenon of an idiotic idea (such as "no skill no art") becoming
knowledge in the sense of acceptance by a community is addressed by
Cass Sunstein in his book Republic.COM. I was invited last year by
Princeton University Press to a discussion of this book.
Sunstein shows that the ease in which filtering engines and the
structure of posting allow the Internet user to "tune out" divergent
views creates a "discourse cascade" in which subscribers to a chat
room or newsgroup start to all consent to a set of false propositions.
Technically this occurs in "kill" files and news filters which exclude
things the poster isn't "interested" in.
Socially and in my observation in newsgroups, a dominant personality
(who may only be electronically dominant and rather shy in real life)
states an extreme (usually politically conservative, at least in the
USA) view, and gets other people to follow it by raising the
opportunity cost of dissent, by personalizing the dissent as a
disorder rather than arguing issues.
Because of corporate surveillance of Internet content, dissidents are
scared to dissent in this context because they are likely to be
attacked in what I call an "autobiographical" fashion which focuses on
their behavior and not their beliefs. Because manual surveillance in
the form of reading posts is so time-consuming, potential and current
employers of posters can see out of context claims about the dissident
which can be used against him or her, therefore dissidents, I think,
become silent "lurkers."
This may be why the memorable "flame" wars of the 1980s as occured on
the Well, on other early BBSs and the early Internet may be a thing of
the past. Instead, most popular newsgroups seem today to feature a
personality that has conquered the newsgroup space through means
reminiscent of Fascist media manipulation, in which the
"autobiographical" description of Jews as flawed people replaced
discussion of political problems and in which the ease of electronic
replication (whether of a 1930s radio broadcast as recorded on tape,
or a modern "post") replaces the need to do any heavy thinking.
A scary possibility is that some of these hypertrolls (to create a
neologism out of the word "troll", which is used by the dominant
hypertroll as a form of abuse) are today being paid by unnamed third
parties who are themselves scared to death that liberatory ideas (as
opposed to "no skill no art" which is merely a way that immature art
students police their modally disordered personalities and that of
their mates) gain world currency.
>
> keith
>
>
> Richard <cool_a...@z.com> wrote in message
> news:s0qatu4h7vuo6kp1c...@4ax.com...
> > *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
> >
> >
> > What do you think about my life drawing teacher having his students
> > spend 3 weeks on cubism in life drawing 2, 3, and 4?
> > Isn't cubism supposed to belong in the realm of painting and not
> > drawing? I thought life drawing was just supposed to be about drawing
> > people realistically.
Actually, drawing "cubistically" is an excellent way of analyzing both
figures and composition. Nicholas Poussin used his own form of
"cubism" both to structured individual figures and compositions...with
the result that his individual figures and compositions have a
solidity that pleases even the "no skill no art" crowd.
Cezanne used the same technique to break down the (artificial)
boundary between color and line.
Using a cubist approach to blocking out the figure is a way to keep
the hands loose and free. The alternative is trying to be a human
camera *obscura* like these hapless art students one sees trying to
discern proportion by placing a grimy thumb on a brush and squinting
haplessly at the model. The end result, at best, is a moronized
commercial artist who is able to draw a single line that represents
only an accurate outline of the model drained of presence.
Whereas if you draw the initial strokes "cubistically" even including
the effect of motion in three dimensions, the final drawing has a
vigor missing in the product of the human camera obscura.
Of course, I am talking to people who think that dead things animated
into ghoulish life in the "surrealism" of HR Giger are to be preferred
to Les Demoiselles d'Avignon or Rebecca at the Well. I might as well
not waste my time. A couple of years in the Marine Corps is what all
these art school fascists need.
Mani Deli
>Therefore I showed this ng a few years ago that Mani is in the main
>wrong insofar as he maintains that knowing how to draw (like an artist
>in the Western European tradition) is a necessary or sufficient
>condition for "being an artist." This view is Eurocentric and in some
>circles a Fascist view.
So draw in the Japanese or Mogul tradition. Both require drawing
skills. Drawing is based on scientific understanding. The complete
understanding of how and why things look the way they do was
discovered in the West in the 14 hundreds.
Those who learn their craft can work in any tradition that pleases
them without having to conform to Modern Academic incompetence.
>It produces artistic anxiety which suppresses the creative spirit and
>discourages women and minorities from pursuing artistic careers.
Really? How many discouraged women have you met?
> It
>also produces overrate Surrealist art which is a failed reconciliation
>of the artist's art anxiety with his desire to be "original."
>Fortunately, David Hockney has confirmed my long held view that the
>Western tradition that started with Giotto is mechanistic in the sense
>that in it the artist became the model for the machine only to be
>replaced by the invention of photography, whereas he was assisted and
>enabled by the camera obscura.
Good, now lets see your work.
>Isometric perspective can arguably, and recreationally, said to be
>MORE realistic than Renaissance perspective. I can well imagine an
>artist of late Gothic saying that the problem with Raphael is that the
>use of vanishing-line perspective omits the fact that subjects of
>painting happen in time.
Have you met any late gothics who said this?
>Absurdly, Mani wants to revive the state-supported traditions of the
>French,
BULLSHIT!
> of all people, to say who is and who is not an artist.
After 80 years of repetitive Dada bullshit and Picassoid ugliness I
feel its time to take another look and label it for what I feel it is.
> The
>revival is a form of grave-robbing with the result of Surrealism, a
>sort of Frankenstein of art, which tries to deal with modern realities
>with Fascist techniques.
Are all surrealists fascists?
>>
>> >Isn't cubism supposed to belong in the realm of painting and not
>> >drawing? I thought life drawing was just supposed to be about drawing
>> >people realistically.
Well the results I've seen coming out of schools doesn't exactly
conform to that.
>> I think cubism is early Modern Academic art bullshit. It is, as
>> practiced by Picasso and Braque, Axonometric drawing in a shit brown
>> palette. The best exponent of cubism was Juan Gris who at least added
>> some good color. He scared the shit out of Picasso.
>
>The portrait of dealer Daniel Henri Kahnweiler that is in the Art
>Institute here in Chicago isn't shit, or if it is, it's good shit.
It is signed by Picasso. Without that signature it would be considered
nothing special.
>FYI, Picasso downsized his pallet in a second-order REVIVAL of the
>academic tradition but on Picasso's own terms.
>
>Mani, your oedipal war against Modernism is itself getting old in the
>way of all flesh,
I have yet to read a bad review of any Modern Academic artist in a
newspaper and its been going on for the last 50 years. Modern Academic
painting not modernism is the Emperor's old clothes.
> and the new move Frida shows that Modernism now has
>grandchildren, who don't regard the old fart as evil in the manner of
>the kids.
>
>Didya see Frida yet? And, do you like her work?
>
She is an example of no-skill-realism which would interest hardly
anyone had she circulated in a different social setting. Her work is
on a level of average street corner portrait art. My interest in an
artist starts with the quality of the art work not their biography.
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
understanding of western art and they don't know it.
I'll restate your ideas as: western art conceptualises in planes - African
art conceptualises in the round. They will never understand form because
their eyes are trapped on the surface and they have no souls with which to
feel the form.
keith
Edward G. Nilges <spino...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f5dda427.02111...@posting.google.com...
Richard
On Sat, 16 Nov 2002 14:26:07 -0600 (CST), jimi...@webtv.net (Jim
Pennington) wrote:
>
>Richard,
> I think you may be mistaken when you use the term cubism.
> I have a feeling that your teacher is teaching figure construction
>using a basic block method.
Noooo, it's some modern art shit. I've seen examples of it. Same kind
of stuff that Picasso and the other idiots did. I dunno why he's
including cubism in fucking life drawing.
Richard
On 16 Nov 2002 18:23:43 -0800, spino...@yahoo.com (Edward G.
Nilges) wrote:
>
>Artistic conservatism of the sort that proclaims "no skill no art" did
>not predate the invention of the photography although it was
>universally expected that the artist would attend a trade school or
>serve and apprenticeship. The "no skill no art" BS is hyperanxious
>about the fact that Photoshop ELIMINATES people who have skill but no
>art.
That is total Bullshit! Photoshop is just a dumb tool for simple
touchup tasks. I've used it quite a bit for helping to make web sites.
Take someone who has no artistic skills and give them the job of
making a fantasy painting with warriors and dragons or the job of
making a surrealistic painting like one by HR Giger. Photoshop ain't
going to do that shit for them! Ha! Get a clue. On the other hand,
computers can do a lot of abstract stuff, so it really only puts out
of a job some of the modern artist types, not the people with strong
classical skills. I spit on people who believe they have concepts but
little or no skills.
Richard
"keith o'connor wrote in message
>> One idiot asks the opinion of another idiot - the blind leading the blind -
Don't be so hard on yourself, Keith. We all have our limitations.
Nerd Gerl
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com <scot...@rogers.com> wrote in
article <5aRB9.98348$oRV....@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
Mani Deli
>Artistic conservatism of the sort that proclaims "no skill no art" did
>not predate the invention of the photography although it was
>universally expected that the artist would attend a trade school or
>serve and apprenticeship. The "no skill no art" BS is hyperanxious
>about the fact that Photoshop ELIMINATES people who have skill but no
>art.
Photoshop eliminates nothing. Those with artistic knowledge will outdo
those who have none.
The best of computer animation is done by those who learn drawing
basics. Modeling characters, lighting and perspective are a few
necessary skills. All complex scenes are conceptually founded on story
boards drawn by skilled artists capable of translating three
dimensional conceptions into drawings.
As to photography the myth that realistic paintings will look like
photos is just a myth. I often asked here for anyone to name a classic
painting that one would mistake for a photo.
The use of photography in fine art is another matter. As an aid it was
used by Manet, Degas, Monet, Picasso, to name a few.
Of course students don't learn about this in art school because that
would challenge Modern Academic Art mythology.
As to modern abstraction, that sort of crap is definitely challenged
by the computer. The computer can turn out stuff from Mondrian to Fox
like garbage, in no time. I go a step further and say that a good
fractal has better color and composition than 90% of the blue chip
abstract crap in museums. Indeed, paint programs outdo those who have
no skill. The internet is a good archive of such examples.
>
>I labored for years in egg tempera and acrylic to get the effect I
>refer to as "crepuscular" on my Web site
>http://members.screenz.com/edNilges, only to find that I could achieve
>the same effect in Photoshop in seconds. Any value therefore exists
>in the idea of light and not in my "skill."
I suspect you had no skill in the first place.
I'm always delighted that my statement "no skill no art" bugs artzy
fartzies. I suspect it states the obvious and makes them feel guilty.
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
John Ng
> Photoshop eliminates nothing... Indeed, paint programs outdo those who have
> no skill. The internet is a good archive of such examples.
Well said. I have philosophized on these things quite a bit and
wouldn't have put it more sweetly.
Just want to add to the guy who said, "only to find that I could
achieve the same effect in Photoshop in seconds". That sounds like
bullshit to me. I know that you can get quite a good effect making
say a photograph look like watercolour in Photoshop etc, but that is
only on the surface. Has that person ever understood Photoshop can
never produce the effect of the tempera medium itself, nor the strokes
and finish of the original painting. I seem to infer that the writer
digitized his tempera painting, thrown the original away and brood
about Photoshop being better. He is the kind of person who won't be
able to tell a print from the original painting.
John
ART RENEWAL ADVOCATE
http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
John Rune
wrote:
....
=>That is total Bullshit! Photoshop is just a dumb tool for simple
=>touchup tasks. I've used it quite a bit for helping to make web
sites.
=>Take someone who has no artistic skills and give them the job of
=>making a fantasy painting with warriors and dragons or the job of
=>making a surrealistic painting like one by HR Giger. Photoshop ain't
=>going to do that shit for them! Ha! Get a clue. On the other hand,
=>computers can do a lot of abstract stuff, so it really only puts out
=>of a job some of the modern artist types, not the people with strong
=>classical skills. I spit on people who believe they have concepts
but
=>little or no skills.
....
To whoever (whomever?<g>) is pretending to be "Richard", don't you
think that the hate-speech rhetoric is self defeating? You're too
over the edge for your character to ever be taken seriously.
So far you've done a passable job of playing a neurotic and
frustrated--if not rather severely disturbed--adolescent, but the
spitting thing is just silly. What's next, ranting about book
burnings and crushing modern art beneath your shiny black boots?
Seriously, your "Richard" persona is just too ridiculous to be
believed. Better luck next time.
C'ya,
John
Edward G. Nilges
> (Edward G. Nilges) wrote:
>
> >Artistic conservatism of the sort that proclaims "no skill no art" did
> >not predate the invention of the photography although it was
> >universally expected that the artist would attend a trade school or
> >serve and apprenticeship. The "no skill no art" BS is hyperanxious
> >about the fact that Photoshop ELIMINATES people who have skill but no
> >art.
>
> Photoshop eliminates nothing. Those with artistic knowledge will outdo
> those who have none.
Mani, I have already shown that your aesthetic "no skill no art" makes
no sense. This is shown by the fact that you have never disambiguated
"skill" from expression.
As best as I can understand and in a logician's terms, you believe
that skill is a necessary but not sufficient condition for "artist."
Unfortunately, what you appear to mean by skill is actually adherence
to Western canons that were born in the high Renaissance in Italy and
in Flanders and which died after David and Ingres, and which were kept
on government-financed life support in Napoleon II's empire and the
subsequent republic.
This shows that your "skill" is ersatz for aesthetic conformity. For
it can be said that given that Jackson Pollock had a vision, it took
an equal "amount" of a different "skill" for this artist to
physicalize his vision. This is obvious from old films of him
working, where he is obviously struggling for the "right" effect in
terms of his goals.
>
> The best of computer animation is done by those who learn drawing
> basics. Modeling characters, lighting and perspective are a few
> necessary skills. All complex scenes are conceptually founded on story
> boards drawn by skilled artists capable of translating three
> dimensional conceptions into drawings.
>
All this is true. But note that it's conceivable that some artists
start with drawing freehand with the mouse, and this takes higher
skill because it is less forgiving.
Furthermore, the above restricts animation to the Disney aesthetic
which has produced truly bad films like Snow White...in which the
realism so wars with the fantasy that the result confuses and
positively harms kids.
> As to photography the myth that realistic paintings will look like
> photos is just a myth. I often asked here for anyone to name a classic
> painting that one would mistake for a photo.
>
Of course, most of Ingres portraits can be easily mistaken for a
tinctured photograph.
> The use of photography in fine art is another matter. As an aid it was
> used by Manet, Degas, Monet, Picasso, to name a few.
>
> Of course students don't learn about this in art school because that
> would challenge Modern Academic Art mythology.
>
This is a mythology in your mind. Art schools contain a range of
teachers and are not in fact dominated by any one cabal. Their life
drawing classes are more limited by prudery and the unavailability of
models in good athletic shape (which to me is a problem, for to teach
life drawing in a traditional mode, you need Greco-Roman bodies which
were available in the American working class at the time of Bellows
and Eakins, but which working people, of the sort who take jobs as
models, don't have, thanks to McDonald's and automation.)
> As to modern abstraction, that sort of crap is definitely challenged
> by the computer. The computer can turn out stuff from Mondrian to Fox
> like garbage, in no time. I go a step further and say that a good
> fractal has better color and composition than 90% of the blue chip
> abstract crap in museums. Indeed, paint programs outdo those who have
> no skill. The internet is a good archive of such examples.
>
> >
> >I labored for years in egg tempera and acrylic to get the effect I
> >refer to as "crepuscular" on my Web site
> >http://members.screenz.com/edNilges, only to find that I could achieve
> >the same effect in Photoshop in seconds. Any value therefore exists
> >in the idea of light and not in my "skill."
>
> I suspect you had no skill in the first place.
Perhaps not. Indeed, when I was studying the reason I used
traditional techniques was my inferior natural talent for drawing,
something that is unrelated to artistic ability. To this day I use
cartoons (in the sense of traced drawings) and other aids because of
this.
But I do not feel this has anything to do with art.
When I get a chance I will put some examples on my web page. I feel
overall that my work is less skilled than many but far more
intelligent and expressive than an equal number.
You would do well to reflect that Nicholas Poussin had no natural
skill and look closely at his work. It is labored in comparision to
Rubens.
Your aesthetic is abusive, Fascist BS from the past which walks like
Frankenstein. It doesn't scare me since I have a life.
>
> I'm always delighted that my statement "no skill no art" bugs artzy
> fartzies. I suspect it states the obvious and makes them feel guilty.
> ...no skill no art!
>
Why should anyone, ever, be made guilty for creating art as opposed to
watching TV?
Richard
Computer software lacks intelligence and therefore is best capable of
mimicking art which also lacks intelligence: modern art.
Edward G. Nilges
> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
> On 16 Nov 2002 18:23:43 -0800, spino...@yahoo.com (Edward G.
> Nilges) wrote:
>
> >
> >Artistic conservatism of the sort that proclaims "no skill no art" did
> >not predate the invention of the photography although it was
> >universally expected that the artist would attend a trade school or
> >serve and apprenticeship. The "no skill no art" BS is hyperanxious
> >about the fact that Photoshop ELIMINATES people who have skill but no
> >art.
>
> That is total Bullshit! Photoshop is just a dumb tool for simple
> touchup tasks. I've used it quite a bit for helping to make web sites.
> Take someone who has no artistic skills and give them the job of
> making a fantasy painting with warriors and dragons or the job of
> making a surrealistic painting like one by HR Giger. Photoshop ain't
Ooo HR Giger.
You fail to note something about Giger because you are deluded by the
"reification" (making a thing out of a non-thing) of science fiction.
Surrealism, and science fiction and fantasy, presents an image of a
fictional world but with Western perspective and shading, which
deludes the mind, temporarily, into thinking that it's an image of a
reality, whether in dream or on another planet.
Of course, dreams are images probably only when we reconstruct them
the morning after and as Lacan has shown, the dream may be as much a
text as an image.
And, the world of Giger's aliens does not exist as far as we know, and
has no referent as far as we know.
The implication is very interesting, given the Fascist committments of
many surrealists and some science fiction writers.
It is that the AUDIENCE of Dali, Heinlein, and Giger is beguiled by
the possibility that their tales and images are "realistic" in the
sense of a Raphael madonna, where there were actual models for the
image. The art audience regards Giger as high-skill because his
aliens follow traditional canons.
This misses the fact that almost as much as Jackson Pollock, when
Giger first created and sold his images in the 1970s, he was at
liberty to make them look like almost anything.
Giger did not need what Mani understands to be traditional skill,
which happens to be the skill, in life drawing class, to sit in front
of the live model and reproduce the image using the Western canon.
Giger may have been drunk or high when he created his images, and we
do know that since then, he's not evolved artistically in any way.
He is, in other words, a hack who has found a meal ticket by showing
overprotected and therefore frightened Americans images of the Other.
> going to do that shit for them! Ha! Get a clue. On the other hand,
> computers can do a lot of abstract stuff, so it really only puts out
> of a job some of the modern artist types, not the people with strong
> classical skills. I spit on people who believe they have concepts but
> little or no skills.
>
Gee, then do you kick them? I find here a sort of collection of
little Hitlers, smarting with imagined hurts from an imagined arts
establishment.
I sense less love of art than a childish rage against the artistic and
the critical impulse.
Edward G. Nilges
Nerdgerl, beware. This thread is full of Nazi Space Monsters from the
Planet Bnarg, who were rejected by abstractionists at the Hochschule
fur Bildung und Kunst on the planet Bnarg (which was settled by Martin
Bormann in 1950) and who are terrorizing cyberspace with silly rants
like "nein Kraft nieder kunst!"
I don't think this happy Irishman is trying to say that Africans have
no souls. I think he is trying to express what Mister "nein Kraft
nieder kunst" (no skill no art) is saying to show that it is racist.
Which it is.
But keep your raser stungun handy. There are a lot of Gigerish wackos
in this thread.
Edward G. Nilges
> (Edward G. Nilges) wrote:
> >Therefore I showed this ng a few years ago that Mani is in the main
> >wrong insofar as he maintains that knowing how to draw (like an artist
> >in the Western European tradition) is a necessary or sufficient
> >condition for "being an artist." This view is Eurocentric and in some
> >circles a Fascist view.
>
> So draw in the Japanese or Mogul tradition. Both require drawing
> skills. Drawing is based on scientific understanding. The complete
> understanding of how and why things look the way they do was
> discovered in the West in the 14 hundreds.
Insofar as it is science, it is not art. I would say that if one is
unable to draw but able to master Photoshop, and has something
artistic to say, one can be a first-rate artist.
>
> Those who learn their craft can work in any tradition that pleases
> them without having to conform to Modern Academic incompetence.
>
Except, it seems, their own. I'd have to ask why modern Americans,
who are so diverse, have to choose a European or Asian tradition. I'd
say that they can and should say, like Pollock, heck with that, I am
nature.
> >It produces artistic anxiety which suppresses the creative spirit and
> >discourages women and minorities from pursuing artistic careers.
>
> Really? How many discouraged women have you met?
>
Tons.
> > It
> >also produces overrate Surrealist art which is a failed reconciliation
> >of the artist's art anxiety with his desire to be "original."
>
> >Fortunately, David Hockney has confirmed my long held view that the
> >Western tradition that started with Giotto is mechanistic in the sense
> >that in it the artist became the model for the machine only to be
> >replaced by the invention of photography, whereas he was assisted and
> >enabled by the camera obscura.
>
> Good, now lets see your work.
>
My best work (Triumph of Pandora) is unfortunately a nude, and I don't
choose to place and "18 or over" click on my web site, which is
primarily for the sale of my software. However, by end of month I do
plan to place my son's portrait on the net IF it looks OK after
digitization. I may enhance it using Photoshop because I recently
discovered this tool and if I do so I will describe the enhancements.
> >Isometric perspective can arguably, and recreationally, said to be
> >MORE realistic than Renaissance perspective. I can well imagine an
> >artist of late Gothic saying that the problem with Raphael is that the
> >use of vanishing-line perspective omits the fact that subjects of
> >painting happen in time.
>
> Have you met any late gothics who said this?
>
Gee, in the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is said to make
stuff up. Hey, ace, READ a book on Gothic art or Daniel Thompson's
book The Art of Tempera Painting. READING makes one a time-traveler.
> >Absurdly, Mani wants to revive the state-supported traditions of the
> >French,
>
> BULLSHIT!
>
> > of all people, to say who is and who is not an artist.
>
> After 80 years of repetitive Dada bullshit and Picassoid ugliness I
> feel its time to take another look and label it for what I feel it is.
>
OK, there is bad Modernism. There is bad stuff in the classical
tradition, including Simon Vouet, most followers of Poussin, the 19th
cent military artist Meissonier and of course the abominable Boogeroo.
Unless you believe Picasso is bad stuff unrelievedly, this proves
nothing: and the interesting thing about yer Picasso is that he was
able to produce such diverse styles. If you hate the style of the
monkeyboy Picasso gave us here in Chicago, you may very well like his
saltimbanques of the blue and rose periods.
> > The
> >revival is a form of grave-robbing with the result of Surrealism, a
> >sort of Frankenstein of art, which tries to deal with modern realities
> >with Fascist techniques.
>
> Are all surrealists fascists?
>
No, and you are committing a typical *modus tollens* fallacy of
misinterpretation. Dali was unlike Picasso a supporter of the Franco
regime. Modern conservatives like Paul Johnson have reread Franco as
an authoritarian and not a Fascist, but I think the Jews,
intellectuals, artists, Moslems and women imprisoned by Franco would
have a different view.
I would say on balance that people like Surrealism in art for
structurally the same reasons they like Fascism in their politics.
They feel inferior when they don't "get" modern art, or Marx and
Lenin, for they think that phenomena should be accessible,
immediately. Surrealism in art allows them to flatter themselves that
the problem wasn't their impatience or stupidity, because they do
indeed "get" melting watches, as in, "oh, cool, it is a melting
watch."
Structurally, the modern working man is confused and disoriented by
layoffs and the economy. Along comes somebody who (like Hitler)
provides him with a simple explanation that ALSO contains some
deviance (deviance structurally similar to the idea of a melting
watch) and our boy is like "cool." Along comes Rush Limbaugh who has
learned not to blame Jews but instead names a structural cousin
("cosmopolitan elements") and our boy is like "wow."
Anything is better, I suppose, than just standing in front of Pollock
and looking without making evaluations that are usually the wrong
ones.
> >>
> >> >Isn't cubism supposed to belong in the realm of painting and not
> >> >drawing? I thought life drawing was just supposed to be about drawing
> >> >people realistically.
>
> Well the results I've seen coming out of schools doesn't exactly
> conform to that.
>
> >> I think cubism is early Modern Academic art bullshit. It is, as
> >> practiced by Picasso and Braque, Axonometric drawing in a shit brown
> >> palette. The best exponent of cubism was Juan Gris who at least added
> >> some good color. He scared the shit out of Picasso.
> >
> >The portrait of dealer Daniel Henri Kahnweiler that is in the Art
> >Institute here in Chicago isn't shit, or if it is, it's good shit.
>
> It is signed by Picasso. Without that signature it would be considered
> nothing special.
>
> >FYI, Picasso downsized his pallet in a second-order REVIVAL of the
> >academic tradition but on Picasso's own terms.
> >
> >Mani, your oedipal war against Modernism is itself getting old in the
> >way of all flesh,
>
> I have yet to read a bad review of any Modern Academic artist in a
> newspaper and its been going on for the last 50 years. Modern Academic
> painting not modernism is the Emperor's old clothes.
>
Gee, you don't get out much. Clement Greenberg said quite a lot of
bad things even about his "favorites." He named and described
Pollock's failure in the later 1950s, as a result of drinking, to
follow up on his midlife work.
> > and the new move Frida shows that Modernism now has
> >grandchildren, who don't regard the old fart as evil in the manner of
> >the kids.
> >
> >Didya see Frida yet? And, do you like her work?
> >
> She is an example of no-skill-realism which would interest hardly
> anyone had she circulated in a different social setting. Her work is
> on a level of average street corner portrait art. My interest in an
> artist starts with the quality of the art work not their biography.
> ...no skill no art!
>
You want her to paint in what I'd call "metropolitan" terms where the
"metropolis" of Mexico is Spain. Instead, she chose to paint in a
style somewhat imitative of other Mexican artists who were indeed
trying to compete with Madrid. These artists, in their attempts,
invented new ways of expressing themselves in a Mexican style.
The result is far more interesting than if she'd tried to be another
Goya. What your "nein Kraft nieder Kunst" philosophy fails to see
that you are asking artists to compete with a metropolis which no
longer exists, a losing proposition. You are asking them to be at
best like America's Benjamin West, who mastered European Kraft but had
nothing American to say. The result was his second-rate Death of
Wolfe, an admirable piece of Kraft that portrays Amerindians as
Greeks, mourning the death of Wolfe. This painting is truly an
example of a work valuable only because signed, by Benjamin West, who
succeeded in the absence of competition, in an era when most Americans
did not want to be artists.
John Ng
> Computer software lacks intelligence and therefore is best capable of
> mimicking art which also lacks intelligence: modern art.
That is not the point. Computer programs can be very intelligent and
in the not too distant future, it will be able to create those funky
art that Kadinsky and his likes have created... and fancier and more
ingenious as well. The output is indistinguishable from that done by
hand. For that to happen, it will have to interface with some simple
form of robotics to use real paint... a rather easy implementation.
However, to enable it to paint realism to the likes of Bouguereau is
almost impossible (... making a computer "print" a photo wouldn't
achieve the result).
This is what separates a low form of art (Modern Art) with that of the
highest form (Academic Art). That is to say, Modern Art can be easily
perfected by thinking machines, whereas the best of the
representational painting is difficult or impossible to perfect, as in
the case of Bouguereau.
John Ng
Surrealist
surrealism and fascism. However, in another thread, I wrote the word
"surrealism" in the subject header. Hello Internet, I'm a surrealistic
thinker and painter. BUT... just in case... I'd like to point out that I
do NOT belong to those fascistoid idiots. I'm an ANTI-fascist and I hate
all that Nazi crap. Just to avoid any misunderstandings ;-) Thank you
for your attention! ;-)
I almost completely agree with Edward G. Nilges. By the way, that slogan
"no skill no art" would read in German "kein Können, keine Kunst".
I never heard of the slogan "nein Kraft nieder kunst". Is that the
correct translation? In English this would read: "no, energy, down,
art".
Pretty sensitive topic. One wrong word and you may get an explosive
mixture of misunderstandings ;-)
Greetings from Germany.
Sharr Truce
>Insofar as it is science, it is not art. I would say that if one is
>unable to draw but able to master Photoshop, and has something
>artistic to say, one can be a first-rate artist.
In this "forum of the absurd" it's the
ultimate absurdity to compare images made
on a computer for display on a computer
monitor to "real" paintings (or any hand-made art
for that matter). And printing out computer
generated art does NOT render the printout
similar to hand-made, or even close...
I HAVE to use Photoshop's tools to manipulate
the images on my web site in order to get
clarity when reducing the file sizes so that
even those with slow telephone modems (like me)
can download the images in a reasonable amount
of time. And the same goes for thumbnails
that must load quickly. I assume that anyone
looking at my web imagery KNOWS that the images
are very different from what is presented
in "real time and space." What I can do, since
I am the one who created the "real" art in
the first place, is tweak the Photoshop
representations of my art to "most closely
resemble" the actual thing as I know it.
AND what you see on YOUR monitor may differ
from what I see on mine anyway!!!
Surrealist
That frustrated guy who invented that narrow-minded slogan "no skill no
art" was obviously trying to say: "no three-dimensional/photorealistic
skill, no art".
Well, this can be measured somehow. But... whether his theory makes
sense, is another question, of course...
Just my two cents worth.
Richard
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 15:55:05 +0100, Surrealist <bark...@hardybar.de>
wrote:
Even though some people don't think that drawing & painting
realistically is the be-all end-all of art, drawing/painting a bunch
of crap that looks like it was done by retarded children is not the
answer or alternative. If those people think they are so smart, why
don't they come up with alternative art styles that look intelligent
and have some sophistication? And maybe even a little beauty? Why does
modern art always have to look shitty, ugly, stupid, and childish?
Mani Deli
Nilges) wrote:
>OK, there is bad Modernism. There is bad stuff in the classical
>tradition, including Simon Vouet, most followers of Poussin, the 19th
>cent military artist Meissonier and of course the abominable Boogeroo.
> Unless you believe Picasso is bad stuff unrelievedly, this proves
>nothing: and the interesting thing about yer Picasso is that he was
>able to produce such diverse styles. If you hate the style of the
>monkeyboy Picasso gave us here in Chicago, you may very well like his
>saltimbanques of the blue and rose periods.
"OK, there is bad Modernism." It ends with Pigasshole. Pig is no
better than a third rate cartoonist.
>> > The
>> >revival is a form of grave-robbing with the result of Surrealism, a
>> >sort of Frankenstein of art, which tries to deal with modern realities
>> >with Fascist techniques.
>>
>> Are all surrealists fascists?
>>
>No, and you are committing a typical *modus tollens* fallacy of
>misinterpretation. Dali was unlike Picasso a supporter of the Franco
>regime.
I'm interested in paintings and don't reject Leonardo because he was
patronized by tyrants.
>I would say on balance that people like Surrealism in art for
>structurally the same reasons they like Fascism in their politics.
I wouldn't!
>They feel inferior when they don't "get" modern art, or Marx and
>Lenin, for they think that phenomena should be accessible,
>immediately. Surrealism in art allows them to flatter themselves that
>the problem wasn't their impatience or stupidity, because they do
>indeed "get" melting watches, as in, "oh, cool, it is a melting
>watch."
Melting watches bug this crank.
>Structurally, the modern working man is confused and disoriented by
>layoffs and the economy. Along comes somebody who (like Hitler)
>provides him with a simple explanation that ALSO contains some
>deviance (deviance structurally similar to the idea of a melting
>watch) and our boy is like "cool." Along comes Rush Limbaugh who has
>learned not to blame Jews but instead names a structural cousin
>("cosmopolitan elements") and our boy is like "wow."
>
>Anything is better, I suppose, than just standing in front of Pollock
>and looking without making evaluations that are usually the wrong
>ones.
>
You mean like you when you stand in front of surrealism?
...no skill no art!
Mani Deli
Nilges) wrote:
>Mani, I have already shown that your aesthetic "no skill no art" makes
>no sense.
I suggest you repeat it three times a day after meals in order to
better convince yourself
>Unfortunately, what you appear to mean by skill is actually adherence
>to Western canons that were born in the high Renaissance in Italy and
>in Flanders and which died after David and Ingres, and which were kept
>on government-financed life support in Napoleon II's empire and the
>subsequent republic.
Unfortunately that's what you misinterpret as my position. Skill is
apparent in Asian art, ancient art, medieval art etc. My point is that
it isn't apparent in Modern Academic art.
>This shows that your "skill" is ersatz for aesthetic conformity.
It shows that you don't know what you are talking about.
>For
>it can be said that given that Jackson Pollock had a vision, it took
>an equal "amount" of a different "skill" for this artist to
>physicalize his vision.
There is no vision in Pollock. His crap can be imitated by the
unskilled.
>This is obvious from old films of him
>working, where he is obviously struggling for the "right" effect in
>terms of his goals.
Pollock came home drunk one night and looked at his paint dripped
shoes and unlike other artists with equally dirty shoes decided to
"struggel" while dripping the effect on canvas, between drinks.
>>
>> The best of computer animation is done by those who learn drawing
>> basics. Modeling characters, lighting and perspective are a few
>> necessary skills. All complex scenes are conceptually founded on story
>> boards drawn by skilled artists capable of translating three
>> dimensional conceptions into drawings.
>>
>All this is true. But note that it's conceivable that some artists
>start with drawing freehand with the mouse, and this takes higher
>skill because it is less forgiving.
Drawing with a mouse takes no skill whatever although the result
might.
>Furthermore, the above restricts animation to the Disney aesthetic
>which has produced truly bad films like Snow White...in which the
>realism so wars with the fantasy that the result confuses and
>positively harms kids.
There is more abstract art in two minutes of Snow White than in 98% of
the crap hanging in museums pretending to be art.
>
>> As to photography the myth that realistic paintings will look like
>> photos is just a myth. I often asked here for anyone to name a classic
>> painting that one would mistake for a photo.
>>
>Of course, most of Ingres portraits can be easily mistaken for a
>tinctured photograph.
>
--By someone who never looked at an original and is uninterested in
painting.
>> The use of photography in fine art is another matter. As an aid it was
>> used by Manet, Degas, Monet, Picasso, to name a few.
>>
>> Of course students don't learn about this in art school because that
>> would challenge Modern Academic Art mythology.
>>
>This is a mythology in your mind.
Anyone here learn about it in art school? Or from artzy fartzy art
history books?
>You would do well to reflect that Nicholas Poussin had no natural
>skill and look closely at his work. It is labored in comparision to
>Rubens.
Well if he had no skill you should easily do as well.
>Your aesthetic is abusive, Fascist BS from the past which walks like
>Frankenstein. It doesn't scare me since I have a life.
I'm waiting for this asshole to get on Fox's track and start
mentioning Hitler.
>> I'm always delighted that my statement "no skill no art" bugs artzy
>> fartzies. I suspect it states the obvious and makes them feel guilty.
>Why should anyone, ever, be made guilty for creating art as opposed to
>watching TV?
?
...no skill no art!
Mani Deli
Nilges) wrote:
>The implication is very interesting, given the Fascist committments of
>many surrealists and some science fiction writers.
Like who?
>Giger did not need what Mani understands to be traditional skill,
>which happens to be the skill, in life drawing class, to sit in front
>of the live model and reproduce the image using the Western canon.
Drawing skill is an ability to draw anything from reality to
imagination. Life drawing is a small part of it.
>Giger may have been drunk or high when he created his images, and we
>do know that since then, he's not evolved artistically in any way.
>
>He is, in other words, a hack who has found a meal ticket by showing
>overprotected and therefore frightened Americans images of the Other.
>
My opinion! I don't care much for Geiger but recognize him as an
artist. He can do things few can do. There are many artists I don't
like for this reason. Modern Academic Art on the other hand can be
done by anyone who has learned a minimum of the craft. That is why I
put it in an entirely different class.
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Mani Deli
>x-no-archive: yes
>Measuring skill is a hopeless task.
One needn't make any measurements where it is obvious that a lack of
skill is apparent.
> It is not an objective
>but subjective measure. His statement does not say
>how much skill one requires before it can be assessed as
>art.
Right I only said "no skill no art."
> Perhaps as much skill as he claims to have, but if you
>take Him at his word you would become to believe there
>is no more skill to be had [than his], or not any that would
>improve Art.
Perhaps you can find the quote that will back up the claim that I said
that.
> Further, he sems to give the idea that drawing is everthing, and almost never comments on any
>other skill that is in art.
Read my comments on Gaudi, Tamara, illustrators, many 19th Century
artists,etc. I said drawing is a foundation. The foundation of a
building isn't the building.
>No doubt that artists look for skills that they know of and
>have something of when looking critically at other artists'
>works. However, it should not be forgotten that a work of
>art can look wonderful to someone who posesses nothing
>in the way of skill, just in the way music has it's keen and
>discerning listeners who cannot play.
However, it should not be forgotten that a work of
art can look terrible to someone who possesses nothing
in the way of skill when no skill is apparent.
>The impressionists for example chose to ditch certain 'skills'
>and yet most seem to have a good regard for the best works
>of this genre, even artists themselves.
Which skills did they ditch?
...no skill no art!
Richard
>>Giger did not need what Mani understands to be traditional skill,
>>which happens to be the skill, in life drawing class, to sit in front
>>of the live model and reproduce the image using the Western canon.
Giger has SUPREME artistic skills. He is a virtuoso with an airbrush.
He can paint a conventional human likeness as good as anyone, and he
has in some of his paintings.
>>Giger may have been drunk or high when he created his images, and we
>>do know that since then, he's not evolved artistically in any way.
You're a shithead to say that. Giger is a genius. Crap-asses like de
kooning and you are the hacks. You call Giger a hack because he has
incredible skills and creative genius instead of being a no-skill
bullshitter like you. Giger is the greatest surrealist painter ever.
You wish you had 1/1,000th of his talent.
John Ng
>
> And printing out computer
> generated art does NOT render the printout
> similar to hand-made, or even close...
I do agree with you. The absurdity extends to comparing a painting
with a photograph.
In the case of our current computers, this holds true as well.
However, it is not too difficult to develop an articulate "painting"
computer, that paints with brushes (or likes of it) and real paint.
As I said in some other post, the result is funky art that is
indistinguishable from that done by humans such as De Kooning or
Cezanne or a whole new funky individual. Computers have now the
capability of being programmed to beat chess masters and therefore an
arty-farty computer is not far away (and in fact simplier to program).
I am not talking about emulation... I am talking about real thinking
machines with the same pretentious feelings and moods that funky
artists have.
However, having said all this, computers will never be able to come
close to art done by that of Bouguereau or even lesser Olympians. The
reason being that representation art has a correctness and an
incorrectness. It would be impossible achieve this correctness no
matter how accurate the robotics is.
Thus, it concludes clearly that funky art or the Modern Art genre is a
very primitive and low form of art, whereas highly technically skilled
art is the highest form.
Edward G. Nilges
> surrealism / fantasy art, and try my damnest to make some of it. Yet I
> *assure* you, I am no racist. lol
>
> This whole thread makes me uncomfortable.
I am sorry if I am any part of that phenomenon. I find that I come
across with an intensity which undercuts, at times, my anti-Fascist
committments. There are a lot of weirdos on the Net and indeed the
Net's continued dominance by Anglo white males is responsible for the
creep factor.
Mike Moore is like me: a white middle-aged guy who is scared of white
guys. In Outward Bound in Yosemite they warned us to be more afraid
of lone guys in the backcountry than grizzly bears because of the
Kaczynski factor.
I find newsgroups increasingly dominated by unconscious Fascism based
on the fact that schools don't teach history and they emphatically
don't teach against the Fascism which results from false promises and
true miseries.
Mani is a smart guy but he never read Clement Greenberg...otherwise
he'd see that it's just not true that modern artists and critics
formed a mutual admiration society. His belief is structurally alike
Hitler's belief that the art society of Vienna had it in for him when
in fact they simply ignored him and I find this scary.
As to your art, I like it. You are exploring issues which interest me
in that my recent work (with considerably less facility than yours)
explores the idea of the transformed or angelic body that is
transformed by transgression of sexual and other boundaries. In Pop
works I see some of this in Frank Frazetta's work.
I am not gonna post my best work ("Triumph of Pandora") anytime soon
because it is in my ex wife's possession and I cannot afford a digital
camera at this time. But before the end of the month I will post some
portrait work of mine that more or less sucks technically but has more
intelligence than Mani's work.
>
> =============
> Naked Angel Art
> http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl
>
> Surrealist <bark...@hardybar.de> wrote in article
> <3DD8FCDE...@hardybar.de>...
Edward G. Nilges
> surrealism / fantasy art, and try my damnest to make some of it. Yet I
> *assure* you, I am no racist. lol
>
> This whole thread makes me uncomfortable.
>
> Naked Angel Art
> http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl
>
> Surrealist <bark...@hardybar.de> wrote in article
> <3DD8FCDE...@hardybar.de>...
> > I haven't, yet, participated in this thread about the comparison between
> > surrealism and fascism. However, in another thread, I wrote the word
> > "surrealism" in the subject header. Hello Internet, I'm a surrealistic
> > thinker and painter. BUT... just in case... I'd like to point out that I
> > do NOT belong to those fascistoid idiots. I'm an ANTI-fascist and I hate
> > all that Nazi crap. Just to avoid any misunderstandings ;-) Thank you
> > for your attention! ;-)
> >
> > I almost completely agree with Edward G. Nilges. By the way, that slogan
> > "no skill no art" would read in German "kein Können, keine Kunst".
> >
> > I never heard of the slogan "nein Kraft nieder kunst". Is that the
> > correct translation? In English this would read: "no, energy, down,
> > art".
My bad, totally, but I am gratified that my ignorance of German
produced Dadaist poetry. I agree with what I said: lack of energy
means down with art. And Mani's "skill", constituted in the
acceptance of any old clapped-out patriarchal tradition in preference
to actually creating art, right down to malaprop German, then indeed
Mani's philosophy is no energy and down with art.
Edward G. Nilges
They booted my folks out of Munchen in 1848 because of our support,
probably, for Lola Montez. Danke schon, as our Wayne Newton would
say, for the German lesson.
Edward G. Nilges
> On 17 Nov 2002 20:08:16 -0800, spino...@yahoo.com (Edward G.
> Nilges) wrote:
>
> >The implication is very interesting, given the Fascist committments of
> >many surrealists and some science fiction writers.
>
> Like who?
Like Heinlein (as in Starship Troopers) and H. R. Giger.
>
> >Giger did not need what Mani understands to be traditional skill,
> >which happens to be the skill, in life drawing class, to sit in front
> >of the live model and reproduce the image using the Western canon.
>
> Drawing skill is an ability to draw anything from reality to
> imagination. Life drawing is a small part of it.
But even you acknowledge, Mani, that there are different ways. I have
been trying since 1998 to determine what common thread unites your
idea of tradition and I have decided it is that the tradition be
patriarchal and from a traditional and homogenous society, such as
Japan or Europe. What you miss is that American artists are mutts and
cannot without betraying themselves pretend to be a part of this
tradition.
>
>
> >Giger may have been drunk or high when he created his images, and we
> >do know that since then, he's not evolved artistically in any way.
> >
> >He is, in other words, a hack who has found a meal ticket by showing
> >overprotected and therefore frightened Americans images of the Other.
> >
> My opinion! I don't care much for Geiger but recognize him as an
> artist. He can do things few can do. There are many artists I don't
Everybody does things few can do once they access their own divine
spark.
> like for this reason. Modern Academic Art on the other hand can be
> done by anyone who has learned a minimum of the craft. That is why I
This claim is false. If an ordinary slob tried to do a Pollock he
would end up with something that would look UNLIKE a Pollock. Indeed,
your aesthetic is undercut in that abstract art is MORE DIFFICULT to
forge than realistic art.
Edward G. Nilges
> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
>
> >>Giger did not need what Mani understands to be traditional skill,
> >>which happens to be the skill, in life drawing class, to sit in front
> >>of the live model and reproduce the image using the Western canon.
>
> Giger has SUPREME artistic skills. He is a virtuoso with an airbrush.
He probably uses Photoshop and humanoid assistants who are not
credited with the work.
> He can paint a conventional human likeness as good as anyone, and he
> has in some of his paintings.
Gawrsh. I suggest that this is a yokel's criterion.
>
> >>Giger may have been drunk or high when he created his images, and we
> >>do know that since then, he's not evolved artistically in any way.
>
> You're a shithead to say that. Giger is a genius. Crap-asses like de
Oooooo....
> kooning and you are the hacks. You call Giger a hack because he has
> incredible skills and creative genius instead of being a no-skill
> bullshitter like you. Giger is the greatest surrealist painter ever.
> You wish you had 1/1,000th of his talent.
No, only his money.
You are scaring nerdgerl.
Look, mate, if you like a hack like Giger you aren't qualified to talk
about art. At least Mani knows something about art. Giger is a
corporate employee who is retained by the cinema people to impress
yokels and buffoons.
Nerd Gerl
<f5dda427.02111...@posting.google.com>...
> indeed the
> Net's continued dominance by Anglo white males is responsible for the
> creep factor.
Well... that might not be true. Don't believe the hype - Or the stats.
> Mike Moore is like me: a white middle-aged guy who is scared of white
> guys. In Outward Bound in Yosemite they warned us to be more afraid
> of lone guys in the backcountry than grizzly bears because of the
> Kaczynski factor.
:-o
BTW... who is Mike Moore?
> I find newsgroups increasingly dominated by unconscious Fascism based
> on the fact that schools don't teach history and they emphatically
> don't teach against the Fascism which results from false promises and
> true miseries.
Ok.
> Mani is a smart guy but he never read Clement Greenberg...otherwise
> he'd see that it's just not true that modern artists and critics
> formed a mutual admiration society. His belief is structurally alike
> Hitler's belief that the art society of Vienna had it in for him when
> in fact they simply ignored him and I find this scary.
Well... I think he and others with such a high fever are going to be
continuously ignored. I mean... I just don't think Modern art is going
to go away, nor do I see Mani becoming the next Hitler. Hell, he can't
even get enough support in this little 'ol newsgroup let alone the
number of followers Hitler had.
I will have to read and re-read your posts. They are very informative.
Like a tornado of information - so it's going to take a while to
figure it all out. You are a very good writer.
> As to your art, I like it. You are exploring issues which interest me
> in that my recent work (with considerably less facility than yours)
> explores the idea of the transformed or angelic body that is
> transformed by transgression of sexual and other boundaries.
<big grin> Thanks for noticing the boundaries. I would like to learn
more about your art and thoughts about angels. Email me, k?
BTW, I see you are computer programmer too. It amazes me to find that
many programmers are artists as well. "kewl"
> In Pop works I see some of this in Frank Frazetta's work.
> I am not gonna post my best work ("Triumph of Pandora") anytime soon
> because it is in my ex wife's possession and I cannot afford a digital
> camera at this time. But before the end of the month I will post some
> portrait work of mine that more or less sucks technically but has more
> intelligence than Mani's work.
Well I'll look forward to seeing it!! You'll calm down now, eh? :-)
Mani has no power. None of us here do.
===============
Mani Deli
>Mani is a smart guy but he never read Clement Greenberg...
He's the one modern art critic I've read most. There's a chapter on
him in my book and his vote on my abstract schmier sent me to Europe
for a year.
In my opinion he was a terrible writer, rather stupid and nasty to
many who knew him. His influence lingers to this day as his writing is
the major declaration of Modern Academic Art stupidity.
>otherwise
>he'd see that it's just not true that modern artists and critics
>formed a mutual admiration society. His belief is structurally alike
>Hitler's belief that the art society of Vienna had it in for him when
>in fact they simply ignored him and I find this scary.
Sorry to disappoint you, I've always done well in art.
Mani Deli
Nilges) wrote:
>> Drawing skill is an ability to draw anything from reality to
>> imagination. Life drawing is a small part of it.
>
>But even you acknowledge, Mani, that there are different ways.
I don't see much more then reality and imagination. Together they
encompass the whole bit.
> I have
>been trying since 1998 to determine what common thread unites your
>idea of tradition and I have decided it is that the tradition be
>patriarchal and from a traditional and homogenous society, such as
>Japan or Europe.
Art in my opinion is a unique example of ideas and craftsmanship. My
ideas aren't about tradition. Someone who knows his craft can paint in
any way he chooses. Craftsmanship is the liberator, Without it ideas
are useless.
> What you miss is that American artists are mutts and
>cannot without betraying themselves pretend to be a part of this
>tradition.
>
?
>Everybody does things few can do once they access their own divine
>spark.
Perhaps, but to be successful that spark must interest others.
st...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk
spino...@yahoo.com (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
...
>> >The implication is very interesting, given the Fascist committments of
>> >many surrealists and some science fiction writers.
>>
>> Like who?
>
>Like Heinlein (as in Starship Troopers) and H. R. Giger.
To these (European) eyes, Heinlein in real life became a
right-wing loony libertarian supporter of the Vietnam War,
Barry Goldwater, SDI etc. However, writing the science FICTION
book "Starship Troopers" doesn't show Heinlein's commitment
to the cause of fascism any more than writing "Portnoy's Complaint"
shows Philip Roth's advocacy of unusual liver recipes,
or painting some financially rewarding "schmiers" shows
Mani's commitment to modernism.
--
J.E.H.Shaw [Ewart Shaw] st...@uk.ac.warwick TEL: +44 2476 523069
Department of Statistics, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.
http://www.warwick.ac.uk/statsdept/Staff/JEHS/
3 ((4&({*.(=+/))++/=3:)@([:,/0&,^:(i.3)@|:"2^:2))&.>@]^:(i.@[) <#:3 6 2
Thur
have looked at were carelessly drawn in perspective.
Simple brush strokes, or splodges as I would call them, were
used in place of careful rendering. Sometimes this served
the purpose of adding drama to a subject, but overall, it was
simple degeneration of a craft.
It might have been justifiable if, like the Chinese caligraphic
painters, a demonstration of brush skills, where ink or
watercolour forbade overpainting mistakes, but these were
oil painters, for the most part finishing their works in a studio.
Just to prove some point or other, a pallette that would have
otherwise been seen as inappropriate was used, and used
over and over again. The same scene in Monet's case was used
over 40 times. I wonder which one of those paintings was the
one where he got it right?
Just in case anyone would think I dislike impressionism, then I refer
them to the works of Renoir, Mary Cassat, the watercolours of Sargent,
which are amongst a host of others that I love.
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:eonituogkjo61h1dd...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 11:20:50 -0000, "Thur" <a@spamless.z> wrote:
>
> >x-no-archive: yes
Richard
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 11:31:02 +0000 (UTC),
st...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk () wrote:
>In article <f5dda427.02111...@posting.google.com>,
> spino...@yahoo.com (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
>...
>>> >The implication is very interesting, given the Fascist committments of
>>> >many surrealists and some science fiction writers.
>>>
>>> Like who?
>>
>>Like Heinlein (as in Starship Troopers) and H. R. Giger.
>...
>To these (European) eyes, Heinlein in real life became a
>right-wing loony libertarian supporter of the Vietnam War,
>Barry Goldwater, SDI etc. However, writing the science FICTION
>book "Starship Troopers" doesn't show Heinlein's commitment
>to the cause of fascism any more than writing "Portnoy's Complaint"
>shows Philip Roth's advocacy of unusual liver recipes,
>or painting some financially rewarding "schmiers" shows
>Mani's commitment to modernism.
Anybody who throws the word fascism around a lot is probably a
communist or communist sympathizer who's been brainwashed by idiot
marxist teachers in college. I think many of the supporters of things
like cubism and expressionism are probably marxists. They seem to go
together hand in hand.
Edward G. Nilges
> <f5dda427.02111...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > indeed the
> > Net's continued dominance by Anglo white males is responsible for the
> > creep factor.
>
> Well... that might not be true. Don't believe the hype - Or the stats.
OK. You sure? Accelent Corp says that by 2008 the main Internet lang
will be Chinese.
>
> > Mike Moore is like me: a white middle-aged guy who is scared of white
> > guys. In Outward Bound in Yosemite they warned us to be more afraid
> > of lone guys in the backcountry than grizzly bears because of the
> > Kaczynski factor.
>
> :-o
>
> BTW... who is Mike Moore?
Film director and author from Flint MI who made the 1995 film Roger
and Me about downsizing and recently published a book entitled Stupid
White Men.
>
> > I find newsgroups increasingly dominated by unconscious Fascism based
> > on the fact that schools don't teach history and they emphatically
> > don't teach against the Fascism which results from false promises and
> > true miseries.
>
> Ok.
>
> > Mani is a smart guy but he never read Clement Greenberg...otherwise
> > he'd see that it's just not true that modern artists and critics
> > formed a mutual admiration society. His belief is structurally alike
> > Hitler's belief that the art society of Vienna had it in for him when
> > in fact they simply ignored him and I find this scary.
>
> Well... I think he and others with such a high fever are going to be
> continuously ignored. I mean... I just don't think Modern art is going
> to go away, nor do I see Mani becoming the next Hitler. Hell, he can't
> even get enough support in this little 'ol newsgroup let alone the
> number of followers Hitler had.
>
> I will have to read and re-read your posts. They are very informative.
> Like a tornado of information - so it's going to take a while to
> figure it all out. You are a very good writer.
Thanks. I like your taste in writing since so many people find me
excessively verbose and utterly pretentious.
I like talking to Mani since he's a good artist and a smart guy but
unfortunately one of those art skewl types who decide that modern art
is an establishment when in fact it's just a bunch of dealers and
artists trying hustle each other, as was the French Academy of the
19th century or indeed any academy of any century. Inge Infante, a
West Coast artist, set me straight in 1981 for she said "paint as you
like and die happy."
>
> > As to your art, I like it. You are exploring issues which interest me
> > in that my recent work (with considerably less facility than yours)
> > explores the idea of the transformed or angelic body that is
> > transformed by transgression of sexual and other boundaries.
>
> <big grin> Thanks for noticing the boundaries. I would like to learn
> more about your art and thoughts about angels. Email me, k?
Yes
>
> BTW, I see you are computer programmer too. It amazes me to find that
> many programmers are artists as well. "kewl"
I got sucked into early computers when at the Art Institute. My
instructor da Silva yelled at me for showing up with a printout from
the mainframe in which I had printed a table of golden section numbers
for various canvas sizes, saying computers had nothing to do with art.
I did find that my fascination kept me from making art for many
years.
>
> > In Pop works I see some of this in Frank Frazetta's work.
>
> > I am not gonna post my best work ("Triumph of Pandora") anytime soon
> > because it is in my ex wife's possession and I cannot afford a digital
> > camera at this time. But before the end of the month I will post some
> > portrait work of mine that more or less sucks technically but has more
> > intelligence than Mani's work.
>
> Well I'll look forward to seeing it!! You'll calm down now, eh? :-)
I will send you email.
Andrew D
<a@spamless.z> wrote:
[snip]
>No doubt that artists look for skills that they know of and
>have something of when looking critically at other artists'
>works. However, it should not be forgotten that a work of
>art can look wonderful to someone who posesses nothing
>in the way of skill, just in the way music has it's keen and
>discerning listeners who cannot play.
[snip]
And that's the point. The expressionists among us would have you believe
that to appreciate "art" (their art) you must have a degree in art
history. Anyone who sees only scribble and dribble in "modern art" is
clearly unsophisticated and should stick to looking at prints in corner
gift shops.
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Edward G. Nilges
> On 17 Nov 2002 19:56:39 -0800, spino...@yahoo.com (Edward G.
> Nilges) wrote:
>
> >Mani, I have already shown that your aesthetic "no skill no art" makes
> >no sense.
>
> I suggest you repeat it three times a day after meals in order to
> better convince yourself
>
> >Unfortunately, what you appear to mean by skill is actually adherence
> >to Western canons that were born in the high Renaissance in Italy and
> >in Flanders and which died after David and Ingres, and which were kept
> >on government-financed life support in Napoleon II's empire and the
> >subsequent republic.
>
> Unfortunately that's what you misinterpret as my position. Skill is
> apparent in Asian art, ancient art, medieval art etc. My point is that
> it isn't apparent in Modern Academic art.
What's not apparent is adherence to a set of guild rules, for the very
good reason that the very idea of restricting practice of a profession
to a closed guild has never been what America is about. This allows
the American artist to generate his own self-determining rules,
conformance to which is just as difficult if not more than conformance
to a patriarchal guild.
>
>
> >This shows that your "skill" is ersatz for aesthetic conformity.
>
> It shows that you don't know what you are talking about.
>
> >For
> >it can be said that given that Jackson Pollock had a vision, it took
> >an equal "amount" of a different "skill" for this artist to
> >physicalize his vision.
>
> There is no vision in Pollock. His crap can be imitated by the
> unskilled.
But not forged, interestingly, in the way a Vermeer can be forged.
>
> >This is obvious from old films of him
> >working, where he is obviously struggling for the "right" effect in
> >terms of his goals.
>
> Pollock came home drunk one night and looked at his paint dripped
> shoes and unlike other artists with equally dirty shoes decided to
> "struggel" while dripping the effect on canvas, between drinks.
Of course, if you'd trouble to read his biography you would discover
that his art worsened when he started to drink heavily.
>
> >>
> >> The best of computer animation is done by those who learn drawing
> >> basics. Modeling characters, lighting and perspective are a few
> >> necessary skills. All complex scenes are conceptually founded on story
> >> boards drawn by skilled artists capable of translating three
> >> dimensional conceptions into drawings.
> >>
> >All this is true. But note that it's conceivable that some artists
> >start with drawing freehand with the mouse, and this takes higher
> >skill because it is less forgiving.
>
> Drawing with a mouse takes no skill whatever although the result
> might.
>
Nonsense, the difficulty in controlling it and simulating the effects
of pressure takes more skill.
> >Furthermore, the above restricts animation to the Disney aesthetic
> >which has produced truly bad films like Snow White...in which the
> >realism so wars with the fantasy that the result confuses and
> >positively harms kids.
>
> There is more abstract art in two minutes of Snow White than in 98% of
> the crap hanging in museums pretending to be art.
>
> >
> >> As to photography the myth that realistic paintings will look like
> >> photos is just a myth. I often asked here for anyone to name a classic
> >> painting that one would mistake for a photo.
> >>
> >Of course, most of Ingres portraits can be easily mistaken for a
> >tinctured photograph.
> >
> --By someone who never looked at an original and is uninterested in
> painting.
>
Commencing with Ingres, French Salon artists suppressed brushwork and
indeed tried to compete with photography, resulting in the abominable
Boogeroo.
> >> The use of photography in fine art is another matter. As an aid it was
> >> used by Manet, Degas, Monet, Picasso, to name a few.
> >>
> >> Of course students don't learn about this in art school because that
> >> would challenge Modern Academic Art mythology.
> >>
> >This is a mythology in your mind.
>
> Anyone here learn about it in art school? Or from artzy fartzy art
> history books?
>
> >You would do well to reflect that Nicholas Poussin had no natural
> >skill and look closely at his work. It is labored in comparision to
> >Rubens.
>
> Well if he had no skill you should easily do as well.
>
No, because I am primarily a software developer I haven't spent the
time Poussin spent in Rome. So I do not know whether I would outdo
Poussin had I done so, nor am I sure what it would mean to outdo
Poussin.
> >Your aesthetic is abusive, Fascist BS from the past which walks like
> >Frankenstein. It doesn't scare me since I have a life.
>
> I'm waiting for this asshole to get on Fox's track and start
> mentioning Hitler.
>
I already have, since if you think referring to people as assholes is
debate then you are in a sort of Brownshirt tradition.
> >> I'm always delighted that my statement "no skill no art" bugs artzy
> >> fartzies. I suspect it states the obvious and makes them feel guilty.
>
>
> >Why should anyone, ever, be made guilty for creating art as opposed to
> >watching TV?
>
Come on, you have been spewing your rage all over this newsgroup and
it is the sort of childish BS I see in art school which is used to
drive women and minorities out and which is destructive of the
artistic impulse. It is sexist, colonialist, and racist.
The market decided that Pollock is a good artist. And the market is
capable of rejecting initial decisions in favor of more nuanced
distinctions, as in the case of the initial versus the final
evaluation of Andy Warhol: his estate was downgraded in value several
times because the market realized that he was not as good, in Pop art
terms, as Roy Lichtenstein.
And what I mean by the market happens to be the genuine art market,
not the Disney machine which through economic machinations was able to
eliminate competition rather than compete. The genuine art market
consists of people who like or dislike specific works of art and have
enough breadth not to be beguiled into equating artistic quality with
mastery of a trade.
I suggest that this "no skill no art" may be for you an inner voice
which is preventing you from making progress in your art. I know that
when I get involved in what we called at IBM "process" and not
"product", whether as a software developer, I am hiding out from
issues. As a software developer in the early 1970s I drew beautiful
flowcharts, not realizing this was process that would never be
consulted by other developers and that the flow-charts were always
outdated. I did so because I was ambivalent about leaving art skewl
and wanted to retain some bogus "art" in my new trade.
Mani Deli
Nilges) wrote:
>Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<qpjitu0g3tdbmqbc6...@4ax.com>...
>> Unfortunately that's what you misinterpret as my position. Skill is
>> apparent in Asian art, ancient art, medieval art etc. My point is that
>> it isn't apparent in Modern Academic art.
>
>What's not apparent is adherence to a set of guild rules, for the very
>good reason that the very idea of restricting practice of a profession
>to a closed guild has never been what America is about. This allows
>the American artist to generate his own self-determining rules,
>conformance to which is just as difficult if not more than conformance
>to a patriarchal guild.
Modern Academic art didn't originate in America. If there is a
restriction at present it is that only art which conforms to the
Modern Academic styles is allowed into the modern sections of museums.
>> There is no vision in Pollock. His crap can be imitated by the unskilled.
>
>But not forged, interestingly, in the way a Vermeer can be forged.
It can be imitated as well as Vermeer was unsuccessfully imitated. Now
take three cans of paint and drip them on a large canvas. Now try to
repeat the accidental process. Pollock couldn't copy a Pollock.
However any idiot who knows some technique can copy a Rothko. I
depends on complexity.
>> >This is obvious from old films of him
>> >working, where he is obviously struggling for the "right" effect in
>> >terms of his goals.
>>
>> Pollock came home drunk one night and looked at his paint dripped
>> shoes and unlike other artists with equally dirty shoes decided to
>> "struggel" while dripping the effect on canvas, between drinks.
>
>Of course, if you'd trouble to read his biography you would discover
>that his art worsened when he started to drink heavily.
It was already bad when he was a student.
Greenberg and dealers made Pollock. Pollock was a drunken idiot. If
any pollock turned out a signed forgery it would be considerd
wothless. The only value in Pollock is the signiture.
>> Drawing with a mouse takes no skill whatever although the result
>> might.
>>
>Nonsense, the difficulty in controlling it and simulating the effects
>of pressure takes more skill.
get a tablet
>> >Of course, most of Ingres portraits can be easily mistaken for a
>> >tinctured photograph.
>> >
>> --By someone who never looked at an original and is uninterested in
>> painting.
>>
>Commencing with Ingres, French Salon artists suppressed brushwork and
>indeed tried to compete with photography, resulting in the abominable
>Boogeroo.
There are impressionistic passages and impasto in B. and many salon
works. Why don't you go and take a look. You should consult Marilyn
who claims that all these works are on pasted down photos. Anything
wrong with smooth blending?
>> >> The use of photography in fine art is another matter. As an aid it was
>> >> used by Manet, Degas, Monet, Picasso, to name a few.
Anything to say about that?
>> >Your aesthetic is abusive, Fascist BS from the past which walks like
>> >Frankenstein. It doesn't scare me since I have a life.
>>
>> I'm waiting for this asshole to get on Fox's track and start
>> mentioning Hitler.
>I already have, since if you think referring to people as assholes is
>debate then you are in a sort of Brownshirt tradition.
Do only Nazis refer to you as an asshole or do occasional variations
arise.
>Come on, you have been spewing your rage all over this newsgroup and
>it is the sort of childish BS I see in art school which is used to
>drive women and minorities out and which is destructive of the
>artistic impulse. It is sexist, colonialist, and racist.
Sounds like you're somewhat pissed.
>The market decided that Pollock is a good artist. And the market is
>capable of rejecting initial decisions in favor of more nuanced
>distinctions, as in the case of the initial versus the final
>evaluation of Andy Warhol: his estate was downgraded in value several
>times because the market realized that he was not as good, in Pop art
>terms, as Roy Lichtenstein.
>
>And what I mean by the market happens to be the genuine art market,
Meaning, only those you endorse.
>I suggest that this "no skill no art" may be for you an inner voice
>which is preventing you from making progress in your art.
I suggest the statement bugs you no end and causes you to be stupid
enough to associate it with Hitler.
Mani Deli
Edward G. Nilges
> On 19 Nov 2002 18:12:35 -0800, spino...@yahoo.com (Edward G.
> Nilges) wrote:
>
> >Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<qpjitu0g3tdbmqbc6...@4ax.com>...
>
> >> Unfortunately that's what you misinterpret as my position. Skill is
> >> apparent in Asian art, ancient art, medieval art etc. My point is that
> >> it isn't apparent in Modern Academic art.
> >
> >What's not apparent is adherence to a set of guild rules, for the very
> >good reason that the very idea of restricting practice of a profession
> >to a closed guild has never been what America is about. This allows
> >the American artist to generate his own self-determining rules,
> >conformance to which is just as difficult if not more than conformance
> >to a patriarchal guild.
>
> Modern Academic art didn't originate in America. If there is a
> restriction at present it is that only art which conforms to the
> Modern Academic styles is allowed into the modern sections of museums.
This is just false. Do you get out much?
Modern American art sections will include Charles Sheeler, Grant Wood,
George Bellows and modern hyper-realists like Chuck Close. They will
indeed exclude what I think you mean by quality art, and this is
kitsch, which depends for its effect on extra-artistic considerations.
For example, Meissonier appealed to followers of Napoleon because he
accurately painted Napoleon's defeats and victories. This causes the
viewer to ignore their lack of originality and focus, not on the art,
but on the memory of historical events.
>
> >> There is no vision in Pollock. His crap can be imitated by the unskilled.
> >
> >But not forged, interestingly, in the way a Vermeer can be forged.
>
> It can be imitated as well as Vermeer was unsuccessfully imitated. Now
> take three cans of paint and drip them on a large canvas. Now try to
> repeat the accidental process. Pollock couldn't copy a Pollock.
> However any idiot who knows some technique can copy a Rothko. I
> depends on complexity.
>
You keep saying this but as it happens I know of no successful
forgeries of modern art as opposed to Van Meegeren's and other's
forgeries of traditional art.
> >> >This is obvious from old films of him
> >> >working, where he is obviously struggling for the "right" effect in
> >> >terms of his goals.
> >>
> >> Pollock came home drunk one night and looked at his paint dripped
> >> shoes and unlike other artists with equally dirty shoes decided to
> >> "struggel" while dripping the effect on canvas, between drinks.
> >
> >Of course, if you'd trouble to read his biography you would discover
> >that his art worsened when he started to drink heavily.
>
> It was already bad when he was a student.
>
> Greenberg and dealers made Pollock. Pollock was a drunken idiot. If
> any pollock turned out a signed forgery it would be considerd
> wothless. The only value in Pollock is the signiture.
>
Greenberg happened to choose Pollock out of numerous others. Unless
you believe that Greenberg chose Pollock out of the phone book, you
have no case for any pre-existing bias. Pollock had nothing to give
Greenberg.
> >> Drawing with a mouse takes no skill whatever although the result
> >> might.
> >>
> >Nonsense, the difficulty in controlling it and simulating the effects
> >of pressure takes more skill.
>
> get a tablet
>
> >> >Of course, most of Ingres portraits can be easily mistaken for a
> >> >tinctured photograph.
> >> >
> >> --By someone who never looked at an original and is uninterested in
> >> painting.
> >>
> >Commencing with Ingres, French Salon artists suppressed brushwork and
> >indeed tried to compete with photography, resulting in the abominable
> >Boogeroo.
>
> There are impressionistic passages and impasto in B. and many salon
> works. Why don't you go and take a look. You should consult Marilyn
> who claims that all these works are on pasted down photos. Anything
> wrong with smooth blending?
>
Yes, if the artist is competing with photography and not introducing
smooth blending as an artistic theme. The problem with boogeroo is
that the blending communicates ideas outside of art, which happened to
be profoundly dishonest.
Boogeroo presents nudes by the beach as "Beautiful" to a bourgeoisie
which in fact was making life hard on mermaids. This is to say that
in a rapidly industrializing France, Boogeroo presented an ideal which
had nothing to do with real life, rather as the Bourgeois papa would
talk up his poor youth, dishonestly, to his kids as an ideal, while
making sure that they cultivated none of the living skills that he
had.
This is the pose of the middle-class parent who simultaneously
celebrates rugged individualism while conforming to all sorts of
rules.
Boogeroo presented in his religious works a sickly piety which again
had nothing to do with the actual practice of religion in France.
Pornographic plaster saints had of course nothing to do with, let us
say, Simone Weil and indeed make people cynical about religion.
The "blending" was a government-sponsored manufacture of consent to
false ideals which produced the carnage of Verdun in 1916 because
young men were beguiled by dishonest ideals.
> >> >> The use of photography in fine art is another matter. As an aid it was
> >> >> used by Manet, Degas, Monet, Picasso, to name a few.
>
> Anything to say about that?
>
No
> >> >Your aesthetic is abusive, Fascist BS from the past which walks like
> >> >Frankenstein. It doesn't scare me since I have a life.
> >>
> >> I'm waiting for this asshole to get on Fox's track and start
> >> mentioning Hitler.
>
> >I already have, since if you think referring to people as assholes is
> >debate then you are in a sort of Brownshirt tradition.
>
> Do only Nazis refer to you as an asshole or do occasional variations
> arise.
>
Not sure how constructive that is.
> >Come on, you have been spewing your rage all over this newsgroup and
> >it is the sort of childish BS I see in art school which is used to
> >drive women and minorities out and which is destructive of the
> >artistic impulse. It is sexist, colonialist, and racist.
>
> Sounds like you're somewhat pissed.
Pot calls kettle black.
WoN ereH
(snip)
I like your brain.
Debra
Richard
On 19 Nov 2002 18:12:35 -0800, spino...@yahoo.com (Edward G.
Nilges) wrote:
>What's not apparent is adherence to a set of guild rules, for the very
>good reason that the very idea of restricting practice of a profession
>to a closed guild has never been what America is about. This allows
>the American artist to generate his own self-determining rules,
>conformance to which is just as difficult if not more than conformance
>to a patriarchal guild.
And yet my painting teacher, who is an expressionist, is trying to
force us to conform to her beliefs and steer us away from realism.
Also, my life drawing teacher says it's not up to him to teach cubism.
He says that the rules force him to teach it. If America is so free,
why don't *I* have the fucking choice not to do ANY modern art crap in
college?
Neil Maxwell
wrote:
>If America is so free,
>why don't *I* have the fucking choice not to do ANY modern art crap in
>college?
Heh! You do. Don't do it. You will not be put in jail, beaten with
rubber hoses, or executed. Now THAT'S freedom!
Unless you're in a cage of your own making...
Simple, isn't it?
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
John Rune
wrote:
....
=>And yet my painting teacher, who is an expressionist, is trying to
=>force us to conform to her beliefs and steer us away from realism.
=>Also, my life drawing teacher says it's not up to him to teach
cubism.
=>He says that the rules force him to teach it. If America is so free,
=>why don't *I* have the fucking choice not to do ANY modern art crap
in
=>college?
Because what is at the core of freedom and individual rights in these
United States is mutual responsibility FIRST, personal freedoms LAST.
Not complete fucking anarchy on the part of the individual.
It never ceases to amaze me that people continue to confuse freedom
and liberty with anarchy and chaos. Freedom and liberty imply
RESPONSIBILITY, anarchy and chaos imply a blatant DISREGARD for
society and the rights of others. How can anyone confuse such polar
opposites?
So, apparently, the offending institution you attend believes it is
THEIR responsibility to include contemporary art in YOUR education.
Keep in mind, you are always free to LIBERATE yourself from their
oppressive tyranny.
Richard
On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 00:22:45 GMT, tact...@ptd.net (John Rune) wrote:
>So, apparently, the offending institution you attend believes it is
>THEIR responsibility to include contemporary art in YOUR education.
It's contemporary SHIT, not art. People don't need training to make
shit. That's why 12 year old girls can make cubist and other modern
art just as well or better than adults who've gone through university
art programs.
>Keep in mind, you are always free to LIBERATE yourself from their
>oppressive tyranny.
I am considering doing that. In the meantime, I've been talking to
each art teacher in advance to avoid taking classes with modern art
shitheads. Now I know which teachers are OK and which are kooks to be
avoided. I don't want any more of them to waste my time. If you don't
like that, then fuck you.
But my point is that modern artists are hypocrites, because they talk
about the evils of the old academy system in france, but now when they
get into teaching positions, they try hard to steer people away from
skills & realism and force them to immitate past modern art freaks
like picasso. Don't pretend you don't know that. Don't insult my
intelligence. My stupid expressionist teacher doesn't make me feel
free to "express" myself the way *i* want to. She wants to make all of
us conform to modern art beliefs. At least the old academy system in
france taught people to make beautiful art. The new bauhaus type
tyranny doesn't even do that. They restrict people and force them to
make shit and pretend that it's art.
Mani Deli
wrote:
>My stupid expressionist teacher doesn't make me feel
>free to "express" myself the way *i* want to. She wants to make all of
>us conform to modern art beliefs.
As I said art schools today teach acreed instead of a craft.
G*rd*n
| ...
| about the evils of the old academy system in france, but now when they
| get into teaching positions, they try hard to steer people away from
| skills & realism and force them to immitate past modern art freaks
| like picasso. Don't pretend you don't know that. Don't insult my
| intelligence. My stupid expressionist teacher doesn't make me feel
| free to "express" myself the way *i* want to. She wants to make all of
| us conform to modern art beliefs. At least the old academy system in
| france taught people to make beautiful art. The new bauhaus type
| tyranny doesn't even do that. They restrict people and force them to
| make shit and pretend that it's art.
I can sympathise with your desire not to bother with certain
aspects of 20th-century practices, but I don't understand
the "force" involved. How are you being forced to do
anything?
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 11/14/02 <-adv't
Edward G. Nilges
> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
> On 19 Nov 2002 18:12:35 -0800, spino...@yahoo.com (Edward G.
> Nilges) wrote:
>
> >What's not apparent is adherence to a set of guild rules, for the very
> >good reason that the very idea of restricting practice of a profession
> >to a closed guild has never been what America is about. This allows
> >the American artist to generate his own self-determining rules,
> >conformance to which is just as difficult if not more than conformance
> >to a patriarchal guild.
>
> And yet my painting teacher, who is an expressionist, is trying to
> force us to conform to her beliefs and steer us away from realism.
> Also, my life drawing teacher says it's not up to him to teach cubism.
> He says that the rules force him to teach it. If America is so free,
> why don't *I* have the fucking choice not to do ANY modern art crap in
> college?
Yeah, right, if America is so free, why can't we just fucking shoot
dem old teachers?
The real question is why you are so unable to listen to the teachers
and what they are about. They have no ability to force you to paint
the way you don't want but they have the right to expose you to
Modernism.
You can't react in your way to Modernism if in fact you are ignorant
of it.
Edward G. Nilges
> Edward G.Nilges wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>
> I like your brain.
Aw thanks that is sweet shucks.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Debra
Edward G. Nilges
Yeah, there is a lot of hot air as opposed to art-making on this
thread. Poussin reacted to the Paris art establishment not by
mouthing off but by going to Rome and making art. Monet starved
without forming conspiracy theories and Cezanne retired to Provence.
As Inge Infante said to me in 1981, paint as you like and die happy.
Edward G. Nilges
> >Mani is a smart guy but he never read Clement Greenberg...
>
> He's the one modern art critic I've read most. There's a chapter on
> him in my book and his vote on my abstract schmier sent me to Europe
> for a year.
So you rather cynically gamed the system to get to Europe. I suggest
that this makes your stance rather hollow.
>
> In my opinion he was a terrible writer, rather stupid and nasty to
> many who knew him. His influence lingers to this day as his writing is
> the major declaration of Modern Academic Art stupidity.
>
>
> >otherwise
> >he'd see that it's just not true that modern artists and critics
> >formed a mutual admiration society. His belief is structurally alike
> >Hitler's belief that the art society of Vienna had it in for him when
> >in fact they simply ignored him and I find this scary.
>
> Sorry to disappoint you, I've always done well in art.
> ...no skill no art!
Sounds to me that you follow fashion in a way you pretend to condemn:
for at least since Reagan, the modern art establishment has indeed
supported the return of the Salon painters.
In 1967, Huntington Hartford could reasonably claim to stand outside
the "establishment" when he opened his museum on Columbus Circle. But
today his aesthetic Philistinism is the real establishment as seen by
the well-funded movements against public sculpture and public
monuments like Maya Lin's memorial to the dead of Vietnam.
In politics and in art, today's establishment is not distinguishable
from the Salon or the establishment of 1900. Both are based on
Philistinism and the creation of false emotions that have nothing to
do with art or justice, but instead mobilize fools to think they are
taking individual stands when IN FACT they are mouthpieces.
Mani Deli
>Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<57gjtu84dsj9ni0e3...@4ax.com>...
>> >Mani is a smart guy but he never read Clement Greenberg...
>>
>> He's the one modern art critic I've read most. There's a chapter on
>> him in my book and his vote on my abstract schmier sent me to Europe
>> for a year.
>
>So you rather cynically gamed the system to get to Europe. I suggest
>that this makes your stance rather hollow.
When someone apes Modern Academic art and shows what nonsense it is it
always irritates artzy fartzies. Am I cynical when I out-schmier the
schmierers. I sure am. It shows how hollow your babble about
Bourgeois, philistines and Hitler really is. Anything wrong with being
cynical.
>>
>> In my opinion he was a terrible writer, rather stupid and nasty to
>> many who knew him. His influence lingers to this day as his writing is
>> the major declaration of Modern Academic Art stupidity.
>>
>>
>> >otherwise
>> >he'd see that it's just not true that modern artists and critics
>> >formed a mutual admiration society. His belief is structurally alike
>> >Hitler's belief that the art society of Vienna had it in for him when
>> >in fact they simply ignored him and I find this scary.
>>
>> Sorry to disappoint you, I've always done well in art.
>> ...no skill no art!
>
>Sounds to me that you follow fashion in a way you pretend to condemn:
>for at least since Reagan, the modern art establishment has indeed
>supported the return of the Salon painters.
I guess you don' read a newspaper.
>In 1967, Huntington Hartford could reasonably claim to stand outside
>the "establishment" when he opened his museum on Columbus Circle. But
>today his aesthetic Philistinism is the real establishment as seen by
>the well-funded movements against public sculpture and public
>monuments like Maya Lin's memorial to the dead of Vietnam.
Hartford had the best modern art museum in NY while it lasted. The
only reason it closed was that H. ran out of money because he was a
screw ball. I knew him second hand.
His museum had the longest run Dali show and it was free and the only
place where on could see his achievements at a time when he was
considered the essence of artistic evil.
...no skill no art!
Edward G. Nilges
> (Edward G. Nilges) wrote:
>
> >Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<57gjtu84dsj9ni0e3...@4ax.com>...
> >> >Mani is a smart guy but he never read Clement Greenberg...
> >>
> >> He's the one modern art critic I've read most. There's a chapter on
> >> him in my book and his vote on my abstract schmier sent me to Europe
> >> for a year.
> >
> >So you rather cynically gamed the system to get to Europe. I suggest
> >that this makes your stance rather hollow.
>
>
> When someone apes Modern Academic art and shows what nonsense it is it
> always irritates artzy fartzies. Am I cynical when I out-schmier the
> schmierers. I sure am. It shows how hollow your babble about
> Bourgeois, philistines and Hitler really is. Anything wrong with being
> cynical.
Lighten up, Mani. Be a proud artsy fartsy, for you CANNOT bring back
the mediaeval guild or the ateliers of the Salon era in France. In
today's context and as an artist, you are an artsy fartzy and you need
to process this information.
>
> >>
> >> In my opinion he was a terrible writer, rather stupid and nasty to
> >> many who knew him. His influence lingers to this day as his writing is
> >> the major declaration of Modern Academic Art stupidity.
> >>
> >>
> >> >otherwise
> >> >he'd see that it's just not true that modern artists and critics
> >> >formed a mutual admiration society. His belief is structurally alike
> >> >Hitler's belief that the art society of Vienna had it in for him when
> >> >in fact they simply ignored him and I find this scary.
> >>
> >> Sorry to disappoint you, I've always done well in art.
> >> ...no skill no art!
> >
> >Sounds to me that you follow fashion in a way you pretend to condemn:
> >for at least since Reagan, the modern art establishment has indeed
> >supported the return of the Salon painters.
>
> I guess you don' read a newspaper.
>
Yeah, I avoid the National Enquirer and the Daily News, which still
maintain the fiction that it's easy to be an abstract artiste.
>
> >In 1967, Huntington Hartford could reasonably claim to stand outside
> >the "establishment" when he opened his museum on Columbus Circle. But
> >today his aesthetic Philistinism is the real establishment as seen by
> >the well-funded movements against public sculpture and public
> >monuments like Maya Lin's memorial to the dead of Vietnam.
>
> Hartford had the best modern art museum in NY while it lasted. The
> only reason it closed was that H. ran out of money because he was a
> screw ball. I knew him second hand.
>
Well, my ball and you're screwed, for while screwballs might have good
ideas (I worked with John Nash, the real life hero of a Beautiful
Mind) ISOLATED screwballs can't be trusted.
> His museum had the longest run Dali show and it was free and the only
> place where on could see his achievements at a time when he was
> considered the essence of artistic evil.
Dali stole better men's ideas, Dali knew how to draw but not to
compose, and Dali sucked.