Why I decry Modern art
John Ng
neither is there one in liking it.
However, why I decry Modern art is the undue encouragement given to it
at the expense of skill (which includes sound composition) and
craftsmanship. It is no coincidence that there is the ability to
paint has been lost a hundred years now. Who would invest time and
effort to paint properly when nasty pieces of funky art win prizes
whose point-scoring is based on nothing more audacity?
People talk about originality and innovativeness in Modern art, but
what is the use of these qualities when they are applied to unskilled
no-right-no-wrong and meaningless works? I can think of a million
original corny ideas that has no application, without making any
effort to think. What play or movie would you like to see where
things just ramble on without a plot?
John Ng
Advocates an art renewal and the return to sensible art
http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
John Ng
Electric Nachos
>There is certainly no rule against what you can or cannot paint, and
>neither is there one in liking it.
>
>However, why I decry Modern art is the undue encouragement given to it
>at the expense of skill (which includes sound composition) and
>craftsmanship. It is no coincidence that there is the ability to
>paint has been lost a hundred years now. Who would invest time and
>effort to paint properly when nasty pieces of funky art win prizes
>whose point-scoring is based on nothing more audacity?
Knowing this, why would a realist enter into a competition that accepts
modern art?? A lot of competitions specify the type of art that is accepted
into a show.
BTW, shock-value has nothing to do with modern art. It is a quality of
subject matter and the meaning of the subjects - not a style. I can
certainly think of old century realism that is full of audacity!
>People talk about originality and innovativeness in Modern art, but
>what is the use of these qualities when they are applied to unskilled
>no-right-no-wrong and meaningless works?
You can not call modern art meaningless simply because you refuse to LET it
mean something to you. Other people enjoy letting their minds wander like
that - you don't - you must retain control over your thoughts - and anything
that asks you to reliquish control is threatening.
I speak from experience. You need to LET GO and experience what some of
these people are "trippin' off" of, or at the very least, respect those who
have found an alternative way to entertain their brains.
>I can think of a million
>original corny ideas that has no application, without making any
>effort to think.
Which is contradictory to its purpose. You don't purposely think of anything
when viewing modern art - you LET a meaning emerge within your mind (meaning
= memories, fantasies, etc.) Same thing when making modern art too (I
suppose).
>What play or movie would you like to see where
>things just ramble on without a plot?
Everyone is not the same, Ng. That's why we have story writers and poets.
The story writer is similar to the realist painter, while the poet is
similar to the modern artist. Not everyone appreciates being told what to
think - when, where, why, and how to do it (as in a story). Similarly, not
everyone likes to be told what to see, when, where, why, and how to see it
(as in a realist work of art).
Andrew Werby
Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 10:09 PM
Subject: Why I decry Modern art
> There is certainly no rule against what you can or cannot paint, and
> neither is there one in liking it.
[Huh? Would you like to try that again?]
>
> However, why I decry Modern art is the undue encouragement given to it
> at the expense of skill (which includes sound composition) and
> craftsmanship. It is no coincidence that there is the ability to
> paint has been lost a hundred years now. Who would invest time and
> effort to paint properly when nasty pieces of funky art win prizes
> whose point-scoring is based on nothing more audacity?
[Plenty of people paint in realistic modes, John. The techniques involved
are well-known, and are by no means "lost". You use descriptions here, like
"sound composition" and "nasty pieces of funky art" without defining them.
What, in your opinion, are the rules of "sound" composition? Is there a
general agreement on these rules, or is it just your opinions you're
invoking? If you'd like to make a positive contribution, perhaps you could
elucidate these matters for us. What makes a piece of art "nasty" or
"funky"? Is it just that you don't like it, or are there some general
principles you'd like to explain to us? Are perspective drawing and
illusionistic modeling the only sorts of skill and craftsmanship you
recognize as such? ]
> People talk about originality and innovativeness in Modern art, but
> what is the use of these qualities when they are applied to unskilled
> no-right-no-wrong and meaningless works? I can think of a million
> original corny ideas that has no application, without making any
> effort to think. What play or movie would you like to see where
> things just ramble on without a plot?
>
>
> John Ng
> Advocates an art renewal and the return to sensible art
> http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
[Speaking of meaningless rambling, is there any particular point to this?
You set up this monolithic straw man and call him "Modern Art" so you can
(repeatedly) take cheap shots at him, but contemporary art is not a unified
endeavor, and it never was. There are artists working today in just about
any style you might name, and people are coming up with new variations all
the time. Some use the conventions of realism to put across advanced ideas,
some use bulldozers or laser beams instead of paintbushes, others are doing
very well exploiting sentimentality and a desire to return to an imagined
past of country cottages, Arcadian pastorals, and winsome children in
pinafores. Does your idea of "art renewal" and "sensible art" mean that
every artist has to give up what they're doing and start making pictures
that attempt to look like photographs? One wonders - how much more of this
stuff does the world need? Isn't there some value in exploration, finding
new modes of art-making that haven't been done to death already? I'm sure
there are many artists besides yourself who would like to reprogram everyone
else's aesthetics, to rewrite the "rules" so that their work is universally
recognized as the pinnacle of artistic achievement, but would the world
really be better off if this was possible?]
Andrew Werby
www.unitedartworks.com
John Ng
I understand the difficulty in making the point as my interpretation
of Modern is not your interpretation. I retract this post on the
basis of lack of definition.
Mani Deli
<aint_...@chew.foo> wrote:
>BTW, shock-value has nothing to do with modern art.
- the main thing is no-value.
> It is a quality of
>subject matter and the meaning of the subjects - not a style.
Like large stripes and assorted dribbles and incompetent drawing means
a lot.
>You can not call modern art meaningless simply because you refuse to LET it
>mean something to you.
What does a large red stripe mean to someone like you who hasn't
refused.
They always say, "you just don't understand," that is until you ask
what that is. At that point you usually get silence or a point about
your character (to change the subject) or the vacuous sort of drivel
below.
> Other people enjoy letting their minds wander like
>that - you don't - you must retain control over your thoughts - and anything
>that asks you to reliquish control is threatening.
So it's for airheads like you whose mind wanders.
>I speak from experience.
No doubt.
>You need to LET GO and experience what some of
>these people are "trippin' off" of, or at the very least, respect those who
>have found an alternative way to entertain their brains.
You hear can hear all the permutations this sort of talk starting in
art school as a substitute for teaching almost nothing.
>>I can think of a million
>>original corny ideas that has no application, without making any
>>effort to think.
But can you think of anything else?
>Which is contradictory to its purpose. You don't purposely think of anything
>when viewing modern art - you LET a meaning emerge within your mind (meaning
>= memories, fantasies, etc.) Same thing when making modern art too (I
>suppose).
> Similarly, not
>everyone likes to be told what to see, when, where, why, and how to see it
>(as in a realist work of art).
>
If it needs a long sermon to proclaim it's art, it's probably
bullshit. That's the first thing I learned in art school.
No skill no art!
Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Mani Deli
>The other interesting point is that the 'realist or die' folks seem to
>think that the only worthwhile painting is that which most faithfully
>reproduces the subject and the more detailed the copy, the better
All they do is faithfully reproduce the subject, period. That's
always what those who can't draw will tell you.
>. In
>truth, when you do this you don't have an original work of art at all -
>just a copy of something that already exists.
Original work according to Fox is like large stripes, dribbles and
Fox's schmiers, which are full of difficult to comprehend composition.
When a painting contains practically nothing and a guy starts to talk
about composition you know the guy is full of crap.
>I don't know what drives people like John Ng. My guess would be that
>there's an emotional issue there that doesn't have anything to do with art.
>Any ideas?
You will notice that Fox always diverts to psychobabble about the
character of those who disagree with him.
Electric Nachos
Mani Deli wrote in message <27t5h0548gfgmahsc...@4ax.com>...
>If it needs a long sermon to proclaim it's art, it's probably
>bullshit.
Which surely explains the existence of your little e-book. Jeez fannie, if
publishers couldn't even take you seriously, why should anyone else?
Erik A. Mattila
Dan Fox wrote:
> Andrew - it's been said before: you should be writing for a living. I
> couldn't have said it better myself (probably not as well).
>
> A couple of additional comments - composition: of course good modern art is
> composed as carefully as good realistic work. It is a bit more difficult
> for the untrained eye to discern. But the person with an open mind doesn't
> need to analyze a good work of art, modern or otherwise - the skills
> employed in its creation simply make it more enjoyable to view.
>
> The other interesting point is that the 'realist or die' folks seem to
> think that the only worthwhile painting is that which most faithfully
> reproduces the subject - and the more detailed the copy, the better. In
> truth, when you do this you don't have an original work of art at all -
> just a copy of something that already exists.
>
> I don't know what drives people like John Ng. My guess would be that
> there's an emotional issue there that doesn't have anything to do with art.
> Any ideas?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Dan
Sure, Dano...it's conservatism. I actually looked up the list of
paintings that that Tyco exec bought - What was his name...the one that
got in trouble with the NYC Tax Squad, and the one who had that lavish
birthday party in Sardinia for his wife, which featured an ice carving
of "David" with champaign coming out of its peepee.
Erik
david
nothing about art.
Mani Deli
<aint_...@chew.foo> wrote:
>
>Mani Deli wrote in message <27t5h0548gfgmahsc...@4ax.com>...
>
>>If it needs a long sermon to proclaim it's art, it's probably
>>bullshit.
>
>Which surely explains the existence of your little e-book.
Which you never saw.
Electric Nachos
Dan Fox wrote in message <20040806083720.676$F...@newsreader.com>...
>Hi, Gerl - That makes sense. Where's the link to that list of what the Tyco
>guy bought?
Uh, you got me and Erik confused. Thanks for the compliment tho.
>How've you been? Been really busy here, and spent some time in Paris and
>Florence. It's tough repeatedly telling Europeans that you do NOT agree
>with your government. They say, then move here! I'm thinking, why the fuck
>not?
heh heh - TEMPTING, huh!!
>I see that the group hasn't changed a bit.
>
>Dan
Erik A. Mattila
Dan Fox wrote:
> Hi, Gerl - That makes sense. Where's the link to that list of what the Tyco
> guy bought?
Pretty sure there in this doc, Dan.
news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/tyco/nykozlowski60402ind.pdf
How do I rate the "Gerl", btw?
>
> How've you been? Been really busy here, and spent some time in Paris and
> Florence. It's tough repeatedly telling Europeans that you do NOT agree
> with your government. They say, then move here! I'm thinking, why the fuck
> not? I see that the group hasn't changed a bit.
>
> Dan
I'm good. Just finished an annual report design - I'm a bit tired from
the stress of dealing with clients. But the new house is keeping me up
early everyday. Right now we're restoring a storage shed. Still moving
in, organizing, etc. Think about that when you consider moving to
Italy...the older you get, the harder it is to move. Not because of
age...because you had that much more time to accumulate useless shit
with sentimental value. I actually made a door for the shed out of some
1x8 redwood boards that I bought in 1980 in Humboldt County from a guy
who had a portable sawmill. Yep, I've been hauling them around ever
since. I guess it's because I own this place that I finally decided to
use them for something.
Erik
zeno
John Ng wrote:
> What play or movie would you like to see where
> things just ramble on without a plot?
>
Music has no plot, and doesn't necessarily ramble. Clearly you know
nothing about the Art of Film as distinct from going to the movies for a
good plot etc.
Zeno
zeno
Mani Deli wrote:
Cartoon caption #1:
> Original work according to Fox is like large stripes, dribbles and
> Fox's schmiers, which are full of difficult to comprehend composition.
>
Cartoon caption #2:
>
> When a painting contains practically nothing and a guy starts to talk
> about composition you know the guy is full of crap.
>
Cartoon caption #3:
>
> No skill no art!
>
Zeno
zeno
Program #31 "My 1 Year Old Kid Could Do Better Than That!"
zeno
Mani Deli
Glad it pisses you off.
zeno
But fine distinctions like this are not something you seem to be able to make.
Zeno
DNALJM
>truth, when you do this you don't have an original work of art at all -
>just a copy of something that already exists.
The best figurative art doesn't mimic nature or photographs. The edge of
your face further from the painter isn't really a soft edge, because the "edge"
or line of something is just an illusion. People always try to sneak faces and
figures into "abstract" work, it's just a shame they can't commit to learning
how to see because it is rewarding. It must be a sort of pride or arrogance in
itself I think, to decide that a camera makes life painting obsolete.
Jane