was MA MISCONCEPTIONS
Wray Kephart
>The major MISCONCEPTIONS of those whose art experience has
>been kept within the confines of Modern Academic Art are:-
>subject-matter-phobia.
You havent defined 'modern academic' tenents; this is a term
youve invented without adequate discription of its genre,
formation or historical importance.
>If a piece is considered to illustrate subject matter which does
>not conform to Modern Academic tenents it can no longer
>beconsidered for any further evaluation as fine art. It is usually
>labeled withsuch terms as Kitsch, illustration, commercial etc.
Yes, there are two known types of art; <neither one of an
infectious> nature: Fine Art and Illustration.
>If these labels are applied the implication is, "blasphemy,
>end of discussion."-eccentro-phelia or anything-goes-art,
If the labels are applied to what; modern viriology,
bacteriology? How does God figure in this and why wont
he allow discussion?
>the believe that anything seen as a novel idea no matter how
>stupid is worthy of lengthily discussion and artistic consideration
>because it is considered to be a first and very personal
>expression of a particular eccentricity (which it usually isn't).
Is anything really novel, all art is based in history, reinter-
pretations of same subject matter by younger generations. To give you
an example, the works of Turner were the foundations for Rothko 100
years later. The works of the Impressionists and Expressions were
foundations for AE, surrealism, fauvism, vortesism...its a circular
time line. You fail to understand that art history is not linear.
The only exception to the above statement is the 'naive' who works
in complete isolation and ignorance of world art history.
>A lack of knowledge of how the Modern Academic Art system
>operates on the commercial,economic and social level.-a belief
>that skill in technique and craftsmanship are not necessary to the
>artist in creating fine work. Indeed in many cases skill is
>considered a detriment.-Elitist understanding.
Thats simply not true. Those that abstract without understanding
structure and volume fail; do you understand the distinction
between non-objective art and abstraction. Abstraction requires
basic skills and abilities which you refer to. If youre talking
purely of the non-objective, this work is conceputal and totally
different in nature. It isnt defined or critiqued by the standards
youve mentioned.
>The illusion of special revelation namely, that one has a personal
>understanding and sensitivity of which the ordinary person seems
>utterly incapable. It is often described as the understanding "the
>language of Modern Art."-the belief in the starving artist myth.
>Namely that great artists are generally misunderstood paupers.-
Everyone has the same capability to produce, some productions fall
within the structures of museum walls, some productions take place
out in the backyard as landscape plantings, whirlygigs. or as
garage gizmo projects. Everything produced has its particular
audience.The fact the audience is small or large depends on marketing,
or universal appeal of a work of art.
>Those who dare express any negative criticism of Modern
>Academic Art are neurotic, unhappy, bitter, exhibit subintellegence
>and are probably terrible artists.-that art history can is roughly
>divided into what it considers antiquated realism and abstraction.
You havent supported this argument, what does being a terrible
artist have to do with cans of art history; what size are the
cans quarts or gallons.
>that realism when the term is used as a negative description is
>conceived as a photographic rendition of reality.-a belief in
>dualism in relation to the arts produced in this century.
Hopper becomes a realist by default because it looks representational,
somehow photography now becomes an instrument for defining painted
realism?
>There is fine art, which conforms to precepts demanded of our
>Modern Museums and the majority of teaching institutions and
>then there is all that "other stuff."
Other Stuff: Art produced for commercial reasons/consumption.
>That is, Painting not holy-critic approved, illustration, animation
>and anything to do with commercial art, etc.- a firmly held believe
>that 20th Century Modern abstract art is utterly new, unique,
>original and conforms to no past tenets.
This statement is incomprehensible.
>-the idea that the tendency towards flatness found in most
>accepted Modern Academic Art has some sort of transcendental
>quality.
If you mean in regards to color field painters; yes, it transcends
percieving an object or image to defining a state of being.
>This is most commonly identified using the term "fourth
>dimension,"and allows for tomes of confused babble.- a belief that
>the appreciation of modern tendencies will continuously prevail.-
>ism-itis. Long futile discussions confined-- to labeling works with
>particular isms.
Yes as 'ism' describes using a doctrine theory or system of
practice. It is a most appropriate application of term to
movements in art.
>To which ism does a piece belong?
It depends on the system/doctrine/theory followed.
>(more prevalent among critics and academics)-an inability to
>destinguish between the rational and the aesthetic.
<I swear to everyone I did not edit original post> Rational
thought is knowledge coming from reason, aesthetics are based
in a value system; what is the relationship between the two.
You might not be aware that art is subjective by nature and is
not applicableto definition by using a rational/logical system.
>I already learned most of the above misconceptions while in art
>school.Judging by what is to be seen in so called fine art galleries
>today it is not surprising that these misconceptions are now even
>more widely held then before. And yet it is amazing how much fine
>work was and is presently being produced inspite of prevailing
>fashion.
You havent defined what the misconceptions are, or expressed
clearly the point intended as your arguement was short on
explaination of principles; but *I agree* there is a lot of art
out there being produced <without regulation>.
Kephart
Heather Yewall
>
>>Mani Deli posted:
>>That is, Painting not holy-critic approved, illustration, animation
>>and anything to do with commercial art, etc.- a firmly held believe
>>that 20th Century Modern abstract art is utterly new, unique,
>>original and conforms to no past tenets.
>This statement is incomprehensible.
>Kephart
Yeah, but he finally spelled tenets correctly.
___________________________________________________
Heather Yewall <Roller poller in the clover.>
Bruce Attah
Kephart) wrote:
~> [.....SNIP.....]
~> Rational
~> thought is knowledge coming from reason, aesthetics are based
~> in a value system; what is the relationship between the two.
~> You might not be aware that art is subjective by nature and is
~> not applicableto definition by using a rational/logical system.
~>
~> Kephart
I have long suspected that your aesthetics are unreasoned. Now my
suspicions are confirmed.
Bruce.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mani Deli
Ke> You havent defined 'modern academic' tenents; this is a term
Ke> youve invented without adequate discription of its genre,
Ke> formation or historical importance.
Its the stuff that conforms to present academic precepts of what is considered
great contemporary art.
Ke> Yes, there are two known types of art; <neither one of an
Ke> infectious> nature: Fine Art and Illustration.
All eventually ends up being one type of art. That which is appreciated for
many generations.
>the believe that anything seen as a novel idea no matter how
>stupid is worthy of lengthily discussion and artistic consideration
>because it is considered to be a first and very personal
>expression of a particular eccentricity (which it usually isn't).
Ke> Is anything really novel?,
Mondrian, Twombly, Christo, Duchamp's toilet fixture. No skill but very novel.
Especially the talk which accompanies it.
Ke>,.. all art is based in history, reinter-
Ke> pretations of same subject matter by younger generations. To give you
Ke> an example, the works of Turner were the foundations for Rothko 100
Ke> years later. The works of the Impressionists and Expressions were
Ke> foundations for AE, surrealism, fauvism, vortesism...its a circular
Ke> time line. You fail to understand that art history is not linear.
Turner-Rothko? Now here we have some massively informative modern academic art
history. Yes I see it. Yes and when Turner wiped his brushes-Klein. In the same
vane we have Leonardo-Matisse, precaveman-Twombly and of course Grandma Moses-
Breughel and absinthe sotted 19th century Bohemian-Pollock. Its all elliptical,
no circular and occasionally hyperbolical.
>that realism when the term is used as a negative description is
>conceived as a photographic rendition of reality.-a belief in
>dualism in relation to the arts produced in this century.
Ke> Hopper becomes a realist by default because it looks representational,
Ke> somehow photography now becomes an instrument for defining painted
Ke> realism?
? Is that a sentence?
>There is fine art, which conforms to precepts demanded of our
>Modern Museums and the majority of teaching institutions and
>then there is all that "other stuff."
Ke> Other Stuff: Art produced for commercial reasons/consumption.
Almost all art was, is, produced for commercial reasons.
>-the idea that the tendency towards flatness found in most
>accepted Modern Academic Art has some sort of transcendental
>quality.
Ke> If you mean in regards to color field painters; yes, it transcends
Ke> percieving an object or image to defining a state of being.
Very clear statement. Its the sort of crap you hear in art school.
>(more prevalent among critics and academics)-an inability to
>distinguish between the rational and the aesthetic.
Ke> <I swear to everyone I did not edit original post> Rational
Ke> thought is knowledge coming from reason, aesthetics are based
Ke> in a value system; what is the relationship between the two.
Ke> You might not be aware that art is subjective by nature and is
Ke> not applicableto definition by using a rational/logical system.
You can't read.
>I already learned most of the above misconceptions while in art
>school.Judging by what is to be seen in so called fine art galleries
>today it is not surprising that these misconceptions are now even
>more widely held then before. And yet it is amazing how much fine
>work was and is presently being produced inspite of prevailing
>fashion.
Ke> You havent defined what the misconceptions are, or expressed
Ke> clearly the point intended as your arguement was short on
Ke> explaination of principles; but *I agree* there is a lot of art
Ke> out there being produced <without regulation>.
Regulation?
Mani DeLi
... No skill no art.
Wray Kephart
X In article <DEupL...@crash.cts.com>, kep...@crash.cts.com says...
X >
X >>Mani Deli posted:
X >>That is, Painting not holy-critic approved, illustration, animation
X >>and anything to do with commercial art, etc.- a firmly held believe
X >>that 20th Century Modern abstract art is utterly new, unique,
X >>original and conforms to no past tenets.
X >This statement is incomprehensible.
X Yeah, but he finally spelled tenets correctly.
What before; tennis, tenement or tenant?
Kephart
Wray Kephart
X Ke> You havent defined 'modern academic' tenents; this is a term
X Ke> youve invented without adequate discription of its genre,
X Ke> formation or historical importance.
X
X Its the stuff that conforms to present academic precepts of what is considered
X great contemporary art.
What stuff, whats your basis for your conclusions regarding conformity?
Whats excluded and why?
X >the believe that anything seen as a novel idea no matter how
X >stupid is worthy of lengthily discussion and artistic consideration
X >because it is considered to be a first and very personal
X >expression of a particular eccentricity (which it usually isn't).
X Ke> Is anything really novel?,
X Mondrian, Twombly, Christo, Duchamp's toilet fixture. No skill but very novel.
X Especially the talk which accompanies it.
Not novel; none of them worked in a vacuum, all were influenced by prior
trends either artistic or literary.
X Ke>,.. all art is based in history, reinter-
X Ke> pretations of same subject matter by younger generations. To give you
X Ke> an example, the works of Turner were the foundations for Rothko 100
X Ke> years later. The works of the Impressionists and Expressions were
X Ke> foundations for AE, surrealism, fauvism, vortesism...its a circular
X Ke> time line. You fail to understand that art history is not linear.
X Turner-Rothko? Now here we have some massively informative modern academic art
X history. Yes I see it. Yes and when Turner wiped his brushes-Klein.
No you dont; you wouldnt know the difference between a lit and unlit
match. Which Klein are you refering to and what relationship does he have
with Turner?
X In the same vane we have Leonardo-Matisse, precaveman-Twombly and of
X course Grandma Moses Breughel and absinthe sotted 19th century
X Bohemian-Pollock.
I dont think Matisse looked as much at Leonardo as he did the other
fauves. Nothing but dinosaurs existed pre-caveman era; unless some
had developed opposing thumbs along with a taste for drawing and
fire management.
X Its all elliptical, not circular and occasionally hyperbolical.
All great art can be regardd as a historical event and a solution
to a problem. The solution points to the existence of some other
problem to which there have been other solutions. As the solutions
accumulate, the problem changes or alters. Think of it as a
chain of linked solutions to a problem rather than a shape if you
cant grasp the concept. The linked solutions become an entity
or class/trend in art; AE, Superrealism etc.
X >that realism when the term is used as a negative description is
X >conceived as a photographic rendition of reality.-a belief in
X >dualism in relation to the arts produced in this century.
X Ke> Hopper becomes a realist by default because it looks representational,
X Ke> somehow photography now becomes an instrument for defining painted
X Ke> realism?
X ? Is that a sentence?
Yes.
X >There is fine art, which conforms to precepts demanded of our
X >Modern Museums and the majority of teaching institutions and
X >then there is all that "other stuff."
X Ke> Other Stuff: Art produced for commercial reasons/consumption.
X Almost all art was, is, produced for commercial reasons.
No, almost all art by creation is a product. Commerciality is a
state which engages in profit motives *above all else* sacraficing
all other values.
X >-the idea that the tendency towards flatness found in most
X >accepted Modern Academic Art has some sort of transcendental
X >quality.
X Ke> If you mean in regards to color field painters; yes, it transcends
X Ke> percieving an object or image to defining a state of being.
X Very clear statement. Its the sort of crap you hear in art school.
I wont be held responsible for any inferior statements other than my
own; I wasnt there. I cant give you a third eyeball either.
X >(more prevalent among critics and academics)-an inability to
X >distinguish between the rational and the aesthetic.
X Ke> <I swear to everyone I did not edit original post> Rational
X Ke> thought is knowledge coming from reason, aesthetics are based
X Ke> in a value system; what is the relationship between the two.
X Ke> You might not be aware that art is subjective by nature and is
X Ke> not applicableto definition by using a rational/logical system.
X You can't read.
nearly as well as you write
I know that logic and reason are the basis for rational thought. I know that
aesthetics are based in value/emotion systems. Each one is applied to
different sets of problems; that is why there are 2 systems not 1.
For instance; you cannot rationalize emotion. You cant apply logic
in an arguement with a lunatic.
X >I already learned most of the above misconceptions while in art
X >school.Judging by what is to be seen in so called fine art galleries
X >today it is not surprising that these misconceptions are now even
X >more widely held then before. And yet it is amazing how much fine
X >work was and is presently being produced inspite of prevailing
X >fashion.
X Ke> You havent defined what the misconceptions are, or expressed
X Ke> clearly the point intended as your arguement was short on
X Ke> explaination of principles; but *I agree* there is a lot of art
X Ke> out there being produced <without regulation>.
X Regulation?
Yes needs to be; far too many artists out there working without
licenses.
Kephart