Modernist vs. Conceptual painting
Marianne Berry and Gilbert Hsiao
Is Broadway Boogie Woogie by Mondrian modern or conceptual?
Are there any painters out there today who would admit to being a
modernist, or is that suicide in this day and age?
mark webber
On Wed, 16 Sep 1998, Marianne Berry and Gilbert Hsiao wrote:
> What is this year's definition of modrnist vs. conceptaul painting?
Can you give us a few more days?
>
> Is Broadway Boogie Woogie by Mondrian modern or conceptual?
Modern. Definitely modern.
>
> Are there any painters out there today who would admit to being a
> modernist, or is that suicide in this day and age?
I'll sit this one out.
Mark
Philip Ayers
: > Are there any painters out there today who would admit to being a
: > modernist, or is that suicide in this day and age?
I'm a modernist..100%. conceptual painting?...I invented this term in
1973. I was the only painter in Douglas Huebler's seminar.
Philip (never Phil) Ayers
http://www.mindspring.com/~p.ayers/
p.a...@mindspring.com.
Ron Thomas
> The whole cornucopia:
>
> modern
> conceptual
> post-modern (include installation).
>
> I want to be part of it ALL!
> and yet, not fit into any category.
> Is it okay to be in a 'stylistic evolution" for one's whole life?
>
> Marilyn
Well, I like pencil, charcoal, acrylic, watercolor, oil,
and sometimes I mix 'um up because I like collage and
assemblage ---
OH NO!!! I might be one of those modernist. Well, I should
hope so,
I am only 50. In fact, this summer I took a 3 week class at
our local
college - "Found Object Sculpture" - way lots of fun.
Ron
Marilyn
>
>In article [5]<35FFE63C...@earthlink.net>, q2...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
>: > Are there any painters out there today who would admit to being a
>: > modernist, or is that suicide in this day and age?
>
>I'm a modernist..100%. conceptual painting?...I invented this term in
>1973. I was the only painter in Douglas Huebler's seminar.
>
>Philip (never Phil) Ayers
if...@my-dejanews.com
It is OK, in fact it's the only way to be alive
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Charles Eicher
> What is this year's definition of modrnist vs. conceptaul painting?
Definitions are pretty much irrelevant now.
I recall one quite interesting statement by Marshall McLuhan. He said that
each new movement replaces the old one; it fails to achieve the goals of
the new movement, yet succeeds in fulfilling the goals of the prior
movement. By this analogy, I personally believe that Post-modernism is a
failure, yet the best Pomo works are quite successful Modernism. By this
logic, I have no problem calling myself a modernist.
----------------
Charles Eicher
cei...@inav.net
----------------
Philip Ayers
: > >
: > >
: > >In article [5]<35FFE63C...@earthlink.net>, q2...@earthlink.net wrote:
: > >
: > >: > Are there any painters out there today who would admit to being a
: > >: > modernist, or is that suicide in this day and age?
If "modernist" is hot and selling count me in!
Iian Neill
> : > >
> : > >: > Are there any painters out there today who would admit to being a
> : > >: > modernist, or is that suicide in this day and age?
I have heard that Post-Modernists despise Modernism - and this isn't confined to the
arts. There was a lecturer at the Queensland University of Technology who was
berated as being a 'Modernist', even though her ideas were clearly not - by
contemporary standards her views on ethics and morality would have been considered
conservative.
In any case, it depends on your point of view. I imagine it's some kind of factional
battle which places Post-Modernism officially at odds with its predecessor - there
don't seem to be any radical differences in aesthetic; but then, when we are talking
about two periods so diverse, any differences can be absorbed into the amorphous
mass.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
Marianne Berry and Gilbert Hsiao
Philip Ayers wrote:
> In article <36005...@news.victoria.tc.ca>, Marilyn wrote:
>
> : > >
> : > >
> : > >In article [5]<35FFE63C...@earthlink.net>, q2...@earthlink.net wrote:
> : > >
> : > >: > Are there any painters out there today who would admit to being a
> : > >: > modernist, or is that suicide in this day and age?
>
> If "modernist" is hot and selling count me in!
You hit my point. Artists shouldn't have to be concerned about rhetoric or jargon
in presenting their work if its honest work with an honest vision. But a lot of
what I see in galleries here in NYC lack vision (to my thinking), but are
embellished in the latest jargon (or hype, if that's what you want to call it). If
you're unknown and something isn't presented as being "conecptual," you're pretty
much out of the game. Composition? Color? Forget it! Am I being naieve?
Marilyn
>> >
>> >
>> >In article [5]<35FFE63C...@earthlink.net>, q2...@earthlink.net wrote:
>> >
>> >: > Are there any painters out there today who would admit to being a
>> >: > modernist, or is that suicide in this day and age?
>> >
>> >1973. I was the only painter in Douglas Huebler's seminar.
>> >
>> >Philip (never Phil) Ayers
>>
>> The whole cornucopia:
>>
>> modern
>> conceptual
>> post-modern (include installation).
>>
>> I want to be part of it ALL!
>> and yet, not fit into any category.
>> Is it okay to be in a 'stylistic evolution" for one's whole life?
>>
>> Marilyn
>
> It is OK, in fact it's the only way to be alive
>
Well thanks ifree. "The world is so full of a number of things
we should all be as happy as kings."
Still, I am thinking about a category (besides diletante)
something like, traditional within a non-conformist, convention
breaking format using found materials, and sometimes the
finest art supplies, pushing the envelope within the window
of opportunity.
What is your category?
Marilyn
CROCUSDES
>Still, I am thinking about a category (besides diletante)
>something like, traditional within a non-conformist, convention
>breaking format using found materials, and sometimes the
>finest art supplies, pushing the envelope within the window
>of opportunity.
>
Marilyn: how about folk artist? Fits all the requirements described in my
opinion. In fact that is exactly how I describe myself - folk artist. That
doesn't have to imply a lack of sophistication or even suggest naivete, but
rather can be used to better describe more honestly how we may approach our
particular art form.
Many folk artists from cultures all around the world have extracted from many
traditions including their own cultural artifacts of concept and practice. The
results of their efforts can often not be shelved into one standard catagory or
another but may be something that is unique in itself....or not. It is
basically a way of seeing and working that disregards conventional rules and a
lack of concern about how and what something should be.
Well, it's not an attractive term to be sure, nevertheless I think is more to
the point of what many of us are doing whether we want to admit it or not.
Chris Ray - sculptor
http://members.aol.com/crocusdes
if...@my-dejanews.com
Marilyn wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >In article [5]<35FFE63C...@earthlink.net>, q2...@earthlink.net
wrote:
> >> >
> >> >: > Are there any painters out there today who would admit to being a
> >> >: > modernist, or is that suicide in this day and age?
> >> >
> >> >I'm a modernist..100%. conceptual painting?...I invented this term in
> >> >1973. I was the only painter in Douglas Huebler's seminar.
> >> >
> >> >Philip (never Phil) Ayers
> >>
> >> The whole cornucopia:
> >>
> >> modern
> >> conceptual
> >> post-modern (include installation).
> >>
> >> I want to be part of it ALL!
> >> and yet, not fit into any category.
> >> Is it okay to be in a 'stylistic evolution" for one's whole life?
> >>
> >> Marilyn
> >
> > It is OK, in fact it's the only way to be alive
> >
> >ifree
>
> Well thanks ifree. "The world is so full of a number of things
> we should all be as happy as kings."
>
> something like, traditional within a non-conformist, convention
> breaking format using found materials, and sometimes the
> finest art supplies, pushing the envelope within the window
> of opportunity.
>
>
> Marilyn
I-free
ifree
if...@my-dejanews.com
I-free
ifree :-)
S. W. Paul Wyszkowski
>
> What is this year's definition of modrnist vs. conceptaul painting?
>
>
> modernist, or is that suicide in this day and age?
Um... what's "modernist"? what's "conceptual"? Is it OK if I just paint
and let the critics label my work (if they can...)?
Paul Wyszkowski
swp...@earthlink.net
"images discovered and invented"
echi
jargon (or hype, if that's what you want to call it). If
^^^^^
sorry to invade here, but as a non-anglophone (beware of American slang)
I would like to ask what "hype" means
happy weekend!
martin adler
Iian Neill
>
> jargon (or hype, if that's what you want to call it). If
> ^^^^^
>
> sorry to invade here, but as a non-anglophone (beware of American slang)
> I would like to ask what "hype" means
Hype = hyperbole = over the top; exaggerated.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
echi
> Hype = hyperbole = over the top; exaggerated.
>
thanks, Iian.
martin adler
mdeli
<q2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>What is this year's definition of modrnist vs. conceptaul painting?
>
>Is Broadway Boogie Woogie by Mondrian modern or conceptual?
>
>Are there any painters out there today who would admit to being a
>modernist, or is that suicide in this day and age?
>
Modernism: long-winded excuses (Artspeak) for producing incompetent
artwork.
Postmodernism: longer-winded excuses (Artspeak) for producing
incompetent artwork.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage (updated Sept.13 - new pictures) to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
Andrew Werby
> I want to be part of it ALL!
> and yet, not fit into any category.
> Is it okay to be in a 'stylistic evolution" for one's whole life?
>
> Marilyn
[It worked for Picasso, why not you? But what if it wasn't okay? Would you
stop evolving?]
Andrew
UNITED ARTWORKS- Sculpture, Jewelry, and other art stuff
http://unitedartworks.com
New- Artworks Computer Tools for 3d Design and Realization
Marilyn
>
>
>> I want to be part of it ALL!
>> and yet, not fit into any category.
>> Is it okay to be in a 'stylistic evolution" for one's whole life?
>>
>> Marilyn
>
>[It worked for Picasso, why not you? But what if it wasn't okay? Would you
>stop evolving?]
>
>Andrew
>
No. The question is, does an artist survive on his own personal
conviction, faith in him/herself or does an artist need constant
recognition and support? Both, with emphasis on the former.
My outward encouragement often neutralizes itself.
For example, one person sees a work, and is ecstatic,
another person sees the same work, and turns away.
Naturally, I believe that the person who likes my work
has very fine taste.
Marilyn
os...@my-dejanews.com
q2...@earthlink.net wrote:
> What is this year's definition of modrnist vs. conceptaul painting?
>
> Is Broadway Boogie Woogie by Mondrian modern or conceptual?
>
> Are there any painters out there today who would admit to being a
> modernist, or is that suicide in this day and age?
>
Melvin Fullerton creative artist of the people--untrained/original-
perhaps conceptual artist--I do not paint just to paint-been called
poet artist--writer with a brush.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
leonti...@my-dejanews.com
that Mondrian was definitely a "high modernists"...I think he was pretty
clear, at least for a while, about subscribing to the high modernist
manifestos, and his work definitely fits the canon. At the same time, the
high modernists were pretty damn conceptual, given that they were writing
manifestos and all.
--Leontine
lazy...@my-dejanews.com
q2...@earthlink.net wrote:
> What is this year's definition of modrnist vs. conceptaul painting?
>
> Is Broadway Boogie Woogie by Mondrian modern or conceptual?
>
> Are there any painters out there today who would admit to being a
> modernist, or is that suicide in this day and age?
>
> Could one consider themself as a 'Post-Retro-ist' or are we all attempting a new and slightly improved 'Future-Obsoletism'?
tlo...@cci-29palms.com
Yes, I would suggest that any artist who organizes their art around theory
rather than just exploring life-experience is in troubled waters, even done
as the experiment they "ought" to be. I suppose it's OK to prove a point,
especially if there's some kind of literary merit to be had. Paint is pretty
dumb, actually. Like words, it can mean anything at all. Feelings are what
continues to be so compelling about art, explaining those feelings is usually
an afterthought, best left to the auction house catalog.
tom.
barne...@hotmail.com
Post-Modernism and Modernism? It seems to me the boundaries between the two
are blurred.
Also, wouldn't Conceptual are be considered part of Moderism?
In article <ceicher-ya0240800...@enews.newsguy.com>,
cei...@inav.net (Charles Eicher) wrote:
> In article <35FFE63C...@earthlink.net>, q2...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> > What is this year's definition of modrnist vs. conceptaul painting?
>
> Definitions are pretty much irrelevant now.
>
> I recall one quite interesting statement by Marshall McLuhan. He said that
> each new movement replaces the old one; it fails to achieve the goals of
> the new movement, yet succeeds in fulfilling the goals of the prior
> movement. By this analogy, I personally believe that Post-modernism is a
> failure, yet the best Pomo works are quite successful Modernism. By this
> logic, I have no problem calling myself a modernist.
>
> ----------------
> Charles Eicher
> cei...@inav.net
> ----------------
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Iian Neill
> that Mondrian was definitely a "high modernists"...I think he was pretty
> clear, at least for a while, about subscribing to the high modernist
> manifestos, and his work definitely fits the canon. At the same time, the
> high modernists were pretty damn conceptual, given that they were writing
> manifestos and all.
It's rather odd that Modern Art has been consistently described as 'conceptual'.
Ideas are concepts but are quite isolated and mute unless they are expressed by
means - usually language - that everyone can understand, and so that the
thinker's meaning is fairly clear and unambiguous. With Modern Art we find that
the opposite is more often the case, particularly with work that is not
representational - with such work NO ONE can say objectively what the artist
intended, what the work means, and whether your interpretation has any more
validity than the janitor who works in the museum. If this is the case, it calls
into question the whole idea of criticism as a profession - certainly not a
desirable thing for critics!
Ideally, the critic wants to be able to justify his statements, so that his
views are shown to be correct beyond a shadow of a doubt. Having your views
consistently 'shadowed in doubt' does nothing for your credibility, for one
thing!
In the absense of any recognisable subject matter, many critics have decried
that the paint is the subject matter - which is rather like saying that a person
is a collection of chemicals and meat. While it is true that we are composed of
these things, it says little about consciousness itself - and this is the
situation the critic is in when he claims that art need only express and react
to other art-works, and not reality. Any one can claim what they paint is
"reality", but only the person who actually paints real objects in a
comprehensible configuration can say that this truly does express an intention.
I am not saying that an artist doesn't think of abstract shapes, or that such
shapes are not his 'intention' - what I am saying is that in the work itself, he
won't be able to justify any of that to even the simplist child. More often than
not, the artist and critic has more success with the educated, who are willing
to deny the evidence of their eyes (and reason) as long as words such as
'inspiration', 'vision', or 'expression' are thrown into the discussion
somewhere. A lot of these people are probably afraid of being declared ignorant,
and not trusting their own judgment enough tend to give in and go along with
what they really believe is incomprehensible - to cap it all off, they are told
to not judge, to not think, and to leave all that up to the 'experts', who have
been trained in the subtle nuances of art appreciation.
To return to your original question: -- "Modernist and conceptual are not
mutually exclusive, are they?"
Is it the case that Modernism is conceptual at all? Successful art requires more
than a few vague concepts unconvincingly expressed and backed up with a
justification in personal mystical experience. For anyone to honestly say
whether a work of art is conceptual implies that between the artist and the
audience there are som shared perceptions - otherwise the concepts have no
common ground, no means of successful expression - they become, then, merely
utterances, coherent or otherwise. Before we can say whether Modern Art is
conceptual or not, we need to be able to demonstrate that the CONCEPTS HAVE BEEN
SUCCESSFULLY EXPRESSED. This requires more than just your personal opinion - "Oh
yeah, I think it's definitely about war" - or whatever dogma has been enshrined
at the moment; it requires you to be able to in some sense PROVE what you are
saying to others. Otherwise, the whole idea of communicable concepts is
meaningless. And since art is based upon communicable concepts, the "art" which
cannot communicate them may not be "art" at all. What it is, is anybody's guess.
Regards,
Iian Neill
________________________________________________________________________
If you are interested in the Old Masters, and 19th century art
in particular, feel free to visit my new archive, THE RENAISSANCE CAFÉ:
http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/galliano/293/index.html
My personal home-page (with my own art work) can be found here:
http://student.uq.edu.au/~s367558/index.html
leonti...@my-dejanews.com
Iian Neill <s36...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> It's rather odd that Modern Art has been consistently described as
>'conceptual'. Ideas are concepts but are quite isolated and mute unless they
> are expressed by means - usually language - that everyone can understand, and
> so that the thinker's meaning is fairly clear and unambiguous. With Modern Art
> we find that the opposite is more often the case, particularly with work that
> is not representational - with such work NO ONE can say objectively what the
> artist intended, what the work means, and whether your interpretation has any
> more validity than the janitor who works in the museum.
I think that that is true of a lot of art criticism, and I agree that it can
really be a huge waste of time. The artist should be able to speak to the
viewer without a bunch of critics having to translate. The modernists
however were pretty clear about what the work means and which interpretations
are valid - whether or not you feel it is clear from their work, they wrote
and talked about their intentions at great length. High modernism is
possibly the least ambiguous art movement EVER!
>If this is the case, it calls into question the whole idea of criticism as a
> profession - certainly not a desirable thing for critics!
Aaaah, f*ck 'em.
> Ideally, the critic wants to be able to justify his statements, so that his
> views are shown to be correct beyond a shadow of a doubt. Having your views
> consistently 'shadowed in doubt' does nothing for your credibility, for one
> thing!
As I understand it, the high modernist painters and the art establishment in
the 1960's were basically in bed together. The painters told the critics
what to think and the critics told the painters what to paint, and they all
got to feel superior to anyone who dared to think the whole thing was a waste
of time.
> In the absense of any recognisable subject matter, many critics have decried
> that the paint is the subject matter -
Yes, but that was what the artists were telling them.
>which is rather like saying that a person
> is a collection of chemicals and meat. While it is true that we are composed
of
> these things, it says little about consciousness itself - and this is the
> situation the critic is in when he claims that art need only express and react
> to other art-works, and not reality.
That's a really interesting simile. I like it.
Any one can claim what they paint is
> "reality", but only the person who actually paints real objects in a
> comprehensible configuration can say that this truly does express an
intention.
Well, I think that what they were saying is that paint is really paint, and
canvas is really canvas, but a painting of an apple is not really an apple.
> I am not saying that an artist doesn't think of abstract shapes, or that
> such shapes are not his 'intention' - what I am saying is that in the work
> itself, he won't be able to justify any of that to even the simplist child.
> More often than not, the artist and critic has more success with the educated,
> who are willing to deny the evidence of their eyes (and reason) as long as
> words such as 'inspiration', 'vision', or 'expression' are thrown into the
> discussion
> somewhere. A lot of these people are probably afraid of being declared
> ignorant, and not trusting their own judgment enough tend to give in and go
> along with what they really believe is incomprehensible - to cap it all off,
they are told to not judge, to not think, and to leave all that up to the
> 'experts', who have been trained in the subtle nuances of art appreciation.
Where does beauty fit into all of this? I think that even your "simplest
child" would be able to look at an abstract painting and think that it is
beautiful, or that it is not. Also, I think it is possible to be deeply
moved by a work of art without intellectualizing and verbalizing it's themes.
As a matter of fact, I think that is the whole point. If the purpose of a
painting is to say something that can be more clearly expressed in words, why
even bother with the painting? Just say the words.
>
> To return to your original question: -- "Modernist and conceptual are not
> mutually exclusive, are they?"
> Is it the case that Modernism is conceptual at all? Successful art requires
more
> than a few vague concepts unconvincingly expressed and backed up with a
> justification in personal mystical experience. For anyone to honestly say
> whether a work of art is conceptual implies that between the artist and the
> audience there are som shared perceptions - otherwise the concepts have no
> common ground, no means of successful expression - they become, then, merely
> utterances, coherent or otherwise. Before we can say whether Modern Art is
> conceptual or not, we need to be able to demonstrate that the CONCEPTS HAVE
BEEN
> SUCCESSFULLY EXPRESSED.
Well, they were very clearly expressed, just not necessarily in the paintings
themselves. Hence the problem. I think that you are defining the word
"conceptual" in a different way than I would when referring to "Conceptual
Art." I think of conceptual art as being art that is based on an idea, an
intellectual concept, rather than emotion and a sense about the world. High
modernism was definitely about ideas.
This requires more than just your personal opinion -
"Oh
> yeah, I think it's definitely about war" - or whatever dogma has been
enshrined
> at the moment; it requires you to be able to in some sense PROVE what you are
> saying to others. Otherwise, the whole idea of communicable concepts is
> meaningless. And since art is based upon communicable concepts, the "art"
which
> cannot communicate them may not be "art" at all. What it is, is anybody's
guess.
That is also a very interesting idea.
I think one problem here is that you want all "art" to speak to all people
equally regardless of age, education, culture, whatever. That's not going to
happen. We all come to a work of art with our own specific baggage, and what
speaks to one of us may not speak to others. If a work of art only speaks to
three over-educated scholars, I can't bring myself to say it is less valid
than a work that only speaks to, say, people who have had a traumatic
suburban childhood.
I have an idea that art doesn't consist in either what the artist is saying,
or what the viewer understands, but that the art itself is the space in
between. I'd love to know what you think about this
--Leontine
jim
>> It's rather odd that Modern Art has been consistently described as
>>'conceptual'.
This post attempts to adress the misuse of the term " conceptual art"
that has been running rampant in this N.G. of late.
What's up with the thread about Mondrian being a Modernist or a
Conceptual artist? This is akin to asking whether Mondrian was a
mammal or a Crenshaw melon. Gee, lemme think REEEEAL HARD.
Conceptual Art refers to a specific practice that came about in part
as a reaction to the commercialism of the pop art phenomenon in the
1960's. Conceptual artists sought to challenge assumptions about the
artist's role by doing away with the production of an enduring object.
Conceptual pieces were (or are) typically transitory in nature as in
Rafael Ferrer's piece "Ice" which was installed at the entrance to the
Whitney in 1969. The piece consisted of among other things, big blocks
of (you guessed it) ice. As time progressed the physical object ceased
in a sense to exist. Another example might be Sol Lewitt's works that
involve a written set of instructions for others to execute for
producing wall drawings.
So, let's remember, this is going to be on the test, Conceptual Art is
a very specific kind of art. Not all Modern Art is Conceptual Art,
even if somebody thought about it REEEEAL HARD.
jimmy
Iian Neill
> >'conceptual'. Ideas are concepts but are quite isolated and mute unless they
> > are expressed by means - usually language - that everyone can understand, and
> > so that the thinker's meaning is fairly clear and unambiguous. With Modern Art
> > we find that the opposite is more often the case, particularly with work that
> > is not representational - with such work NO ONE can say objectively what the
> > artist intended, what the work means, and whether your interpretation has any
>
> I think that that is true of a lot of art criticism, and I agree that it can
> really be a huge waste of time. The artist should be able to speak to the
> viewer without a bunch of critics having to translate.
I agree - and to take it one step further, I would suggest that the artist should
need to say as little as possible about the work - only as much as might be required
to clear up some obscure points; I am thinking of - for example - Jean-Leon Gerome's
painting, "The Christian Martyr's Last Prayer". While it is no difficult task to
discern the subject of the painting from looking at it, there are historical details
included which give it that added air of authenticity - but which may not be known
by everyone; such as the Christians being smeared with pitch and set alight in the
arena, etc. I am not saying that an artist shouldn't talk about his work if he
wishes to - I am saying, however, that when his explanation starts to replace the
impact of the painting itself, then there is something amiss. The whole point of
painting the work is to express something through images which cannot easily (and so
succinctly) be captured in words, or through music.
In short, I am saying that false criticism (the kind which cannot be independently
confirmed) should not be used to prop up an art-work which is ailing.
> The modernists
> however were pretty clear about what the work means and which interpretations
> are valid - whether or not you feel it is clear from their work, they wrote
> and talked about their intentions at great length. High modernism is
> possibly the least ambiguous art movement EVER!
They may have been explicit in their writings and interviews, but they weren't in
their art-works. The merits of non-representional painting cannot be objectively
confirmed as such work by its very nature forgoes expression through realistic (and
coherently organised) elements. To be concise: one can never say whether the
paintings achieve their aims because the aims cannot be independently confirmed. One
can only speak about one's "feeling" or "intuition" - and this is hardly enough to
establish facts. And since it is an inadequate basis for critical truth, it leaves
the critics who rely on it rather out in the cold.
> >If this is the case, it calls into question the whole idea of criticism as a
> > profession - certainly not a desirable thing for critics!
>
> Aaaah, f*ck 'em.
Criticism needn't be a nasty or a negative thing ... but it all becomes so much
mysticism if one critic's conclusions cannot be confirmed through the evidence of
one's own eyes and of reason. Why should his "feeling" be any more valid than anyone
else's? One might say that such people have studied art all of their lives, and are
surely qualified to make judgments upon contemporary works, whether or not they can
be confirmed by others.
> Ideally, the critic wants to be able to justify his statements, so that his
> > views are shown to be correct beyond a shadow of a doubt. Having your views
> > consistently 'shadowed in doubt' does nothing for your credibility, for one
> > thing!
>
> As I understand it, the high modernist painters and the art establishment in
> the 1960's were basically in bed together. The painters told the critics
> what to think and the critics told the painters what to paint, and they all
> got to feel superior to anyone who dared to think the whole thing was a waste
> of time.
I haven't heard anything yet that conclusively rejects your statement. So I would
have to agree with you.
> > In the absense of any recognisable subject matter, many critics have decried
> > that the paint is the subject matter -
>
> Yes, but that was what the artists were telling them.
Then they were not real critics at all. Any critic worth his salt should not be
swayed by mystical rhetoric.
> >which is rather like saying that a person
> > is a collection of chemicals and meat. While it is true that we are composed
> of
> > these things, it says little about consciousness itself - and this is the
> > situation the critic is in when he claims that art need only express and react
> > to other art-works, and not reality.
>
> That's a really interesting simile. I like it.
Thank you.
> > Any one can claim what they paint is
> > "reality", but only the person who actually paints real objects in a
> > comprehensible configuration can say that this truly does express an
> intention.
>
> Well, I think that what they were saying is that paint is really paint, and
> canvas is really canvas, but a painting of an apple is not really an apple.
This certainly was not a new observation on the part of the Modernists. Any artist
who has had to spend hours training himself to draw from life, and then to paint,
will understand that they aren't REALLY sticking an actual apple onto the canvas.
Conversely, neither do most people actually believe that paintings are meant to be
'slices' of reality - they understand that what is here is a re-creation of visual
elements from the real world, recombined according to the artist's skills,
aesthetic, and metaphysical beliefs. To say that modern artists made us 'aware' of
the artificial nature of art (which is a given), and that this observation was in
any way important to the field of art itself is like shouting to the world: "Hey
people! Shakespeare's plays are really just a bunch of words strung together! Don't
be fooled into thinking that's reality you're seeing there - instead, just look at
the words. In fact, why don't we dispense with such artificial things as plot,
themes and characters altogether. Let's all look at the words .. see the beauty of
the words. Now, isn't this greater than Shakespeare?"
I have deliberately condensed and exagerrated the kind of comments one hears from
critics and contemporary artists when asking WHY they are only interested in paint
itself and find subject matter crude and retrogressive. Granted, there will be folks
on here who won't subscribe to that theory - after all, that was a Modernist
gimmick, and Post-Modernism has supposedly outgrown all of that.
> >A lot of these people are probably afraid of being declared
> > ignorant, and not trusting their own judgment enough tend to give in and go
> > along with what they really believe is incomprehensible - to cap it all off,
> > they are told to not judge, to not think, and to leave all that up to the
> > 'experts', who have been trained in the subtle nuances of art appreciation.
>
> Where does beauty fit into all of this? I think that even your "simplest
> child" would be able to look at an abstract painting and think that it is
> beautiful, or that it is not.
I am not saying that it isn't possible to find beauty in non-representational work.
I am saying that without coherent realism a critic (and anyone else who cares to
try) won't be able to judge the quality of the work, in so far as it successfully
expresses the artist's intentions. When it comes to abstract work there is no way to
say objectively whether the artist's intentions have succeeded, for the reasons I
have given elsewhere.
>Also, I think it is possible to be deeply
> moved by a work of art without intellectualizing and verbalizing it's themes.
This is quite true. One can be moved deeply by a painting without knowing precisely
why. But it is the *job* of the critic to know precisely why - to be able to analyze
a work of art and make known its strengths and weaknesses, the subtle messages
'underneath the surface', the work's relationship to broader concerns (such as
history, politics, literature etc.) I haven't denied the importance of emotional
response to art; what I have said, however, is that it is foolish to base one's
critical judgments entirely on feeling, and then to pass these assertions off as
fact.
> As a matter of fact, I think that is the whole point. If the purpose of a
> painting is to say something that can be more clearly expressed in words, why
> even bother with the painting? Just say the words.
You make a very good point, to which I would add: "If the purpose of visual art is
to express something which cannot equally be realized in words, then why do modern
artists need so much commentary, 'explanations' and mystical rhetoric to give their
work a seriousness it never possessed?"
> >Before we can say whether Modern Art is
> > conceptual or not, we need to be able to demonstrate that the CONCEPTS HAVE
> > BEEN SUCCESSFULLY EXPRESSED.
>
> Well, they were very clearly expressed, just not necessarily in the paintings
> themselves.
Modernist art is not composed of the commentaries of modern artists or critics. It
is composed of the art itself. If this art cannot be objectively analyzed in any
honest fashion, then it is pointless for critics to extoll its virtues. Whatever
Picasso, Braque or Mondrian said about their work is as nothing compared to the work
itself. If the work cannot survive on its own merits, then it is probably not worthy
of survival.
> Hence the problem. I think that you are defining the word
> "conceptual" in a different way than I would when referring to "Conceptual
> Art." I think of conceptual art as being art that is based on an idea, an
> intellectual concept, rather than emotion and a sense about the world. High
> modernism was definitely about ideas.
Modernism may have been concerned with ideas and concepts - but how can one ever
*honestly* say that these were successfully realized unless the works are realistic
enough to be objectively appraised by others? To reiterate: the critic who claims
"feeling", "intuition" or "revelation" as the justification for his judgments is not
a critic at all - his conclusions cannot be independently confirmed, and with each
successive pronouncement he risks writing himself out of a job. For if "feeling" is
the only important thing in analyzing art, why should one listen to the critic and
not the man on the street, who would probably have a more 'natural' reaction to the
work in the first place?
And if one declares: "Well, Modernism *was* about ideas - it just wasn't about the
kind of ideas you are talking about. It was about the idea of *flatness* or the idea
of a painting as an object made of paint on canvas, and not as an illusion of
reality ..." Well, this is comporable to the scientist who declares: "Look! The
human body is made up of chemicals and meat. That's all it is. What you call
consciousness is an outdated notion born of a false belief in the power of
reason."To say that, "Such-and-such through his work expresses the idea of *paint*,"
or that his works "exemplify a 'painterly quality'" merely because paint is
splattered over the canvas, newspaper or masonite board, heaped up in great globules
or smeared across the page, leaving visible brush marks, is to say that THIS should
be the purpose of art. To declare that is to deny all art before it which places its
importance in coherent realism and the expression of ideas through the means of
concepts made manifest via representation. An analogy in literature would be:
"Modern writers were concerned with expression of *words* - not in the old,
antiquated sense of sentences combined to make paragraphs, paragraphs to chapters,
and the whole determined by scenes, characters and plots ... goodness, all of that
illusionism nonsense is for the vulgar masses. Let *them* be satisfied with the easy
stuff - it takes a truly refined intellect to interpret open-ended art; it takes an
active, virile mind to *work at it*, to not settle for the 'obvious story' ...
Shakespeare may have been all right in his day, but our generation has out-grown all
of that childish nonsense about themes, subjects and story-lines. The artists of
today are concerned with the pure qualities of *words in themselves* ..."
Again, I have deliberately condensed and exagerrated (although not very much) the
kind of art-speak that one notices bandied around to defend paintings with no
intellectual substance.
> >... it requires you to be able to in some sense PROVE what you are
> > saying to others. Otherwise, the whole idea of communicable concepts is
> > meaningless. And since art is based upon communicable concepts, the "art"
> > which cannot communicate them may not be "art" at all. What it is, is anybody's
> > guess.
>
> That is also a very interesting idea.
>
> I think one problem here is that you want all "art" to speak to all people
> equally regardless of age, education, culture, whatever. That's not going to
> happen.
I want - at the very least - for critics stop promoting mystical rhetoric and to
start making judgments which can be independently confirmed or denied by others, on
a basis beyond merely what they "feel" or what the artist was "inspired" by.
Again, literature furnishes a good example. Let us take literary criticism as our
basis. When someone wishes to analyze Victor Hugo's "Les Miserables", they would not
be taken seriously if they were to invent passages of text which never appeared, or
to apply an interpretation of the work which could not be independently be confirmed
by REFERENCE TO THE WORK ITSELF. The morally and intellectually bankrupt critic is
one who declares that such-and-such an art work is about this-and-that merely
because they feel it is, or because another critic thinks it is, or because the
artist said so.
>We all come to a work of art with our own specific baggage, and what
> speaks to one of us may not speak to others. If a work of art only speaks to
> three over-educated scholars, I can't bring myself to say it is less valid
> than a work that only speaks to, say, people who have had a traumatic
> suburban childhood.
It may very well be that some work (whether it is abstract or not) appeals to you
more than another -- I am not declaring that this is not so. What I am saying is
that if we are to make any intelligent comments about art, the first step is to try
and find some 'common ground', to try and discover a means of validating the most
disparate of ideas so that their relative merits can be assessed. It is not only
illogical to base a critique of a work of art's value merely on what you "feel" (as
an emotion response to the work) it is in some sense dishonest. It may very well be
that a certain painting or sculpture evokes in you feelings of ecstasy and joy - but
if these feelings were not the ones the artist intended to arouse, then his work has
failed in its intention. This isn't to say that it doesn't have personal meaning to
others who find something appealing about it, but it *is* to say that one cannot
objectively declare the work to be any good, because the artist has either failed in
his intentions, or created a work so obscure and chaotic that no intentions can be
discerned from it at all. (Except for the "intention" of creating a nihilistic
chaos.) The point of criticism is to try and 'stow the baggage' at the door before
you enter the terminal. I may not like Pablo Picasso, and you may not like Jean-Leon
Gerome (for example) - but if we are to be fair as critics, we must try and analyze
their works according to some objective principles. The basis for this is to
ascertain what the intention of the work was, and then to find out whether it
achieved this aim, and how successfully. Opinions will always vary with regard to
the degree a painting is successful; but with such a foundation we can at least
appraise art-works rationally, sorting out the blatant failures from the obviously
meritorious.
> I have an idea that art doesn't consist in either what the artist is saying,
> or what the viewer understands, but that the art itself is the space in
> between. I'd love to know what you think about this.
This reminds me of a quote attributed to Ayn Rand:
"An artist reveals his naked soul in his work -- and so, gentle reader, do you when
you respond to it."
I would say that the art is manifested in the image itself - and that it gains value
to us when we encounter it. It is of paramount importance, however, not to be unduly
distracted by extra-artistic concerns - that is, to allow what the artist says the
work is about, or a critic, or some theory to distort what a rational interpretation
would offer to us.
If a critic cannot even declare with honesty whether a work of art is good or bad,
or even art, then they do not deserve to be called a critic. They are, instead, a
bag of wind with a university degree.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
TJLitt
>If a critic cannot even declare with honesty whether a work of art is good or
>bad,
>or even art, then they do not deserve to be called a critic. They are,
>instead, a
>bag of wind with a university degree.
>
> Regards,
>
> Iian Neill.
Whoa,there Iian!
A simple look thru writings over the last
few hundred years will show critical acclaim
to have always been changeable, sometimes
even relatively volatile. Somehow, you seem
to feel that the intrinsic value of artworks
can be itemized and quantified. Where do
you come up with this? It may fairly be argued
that the true value and greatness of art may
lie with its effect upon the artist creating it.
Certainly, you can't be claiming art should
have the same meaning to everyone, or that
there is but one strict set of guidelines for
any given artistic discipline? Yet, repeatedly
your post seems to indicate you do believe
this, in which case you are in no position to
judge art criticism or art at all, as you truly
can never understand it.
sincerely,
Tom Littleton
mdeli
New pictures, new essays, and some excerpts from my new book.
Here is another:
Fashion:
When artwork is contemporary it most often follows fashion , while
quality is to a great degree overlooked. During this fashionable
period technically superior artists are often judged inferior to
fashionable mediocrities.
When fashions change as they invariably do most all the work of the
passe' fashion is usually rejected. However as time passes works of
the finest quality regain interest. No longer are these works judged
for subject matter and whatever else the fashions at the times of
their creation demanded. Often the original meanings are lost. What
counts at this point is primarily the quality of the picture on the
wall. Judgment is now greatly based on the artists skill in technique.
I use the word technique in its broadest sense.
It is for this reason that the finest 19th century academic works have
gained so much ground in the past few years. It is in demand whether
or not the artist is generally known. These works and their creators
are now judged for their quality rather than their signatures.
It is this reasoning leads me to my predictions about the future.
Namely, that the majority of Modern Academic works which exhibit no
technique and ideas amounting to little more than a put-on and are
totally lacking in quality, have no future. When fashions change the
majority of this stuff will eventually go to the museum basement and
after a while, back to the market where it will be received with a
much deserved yawn.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments.
at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
mdeli
There was an error in posting my web site address here.
The correct address is: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
In former messages the final slash was missing. Please try again.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
Note: There was an address error in former messages
The above address is correct. Please try again.