There Are Tons of Realistic Artists
Dr. Slick
There are tons of artists there and around the world who can
paint/draw realistically. Many of them copy famous paintings for a
living.
However, they all seemed to have the same style to a considerable
degree. Though I myself prefer realistic/surrealism overall, i have
to say that i'm very glad not everyone is doing the same genre.
Garvin
Carmine Rhedd
says...
>
>Just got back from a trip to Thailand,
Ohmygosh! You didn't happen to run into
my good buddy Dennis Dunnum while there,
did you? He left not long ago for an
extended visit there. Dennis is one of
those people who makes art without realizing
that's what he's doing. I haven't heard
from him since his departure.
Joe Kaz
> Most realist artists aren't very good. The ones who are anywhere near
> as good as the best masters of the 19th century seem to be rare.
But the masters of the 19th century were rare too, no?
It's very few that stand the test of time.
--
Joe Kaz...
http://www.joekaz.net/
Dr. Slick
> > So what?
> > Most realist artists aren't very good. The ones who are anywhere near
> > as good as the best masters of the 19th century seem to be rare.
>
>
> But the masters of the 19th century were rare too, no?
> It's very few that stand the test of time.
So I'm glad everyone ain't doing the same gig, that's all.
And to be frank, even the one's that have stood the test of time can
be quite boring for me.
Abstract or comic art can be done very well, and for the people
that want to bring realism back because they think abstract art has
taken the "skill" out of being an artist, I say that's fine. But it
would be a boring world if everyone was a photo-realistic painter.
Garvin Yee
John Ng
> So I'm glad everyone ain't doing the same gig, that's all.
> And to be frank, even the one's that have stood the test of time can
> be quite boring for me.
You seem to look towards paintings for EXCITEMENT. Don't. Look
towards computer graphics, movies and other technocratic stuff that
could get images into your brains at speed of light. No painting can
excite you after two weeks. Do you still get excited at Frank
Frazetta's images???
John Ng
Advocates an art renewal and the return to sensible art
http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
Chris
"John Ng" <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1bb492a.03030...@posting.google.com...
> radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote in message
>
> > So I'm glad everyone ain't doing the same gig, that's all.
> > And to be frank, even the one's that have stood the test of time can
> > be quite boring for me.
>
> You seem to look towards paintings for EXCITEMENT. Don't. Look
> towards computer graphics, movies and other technocratic stuff that
> could get images into your brains at speed of light. No painting can
> excite you after two weeks.
I'd say you have clearly never spent time in a good gallery. I grew up in
Washington, spent a good deal of my youth poking about in it's galleries
(particularly the Phillips and the NGA); and when I go back I still feel as
exited about many of the paintings as I did 30 years ago. Perhaps more so.
Great art does that - ditto for great music and literature. Everytime you
approach it, you discover something new (and often profound). That is, after
all, why it is great.
Franzetta, though, wears thin very quickly - for me after about 20 seconds.
Chris
C. Enna
says...
>I'd say you have clearly never spent time in a good gallery.
An astute observation.
>I grew up in
>Washington, spent a good deal of my youth poking about in it's galleries
>(particularly the Phillips and the NGA); and when I go back I still feel as
>exited about many of the paintings as I did 30 years ago. Perhaps more so.
I once worked out of an office in London that was
right around the corner from the National Gallery.
This was before I had really gotten involved in
a formal art education. I spent many a lunch hour going
back again and again to the gallery, and never failed
to spend a few moments in front of what was, at that
time, one of the most haunting paintings I'd seen.
I've mentioned this here before. It's not a well-known
work nor by a well-known artist. It's Paul Delaroches's
painting <The Execution of Lady Jane Grey>. It's not
listed in the Nat. Galleries best-of-their-best list.
I still get goose bumps thinking about it. The URL
for the painting is too long to paste here, but you
can find it by doing a search on the National Gallery
web site, keyword: delaroche, at:
http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/
Jiri Borsky
> I've mentioned this here before. It's not a well-known
> work nor by a well-known artist. It's Paul Delaroches's
> painting <The Execution of Lady Jane Grey>. It's not
> listed in the Nat. Galleries best-of-their-best list.
> I still get goose bumps thinking about it. The URL
> for the painting is too long to paste here, but you
> can find it by doing a search on the National Gallery
> web site, keyword: delaroche, at:
>
> http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/
A text-book example of so called pregnant moment: the executioner
reaching with his fingers for the axe handle while his eyes gaze
at the chopping block. His line of sight is reinforced by the
orange cape and the left hand of the other male.
Descending diagonal, preceding the soon to descend blade.
BTW, I was slightly surprised that Russian is one of the
7 languages of the NG site.
Jiri Borsky
Thur
http://www.geocities.com/jane_the_quene/paint8.html
Thur
"C. Enna" <ce...@noemailever.com> wrote in message
news:3e64...@news.zianet.com...
Dr. Slick
> "John Ng" <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d1bb492a.03030...@posting.google.com...
> > radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote in message
> >
> > > So I'm glad everyone ain't doing the same gig, that's all.
> > > And to be frank, even the one's that have stood the test of time can
> > > be quite boring for me.
> >
> > You seem to look towards paintings for EXCITEMENT. Don't. Look
> > towards computer graphics, movies and other technocratic stuff that
> > could get images into your brains at speed of light. No painting can
> > excite you after two weeks.
>
I was gonna say, "please don't tell me what to look for in
art", but then you probably misunderstand me. I like Homer Winslow
alot, although his stuff can be quite exciting. But his calm beach
scenes are quite nice.
And yes, Frazzeta definitely excites me to this day. More so
now than before.
> I'd say you have clearly never spent time in a good gallery. I grew up in
> Washington, spent a good deal of my youth poking about in it's galleries
> (particularly the Phillips and the NGA); and when I go back I still feel as
> exited about many of the paintings as I did 30 years ago. Perhaps more so.
>
> Great art does that - ditto for great music and literature. Everytime you
> approach it, you discover something new (and often profound). That is, after
> all, why it is great.
>
> Franzetta, though, wears thin very quickly - for me after about 20 seconds.
>
To each, their own. A friend of mine in college once said to
me that Led Zeppelin's "The Song Remains the Same" Movie was boring
for him (i watched it all the time). This was understandable in the
MTV dominated, 3 minute song, sound bite world that we were/still
living in.
Are you guys saying that you like ALL the classic realism? I
really doubt it.
Vermeer, Bouguereau, and Waterhouse were great (and not just
for the nudes).
Getting back to the point, I'm glad there are Keith Harings,
Warhols, and Paik Nam June (i know, he's a sculptor, but hopefully you
get the point).
Garvin
John Ng
> Great art does that - ditto for great music and literature. Everytime you
> approach it, you discover something new (and often profound). That is, after
> all, why it is great.
I am talking about getting "excitement" from paintings. Yes, you
discover something new and something insanely gimmicky but if you are
into "excitement", then painting is not the thing that you should be
looking towards. There are plenty of computer graphics, photographs,
cinema posters, billboards, filmlets out there that could really bring
excitement to your life.
Same with literature. There are great silver screen and soap boxes,
why would one read boring literature from the 19C for fast-pace
excitement? There are brilliant funky bands out there so why listen
to Beethoven?
What I am getting at is that a lot of people "appreciate" things for
the wrong reason. It is more proper to say that the reason why you go
into these "ancient" arts is so that you can be seen as cultured, so
that you can be praised by your peers.
It frustrates me to hear people mentioning images as the only
attribute of a good painting. Yes, image is important but not solely.
What is the difference between a photo and a painting or a Photoshop
image if images is the only thing of importance?
John Ng
Chris
This whole post is so sad; I really don't know what to say...But (in order
to be somewhat constructive) can I make a suggestion? Go out and get Harold
Bloom's book "How to Read and Why." I know the title sounds juvenile, but it
is anything but a juvenile book, and to put you at ease, he's a well
respected Shakespearian scholar, and a delightful, competent, and highly
(and happily) biased writer. Read the book, and the works he references; and
then take what you've learned and apply the same analysis to art, or music.
Then come back and see if you can really say that a great work of art is in
anyway less exciting than any movie/hit record/starlet you can think of;.
and see whether you really care anymore what other people think of your
tastes.
Chris
"John Ng" <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1bb492a.03030...@posting.google.com...
Dr. Slick
> "Chris" <n...@this.address> wrote in message news:<PIU8a.6204$0W6.117748@ursa-
>
> > Great art does that - ditto for great music and literature. Everytime you
> > approach it, you discover something new (and often profound). That is, after
> > all, why it is great.
>
> I am talking about getting "excitement" from paintings. Yes, you
> discover something new and something insanely gimmicky but if you are
> into "excitement", then painting is not the thing that you should be
> looking towards. There are plenty of computer graphics, photographs,
> cinema posters, billboards, filmlets out there that could really bring
> excitement to your life.
>
A mere photograph could never capture the depth of Frazetta's
world. Or Giger's.
> Same with literature. There are great silver screen and soap boxes,
> why would one read boring literature from the 19C for fast-pace
> excitement? There are brilliant funky bands out there so why listen
> to Beethoven?
>
Why not listen to both? I like the new and the old. Great art
is timeless, not trendy. Try E. Power Biggs for a great
interpretation of J. S. Bach.
> What I am getting at is that a lot of people "appreciate" things for
> the wrong reason. It is more proper to say that the reason why you go
> into these "ancient" arts is so that you can be seen as cultured, so
> that you can be praised by your peers.
>
There is no "right" or "wrong" or "proper" when it comes to art
appreciation.
What a lame reason to like a painting: so one can be seen as
cultured. Certainly my love for Frazetta, Giger, and Vargas has
gotten me anything BUT praise on this newgroup! And you have to have
balls of steel to admit that you like Disney for some stupid reason.
Someone can like something and not give a sh** what the rest of the
world thinks.
A better reason to like a painting is to get lucky with that
sweet, "cultured" piece of ass that hangs out at the museum! hehe
Slick
http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl
recently purchased a painting and couldn't shut up about it for days. I
couldn't stop looking at it either (It's so damned cool).
To describe it is pointless... And whatever the meaning is/was - I don't know
it, but it challenged me to come up with all sorts of meanings. It went
perfect with my music and I was dancing - and looking at the picture - wanting
to jump right into the painting. And that, was exciting!
I totally don't get that excited from the art you describe below.
"John Ng" <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1bb492a.03030...@posting.google.com...
> "Chris" <n...@this.address> wrote in message
news:<PIU8a.6204$0W6.117748@ursa-
>
> > Great art does that - ditto for great music and literature. Everytime you
> > approach it, you discover something new (and often profound). That is,
after
> > all, why it is great.
>
> I am talking about getting "excitement" from paintings. Yes, you
> discover something new and something insanely gimmicky but if you are
> into "excitement", then painting is not the thing that you should be
> looking towards. There are plenty of computer graphics, photographs,
> cinema posters, billboards, filmlets out there that could really bring
> excitement to your life.
>
> Same with literature. There are great silver screen and soap boxes,
> why would one read boring literature from the 19C for fast-pace
> excitement? There are brilliant funky bands out there so why listen
> to Beethoven?
>
> What I am getting at is that a lot of people "appreciate" things for
> the wrong reason. It is more proper to say that the reason why you go
> into these "ancient" arts is so that you can be seen as cultured, so
> that you can be praised by your peers.
>
http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl
I DISAGREE with you. One *can* get excited from artwork.
Having said that, I officially withdraw from reading another thing again!!
http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl
John Ng
> This whole post is so sad; I really don't know what to say...
Read carefully and see what I am getting at. There are plenty of
things great about paintings. For me, scrutinizing a great painting
is living in paradise. I am an art collector and have spent tens of
thousands buying paintings along with the fact that I try to paint
whenever I have the time (I don't have a life). I don't need to read
books to tell me what to look for in paintings and such a fascination
for great works, I can write my own book. In fact, most critiques
widely circulated in the market are quite shallow.
I am against the idea of the image as the only thing of importance in
a painting, and along with that, the fact that the excitement obtained
is the end all of paintings. There is no excitement in paintings.
Even Bouguereau's images are not anymore as exciting as that of Rubens
or Leonardos, which are mundane after a second look. "Terminator" is
exciting.
A nice image, composed with art principles, is necessary for a
painting to work. But the importance of newness and excitement is
secondary. I can take an idea from one painting and transport into
another and that new painting can be as great as the "original" (I am
not talking about copy-art). This repetition has been done since man
painted. Have you seen anything "new" that has broken the norm
(barring gimmicky stuff of splatters)? Newness is much more likely in
photography.
The thing that sets a painting apart is the glorification of the
painter when you examine that painting. The sentence -- "How on earth
did he/she do that?" -- is one of the primary signals of a good
painting. Hence my argument is that the only form a painting should
take is classical realism. Bad realism is no art at all, and is no
different from the splatters of Pollock or DeKoons.
John Ng
> Hey wait a minute... Looks like my reading skills went out the window again!!
>
> I DISAGREE with you. One *can* get excited from artwork.
You really should master your reading skill. You may get something
exciting from paintings but what I said was that the place to look is
into the future techniques of art, that is, computer graphics and
photography or a poster reproduction... An "ancient" art form like
painting is too slow to produce the excitement that you will need.
Tell me again after two months whether that painting that you bought
is as exciting.
Leaving painting art to expression of human skill.
John Ng
http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl
message
>
> > Hey wait a minute... Looks like my reading skills went out the window
again!!
> >
> > I DISAGREE with you. One *can* get excited from artwork.
>
> You really should master your reading skill.
I know. It's embarrassing.
> You may get something
> exciting from paintings but what I said was that the place to look is
> into the future techniques of art, that is, computer graphics and
> photography or a poster reproduction... An "ancient" art form like
> painting is too slow to produce the excitement that you will need.
Not true. Some of us have grown to know that great meals take hours to cook in
the "kitchen." It's the "children" that you have to shut up with a "quick
snack."
> Tell me again after two months whether that painting that you bought
> is as exciting.
Ok. But I already know it will. I bought that painting in December.
> Leaving painting art to expression of human skill.
I don't get that.
> John Ng
Paul Mesken
Check out :
Has also some comments about and links to art materials and their use
(lucky me, my black oil doesn't come out of a tube :-)
Mani Deli
conveys a sense of depth which is unusual. Unlike 19th century
revivalists who pine for the subject matter, Dali's subject matter is
original and modern. This degree of bravura classical painting
technique expressed in double images has no imitators. Why? For
starters, the skill requirement is presently absent. That's just for
starters.
Having seen the original I can only say that it is so far beyond the
repro. However even this conveys a sense of Dali's painterly abilities
and invention.
Check it out at:
http://www.virtualdali.com/Pho38Spain.htm
This is presently the best Dali site.
...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
and conveys a sense of depth which is unusual. Take a look at the
double image of the head.
http://www.virtualdali.com/Pho36HeadOfWoman.htm
frankvo...@web.de
wrote:
>I noted Dali's Spain as among his finest. It contains double images
>and conveys a sense of depth which is unusual. Take a look at the
>double image of the head.
>
>http://www.virtualdali.com/Pho36HeadOfWoman.htm
If you like to see other pictures with multiple meaning I recommend
the exhibition at the Dusseldorf Kunstpalast which shows more than 200
objects of the last centuries:
http://www.museum-kunst-palast.de/eng/sites/home.asp
Frank
http://www.opartandmore.de
Mani Deli
and conveys a sense of depth which is unusual. Enlarge the picture and
look at the amazing double image of the head.
Although this image is far from revealing the expert painting
technique, it is in high enough resolution to see the details of the
horsemen that make up the head.
Anyone ever see a Modern Academic do anything like that?
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/reference_pictures/spain.jpg
Mike Stengl
> I noted Dali's Spain as among his finest. It contains double images
> and conveys a sense of depth which is unusual. Enlarge the picture and
> look at the amazing double image of the head.
>
> Although this image is far from revealing the expert painting
> technique, it is in high enough resolution to see the details of the
> horsemen that make up the head.
>
> Anyone ever see a Modern Academic do anything like that?
How Modern? How academic? M C Escher.
Mani Deli
wrote:
Escher is certainly one of the greats in his field. He is unique, His
form of image manipulation is different from Dali's. I wouldn'd call
them double-imiges but something closer to geometrical optical
illusion.
Escher is even more original than Dali. Dali's double images are
classical and have been used in the past. However, the painting is far
more then just another double image. I mention the double image
because it is almost unique to the art of that century. Indeed I have
seen some commercial art using this but none has all the other
elements that make "Spain" a great painting.
Seagull Manager
"Mike Stengl" <eatn...@humboldt1.com> wrote in message
>
> How Modern? How academic? M C Escher.
Same generation as Dali (slightly older). Not very academic - in fact, an
art-world outsider. Not an affiliate of any acknowledged art movement or
school. Hung around with mathematicians. Popular with them first, then the
general public, before gaining any measure of art-world acceptance. Many
surveys of 20th century art do not mention him.
Erik A. Mattila
Many? Name one.
eam
>
>
Mani Deli
The "Shlock of the New" by super blowbag Robert Hughes. At least
unlike some books he mentions Dali.
Erik A. Mattila
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2003 11:11:44 -0700, "Erik A. Mattila"
> <emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Seagull Manager wrote:
>>
>>>"Mike Stengl" <eatn...@humboldt1.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>>How Modern? How academic? M C Escher.
>>>
>>>
>>>Same generation as Dali (slightly older). Not very academic - in fact, an
>>>art-world outsider. Not an affiliate of any acknowledged art movement or
>>>school. Hung around with mathematicians. Popular with them first, then the
>>>general public, before gaining any measure of art-world acceptance. Many
>>>surveys of 20th century art do not mention him.
>>
>>Many? Name one.
>>
>
> The "Shlock of the New" by super blowbag Robert Hughes. At least
> unlike some books he mentions Dali.
Strange...an author who sets out to write a text about modernism doesn't
mention Escher. You've got to be joking. But by its very definition,
"Shock of the New" isn't a "survey" of 20th art - it is a book on modernism.
Erik
Bernard Victor
wrote:
>indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions
This just about sums up Salvador Dali !
Seagull Manager
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
news:3EE4F390...@oco.net...
> Mani Deli wrote:
> > On Mon, 09 Jun 2003 11:11:44 -0700, "Erik A. Mattila"
> > <emat...@oco.net> wrote:
> >
> But by its very definition,
> "Shock of the New" isn't a "survey" of 20th art - it is a book on
modernism.
In that case, there ARE no surveys of 20th century art. All those that
purport to be are books on modernism.
Seagull Manager
Took me a while to get back to you on this one, but I did a little research
today. How about four?
Phaidon History of Modern Art, by Aranson and Prather
A History of 20th Century Art, by Bernard Bistene
The Story of Modern Art, by Norbert Lynton
Art of the Twentieth Century, by Ruhrberg et al
None of them mentions Escher.
On the other hand, the Oxford Dictionary of 20th Century Art DOES have an
entry for the guy (Yippee!)
It was, in fact, the only survey (if that's what it is) that I found that
DID mention him.
Erik A. Mattila
>>>general public, before gaining any measure of art-world acceptance. Many
>>>surveys of 20th century art do not mention him.
>>
>>Many? Name one.
>
>
> Took me a while to get back to you on this one, but I did a little research
> today. How about four?
>
> Phaidon History of Modern Art, by Aranson and Prather
>
> A History of 20th Century Art, by Bernard Bistene
>
> The Story of Modern Art, by Norbert Lynton
>
> Art of the Twentieth Century, by Ruhrberg et al
>
> None of them mentions Escher.
>
> On the other hand, the Oxford Dictionary of 20th Century Art DOES have an
> entry for the guy (Yippee!)
>
> It was, in fact, the only survey (if that's what it is) that I found that
> DID mention him.
Did you look at Jansen's and Gardner's? Just curious, since these are
the 'art history bibles' in the classroom. Mine are packed up in
storage with the rest of my books, otherwise I would look.
Also, I'm curious if the four you've looked at include Heinrich Klay
(one of my favorites.) http://www.bpib.com/illustrat/kley.htm
Here's a good essay, from a science slant, by David Peats on Escher:
http://www.fdavidpeat.com/bibliography/essays/escher.htm
"Although Escher's status amongst critics and art curators is somewhat
ambiguous the work of this Dutch artist work has attracted a
considerable public, particularly for because of his play with visual
and mathematical paradoxes."
So my point is that, rather than being a nefarious plot by art ghouls,
Escher raises some real issues about art collecting. Like a library, an
Art Museum operates from a fundamental document called a "collection
policy." If that policy does say that the institution will collect
graphic arts, I would imagine that Escher's work would be sought after.
But what the hell...no body is hurting. Escher is much better known
than Hans Hofman of Heinrich Klay, for example. And no one would have
any trouble "seeing" Escher whenever they want - even in the form of
ashtrays, Beach balls and underwear.
But thanks for doing the reserch. It's very interesting.
Erik
>
>
Seagull Manager
> Seagull Manager wrote:
>
> Did you look at Jansen's and Gardner's?
No. You asked me to name one. I named four. I guess that wasn't enough.
Sorry.
> Just curious, since these are the 'art history bibles' in the classroom.
The American classroom. Norbert Lynton is probably more widely used in the
UK.
> Mine are packed up in storage with the rest of my books, otherwise I would
look.
When you get the chance.
> Also, I'm curious if the four you've looked at include Heinrich Klay
> (one of my favorites.) http://www.bpib.com/illustrat/kley.htm
No. Perhaps you would like to.
> Here's a good essay, from a science slant, by David Peats on Escher:
> http://www.fdavidpeat.com/bibliography/essays/escher.htm
>
> "Although Escher's status amongst critics and art curators is somewhat
> ambiguous the work of this Dutch artist work has attracted a
> considerable public, particularly for because of his play with visual
> and mathematical paradoxes."
From a science slant. Exactly. You're just confirming my earlier comments.
> So my point is that, rather than being a nefarious plot by art ghouls,
> Escher raises some real issues about art collecting.
Escher is enthusiastically collected, just not by modernist-oriented museums
of "modern" or "contemporary" art, since those are, in general, obsessed
with reproducing the picture portrayed by surveys like the ones I mentioned
above.
> Like a library, an
> Art Museum operates from a fundamental document called a "collection
> policy."
Which, typically, dictates that it will collect "important" (dubious term)
"modern" (meaning modernist) or "contemporary" (meaning fag-end,
trailing-edge, flog-a-dead-horse, reheat-the-old-stew modernist) art,
exclusively, perhaps with a national bias.
> If that policy does say that the institution will collect
> graphic arts, I would imagine that Escher's work would be sought after.
These institutions never seem to have difficulty with Warhol silk-screen
prints, or Cindy Sherman photographs, so why would they stumble over an
Escher woodcut, if they really wanted one?
>
> But what the hell...no body is hurting. Escher is much better known
> than Hans Hofman of Heinrich Klay, for example.
But who gets mentioned in the histories of 20th century art? Who gets bought
by the big institutions?
> And no one would have
> any trouble "seeing" Escher whenever they want - even in the form of
> ashtrays, Beach balls and underwear.
That doesn't make him an art world insider, or Thomas Kincaid would be one.
> But thanks for doing the reserch. It's very interesting.
You're welcome.
Paul Mesken
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>Seagull Manager wrote:
>
>>>>general public, before gaining any measure of art-world acceptance. Many
>>>>surveys of 20th century art do not mention him.
>>>
>>>Many? Name one.
>>
>>
>> Took me a while to get back to you on this one, but I did a little research
>> today. How about four?
>>
>> Phaidon History of Modern Art, by Aranson and Prather
>>
>> A History of 20th Century Art, by Bernard Bistene
>>
>> The Story of Modern Art, by Norbert Lynton
>>
>> Art of the Twentieth Century, by Ruhrberg et al
>>
>> None of them mentions Escher.
>>
>> On the other hand, the Oxford Dictionary of 20th Century Art DOES have an
>> entry for the guy (Yippee!)
>>
>> It was, in fact, the only survey (if that's what it is) that I found that
>> DID mention him.
>
>Did you look at Jansen's and Gardner's? Just curious, since these are
>the 'art history bibles' in the classroom. Mine are packed up in
>storage with the rest of my books, otherwise I would look.
Don't know about Gardner but Janson doesn't mention him either.
Wynne Ean-Hand
>Did you look at Jansen's and Gardner's?
I looked in Jansen, and Hartt, and neither of them
have an index listing for Escher (History of Art).
I'll have to see where I can find information on
him. I know I've seen references somewhere in
my rather limited library. Perhaps we need to
be looking at "History of Illustration" or some
other category - "Illusion?"
Cu Chullain
-Thank you, somebody had to say it. Care to expound on such profundity?
-cm
Chris
"Seagull Manager" <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote in
message news:bc8fu6$f1h$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...
A problem with this discussion is that some seem to be labouring under the
mistaken impression that the role of the historian is to focus on what is
popular, rather than what is influential. Escger is great to be sure; but
can one trace any direct influence his work had on onher artists? Similarly
for Bouguereau - from 1900 to the late 20th century, one would be had
pressed to fing any artists whose work shows a direct contribution from him.
This of course may change (his star, as well as other Academic) painters
seems to be in ascension, so you may well find him written into the next
generation of texts.
There's a well known parallel in music - Bach. Though moderatley popular in
his lifetime, he was eclipsed then and for many years later by some of his
contemporaries, like Graun (good show on him on CBC Radio 2, btw) and
Telemann (whise salary, for example, was 3 times that of JSB); it wasn't
until his rediscovery by Mendelssohn and others some 70 years after his
death that his reputation began to grow to pre-eminence.
Similarly, one can look to the later contemporaries of Rembrandt (like
Lievens) - who remembers him now? It's rembrandt, not Lievens, that is
influential now, so he gets the attention of the historians, not the other
artist. But 350 years ago, that wasn't the case.
Cheers;
Chris
Mani Deli
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>But what the hell...no body is hurting. Escher is much better known
>than Hans Hofman of Heinrich Klay, for example. And no one would have
>any trouble "seeing" Escher whenever they want
Except in museums which rarely show him. The don't have traveling
Escher shows like they have on dribblers and stripe painters. Nor are
they interested in popular artists.
> even in the form of
>ashtrays, Beach balls and underwear.
>
...no skill no art!
Mani Deli
Mani Deli
Anyone ever see a Modern Academic do anything like that?
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/reference_pictures/double_image.jpg
This shows the degree of work that went into "Spain."Dali also did
many study drawings for this painting. .
Notice the sketch quality of the details. Let it remind artzy fartzies
that all that isn't Modern Academic isn't always highly finished. Even
our holiest critics admit Dali was a master of technique before
getting into their usual qualifiers..
Perhaps you would like to compare it to the finished version.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/reference_pictures/spain.jpg
I'll will continue to try to show the paintings I mention in the
future.
G*rd*n
> > A problem with this discussion is that some seem to be labouring under the
> > mistaken impression that the role of the historian is to focus on what is
"Thur" <a@spamless.z>:
> x-no-archive: yes
> Assuming a historian's job is to first record some facts
> about the periods under discussion, then whether any of
> those particular facts influenced anything directly is for
> the said historian to propose.
> What was popular in any period ought to throw light onto
> the conditions under which those particular strands of art
> the historian wishes to highlight were produced.
> For example, if artists were producing say - Impressionist
> works, and their work sold like hot cakes, or their work
> failed to sell anything at all, wouldn't that be appropriate to
> publish?
> Art historians are full of detail about poor old van Gogh,
> because, presumably, his work was influenced by his
> lack of popularity.
> Simply providing facts which support the proposition might
> lead readers to question whether they were reading a
> history book?
History being an interpretation, the historian is going to
have to figure out what _art_ is and what _influence_ means.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/19/03 <-adv't
Chris
"Thur" <a@spamless.z> wrote in message
news:Z70Ga.9495$0d7.2...@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
> Assuming a historian's job is to first record some facts
> about the periods under discussion, then whether any of
> those particular facts influenced anything directly is for
> the said historian to propose.
> What was popular in any period ought to throw light onto
> the conditions under which those particular strands of art
> the historian wishes to highlight were produced.
> For example, if artists were producing say - Impressionist
> works, and their work sold like hot cakes, or their work
> failed to sell anything at all, wouldn't that be appropriate to
> publish?
Thur, you seem to be looking for a prescription for historians to follow. I
figure a historians job is to go explore some aspect of history and see how
to make sense of it in anyway they want. If what they produce is coherent,
relatively honest, and well written - and about something of interest -
then they'll probably do alright.
There's lots of historians that focus on daily life - for example, look at
Schama's "Emabarrassment of Riches", a hstory of the Dutch golden age.
There's lots of information about popular artists, genre work, etc. It's
what interested him, so he wrote about it.
I doubt though that you would find many historians who would spend much time
writing about who was unpopular. The Impressionists, for example, were only
a very small proportion of all the artists in Paris that had a hard time in
the 1860's and 70's (and in fact they did better than most). How does a
historian then select one group from that whole range of? By who was, in
the longer run, influential.
> Art historians are full of detail about poor old van Gogh,
> because, presumably, his work was influenced by his
> lack of popularity.
van Gogh wasn't popular with the public, but he was well respected by a
large number of his contemporary painters. There's a picture done of his
funeral by Emile Bernard (I think) that records some of that.
> Simply providing facts which support the proposition might
> lead readers to question whether they were reading a
> history book?
Hunh? I would think the study of history is a somewhat more dynamic field
than that....
Cheers;
Chris
Seagull Manager
"Chris" <n...@this.address> wrote in message
>
> How does a
> historian then select one group from that whole range of? By who was, in
> the longer run, influential.
Except that who is influential depends very much on who gets into the
history books. And the historian doesn't know who among recent or current
artists is going to be influential with coming generations. If they try to
preempt tomorrow's history by guessing who is or is not actually
"important", then they're clearly going beyond their job description.
van Gogh wasn't popular with the public, but he was well respected by a
> large number of his contemporary painters.
Van Gogh's popularity simply wasn't tested in his lifetime. He didn't have a
long enough career, and he didn't make any serious effort to sell his work.
Erik A. Mattila
There's really no absolute principle involved...art historians have a
pretty broad latitued - but there are boundaries the crossing of which
makes employment difficult (or impossible in some cases). But in my
very first graduate seminar in the History of Art, the Prof stated on
the first meeting "We are not here to answer the question "What is Art." "
It properly belongs, I guess, to "theory and criticism." By contrast,
Art Historians take "art" to be what was there, what left footprints,
and what was talked about, and so on.
And "Influence" is a big problem in art history discourse. Take someone
like George Kubler, who argued that there were sort of grand narratives
grounded in visual types that extended througout time (In his "The Shape
of Time). The problem is that this would create a connective tissue
between, say Roman murals and Richard Diebenkorn in the grand project:
Landscape painting. Most Art Historians would say hogwash, and demand
evidence of influence, or evidence of anything that would tie the two
examples together under the rubric of influence. So art historians like
to read gallery guestbooks to see if Picasso visited the Trocadero, or
if steamship rosters to see if Delacroix actually visited Algeria. The
bugaboo in this is the infamous "like begets like inference." Just
because two works of art look similar in some whats, doesn't prove
"influence."
Here's a concrete example - a paper I would like to write, but couldn't
write credibly without some concrete evidence. That is, it is generally
assumed that the figurative styles of Mexican painters like Rivera and
others come from their interest in Precolumbian art. I suspect this is
false. There isn't much equivalancy in Precolumbian examples, and these
artists were in Paris with Picasso, Gris, Braque and so on before WWI.
I suspect - and this is pure speculation, based on the "like begets like
inference" no less - that the Barbizons were being exhibited in Paris at
the time, and exerted a major influence on the Mexicans. The Barbizons
were originally repressed, of course, since thier valorization of labor
and the working class was considered offensive and not a proper subject
for Art, but I think by 1910 the French class system was pretty well
falling apart, and the Barbizons may have been discovered.
So I would have to study the history of exhibitions in Paris at the
time. If I found that the Barbizons were popular, written-up in
reviews, and discovered that Rivera, Orozco, Siqueiros and Goitia had
signed gallery guestbooks of Barbizon shows, then I would have a good
argument. If I found a letter from Orozco to Juan Gris talking about
it, so much the better. But short of that, it is just a hunch, and
certainly not "Art History" no matter how credible the idea might sound.
Erik