Flatness
mdeli
modern sections of museums for thirty years. It still governs about
80% of what is allowed in.
He stated these ideas in "Art And Culture." You can find them after
you decode his Artspeak a bit.
His explanation is stupid and shallow and is hardly read anymore.
Greenberg invented Modern Artspeak. Before that the style of Ruskin
prevailed. Compare his stuff to that excessive blow-bag Schapiro.
Greenberg was a terrible writer and I suspect that if his name weren't
attached to it, it would by equivalent to a Rothko imitation in terms
of the attention it would get.
Greenberg's theories are of little interest today. They had their
half-life of 30 years and so called art scholars are now interested
in a more modern line of bullshit; which probably won't last as long.
Greenberg also started the anti-kitcsh paranoia which has totally
lost hold except in modern art school indoctrination.
...no skill no art
"The Emperor's New Clothes aren't clothing you stupid little girl. They are body installations containing invisible Color Fields."
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page
New address- http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli
RBrac53660
Adult Baby
> Greenberg's idea of flatness governed what was allowed to enter the
> modern sections of museums for thirty years. It still governs about
> 80% of what is allowed in.
Your work is too Dali! I like the Mondrian Toilet Paper painting.
Stewart
the other to indicate a multitude, aren't I talking about flatness?
What about Chinese landscapes where each part of the landscape is
brought forward and stacked above the preceeding part?
What about so much of Renaissance art with the main figures lined up
in a row like actors across a stage and the background being just
that, a background? If not a total flatness, much of it has a
compressed look to the space. Something like when a zoom lens is used
to photograph distant action. In particular, the work of Andrea
Mantegna takes this further than most artists of the time. If you
can't see flatness in much of his work, you're not looking.
Another interesting thing is that I once read a study in Scientific
American that said African people prefer a top view drawing of a
splayed out elephant instead of a photograph. They believed that the
drawing displayed more about an elephant than any one photograph can.
Historical and cultural views on flatness might be an interesting
topic, but that is not what interests me now. My point is that
painting and photography are 2-diminensional images and have to be
seen as such.
I am constantly amazed at the times I've seen "visual anomalies" in
realistic art work and photos. Some so disturbing that they
interfered with the work. Artists who let these anomilies appear in
their work usually have no idea they are there.
Condemming modern painting out of hand is foolish. Study it! Study it
until you learn to "see flat". The use this knowledge when doing your
own work and in viewing other artists work, no matter how realistic
they're done.
Later today I will do a search for samples of what I am talking about
and post them.
Stewart Schooley
Stewart Schooley
of, but couldn't find it. I think what I have will do.
First is here- http://www.moma.org/docs/collection/paintsculpt/c40.htm
The negative spaces between the figures are not background, but stand out
on their own equally with the figures.
Second is here-
http://www.schirmer-mosel.de/bildkat/7VBASchifferMontage.JPG
Start from the right and look at the first negative space after the first
two girls. In this photo this space isn't background, but stands out on
it's own strongly independent from the rest of the photo.
The difference is that Picasso knew what he was doing and Avedon didn't
have the visual sense to see what his own photo looked like. Too bad he
didn't study modern painting. If he had, he wouldn't have let a bad photo
like this out.
Stewart Schooley