Art Criticism
zi...@interport.net
Actually M.Deli on art criticism-the positive remark at the end of the
posting is very good. But he'she doesn't do it. He/she reviles lots of
work which has at least 150 years of support behind it in the support
of the generations. Does M.Deli also like Yuan masters like Mi Fei, Ni
Tsan, Huang Kunf Wang? They were revered in China and Japan for about
900 years. They are still revered there and by comntemporary Western
scholars and those in the West who care about Chinese art. Is that
included? Do Westerners immediately get into that art? Do they
understand it without trying?
The art world in the west changed radically about 1840. Ever since
then, there have been a whole series of more and more personal
statements which needed new understanding. This is even tru e of the
early Corots of the period 1828-32. They look something like
neoclassicizing painting but there are differences,
When you hit the 20th century, each new worthwhile style is as unlike
the art familiar before itshows up as Sung or Yuan Chunese painting.
So it is not something which it is easy to get into. My methodology
works for me. M.Deli's works only to deny any of it any worth.
I feel so strange finding a know nothing to my right because I am
usually considered to be at the edge of the art world in some limbo
because I am so conservative. But there is a difference between a
living active artist who believes in the traditions in art and that
they have not died with the 18rth century and someone who feels
everything is over as far as established twentieth century art is
concerned.
That is why I have serious doubts m.deli is any more an artist than
all the people who spend their time here railing at the horror of
grants for artists with their tax money! Many of the artist further to
my right studied with me at one time and I know the others, too.
None of them is M.Deli.
Take a look at the web page of the Hackett-Friedman Gallery in San
Francisco.
Gabriel
Bryan Ayers
In article <65njt6$hck$1...@broadway.interport.net>, <zi...@interport.net> wrote:
-Blah Blah Blah....
I'll explain art crit for the masses. It is the act of attempting to
describe visual art(semantics) which if it were possible the visual
artwork would have been unnecessary. The less a work of art contains
the more room it leaves for art critics too ramble onwards about why
it either offends or appeals to their own peculiar sense of esthetics.
As long as they remain aware enough too make descriptions that are not
too out of touche with the work and the desriptions are fascinating
they can maintian interest and be considered part of the art world. If
not they retire and earn money off the stock market which is hell-bent
on destroying the ecological well-being and economic well being of
mankind which if this continues will eventually destroy the elite.
>When you hit the 20th century, each new worthwhile style is as unlike
>the art familiar before itshows up as Sung or Yuan Chunese painting.
No No... new art has the same intent as old art it is just
deconstructed which makes it easier to understand for the less
intelligent(I don't mean this as an insult I think its the truth).
I do not yet think I am cappable of seeing or fully understanding
the work of Raphael which is why his work remains mysterious and
continues to fascinate me. The beauty that can be found in Pollocks
work is the nature of the media itself. The beauty in all art is its
connection to nature, the nature of our thought and the beauty that
exist not only inside but in the real world.
>Gabriel
>
mdeli
On Sat, 29 Nov 1997 02:20:23 GMT, zi...@interport.net wrote:
snip
>The art world in the west changed radically about 1840.
It changed far more radically from 1480 to 1516. So what?
>Ever since
>then, there have been a whole series of more and more personal
>statements which needed new understanding.
>This is even tru e of the
>early Corots of the period 1828-32. They look something like
>neoclassicizing painting but there are differences,
Personal statements? How is a Corot landscape or Picasso portrait more
personal than De Heem, Vermeer or Bierstadt?
Corot was among the first artists who couldn't draw or paint well to
be considered great. He interests modern academic historians because
his work anticipates the incompetence which followed.
>When you hit the 20th century, each new worthwhile style is as unlike
>the art familiar before itshows up as Sung or Yuan Chunese painting.
So why do you pooh-pooh Abstract Expressionism? Surely their work ever
so personal and craves your understanding.
>I feel so strange finding a know nothing to my right because I am
>usually considered to be at the edge of the art world in some limbo
>because I am so conservative. But there is a difference between a
>living active artist who believes in the traditions in art and that
>they have not died with the 18rth century and someone who feels
>everything is over as far as established twentieth century art is
>concerned.
?
You remind me of some of my art school teachers long ago. These
maintained the latest artwork was just awful (AE) but they adored
Picasso and Matisse etc. and rambled about the evil 19th cent.
academics about whom they knew little and saw almost nothing. They
still knew a bit about classical art, However, Art Nouveau and Deco
were at that time considered artistic blasphemy. Tastes have changed.
These teachers were already the product of three generations of utter
incompetence. Their idea of art history was that the important point
about the past lay in the fact that it all just anticipated modern
art.
Dali in his "secret Life" describes much the same situation when he
attended school. His teachers talked about emotion but couldn't teach
him technique.
>That is why I have serious doubts m.deli is any more an artist than
>all the people who spend their time here railing at the horror of
>grants for artists with their tax money!
For you I'm a plumber. However you might stick to the subject.
>
>Take a look at the web page of the Hackett-Friedman Gallery in San
>Francisco.
>
>Gabriel
>
>The art world in the west changed radically about 1840. Ever since
>then, there have been a whole series of more and more personal
>statements which needed new understanding. This is even tru e of the
>early Corots of the period 1828-32. They look something like
>neoclassicizing painting but there are differences,
>
> My methodology
>works for me. M.Deli's works only to deny any of it any worth.
>
I also work at other things.
> But there is a difference between a
>living active artist who believes in the traditions in art and that
>they have not died with the 18rth century and someone who feels
>everything is over as far as established twentieth century art is
>concerned.
>
This is your stupid conclusion. Fine work has been produced throughout
this century. It just isn't the crap which hangs as masterpieces in
the Modern sections of most museums.
>That is why I have serious doubts m.deli is any more an artist than
>all the people who spend their time here railing at the horror of
>grants for artists with their tax money!
I'm here as a critic not an artist and so are you.
>
>Gabriel
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
zi...@interport.net
bay...@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan Ayers) wrote:
>In article <65njt6$hck$1...@broadway.interport.net>, <zi...@interport.net> wrote:
> -Blah Blah Blah....
CLARIFICATION: This paragraph is not mine.
>I'll explain art crit for the masses. It is the act of attempting to
>describe visual art(semantics) which if it were possible the visual
>artwork would have been unnecessary. The less a work of art contains
>the more room it leaves for art critics too ramble onwards about why
>it either offends or appeals to their own peculiar sense of esthetics.
>As long as they remain aware enough too make descriptions that are not
>too out of touche with the work and the desriptions are fascinating
>they can maintian interest and be considered part of the art world. If
>not they retire and earn money off the stock market which is hell-bent
>on destroying the ecological well-being and economic well being of
>mankind which if this continues will eventually destroy the elite.
This one sentence is mine.
>>When you hit the 20th century, each new worthwhile style is as unlike
>>the art familiar before itshows up as Sung or Yuan Chunese painting.
This is not mine.
> No No... new art has the same intent as old art it is just
>deconstructed which makes it easier to understand for the less
>intelligent(I don't mean this as an insult I think its the truth).
>I do not yet think I am cappable of seeing or fully understanding
>the work of Raphael which is why his work remains mysterious and
>continues to fascinate me. The beauty that can be found in Pollocks
>work is the nature of the media itself. The beauty in all art is its
>connection to nature, the nature of our thought and the beauty that
>exist not only inside but in the real world.
> The two long paragraphs are unsigned but by "Ayers".
In Ecclesiastes there are two related statements [paraphrased] "There
is nothing new under the sun" and "Vanity, all is vanity."
Pretty much Mr. or Ms. Ayers position.
Yuan painting was the most realistic style ever in the art of China
until the much later European influences. The first generation of Yuan
painters actually looked directly at nature at least some of the time,
while painting, it is now believed. Such artists as Ni Tsan, Huang
Kung Wang and Mi Fei, for example. They do not make sense by our
standards. They also have been the "Classic" models imitated by other
Chinese and Japanese painters since the 12th century, much as Raphael
has been, here. So what do you do about that, ignore it, or learn from
it?
There is no doubt that in many ways the great twentieth century
painters did not want to get the same thing that Rphael did. In fact
it is doubtful that even Poussin or Rubens wanted the same things.
Making everything into a generalized mush does not help artistic
discrimination.
Gabriel
PS Do you know what deconstructed means? Or is it just when you look
at an artist like Klee, you cannot understand it and won't do the work
to find out. I will not defend Pollack, I never liked him or his work.
Bryan Ayers
In article <65sgch$jd2$1...@broadway.interport.net>, <zi...@interport.net> wrote:
>Gabriel
> PS Do you know what deconstructed means?
artwork. I.E. AA-is purely esthetic, Photorealism is purely realistic
(It appears that the artists have chosen kitch subject matter as a rejection
of AA), Klee' and Miro's work is purified oddity. I don't think that any
of these movements are all bad per se but that none of these artist
function as fully integrated artists.
>Or is it just when you look
>at an artist like Klee, you cannot understand it and won't do the work
>to find out.
I do find Klee's work interesting.
>I will not defend Pollack, I never liked him or his work.
My point was that we can find beauty in Pollacks work because
the paint splashes are the nature of liquid media. Ultimately I think
his work is about as interesting as a piece of granite - which can be
fascinating -(everyone should look at random natural forms) - but that
his work was not genius but media manipulation ad naseum.
BTW. Why did Pollack get the Gold Medal for action painting didn't
Picasso and Dali use ink splashes before abstract expressionism?
mail to: bay...@expert.cc.purdue.edu
http://expert.cc.purdue.edu/~bayers
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
zi...@interport.net
bay...@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan Ayers) wrote:
Dear Bryan,
Justto go to your last point first, the immediate model and source of
the drip paintings by pollack was probably a group of works by Andre
Masson. Some of the drawings are in the Fogg Museum at Harvard and are
usually up. If you get to Cambridge, look for them. So, Pollack comes
out of abstract surrealism. Masson's stuff long precedes Dali'sof that
sort]. And Masson is most of the time a metaphoric artist of the Klee
stripe.
What is problematic in this piece of writing and in your previous one
is that you have it all worked out before you even get into it. You
know before hand what the right role of art is and how much of each
ingredient there should be. How much realism, how much color, how much
fantasy what adn which abstractr elements. Whether you are an artist
or not you talk just like one of the more bigoted modernist critics.
You want to paint the other artists paintings for them. Or rather you
want to have painted them for them back when.
Either you have to present us all -and especially yourself- with an
alternative history which holds water-artistsworking between 1800 and
1997 who do all the things you belive in and are preferable to the
ones picked out by many generations of artists, art lovers Etc.- or
you ought to form your taste on what is out there.
But if you reject the rest of the pre 1953 art world, you have to be
ready to put something in its place from that place and time. I know
the other painters in several countries. The Nazi, Fascist and
Communist artists tend to be retread modernists or poor quality
academics. The Americans were just modernists who were not as good as
the major Europeans [with an exception or two like Elie Nadelman]
There was, though a whole unrecognized between the wars nationalist
school in Italy. They were modernists, though. Only Morandi is known
now. He was easily on of the very best but there are several others.
But none of them would make you happy.
Deconstruction does not mean taking a part for the whole. And the
great artists whom you mention do not do that[although that is clearly
what you say]. Klee makes up a different whole with different models
for what an artist does and different sources for his work than are to
be found in the more traditional atists of that time. Why don;t you
study his own writings and his work and then tell me he is missing
something?
GAbriel
Bryan Ayers
GAbriel writes:
>bay...@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Bryn Ayers) wrote:
>
>Dear Bryn,
-snip-
>What is problematic in this piece of writing and in your previous one
>is that you have it all worked out before you even get into it. You
>know before hand what the right role of art is and how much of each
>ingredient there should be. How much realism, how much color, how much
>fantasy what adn which abstractr elements. Whether you are an artist
>or not you talk just like one of the more bigoted modernist critics.
>You want to paint the other artists paintings for them. Or rather you
>want to have painted them for them back when.
I wouldn't go this far. It is true that my post dealt with
theories that I had worked out over time and put into the simplest
format. I do paint and every flaw that I see in the work of others
I have seen in my own work first. My major pemise for the future of
art would be to say that no art movement was ever finished and that
we have the right to move foward only considering the totality of the
past, the present, and our own experience.
To say that no work of art is perfect is in essence trite.
The Idea I was trying to get accross was that there is unlimited
good and that it is always possible that the next work will be
better. I will come down on Deli's side by saying that Craftsmanship
is part of a fully integrated art, but even this is not enough. There
is never enough, don't confuse satifaction with happiness I will always
be happy with what the past of art that has been accomplished I will never
be satisfied that this is all that could be done.
-snip-
>Deconstruction does not mean taking a part for the whole. And the
>great artists whom you mention do not do that[although that is clearly
>what you say]. Klee makes up a different whole with different models
>for what an artist does and different sources for his work than are to
>be found in the more traditional atists of that time. Why don;t you
>study his own writings and his work and then tell me he is missing
>something?
I won't pick on Klee per se.
>GAbriel
Bryn Ayers
email bay...@expert.cc.purdue.edu
http://expert.cc.purdue.edu/~bayers
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
If beauty can save the world are we not destined to save the world?
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Bryan Ayers
In article <66ifrd$i...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>,
Bryan Ayers <bay...@expert.cc.purdue.edu> wrote:
>GAbriel writes:
>>bay...@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Bryn Ayers) wrote:
>>Dear Bryn,
>-snip-
>>What is problematic in this piece of writing and in your previous one
>>is that you have it all worked out before you even get into it.
>>You
>>know before hand what the right role of art is and how much of each
>>ingredient there should be.
No, I asserted that more is better, more realism more beauty
more esthetic. etc. ... These things are questioned most soundly in
their creation.
I could be wrong but I wan't to know why.
>>How much realism, how much color, how much
>>fantasy what adn which abstractr elements.
WE might also question if all of these can't be infinite?
>>Whether you are an artist
>>or not you talk just like one of the more bigoted modernist critics.
> Thank you - I'm glad I sound important.
I wonder if you only insult others before trying to clarify
things. Don't mistake me for other people my art is a labor of love
Is your 'criticism' also love? I don't deny Cezanns emotions only
that the canvas as his mirror failed to become clear. I would say
that all artists have failed to make the canvas into their mirror and
I would say Vermeer failed least. And we have failed to see their work.
I have never seen Vermeer or Cezann I have only tried, and most people
are even more blind than I am.
Bryn Ayers
http://expert.cc.purdue.edu/~bayers
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////