pHOTOGRAPH & PAINTING
carl wally
In case anyone cares. My earlier reaction to that idiotic offer of
a panting that is so good it looks just like a photograph was meant
to be sarcastic. If I want a picture that looks like a photography,
that's what I'll buy! As a long-time long ago photographer of
scenes and other abstractions, I assure you all that in the main,
the more a painting looks like a photograph, the less likely it was
painted by an expert.
Or an artist, for that matter!
--
Carl Brookins
INNER PASSAGES:
ISBN 1-929976-01-1
July, 2000
carl...@uswest.net
Truly Donovan
wrote:
>uHH,
>In case anyone cares. My earlier reaction to that idiotic offer of
>a panting that is so good it looks just like a photograph was meant
>to be sarcastic. If I want a picture that looks like a photography,
>that's what I'll buy! As a long-time long ago photographer of
>scenes and other abstractions, I assure you all that in the main,
>the more a painting looks like a photograph, the less likely it was
>painted by an expert.
>Or an artist, for that matter!
Photorealism goes in and out of fashion in the art world. There are
some really great contemporary artists whose paintings "look just like
a photograph" but also have such a compelling quality about them that
even a newsprint reproduction can be fascinating.
I'm not sure what "expert" means in any of these contexts, since it is
not a term that I apply to art.
--
Truly Donovan
http://pws.prserv.net/trulydonovan
*Chandler's Daughter* [Write Way Publishing, Jan 2000]
Mary
>
> On Fri, 26 May 2000 14:20:37 -0500, carl wally <carl...@uswest.net>
> wrote:
>
> >uHH,
> >In case anyone cares. My earlier reaction to that idiotic offer of
> >a panting that is so good it looks just like a photograph was meant
> >to be sarcastic. If I want a picture that looks like a photography,
> >that's what I'll buy! As a long-time long ago photographer of
> >scenes and other abstractions, I assure you all that in the main,
> >the more a painting looks like a photograph, the less likely it was
> >painted by an expert.
> >Or an artist, for that matter!
>
> Photorealism goes in and out of fashion in the art world. There are
> some really great contemporary artists whose paintings "look just like
> a photograph" but also have such a compelling quality about them that
> even a newsprint reproduction can be fascinating.
>
> I'm not sure what "expert" means in any of these contexts, since it is
> not a term that I apply to art.
>
> --
>
is b...o...r...i..n..g-- visually and conceptually.* However, I suspect
the painting on e-bay was painted from a photograph( a practice which
ought to be forbidden by law) and could not be called by the most
generous of viewers _art_.
Thank you. I feel better.
cheers,
Mary
* The large exception being Scott Prior's work which can sometimes be
wonderful.
Bud Beckman
>
> I'm not sure what "expert" means in any of these contexts, since it is
> not a term that I apply to art.
>
> --
With me, art is good or great and depends if it appeals to me. If I
like it, I like. Please don't ask me to explain why.
I've listened to experts discuss why a painting is "good" and always
wonder what the hell they are talking about.
I suppose art training is in order, but, I don't have the time.
Bud (I do like Wyeth.)
Ellen Conford
<<Photorealism goes in and out of fashion in the art world. There are
some really great contemporary artists whose paintings "look just like a
photograph" but also have such a compelling quality about them that even
a newsprint reproduction can be fascinating.
I'm not sure what "expert" means in any of these contexts, since it is
not a term that I apply to art.>>
As I understand photorealism, it is not just representational, but, as
Truly said, meant to look as precise as a photograph. The technique
only started around the middle of this century, I think, so didn't exist
as a "school" or style of art before then.
The painting in question on Ebay was scorned because it was described as
looking as real as a photograph. (As far as I could see, it doesn't)
Okay, that's not an 'expert's' standard for judging art; but the
"critic" who originally started this discussion certainly can't predict
whether that, or any other work of art is going to increase or decrease
in value. And to say that "realistic" paintings have been "out of style
since Matisse" is just plain silly.
As Bud mentioned--Wyeth, that "realistic" painter--fetches a pretty
penny, and Hopper has never been out.
Ellen (ditto, "don't know much, but know what I like")
David Matthews
"Ellen Conford" <ell...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:3952-392...@storefull-214.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
I saw an interesting German documentary on Hopper. Apparently Hopper
got much of his inspiration for his compositions from noir mystery and
gangster movies of the thirties and forties. Later, to quote Charles
Manson, "What goes around, comes around", and many film makers tried
to capture Hopper paintings in their lighting techniques. Hitchcock
based his design for the house on the hill in PSYCHO on a Hopper
painting.
Dave.
Mark Alan Miller
"Truly Donovan" <tru...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:uBIvOcjOHrvyT8...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 26 May 2000 14:20:37 -0500, carl wally <carl...@uswest.net>
> wrote:
>
> >uHH,
> >In case anyone cares. My earlier reaction to that idiotic offer of
> >a panting that is so good it looks just like a photograph was meant
> >to be sarcastic. If I want a picture that looks like a photography,
> >that's what I'll buy! As a long-time long ago photographer of
> >scenes and other abstractions, I assure you all that in the main,
> >the more a painting looks like a photograph, the less likely it was
> >painted by an expert.
> >Or an artist, for that matter!
>
> some really great contemporary artists whose paintings "look just like
> a photograph" but also have such a compelling quality about them that
> even a newsprint reproduction can be fascinating.
>
> I'm not sure what "expert" means in any of these contexts, since it is
> not a term that I apply to art.
Photorealism goes in and out of popularity with the public, but it has
rarely registered with critics or serious artists, except for a brief
period in the 70's that's now considered a bit of a joke. There are other
kinds of less literal realism that have artistic validity, certainly, but
in no case do their proponents claim that the work looks just like
photography. Even before photography artists almost never were trying for
a perfect representation of reality. Some artists were fairly literal,
like Vermeer, who used a camera obscura heavily to aid his painting, but
his scenes were carefully composed so as to make interesting scenes when
painted, and don't resemble photographed scenes very much. A good painting
is an remarkable object that transcends its subject matter, rather than
just representing it (as does a good photograph, of course). Anybody who
has ever painted seriously will tell you what an intense experience it is
and how you develop a weird intimacy with this piece of canvas covered with
paint. I used to completely lose my sense of time when I was painting and
would find myself hungry and emotionally drained after a compulsive
marathon bout of painting. Oddly, programming can be a very similar
experience, with the same intensity of love and hate for what you're
working on. And it pays much better.
Mark Alan Miller, ex-artist, software developer
Mark Alan Miller
"Ellen Conford" <ell...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:3952-392...@storefull-214.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
>
> penny, and Hopper has never been out.
>
> Ellen (ditto, "don't know much, but know what I like")
Wyeth isn't all that realistic, really, and Hopper even less so, though
that isn't always obvious in reproductions. What they are is
representational, or figurative, rather than realistic. Besides, Wyeth is
essentially an illustrator rather than a fine artist and has never had much
credibility in the art community. He's considered just a step above Normal
Rockwell, who at least was honest about what he was doing, unlike Wyeth,
who is a bit of a charlatan. Illustration is a perfectly respectable
pursuit, but the goals and techniques of an illustrator are different from
those of more serious artists, though the boundary between illustration and
fine art is a blurry one. When I talk with people with illustrators and
other graphic artists I don't even understand what they're talking about
half the time, despite my having a degree from a very highly regarded art
program. Their training is completely different from what I had at a fine
arts school that didn't teach commercial art at all. In 50 years Wyeth
will be a mere footnote to art history and his works will be valued only
because he was once a famous name. There have been many painters in the
150 years since photography was invented that have done work that could be
considered "realistic", but these works are not at all realistic in the way
a photograph is. "Realism" is a bit of a loaded term in the art world, and
it is pretty close to meaningless given the incredible range of work that
has been labeled realistic over the years.
Mark Alan Miller, not a realist, except about life
no...@webtv.net
then photographs look like the paintings ... I feel very gratified, I
tell you.
--
Norton Shawn
. .. .. .. ..
Ellen conford
<<As Bud mentioned--Wyeth, that "realistic" painter--fetches a pretty
penny, and Hopper has never been out.
Ellen>>
<<Wyeth isn't all that realistic, really, and Hopper even less so,
though that isn't always obvious in reproductions. What they are is
representational, or figurative, rather than realistic. Besides, Wyeth
is essentially an illustrator rather than a fine artist and has never
had much credibility in the art community. He's considered just a step
above Normal Rockwell, who at least was honest about what he was doing,
unlike Wyeth, who is a bit of a charlatan. <snip> In 50 years Wyeth
will be a mere footnote to art history and his works will be valued
only because he was once a famous name.>>
Well, not to be pissy and defensive about this, but I do know the
difference between realistic and representational--and used quotes
around "realistic" for that reason.
And, I also commented in replying to the original poster, that anyone
who predicts whether a work of art will appreciate or depreciate in
value over ten years--let alone fifty--is silly. The notion of who's
good--let alone "important"--in any of the arts can be extremely
variable from generation to generation. (Let alone from critic to
critic.)
Ellen
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Ellen conford
Matthews" <dmatt...@idirect.com> wrote
> I saw an interesting German documentary on Hopper. Apparently
> Hopper
> got much of his inspiration for his compositions from noir mystery
> and
> gangster movies of the thirties and forties. Later, to quote
> Charles
> Manson, "What goes around, comes around", and many film makers
> tried
> to capture Hopper paintings in their lighting techniques. Hitchcock
> based his design for the house on the hill in PSYCHO on a Hopper
> painting.
> Dave.
Yes, and remember that great diner shot in "Pennies From Heaven?" The
exterior, that was "Nightowls" (or "Nighhawks," I forget the title of
the painting.) I've since seen a lot of similiar shots, but that was
the first I'd spotted that was so plainly a "quote."
no...@webtv.net
Hopper was a naturalist. and a natural painter. Saw life as light and
as geometries.
There was always that much subtlety of reality already in life's
presentations. His need was to transcribe it ... and in paint.!!
Take it from one who knows.
David Matthews
<no...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:17021-39...@storefull-147.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> "Hopper got influence from noir"? Nonsense.!!
<Snip>
> Norton Shawn
>
Not nonsense at all. I'll try and find the name of the Hopper
documentary where I got the information. It even showed a clip from
THE BIG SLEEP and showed the painting it inspired. It made perfect
sense to me. Hopper had been a commercial illustrator for a number of
years and I'm sure he got his inspiration from many sources. I know
that both he and his wife were avid movie goers.
Dave.
david wright
<dmatt...@idirect.com> wrote:
><no...@webtv.net> wrote in message
>news:17021-39...@storefull-147.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
>> "Hopper got influence from noir"? Nonsense.!!
>
><Snip>
>
>> Norton Shawn
>Not nonsense at all. I'll try and find the name of the Hopper
>documentary where I got the information. It even showed a clip from
>THE BIG SLEEP and showed the painting it inspired.
Maybe the painting inspired the scene in the movie. I find dates of
1942 (the painting) and 1946 (the movie).
David
*****
Change 'wrong' to 'wright' for e-mailing.
no...@webtv.net
of their pseudo histories.
Noir is ... primary and foremost ... a world of black and white ... the
night.
Think of Hopper's work done at the beach. The sunshine entering the
interior hotel rooms from without.
Documentary film makers. They live and love to make points. They
present their
film school theses as history ... when they're but histories of their
own creation.
Not what happened ... but what they're claiming bappened. Blatantly
argumentative.
Noir was all about darkness. Hopper's paintings all about light.
Hopper lived 85 years. I've seen hundreds of his paintings. I never
saw one done in black & white.
Naturally ... some movie makers will see the world in their own image.
But where are the interpretations of other painters here?
The World Almanac presents these factoids after Edward Hoppers vital
stats: "Realistic urban scenes" and "Sunlight in a Cafeteria".
Film documentary makers. Pfaah.!!
They'll lie by omission as much as by not. They'll take works out of
the context of the whole output ... singular works ... which they'll
then present as representative.
When we watch a film-doc. on a painter ... whose point of view are we
watching? It will never be the painter's ... I assure you.
We paint what we see. Hopper saw the light. And the geometric aspects
in it.
David Matthews
"david wright" <dtw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:26t2jsgj3qe5fm9vt...@4ax.com...
Which painting are you referring to David? I don't know if you saw THE
BIG SLEEP but the clip in the documentary is the scene in a deserted
office where Elisha Cook jr. is made to drink poison by Bob Steele.
Dave. (Confusing isn't it.? One of will have to change our name.)
David Matthews
> ><no...@webtv.net> wrote
> >> "Hopper got influence from noir"? Nonsense.!!
>
> ><Snip>
>
> >> Norton Shawn
>
>
> >>
>
> >Not nonsense at all. I'll try and find the name of the Hopper
> >documentary where I got the information. It even showed a clip from
> >sense to me. Hopper had been a commercial illustrator for a number
of
> >years and I'm sure he got his inspiration from many sources. I know
> >that both he and his wife were avid movie goers.
>
> Going in the other direction, I have heard that the house in Psycho
was based
> on a Hopper painting.
>
> Arthur Wohlwill adwo...@UIC.EDU
Yes it was, and as Ellen pointed out in an earlier post the painting
"Nighthawks" was recreated in PENNIES FROM HEAVEN.
Dave.
>
>
>
>
Ellen conford
<<"Hopper got influence from noir"? Nonsense.!!
Hopper was a naturalist. and a natural painter. Saw life as light and
as geometries.
There was always that much subtlety of reality already in life's
presentations. His need was to transcribe it ... and in paint.!!
Take it from one who knows. >>
Norton, I must protest your blanket "Nonsense!!"
In a long career, artists (and all creative people) have not one
influence, not one inspiration, but many.
I don't know whether Hopper was influenced by film noir or not, but
his paintings, and his subjects, were not ALL uniformly inspired.
Unless one works in a total cultural vacuum, it's impossible not to
notice what's going on around one, and to be unaffected by it.
If you do exactly the same thing in exactly the same way at 70 that you
did at 20, you've spent 50 years doing the same thing.
<<There was always that much subtlety of reality
already in life's presentations>>
I have to admit, I don't know what this means.
Arthur Wohlwill
>From: "David Matthews" <dmatt...@idirect.com>
>Subject: Re: photography, painting, Hopper.
>Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 19:15:43 GMT
><no...@webtv.net> wrote in message
>news:17021-39...@storefull-147.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
>> "Hopper got influence from noir"? Nonsense.!!
><Snip>
Ellen conford
<<Those documentary film-makers can and will do anything in the
creation of their pseudo histories.
Noir is ... primary and foremost ... a world of black and white ... the
night.
Think of Hopper's work done at the beach. The sunshine entering the
interior hotel rooms from without.>>
<snip>
Noir was all about darkness. Hopper's paintings all about light.
Hopper lived 85 years. I've seen hundreds of his paintings. I never saw
one done in black & white.
Naturally ... some movie makers will see the world in their own image.
<snip>
The World Almanac presents these factoids after Edward Hoppers vital
stats: "Realistic urban scenes" and "Sunlight in a Cafeteria".
Film documentary makers. Pfaah.!!>>
Norton, Norton, Norton. You don't have to paint in black and white to
have been influenced by film noir. And being "all about light" does
not mean, all about *bright* light. Hopper DID do dark--DID do many
urban scenes, and especially did alienation. I'm not claiming that the
paintings of non-communicating or solitary people were inspired by film
noir-- too many of them predated that style.
I'm just saying that you can't dismiss the possibility that a painter
was influenced by a style on the grounds that he never painted in
exactly that style.
Well--maybe you can, but I can't.
carl wally
I couldn't agree with you more emphatically. Moreover, you said it
much better than I would have.
Additionally, I am saddened by the ignorance of the documentary film
betrayed by such cavalier and widespread denigration. I know and
have known several documentary film makers. I can assure you,
Norton, that, while it certainly isn't universal, documentary
filmmakers take their work and their art very seriously: they strive
mightily to collect the research in order to get it right; they
agonize deep into the night over the selection and the rejection of
content and to the best of their abilities, which in many case is
considerable, try to do well by their subjects.
I know documentary film makers of varying degrees of vision and
skill and success, but I know none who do not work very hard at
their craft.
Of course, maybe I've just been lucky!
no...@webtv.net
artists eat carrots. Many people and artists have been avid movie
goers. It's all a big "So What?!!".
An instance does not a correlaive make.
Many people have not painted sunshine although they've lived in it all
their lives.
The film-doc. was not made by Hopper. It was made 'about" an aspect of
presumed Hopper. It's point of view would only be that of the
film-maker ... looking for a 'hook'. Try to understand.
Franz Kline was an avid film-goer. So what? So was Andy Warhol.
Their paintings are not noiriste.
and so on.
Lcdumas
consciously, precisely what I am doing. I mean the total intent - I hope I
have some technique that I do know how to use. We artists like to call this
"working intuitively".
Most people find that their art is constantly evolving. Even photorealism
comes through the channel of the artist's being.
I don't know exactly what I am saying, except that I don't think there are any
easy answers OR absolutes.
Some artists are horrified when told that their work looks exactly like a
photograph, and some are pleased.
How can anyone ever say what was in someone else's mind? Even a very verbal
person never tells EVERYTHING exactly the way it goes through her mind - or
his. And what goes through a mind at 2:00 A.M. may change by 3:00 P.M. Many of
us make statements because we are simply trying out a point of view.
My $.01. The other $.01 is reserved for whatever I think or say next.
Linda D. in TX mostly free-associating in TX
BLIND 321
>will be a mere footnote to art history and his works will be valued
>only because he was once a famous name.
Like Warhol, you mean?
KS
Ellen conford
So Andy Warhol probably wasn't influenced by all those Marilyn
Monroe movies he saw. No correlation there? Just a coincidence. Lots
of artists saw Marilyn Monroe movies, and didn't paint her.
Betcha he ate tomato soup too. But that couldn't have influenced
him, because lots of artists ate tomato soup, yet didn't paint it.
Norton, your logic escapes me.
Ellen conford
<<How can anyone ever say what was in someone else's mind? Even a very
verbal person never tells EVERYTHING exactly the way it goes through
her mind - or his. And what goes through a mind at 2:00 A.M. may change
by 3:00 P.M. Many of us make statements because we are simply trying
out a point of view. My $.01. The other $.01 is reserved for whatever I
think or say next. Linda D. in TX mostly free-associating in TX>>
I think you're waaay undervaluing your opinion!
A professor I had once quoted, "Trust the art, not the artist." I
realize that this is a hotly debated viewpoint, but you too are saying
that you're not always sure how a work evolves from concept to
completed. And while you have a general idea of what you want to do,
that may shift as the work progresses.
I think that even when a creative person does speak about his creation,
he's not always articulate--or honest. And when others see things in
the work that he swears he didn't intend, it doesn't mean they're not
there. It may mean, as you suggested, that he simply didn't know how
they got there.
Ellen-- here, hoping I am all there.
Bud Beckman
>
> I think that even when a creative person does speak about his creation,
> he's not always articulate--or honest. And when others see things in
> the work that he swears he didn't intend, it doesn't mean they're not
> there. It may mean, as you suggested, that he simply didn't know how
> they got there.
>
> Ellen-- here, hoping I am all there.
>
I was once told, goes something like this: Art is the process and the
completion of that process is the completed object.
I like what I like and to rationalize it is very boring to a lot of
people because they do not care why or what others may think, as long
as it gives pleasure to the senses one has.
Pontificator Bud
David Matthews
<no...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:16091-39...@storefull-145.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> Those documentary film-makers can and will do anything in the
creation
> of their pseudo histories.
>
> Noir is ... primary and foremost ... a world of black and white ...
the
> night.
>
> Think of Hopper's work done at the beach. The sunshine entering the
> interior hotel rooms from without.
>
> present their
> film school theses as history ... when they're but histories of
their
> own creation.
>
> Not what happened ... but what they're claiming bappened. Blatantly
> argumentative.
>
>
> Hopper lived 85 years. I've seen hundreds of his paintings. I
never
> saw one done in black & white.
>
> Naturally ... some movie makers will see the world in their own
image.
>
>
> stats: "Realistic urban scenes" and "Sunlight in a Cafeteria".
>
> Film documentary makers. Pfaah.!!
>
of
> the context of the whole output ... singular works ... which they'll
> then present as representative.
>
> When we watch a film-doc. on a painter ... whose point of view are
we
> watching? It will never be the painter's ... I assure you.
>
> We paint what we see. Hopper saw the light. And the geometric
aspects
> in it.
>
>
> Norton Shawn
>
> . .. .. .. ..
>
>
Norton."Your fulminations sir, are filled with bilge and blather".
JOKE!!
(Trivia question:- Who said that and in what movie?)
Seriously Norton. I will say that Hopper paintings are not ALL about
light, they are about contrast, and no-one suggested that after seeing
a movie he would rush to his studio and try to reconstruct a scene as
a black and white painting.
BLIND 321
>
Since Ellen Conford has written over 50 children's books, I think she can call
herself somewhat of an expert on the artistic process.
KS
no...@webtv.net
Elusive-sounding creature.
When Andy Warhol made a serigraph of Marilyn Monrow ... or of a soup can
.. it was not for having been influencd by the movies they played in
., not even by their starring roles.
The influence for Warhol was the graphic images ... printed on paper ...
such as can labels or photographs which had already been printed on the
pages of the NY Daily News.
Pop Art was to print or paint that which had been already published.
Can that logic be fiollowed to its lair?
---
norton
BLIND 321
>.. it was not for having been influencd by the movies they played in
>., not even by their starring roles.
Some of my favorite movies have starred soup.
KS
no...@webtv.net
"noir to a T".
Now isn't that interesting. I thought that noir's people were
interacting all over the place. "Noir" as in film noir, that is.
Having seen thousands of movies ... the only one of them all that I
recall that was primarily of a person alone ... was of an Eskimo.
I've also seen thousands of paintings of isolated individuals. Were
those done by Degas, Cezanne or Renoir ... for example ... noir in any
sense whatever?
---
norton.
Ellen Conford
Norton, I have tried to follow your logic "to its lair" but it's a
slippery devil.
As Charles said, one of the principal themes of film noir is alienation.
As "color" does not mean bright color, "alienation" does not mean
standing alone on an ice floe--or for eighty-two minutes of film.
I am going to say something really mean--meaner than I usually get.
Your example makes me think you don't know a whole lot about film noir.
And that elusive logic of yours: Cezanne
and Renoir painted solitary images, but they weren't influenced by film
noir (a neat trick if they were) so that supports your opinion that
Hopper wasn't either? You got yourself a pretty wacky syllogism there.
Ellen (expert by virtue of 4 film courses, and one semester of
philosophy--if that aint crendentials I don't know what are.)
no...@webtv.net
quality. His name was Edwin Dicknson.
His work was not influenced by the movies ... but ... like most painting
.. by life and by art.
Nontheless ... it had the dark quality.
I understand that you don't know what I'm talking about. That's all
right. It's not the first time I've encountered this phenomenon. But I
too ... in similarity to my subject matter, apparently ... write words
which need to be studied for understanding. or even for interpretation.
The fault is mine. Clarity of expression in thoughts as slippery as
comparative arts ... are not as easy to make as they look.
Not while at the same time making sense.
But ... we'll try.
But about art and noir ... here's a starting place. See if you can
locate Dickinson's work. Then ... they might have been of the same time
.. he and Hopper .. in itself a good point for beginning comparison
.. compare for yourself their disparate images.
I don't have Dckinson's dates. I hope to by the next letter. I feel
sure that I saw both Hopper's work and Dickinson's in the same shows ...
the Whitney Museum Annuals of the late 40's and early 1950's.
In these worlds of the visual arts ... cine and painting ... we can only
define art and artists by comparison with each other. There are no
other standards.
Obviously you know Hopper's work. It's accessible. There are
monographs of it in the shops and in the libraries. In viewing the art
of Edwin Dickinson... if you can find it ... you will see ... in
relation to noir ... what Hopper's work was not.
I'm glad that we're having this little discussion. It's always a joy to
exercise the mind in explication of one's pleasures.
By the way ... to see if we really have a common ground ... what are a
few of your favorite films noir?
I liked:
Kiss Me Deadly.
Out of the Past.
Detour.
Road House.
The Killing.
But these were just a few ... a very few ... of the many we were so
lucky as to have had given to us.
David Matthews
<no...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:9682-393...@storefull-143.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> There was one painter ... whose work I can consider to have had the
noir
> quality. His name was Edwin Dicknson.
>
I must admit I'd never heard of him before. Just did a quick search on
the web and there are a few pages with details of his life. I could
only find one example of his art "Pat Brushing Her Hair" which I would
guess is not typical.
Dave
Ellen Conford
<<By the way ... to see if we really have a common ground ... what are a
few of your favorite films noir?
I liked:
Kiss Me Deadly.
Out of the Past.
Detour.
Road House.
The Killing.
But these were just a few ... a very few ... of the many we were so
lucky as to have had given to us. >>
Some of my favorites are "The Big Combo," "Mildred Pierce," "The Strange
Love of Martha Ivers," "Three Strangers." "The Letter," "Phantom Lady,"
"The Blue Gardenia," "The Set-Up," "Scarlet Street," and "Woman in the
Window." And a VERY unusual one called "Christmas Holiday," with,
believe it or not, Deanna Durbin and Gene Kelly.
I know that there are a lot of others that I can't recall at the moment.
Since it's my favorite movie style, I have a lot of favorites. From
your list, I thought "Road House" was very good.
Ellen
Mark Alan Miller
news:20000529162709...@ng-ff1.aol.com...
Nope. Not at all. Warhol's reputation has improved dramatically in the
last decade or so. If nothing else, his work is important because he was
one of the founding figures of an artistic movement of consequence.
Whether that movement is considered major by people 100 years from now is
unknowable, but he influenced a great deal of the art of the last 40 years,
so he is by no means a negligible figure, though possibly not a great one.
Wyeth on the other hand has been creating facile, derivative drivel for
eons that has had almost no influence on other artists and has never gotten
much respect except from his publicists. It's is hard to predict what
future generations will value of the art of the present, but there are very
few cases in the last few hundred years of art history where artists who
were considered unimportant in their lifetimes were considered great a
hundred or two hundred years later. There are, of course, hundreds of
artists whose reputations did the opposite, sinking from fame and fortune
to the depths of total obscurity (except for showing up on Antiques
Roadshow). No doubt some well-known artists of the present will achieve
the same obscurity, and I can think of a few who richly deserve it.
Mark Alan Miller
David Matthews
"Ellen Conford" <ell...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:17158-39...@storefull-213.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Some good ones in both your lists. THE SET-UP was great. I bet it's
the only boxing movie based on a poem. CHRISTMAS HOLIDAY was
interesting, especially the cast, it didn't bare too much relationship
to the Somerset Maugham novel though. One of my personal favorites is
THE KILLERS with Burt Lancaster, Ava Gardner and Edmond O'Brian, of
all the adaptations of his stories to the screen that was the one
Ernest Hemingway liked the best.
Dave.
Bigiron45
Good movie for action fans.
:-)
--
Kevin~
"Ellen Conford" <ell...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:17158-39...@storefull-213.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
>
BLIND 321
>Your example makes me think you don't know a whole lot about film noir.
>Ellen
Oh, madam, you wound with the precision of a finely honed blade!
KS
BLIND 321
>exercise the mind in explication of one's pleasures.
Norton, is English your second language?
KS
no...@webtv.net
shady songstress in a nightclub, is forced to help him escape. A weird
change of pace for Deanna Durbin, whose forte had been sweetness and
light, this relentlessly grim melodrama was also a travesty of the novel
on which it was based." ... from Leslie Halliwell.
Did you read what Mario Puzo wrote about Durbin? About her having been
one of Hollywood's great and legendary fucks and all that?
The novel was by W. Somerset Maugham, who also wrote "The Moon and
Sixpence", "Of Human Bondage", and "The Razor's Edge". Those Brits
could sure write noir.
noirton.
Ellen Conford
<<"Christmas Holiday. A young girl marries a murderer, and later, as a
shady songstress in a nightclub, is forced to help him escape. A weird
change of pace for Deanna Durbin, whose forte had been sweetness and
light, this relentlessly grim melodrama was also a travesty of the novel
on which it was based." ... from Leslie Halliwell.>>
A far more comprehensive and reliable reference for noir films is Silver
and Ward's "Film Noir: An Encyclopedic Reference to the American
Style." I have the original edition, but I think it's been recently
reprinted.
I never knew that the story was based on Maugham, but the film is hardly
a travesty of anything--except, perhaps, as my reference says, "a
Rockwellian concept of the American family." It is perverse, sexual,
full of innuendo and --excuse me--subversion and inversion.
You really must try to see it, rather than to base your comments on an
article in Halliwell.
The incomparable Gale Sondergaard plays Gene Kelly's *loving* mother.
Nuff said.
Ellen
no...@webtv.net
The latest one featured Patrick Swayze but is not a noir. The 1948 film
with Ida Lupino was a noir essential.
---
noirton
no...@webtv.net
poster or a lobby card advertising, say, "The Big Sleep" ... would that
be a noir painting?
I don't think so.
Bigiron45
Swayze movie.
Oh, well, made me smile.
:-)
--
Kevin~
<no...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:672-393...@storefull-145.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> There have been four films titled "Road House". 1928, 1934, 1948,
1989.
>
> The latest one featured Patrick Swayze but is not a noir. The 1948
film
> with Ida Lupino was a noir essential.
BLIND 321
I'm sorry--I fell asleep after "nope." Could you please repeat?
KS
David Matthews
<no...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:673-393...@storefull-145.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> If I were to paint a painting that was a faithful rendition of a
movie
> poster or a lobby card advertising, say, "The Big Sleep" ... would
that
> be a noir painting?
>
> I don't think so.
> noirton
>
>
>
> . .. .. .. ..
>
Who said it would be?
Dave.
David Matthews
<no...@webtv.net> wrote:
<snip>
> Did you read what Mario Puzo wrote about Durbin? About her having
been
> one of Hollywood's great and legendary fucks and all that?
<Snip>
> noirton
He was probably right, after all Deanna Durbin was a Canadian.
Dave
David Matthews
>
>
Agreed about Silver and Ward's book, I've found it indispensable.
CHRISTMAS HOLIDAY is a good, dark movie very underrated IMO, and well
acted by an unusual cast. It just takes Maugham's basic premise and
uses it as a launching pad.
Dave.
no...@webtv.net
rather than to base your comments on an article in Halliwell".
Presumptive, Ellen.
1. I did see it. Well over 50 years ago.
Whatever possessed you to think that I hadn't?
2. As I reprinted without comment, I based no comments on Halliwell nor
any other font of critical essays. Halliwell's was the closest book of
synopses to hand ... and I printed what I did as an addition to your own
introductory mention of it.
So much for public service.
3. Film Noir: An Encyclopedic Reference to the Americasn Style. ed.
Alain Silver & Elizabeth Ward. 1979. rev. 1988. is indeed an
essential work for students of the genre.
It is excellent and the standard for
reference. Some others are:
Dark City. The Lost World of Film Noir. Eddie Muller. 1998.
The Dark Side of the Screen: Film Noir. Foster Hirsh. 1983.
The Noir Style. Alain Silver & James Ursini. 1999.
Somewhere in the Night.; Film Noir and the American City. Nicholas
Christopher. 1997.
Women in Film Noir. ed. Ann Kaplan. 1998.
Violent America: The Movies 1946-1964. Lawrence Alloway. 1971.
A Pictorial Hstory of Crime Films. Ian Cameron. 1975.
These are some of the good books on the subject. There are more. But
for profit ... they ought to be read in the context of cinema history as
a whole. However ... the history of noir is certainly a cinema history
unto itself.
Ellen conford
no...@webtv.net wrote:
> If I were to paint a painting that was a faithful rendition of a
> movie
> poster or a lobby card advertising, say, "The Big Sleep" ... would
> that
> be a noir painting?
> I don't think so.
> ---
> noirton
Me neither. It would be a copy of a poster or lobby card. Which, no
one anywhere in this discussion, suggested that any of the artists in
this discussion, did.
Ellen
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
No Doze
>
> Yeah, I was " trying " to make a joke with that remark about the
> Swayze movie.
> Oh, well, made me smile.
> :-)
>
> --
> Kevin~
I laughed too Kevin. Don't be sorry for having a sense of humor!
Jon
Favorite noir film-Who Killed Roger Rabbit?
no...@webtv.net
yes. you must try. but aren't jokes those things that are funny?
---
Bigiron45
joke, right?
Sure, I knew it all the time.
:-)
--
Kevin~
<no...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:665-393...@storefull-143.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Ellen Conford
<<It is excellent and the standard for
reference. Some others are:
Dark City. The Lost World of Film Noir. Eddie Muller. 1998.
The Dark Side of the Screen: Film Noir. Foster Hirsh. 1983.
The Noir Style. Alain Silver & James Ursini. 1999.
Somewhere in the Night.; Film Noir and the American City. Nicholas
Christopher. 1997.
Women in Film Noir. ed. Ann Kaplan. 1998.
Violent America: The Movies 1946-1964. Lawrence Alloway. 1971.
A Pictorial Hstory of Crime Films. Ian Cameron. 1975.
These are some of the good books on the subject. There are more. But for
profit ... they ought to be read in the context of cinema history as a
whole. However ... the history of noir is certainly a cinema history
unto itself.>>
Presumptious, Norton. I have 4 of the books on your list, and several
others. I believe I have already profited from reading them, and I
don't believe I need much advice in how to place the genre in the
context of film history as a whole.
Thanks anyway.
Ellen
Ellen Conford
Siwwy Jon, don't you know that "Roger Rabbit" isn't noir? How could it
be? It's in *color.* You know, like "Leave Her to Heaven."
You know, like Hopper uses.
Ha! Hopper. I crack me up.
Ellen (feeling like I'm back at square one, but a lot tireder)
no...@webtv.net
Here's some more nice books for your shelf.
Double Indemnity. Richard Schickel. 1992.
More than Night: Film Noir in its Contexts. James Naremore. 1998.
The Devil Thumbs a Ride. Barry Gifford. 1988.
Ellen, you are marvellously self-assured and should go far. and it is
indeed a pleasure to find such a well-meaning, polite and well-read
person as yourself with whom to communicate.
Marvellously focussed ... you are truly a rarity in today's muddled
world.
In all sincerity ----
norton shawn.
No Doze
>
> bigiron.45 said he was "trying to make a joke".
>
> yes. you must try. but aren't jokes those things that are funny?
> ---
> noirton
>
It was funny.Maybe you just don't have a sense of humor.
jon
JLS411
In article <643-393...@storefull-148.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, no...@webtv.net
wrote:
<< Ellen, you are marvellously self-assured and should go far. >>
<SNORK>
Jenni :-)
"If I could remember everything at once, I'd be dangerous."
--Carly, "General Hospital"
carl wally
The Big Book of Noir, edited by Ed Gorman and Lee Server and Martin
H. Greenberg. It's from Carroll & Graf, ISBN 0-7867-0574-4
--
Carl Brookins
INNER PASSAGES:
ISBN 1-929976-01-1
July, 2000
carl...@uswest.net
BLIND 321
*I* the amazing KSssy, predict she will have a long book career and win many
awards.
Ten cents, please.
KS
no...@webtv.net
discussion. What began this thread ...
if I recall correctly ... was Q&A regarding versimilitude. Which then
somehow segued to the work of individual artists ...
such as Edward Hopper and Andy Warhol.
But ... to reurn to those innocent times ... or at least to attempt to
.. I question newly as to whether the noir concept can be applied to
anything but film ... the medium for which the application had been
invented.
Well ... can it?
--
norton shawn
Mark Alan Miller
news:20000531144908...@ng-cp1.aol.com...
> >Mark Alan Miller
>
> I'm sorry--I fell asleep after "nope." Could you please repeat?
>
> KS
Forgot to take the ADD medication again?
Mark Alan Miller
BLIND 321
>
>Mark Alan Miller
ADD--phtt.
KS
Greenbanks
>> ---
>> noirton
>It was funny.Maybe you just don't have a sense of humor.
>jon
yes he does, jon -- have you noticed how he's been signing the posts? I think
it's pretty funny...
M'Lou
Arthur Wohlwill
>From: no...@webtv.net
>Subject: Re: noir painting?
>Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 11:10:57 -0700 (PDT)
Certainly a novel can be noir (Roman noir is the term?)
Arthur Wohlwill adwo...@UIC.EDU
Bill Burgess
Mark Alan Miller wrote:
> "BLIND 321" <blin...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000529162709...@ng-ff1.aol.com...
> > > In 50 years Wyeth
> > >will be a mere footnote to art history and his works will be valued
> > >only because he was once a famous name.
> >
> > Like Warhol, you mean?
>
> Nope. Not at all. Warhol's reputation has improved dramatically in the
> last decade or so. If nothing else, his work is important because he was
> one of the founding figures of an artistic movement of consequence.
> Whether that movement is considered major by people 100 years from now is
> unknowable, but he influenced a great deal of the art of the last 40 years,
> so he is by no means a negligible figure, though possibly not a great one.
> Wyeth on the other hand has been creating facile, derivative drivel for
> eons that has had almost no influence on other artists and has never gotten
> much respect except from his publicists.
Obviously you don't like Wyeth (I'm not even sure which
one we're discussing, I'm guessing Andrew), but I think you're
being quite unfair here. And I'm surprised because you're an
artist yourself. You seem to be suggesting he's a no-talent hack
(which just isn't true) because you, and "the critics," don't care
for what he paints. You mentioned earlier the intimacy between
the painter and painting--you don't think he feels that when he
paints? I do, unless it's a portrait on commission or something,
and *that's* what's really important, I think. To suggest that
Wyeth, or the photorealists, or the illustrators, aren't "serious"
artists, that their work isn't "valid," or "credible," sounds
just plain pretentious. What the hell IS "serious" art?
I will never, ever take the works of Warhol, or Pollock,
or Lichtenstein, or Rauschenberg seriously, but that's
my problem--who cares what I think? And who cares what the
art critics think? They have WAY too much say in what is
"good" or not, IMO, and it shouldn't be like that, because
art is just too personal, for both creator and viewer. I believe
serious art is just the artist doing what they love to do.
> It's is hard to predict what
> future generations will value of the art of the present
Then how can you say Wyeth will be
a footnote in 50 years?
BLIND 321
>> future generations will value of the art of the present
>
>Then how can you say Wyeth will be
>a footnote in 50 years?
I agree, Bill.
And I happen to love Wyeth. A print of The River hangs in my living room.
KS
Lcdumas
It seems to me that the critics only like the stuff that pushes the envelope,
and I find most of it butt-ugly. It might be art, but who wants to live with
something that gives you nightmares? A lot of contemporary art says that "the
emperor is naked," to my way of thinking.
I saw a study - either in INTERNATIONAL ARTIST or THE ARTIST magazine which
stated that some 77% of people preferred representational art. The originators
of the study determined that what the public needed was instruction on abstract
and modern art. After a long and intense educational program, the people were
once again surveyed. 77% of the people preferred representational art.
Hey, if it works for El Greco, Titian, Rembrandt, Michelangelo, Leonardo,
Marisot, Caravaggio, Cassett, and Vermeer, it certainly works for me.
Linda D. in TX
no...@webtv.net
familiar is more easy to see and to identify with.
The appreciation of some new art ... some of the time ... is like a step
out into the darkness of space.
If there's no foothold of memory ... it is not something that everyone
can do.
Making new art is always exploration.
Appreciation of new art happens whenever an audience is capable of and
willing to participate in the exploratory event.
---
norton shawn.
BLIND 321
irrelevant because there's some new artistic secret we haven't been
initiated into yet? A secret handshake, perhaps?
Sheesh!
Mike >>
WE'LL show them a secret handshake. Ho-boy!
KS
David Matthews
<no...@webtv.net> wrote:
<snip>
> .. I question newly as to whether the noir concept can be applied to
> anything but film ... the medium for which the application had been
> invented.
>
> Well ... can it?
> --
> norton shawn
Although it started out just as a word to describe a type of movie it
now is very definitely used for all media. I have heard paintings,
photographs and writings described as noir. I think it works very well
as it conjures up a certain mental image. Come to think of it I have
never heard it used to describe any music but I think if it was some
of Philip Glass' work would qualify.
Dave.
Lcdumas
>
>The appreciation of some new art ... some of the time ... is like a step
>out into the darkness of space.
>
>If there's no foothold of memory ... it is not something that everyone
>can do.
I do abstract and non-representational work fairly often. I do appreciate a
good deal of those kinds of art, but don't pile up cow shit, label it chocolate
cookies, and tell me it's art because it reveals the stinky underside of the
human character. Outrageous, confusing and obscure are
not to be confused with profound, and don't accuse me of being a Philistine
cause I can't appreciate the garbage people make while they're laughing at us
as they are having us off.
I LIKE art and music that take me into new and higher realms, but I'll be
damned if I want to venture into some of the diseased areas of someone's
abcessed sub-conscious. You can't swim in cesspools without coming out feeling
dirty. There are too many people who have been intimidated by crtics who
accuse them of being closed-minded and who are afraid to label crap as crap.
And make no mistake: a lot of that stuff is crap.
Linda D. in TX
Ellen Conford
<<Then how can you say Wyeth will be
a footnote in 50 years?>> Bill B.
<<I agree, Bill.
And I happen to love Wyeth. A print of The River hangs in my living
room.
KS>>
<<It seems to me that the critics only like the stuff that pushes the
envelope, and I find most of it butt-ugly. It might be art, but who
wants to live with something that gives you nightmares? A lot of
contemporary art says that "the emperor is naked," to my way of
thinking. Linda D>>
Well, here's a pretty pickle. I agree with everybody. (Except Mark, of
course, with whom I disputed the possiblility of predicting what would
be respected 50 years from now.)
I am not a huge Wyeth (Andrew, to be specific) fan. (N.C., on the other
hand, was fabulous. Yes, I know he was an illustrator. Do they not
bleed?) But I still maintain that he can't be dismissed as a footnote,
because,simply, no one can predict that.
On the other hand, "pushing the envelope" to me means, doing something
new, startling, different, innovative.
It might stink--but it indicates you're trying to break new artistic
ground, that you are not satisfied with trying to palliate the masses,
that (unless you're a charlatan) you have a new and different artistic
vision.
I'm sure it's true that 77% of people prefer representational art--art
they can recognize and understand, without working at it. They may
also prefer Danielle Steele to Jane Austen and "Diagnosis Murder" to
"Masterpiece Theatre."
It doesn't mean they're right. The fact that you don't want "Guernica"
in your living room (mine is too small for it, actuallly) doesn't mean
it isn't good art. It's like, I wouldn't have wanted to hang with
Camus, but I want to read him.
But take one look at Linda's sculptures on Vicki's website--whatever she
says about "not wanting to live with" something new and daring, SHE is
doing dramatic and original stuff. It ain't your father's Rodin.
(Whicih probably wouldn't fit in your living room either.)
I think some art critics "take up" people, and promote them as much as
analyze them. When they do that, their opinions and motivations are
questionable, and all bets as to long term value are even less reliable
than usual.
Ellen
Bud Beckman
> <>
> norton shawn.
>
Hmmm, how come I like Pollock? Wait, I'll answer that. It pleases me.
Bud
no...@webtv.net
Me too. A Pollock skein-patterned painting for me is usually both very
exciting and very restful to look at.
Generally -- I don't think about art. I feel it. When Ellen C. wrote
of me that I knew nothing about film noir --- she was righter than she
knew.
I do know nothing about it. The noir experience is -- for me -- like
flowers -- like music -- like Mondrians. Monets, Giottos and Pollocks --
a felt one.
Noir -- and the art that I enjoy -- are very emotional places. I cannot
know anthing about them from having thought about them. I'm not that
kind of an intellectual.
I'm probably an anti-intellectual. I think that art -- not as an act of
faith even -- defies explanation. For me -- there's nothing to know.
I do have a thought about Pollock. Because the skeins are pattern art
.. they're like slide samples -- slices of eternity.
I loved the movie "The Usual Suspects".
If ever there was a usual suspect of art -- that would be -- would have
been -- Jackson Pollock. He felt his way into the great space of
unknowingness.
---
Norton Shawn.
no...@webtv.net
---
n.s.
David Matthews
Edward Hopper.
I did manage to locate a copy and for anyone interested it is EDWARD
HOPPER - THE SILENT WITNESS- A film by Wolfgang Hastert.
Memory plays tricks, and I was wrong in saying that the film makers
had said that Hopper was influenced by Noir cinema. The commentator,
after noting Hopper's love of movies, just asks the question, "...was
he perhaps inspired by the sinister characters in the gangster
movies?...."., then there is a montage of film stills and Hopper
paintings. The emphasis is more on Hopper's influence on various
American and European film makers than vice versa. The tape is well
worth seeing. There is some rare footage of a 1961 TV interview with
Hopper.
caju...@my-deja.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
no...@webtv.net
and when I think "Blue Poles" --- which I last saw at the Janis Gallery
--- all those years ago --- I think "$4.000.000".
Canberra got a bargain.
---
norton shawn. (one-time New York gallery-goer) (Blue Poles filled the
wall).
no...@webtv.net
munching munchkinman ??
was munch what? small person; eater of raw carrots?
---
ns
M-T
painter.
Regards,
mt
caju...@my-deja.com
Sorry, but I still have no idea of what you are talking about.
caju...@my-deja.com
adwo...@uic.edu (Arthur Wohlwill) wrote:
> In article <8hbi3e$ql1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> caju...@my-deja.com writes:
> >From: caju...@my-deja.com
> >Subject: Re: noir painting?
> >Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 18:17:27 GMT
>
> >In article <19937-39...@storefull-143.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> > no...@webtv.net wrote:
> >> cajun: "nown>> was munch?"
> >>
> >> munching munchkinman ??
> >>
> >> was munch what? small person; eater of raw carrots?
> >> ---
> >> ns
> >>
> >> . .. .. .. ..
> >>
> >>
>
> >Sorry, but I still have no idea of what you are talking about.
>
>
> Arthur Wohlwill adwo...@UIC.EDU
Thanks Arthur.
no...@webtv.net
cajun7801.
and I had no idea that I was being considered to have been in any way
responsible for the illiteracy of others ... which I am not.
---
Norton Shawn.
CarleenML
just---ig....noir.......-------........--------.....him.
Ellen conford
cajun7801.
<<and I had no idea that I was being considered to have been in any way
responsible for the illiteracy of others ... which I am not. ---
Norton Shawn>>
No--you are only responsible for the clarity of your own statements.
Which you have admitted are not always accessible.
Calling someone illiterate because he cannot read your mind or follow
the sometimes unusual turns it takes, is just plain rude.
Ellen
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Ellen conford
no...@webtv.net
But I had no idea from his question as to what he was asking about.
Please refer to it and see if you could --- in all honesty --- have
answered the implied query 'correctly'.
And as to who's been "rude" here ... well I'll hold my tongue on that
one. Or will I?
Coming from someone who announces that she's going to be mean and then
speaks meanly --- there's an ironic laff-and-a-half.
---
Norton Shawn. who's not the hypocrite in this bunch --- I betcha.
no...@webtv.net
of "paintings described as noir. I think it works very well as it
conjures up a certain mental image".
In response to that good point --- I asked "Was Munch?"
---
cajun7081 --- addressing me --- replied to THAT with:
"?????"
---
So how to understand "?????"?
----
norton shawn
Arthur Wohlwill
>From: caju...@my-deja.com
>Subject: Re: noir painting?
>Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 18:17:27 GMT
>In article <19937-39...@storefull-143.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> no...@webtv.net wrote:
>> cajun: "nown>> was munch?"
>>
>> munching munchkinman ??
>>
>> was munch what? small person; eater of raw carrots?
>> ---
>> ns
>>
>> . .. .. .. ..
>>
>>
BLIND 321
---
Norton Shawn. >>
Unless you are Alanis Morisette (which would explain a lot, I have to say) that
is NOT irony.
Irony is your tendency to pontificate in an inflated style that perhaps only a
conceited thirteen year old would understand ----let alone use ---- on subjects
in which you have absolutely no expertise using completely fabricated "facts"
---- reminiscent of Patricia Cornwell on crack.
KS
Mark Alan Miller
"Bill Burgess" <bur...@csit.fsu.edu> wrote in message
news:3937D737...@csit.fsu.edu...
>
> Obviously you don't like Wyeth (I'm not even sure which
> one we're discussing, I'm guessing Andrew), but I think you're
> being quite unfair here. And I'm surprised because you're an
> artist yourself. You seem to be suggesting he's a no-talent hack
> (which just isn't true) because you, and "the critics," don't care
> for what he paints. You mentioned earlier the intimacy between
> the painter and painting--you don't think he feels that when he
> paints? I do, unless it's a portrait on commission or something,
> and *that's* what's really important, I think. To suggest that
> Wyeth, or the photorealists, or the illustrators, aren't "serious"
> artists, that their work isn't "valid," or "credible," sounds
> just plain pretentious. What the hell IS "serious" art?
> I will never, ever take the works of Warhol, or Pollock,
> or Lichtenstein, or Rauschenberg seriously, but that's
> my problem--who cares what I think? And who cares what the
> art critics think? They have WAY too much say in what is
> "good" or not, IMO, and it shouldn't be like that, because
> art is just too personal, for both creator and viewer. I believe
> serious art is just the artist doing what they love to do.
>
>
> > It's is hard to predict what
> > future generations will value of the art of the present
>
> a footnote in 50 years?
Definitely Andrew. N.C. is somewhat respectable and Jamie doesn't irritate
me as much because he isn't quite as pretentious as his dad, nor as famous.
Of course, I'm only stating my opinion, for what that's worth. All the
painters I've ever known look at art rather differently from non-artists,
and always much more critically, since painting seriously generally
requires a rather hefty dose of self-criticism. BTW, I have absolutely
nothing against illustrators, per se. It's a perfectly respectable
business and I have great admiration for people who do it well. However,
illustrators are typically working to deadline and with strictly commercial
goals in mind, so what they produce rarely (though not never) transcends
those limitations. My gripe with Wyeth is that he is essentially a
publicity machine without any special talent. There are thousands of very
capable commercial artists who paint as well as Wyeth who don't play silly
games (all that Helga foolishness, for just one obvious example) to puff
themselves up into "great artists". Warhol is a somewhat special case
because he was twitting the whole art establishment with his playful
self-publicizing. Fooling around with the concept of fame was central to
his art. I don't know whether Wyeth feels deeply what he is painting or
not, but the results don't show it if he does. For an artist who prides
himself on his painting of figures he doesn't even draw very accurately.
One good reason to suspect that Wyeth will be a mere footnote to history is
that his art is so out of step with everything else that's been done in the
last 50 years, and he's had so little influence on other artists, most of
whom find him uninteresting. He didn't start or belong to any significant
movement, and much of an artist's ultimate reputation lies in who he
inspired. Pollock, Rauschenberg, et al will continue to be studied and
valued if for no other reason than because almost all of the art of the
last 50 years has been so heavily influenced by them. Anyway, most
practicing artists consider these guys simply brilliant, even artists who
don't paint anything like them. My work is nothing like Lichtenstein's but
his retrospective at the Guggenheim some years ago was magnificent. I also
don't paint anything like Ad Reinhart, but I was mesmerized (almost
literally) by a show of his at MOMA. These are artists whose interaction
with their art has a depth and complexity that astonishes me and most other
painters. You can see on this newsgroup that there are writers who are
admired by their peers, and other, often more popular, writers who aren't.
I think the judgment of peers is usually more accurate than that of critics
or consumers and is a good predictor in the end of what will last. By that
standard, Wyeth isn't going anywhere. In fact, I find it kind of weird
even writing about him since he's been considered of no importance by the
art world for so long. It's as if a writer had to explain why someone like
Colleen McCullough isn't an important author.
Mark Alan Miller
Mark Alan Miller
"Mike Burke" <miq...@dingoblue.net.au> wrote in message
news:ne8jjs4jb6hdhpdsl...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 3 Jun 2000 08:26:04 -0700 (PDT), no...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> >Ah. The Blue Poles in Canberra. Mike stares happily at it for hours.
> >
> >and when I think "Blue Poles" --- which I last saw at the Janis Gallery
> >--- all those years ago --- I think "$4.000.000".
> >
> >Canberra got a bargain.
>
> when the Australian Federal Government of the day OKayed the
> expenditure to buy the thing. The media went ballistic. (The
> Australian National Gallery is a QANGO. Countries with a pupulation
> smaller than LA's tend to need Governments to back decent art
> galleries.)
>
> What would it be worth today, assuming anyone was silly enough to sell
> it?
About as much as Tasmania. Blue Poles is one of the greatest paintings of
the 20th century, without a doubt. Standing in front of a great Pollock
can be an overwhelming experience. I envy you. I wish I could visit one
regularly.
Mark Alan Miller
Mark Alan Miller
news:393845E0...@uswest.net...
That's wonderful. Are you lucky enough to live near some good Pollocks? I
wish I were. I guess I'll just have to settle for a few great Diebenkorns
instead. I almost wonder if some people don't have a sort of art-deafness
that makes them unable to enjoy art except as simple narrative. That would
be like only hearing the lyrics and not how their sung.
Mark Alan Miller
no...@webtv.net
are quite large ... wall-sized in fact.
One can get an idea of the design from reproductins in books --- but
those are like --- reminiscences.
To be able to project slides of the larger Pollock paintings onto a
clean white wall
is not the worst way to get a look at them.
I have two slide projectors. They're old and compact. I bought them at
thrift shops --- one for a dollar --- the other for two. They work
marvellously well.
(I bought TWO projectors so as to sometimes have fun doing
superimpositions. just another project --- but good entertainment ---
especially so when giving guests a box of slides to play with ---
projecting at random or whatever).
---
norton
no...@webtv.net
experiences. There are people who --- can you believe this? --- are
unaware of the visual pollution that surrounds them.
I don't know that they can be awakened.
no...@webtv.net
wrote:
"Irony is your tendency to pontificate in an inflated style that perhaps
only a conceited thirteen year old would understand ... on subjects in
which you have absolutely no expertise using completely fabricated
"facts"."
**** "tendency to pontificate in an inflated style".
I'm being criticized for style?
**** "perhaps only a conceited thirteen year old would understand".
You're saying that in RAM I've chosen an audience of an inappropriate
age group?
Q. Why would my young audience need to be conceited? Is conceit
prerequisite to understanding?
Further Q. Are conceited thirteen year olds particularly noted for
understanding?
**** "... on subjects in which you have
absolutely no expertise..."
Is expertise requisite for writing posts to an informal discussion
group?
[I would have written not "in which" but "of which". Is a subject like
a room?]
Q. How do you know my expertise? Are you comparing it with what you
think of as your own? Please demonstrate by example.
**** "... using completely fabricated "facts"."
You're saying that I have a talent then for invention?
---
norton shawn
Fran Read
> > >Ah. The Blue Poles in Canberra. Mike stares happily at it for hours.
> > >and when I think "Blue Poles" --- which I last saw at the Janis Gallery
> > >--- all those years ago --- I think "$4.000.000".
> > >Canberra got a bargain.
> >
> > Didn't they what! But you should have seen the political stinkeroo
> > when the Australian Federal Government of the day OKayed the
> > expenditure to buy the thing. The media went ballistic. (The
> > Australian National Gallery is a QANGO. Countries with a pupulation
> > smaller than LA's tend to need Governments to back decent art
> > galleries.)
> > What would it be worth today, assuming anyone was silly enough to sell
> > it?
>
> About as much as Tasmania. Blue Poles is one of the greatest paintings of
> the 20th century, without a doubt. Standing in front of a great Pollock
> can be an overwhelming experience. I envy you. I wish I could visit one
> regularly.
> Mark Alan Miller
Thanks Mark! And I thought I only had Razz and Mike trying to sell us off!
Fran