Jazz Paintings
Thomas Ziorjen
Jazz Paintings
I thought members of this group might like to take a look at a series
of paintings I've done in homage to
some of the Jazz greats. There are currently paintings inspired
by the music of Steve Lacy, Ornette
Coleman, Sonny Rollins, Miles Davis, Charles Mingus, Eric Dolphy, Art
Pepper, Thelonius Monk, and Stan
Getz.
I'm also looking forward to doing a wry but goofy Roswell Rudd piece,
and I have a Pomo pastiche
brewing inspired by Lester Bowie.
The images are drawn, painted, cut, torn, composed, collaged on panels,
painted into, drawn on... much
like layered improvisations.
Please feel free to comment, either here or by email.
Click here to go directly to the jazz series mypage.uniserve.ca/~sn3222/jazz_series
Thomas
online portfolio:
mypage.uniserve.ca/~sn3222
no...@webtv.net
Every major New York artist of the 1950's knew Jazz. The Cedar and the
Five Spot were in walking distance of each other. Jazz ... feeling,
mode, inspiration, accompaniment ... was in the air. In fact ... it
probably was the air breathed.
---
norton shawn
. .. .. .. ..
Bruce LeClaire
Very nice work, but very abstract. Can you say a brief word or two how
or why a particular artist is connected to or how they inspired a
particular work? It's not clear to me, or is that part of the point?
--Bruce
Leo Scanlon
<thomas_...@sunshine.net> wrote:
>I thought members of this group might like to take a look at a
>series of paintings I've done in homage to
>some of the Jazz greats. There are currently paintings inspired
>by the music of Steve Lacy, Ornette
>Coleman, Sonny Rollins, Miles Davis, Charles Mingus, Eric Dolphy,
>Art Pepper, Thelonius Monk, and Stan
>Getz.
>
>Click here to go directly to the jazz series
>mypage.uniserve.ca/~sn3222/jazz_series
I'm generally not into abstract art, but these are wonderful. Really!
I'd be proud to have any one of them on my wall. Keep up the good
work, Thomas.
Leo
no...@webtv.net
Very nice ... as paintings.
But what are the Jazz connections?
The works look to me like many other paintings I've seen ... but nothing
Jazz-particular. They're nice but they look like 'just paintings' ...
with names of well-known Jazz artists stuck on to them.
They could have been called anything. The visual effects would be the
same.
Thomas Ziorjen
>
>
> Very nice work, but very abstract. Can you say a brief word or two how
> or why a particular artist is connected to or how they inspired a
> particular work? It's not clear to me, or is that part of the point?
>
Thanks Bruce,
I tried to echo in the paintings qualities I've found in the works of each
musician. The off-kilter angularity an spaciousness of Monk, the dense
funky brassy qualities I find in Mingus, the sensuous 50's - 60's lounge
lizard thing in Getz, and Ornette's elegant layered arabesques.
But I don't really think that way while I'm doing the work... just as a
soloist wouldn't have that kind of analytical thought process going on in
his head while playing -- it would get in the way of the improvisation.
--
Thomas
online portfolio:
http://mypage.uniserve.ca/~sn3222
Thomas Ziorjen
Thank you Leo. I'm getting a really great response to this series, even
from people who haven't spent a lot of time with abstract art, but do
know the music. Very encouraging.
Thomas Ziorjen
One of the gratifying things someone in the fine art forum has said
about this series is this:
[...] you nailed Mingus for me. Perhaps best of all, you've got me rooting around in all those seldom played vinyls looking for my Steve Lacy. Strong works worthy of their musical namesakes. Works strong enough to stand if they were titled 1,2,3....n.
If you are implying that I am just trading on the strength of their
fame perhaps you might take another look.
H. Loess
>Very nice ... as paintings.
>But what are the Jazz connections?
>The works look to me like many other paintings I've seen ... but nothing
>Jazz-particular. They're nice but they look like 'just paintings' ...
>with names of well-known Jazz artists stuck on to them.
>They could have been called anything. The visual effects would be the
>same.
Whereas you could have heard the difference in Hawkins' "Picasso" had he
chosen a different "inspiration"? His "Dali"? Gil Evans' "Blues for Pablo?"
--
Henry L.
hlo...@pipeline.com
no...@webtv.net
Henry ... "could have heard the difference, etc.".
I didn't say that at all.
What I did say was that the paintings exhibited which initiated this
thread would look exactly the same no matter what they were called.
Those paintings would look exactly as they do if they were called
"Painting No. 1" ... "Painting No. 2", etc.
If the artist was inspired by music ... well, that's great.!!
But there's no way in the world that they're able to represent what he's
purporting them to.
Thomas Ziorjen
> --
> >
> >
> This is a great series. Each piece seems, to me, to be very much
> inspired by the artist for which it is named after. The use of texture
> and color to portray the essence of sound has always been a worthy
> pursuit. It is very evident that you know each musician''s work well.
> My favorites are Getz I and II as well as Monk. The tight, modern
> treatment given to the compositions speaks to the essence of each
> artist well. The works in your series which pay homage to Lacey,
> Ornette, Dolphy and Pepper are also very well executed and it is
> evident that much thought went into the compositions. (Even though
> Ornette has a slight Pollock ring to it, I like your method of
> remaining true to the essence of this man's work while tipping the hat
> to a well known artist associated with Coleman's work). Miles, Mingus,
> and Rollins in this series, when contrasted with the others do not seem
> to share the same empathetic continuity. Perhaps the tones are more
> subdued in these pieces to emphasise those artists deeply felt
> contributions to their field. However, I would have liked to see the
> reds in Miles pop just a bit more, the blue tones in that piece seem to
> convey his melodic sense well enough, though. (perhaps I have this
> backwards, but I was percieving the reds as Miles' tone) Mingus is
> appropriate and the terse symbolism brings to the viewer a certain
> nostalgic pleasure, and the reverie seems to recall to the mind's ear
> the sound of this man's work....Rollins is the most basic piece in the
> series, yet there is a very powerful earthy prescence in it which I
> feel speaks well to Rollins' tone and style...
>
> Thank You for posting the link. The presentation was very well put
> together.
>
>
Thank you, for looking at the work so carefully, and for your insightful
review. As I've said before, the fact that people who know the work
being referenced are responding sympathetically to it means a lot
to me.
--
Thomas
online portfolio:
mypage.uniserve.ca/~sn3222
Thomas Ziorjen
> Henry ... "could have heard the difference, etc.".
>
> I didn't say that at all.
>
> What I did say was that the paintings exhibited which initiated this
> thread would look exactly the same no matter what they were called.
The paintings would never have *existed* without the music that
they make
reference to. Whether you are able to see it or not, they really
*are* a
response to the music they were inspired by.
>
>
> Those paintings would look exactly as they do if they were called
> "Painting No. 1" ... "Painting No. 2", etc.
>
> If the artist was inspired by music ... well, that's great.!!
>
> But there's no way in the world that they're able to represent what he's
> purporting them to.
Well, you've made it clear that *you* are unable to see the correlation,
but many people do. In fact 6 of those paintings have already
sold to people who do.
If someone doesn't understand a language, is it safe for them to
say that
there is no way to communicate in that language?
leedav...@my-deja.com
Thomas Ziorjen <thomas_...@sunshine.net>
wrote:
>
> --------------4D109C4DEC9785224DE7AB4F
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-
mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Jazz Paintings
>
> I thought members of this group might like to
take a look at a
> series of paintings I've done in homage to
> some of the Jazz greats. There are currently
paintings inspired
> by the music of Steve Lacy, Ornette
> Coleman, Sonny Rollins, Miles Davis, Charles
Mingus, Eric Dolphy,
> Art Pepper, Thelonius Monk, and Stan
> Getz.
>
goofy Roswell Rudd
> piece, and I have a Pomo pastiche
> brewing inspired by Lester Bowie.
>
> The images are drawn, painted, cut, torn,
composed, collaged on
> panels, painted into, drawn on... much
> like layered improvisations.
>
> Please feel free to comment, either here or by
email.
>
>
> online portfolio:
> mypage.uniserve.ca/~sn3222
>
> --------------4D109C4DEC9785224DE7AB4F
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0
transitional//en">
> <html>
>
> <br>Jazz Paintings
> <p>I thought members of this group might like
to take a look at a series
> of paintings I've done in homage to
currently paintings inspired
> by the music of Steve Lacy, Ornette
Charles Mingus, Eric Dolphy, Art
> Pepper, Thelonius Monk, and Stan
> <p>I'm also looking forward to doing a wry but
goofy Roswell Rudd piece,
> and I have a Pomo pastiche
> <p>The images are drawn, painted, cut, torn,
composed, collaged on panels,
> painted into, drawn on... much
> <br>like layered improvisations.
> <p>Please feel free to comment, either here or
by email.
> <p>Click here to go directly to the jazz
series <a
href="http://mypage.uniserve.ca/~sn3222/jazz_serie
s
>
> ">mypage.uniserve.ca/~sn3222/jazz_series</a>
> <p>
> <br>Thomas
> <p>online portfolio:
> <br><a
href="http://mypage.uniserve.ca/~sn3222">mypage.un
iserve.ca/~sn3222</a>
> <br>
> <br> </html>
>
> --------------4D109C4DEC9785224DE7AB4F--
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
leedav...@my-deja.com
Philstein
You are a victim of the old "sincerity" fallacy: that there is a
connection between what an artist intends a work to be (wish), and what
it actually is (fact). If the person who composed "Na Na, Nee Nee, Noo
Noo" had in fact dropped the "words" altogether and called
it "Wittgenstein's Linguistic Theory Jive" would it have affected the
way you look at the music?
If you replaced the title of "I Feel Pretty" with "I've Turned
Fifty" and the words of the song with related musings would the *music*
suddenly provoke a middle-aged crisis in you? I don't think so.
In your case, if you had dropped dead before labelling the works,
can you honestly say that a viewer could deduce what they were "about"?
In any event, aren't words better than art for conveying ideas? And if
you're talking about "emotional" responses, art can't contain emotion,
only awaken it (even for a performer), so the emotional response your
paintings may evoke (even in yourself as you look at them) would have
nothing to do with jazz, but everything to do with your paintings
(which is after all their raison d'etre).
Cheers,
Phil Wilson
Anglesey
N. Wales
Thomas Ziorjen
>
> You are a victim of the old "sincerity" fallacy: that there is a
> connection between what an artist intends a work to be (wish), and what
> it actually is (fact).
I don't think I am a victim of any kind. That there are some people who
can't see the connection between the music and the images comes as no
surprise.
Here is an analogy... many of people don't "get" jazz. Especially the more
challenging jazz. It takes some familiarity with the form, with the
structures being played off. Most people who were unfamiliar with jazz
wouldn't be comfortable with, say, Ornette Coleman's later music -- in fact
some would protest that it wasn't music at all. I got hooked on jazz
through bebop. At that time I was unprepared to go beyond that. It wasn't
until I had enough familiarity with what was going on in bop that I was
able to start taking steps into more challenging jazz... Mingus, Dolphy,
early (but only early) Ornette... I'm sure this sort of learning curve is
pretty common.
Same kind of process applies to visual art. You come to understand it
through a slow process of learning and exposure to more challenging work.
And most adults in this culture have spent considerably more time learning
about music than they have learning about art. It comes as no surprise
that despite almost 100 years of development some people still see
abstraction as "arbitrary", or worse still "fraudulent" or "a scam"
(emperor's new painting), or "my 5 year old could do this". Very sad, but
not surprising, given the state of visual literacy in this culture.
> If the person who composed "Na Na, Nee Nee, Noo
> Noo" had in fact dropped the "words" altogether and called
> it "Wittgenstein's Linguistic Theory Jive" would it have affected the
> way you look at the music?
Well yes it would. It would go from being a very silly song to being a
very silly song with a puzzling title.
>
>
> If you replaced the title of "I Feel Pretty" with "I've Turned
> Fifty" and the words of the song with related musings would the *music*
> suddenly provoke a middle-aged crisis in you? I don't think so.
You're right, it wouldn't provoke a middle-aged crisis, because it would
then be a very upbeat, life-affirming song about turning 50.
>
>
> In your case, if you had dropped dead before labelling the works,
> can you honestly say that a viewer could deduce what they were "about"?
Well, thankfully I didn't! But really it's not a fair argument, because
the title is integral to the piece - and is, in many of these pieces
incorporated into the painting along one of its edges.
>
> In any event, aren't words better than art for conveying ideas?
It really depends on the ideas, doesn't it? Words are better at expressing
verbal ideas, images are better at expressing visual ideas, and music is
better at expressing musical ideas. Any one of these forms of expression
can be augmented or commented on by any of the others.
> And if
> you're talking about "emotional" responses, art can't contain emotion,
> only awaken it (even for a performer), so the emotional response your
> paintings may evoke (even in yourself as you look at them) would have
> nothing to do with jazz, but everything to do with your paintings
> (which is after all their raison d'etre).
I'm sorry but I'm really not sure what you mean by this last paragraph.
no...@webtv.net
Paintings are not more arbitrary than the expressions in any other art
form.
They are always as specific as the artist was capable of rendering.
Abstract art in itself or any other art is always specific in its visual
impact ... even if it's mud.
I'm glad that Mr. Ziorjen enjoys his art ... although I think that a
young artist is more clearly on the road to fulfillment if he doesn't.
Self-satisfaction can be illusionary and deadly paralyzing.
I have no complaint whatever with the paintings and I do wish the artist
good luck in his chosen career.
But my argument here is not about the paintings, My argument is about
the captions tacked on to them which in no way can be proved to be
otherwise than arbitrary.
No matter what the artist's alleged inspiration ... the visual effect of
the paintings would be exactly the same no matter what they'd been
called. The visual effect would even be the same if the paintings had
not been called by any names at all.
The audience that says "Oh, yes. That's Him," and "Oh yes, that is so
and truly Him,", etc. is acting as though quite hypnotized by the power
of suggestion.
The paintings are specific to their titles only as suggestedly so. They
could have been called anything.
What's needed here ... to be quite fair ... is to subject the works in
question to the visual equivalent of the blindfold test. Remove the
captions and see what you've got.
Richard Thurston
no...@webtv.net wrote:
Snip
> But my argument here is not about the paintings, My argument is about
> the captions tacked on to them which in no way can be proved to be
> otherwise than arbitrary.
>
I take it you aren't willing to take the artist's word for the source
of inspiration for the work and his explanation of what he intended to
convey with this series of paintings. Why? if there's any argument to
be made it would concern the degree of success with which the artist
accomplished his goals.
>
> What's needed here ... to be quite fair ... is to subject the works
in
> question to the visual equivalent of the blindfold test. Remove the
> captions and see what you've got.
Remove the titles from paintings in museums as well. How might a
Pollock or (shudder) a Barnett Newman or a Rothko strike one if one
didn't know which one it was or even which artist had painted it? That
would drive the collectors nuts.
>
>
--
Richard Thurston
no...@webtv.net
RT: "That would drive the collectors nuts".
But not drive them far. Collectors are nuts already.
Now Richard ... you are an artworld professional. and as such you know
perfecrly well what I'm talking about.
For every citable example of captions which fit ... such as "Erehwon",
"Ecaroh", and "Emanon," which obviously are true descriptive attachments
to their works ...
there are those which are captions for convenience which in themselves
convey no inherent meaning.
And Richard ... you know perfectly well the "names" of Ad Reinhardt's
paintings ... which neither add to or take away from any qualities of
the paintings themselves.
For those unfamiliar with AR's work ...
and some of Jackson Pollock's, too ... they were "captioned" by date and
number. Such as "1955, No1," 1955, No.2," "1955, No.3," and such and
so forth.
The titles or captions of these paintings were made solely for purposes
of curatorial convenience. They have no relation to the paintings
themselves in any way. They exist solely as filing system
identification markers.
All the same as being able to say, in a Chinese restaurant, "Number
three, please, with some soy sauce on the side".
And, yes ... some paying customers do order like that.
The numbered paintings do not drive dealers, collectors or curators
crazy.
In fact ... Reinhardts and Pollocks are exremely expensive and hard to
find paintings. Highly collectible.
As for taking the artist at his word ... why? We all take our chances
here. Against arguments such as yours, Richard ... he and you are
obviously not taking me at mine.
The only artists who of neccessity must be taken at their words are
writers. Music and paintings ... no matter what they're "called" as
identification markers ... speak for themselves. Music and paintings
speak directly as to what they are ... and whatever information they
convey is by the immediate and direct effect of their aural or visual
qualities.
Paintings which require verbal crutches to convey meanings or intentions
are failed paintings. Art speaks for itself.
Philstein
"Thomas Ziorjen" <thomas_...@sunshine.net> wrote in message
news:39F31EA6...@sunshine.net...
| Philstein wrote:
|
| >
| > You are a victim of the old "sincerity" fallacy: that there is a
| > connection between what an artist intends a work to be (wish), and
what
| > it actually is (fact).
|
| I don't think I am a victim of any kind. That there are some people
who
| can't see the connection between the music and the images comes as no
| surprise.
|
I didn't quite mean that. What I meant was that a work of art must
necessarily be independent of its creator and be judged on its own
aesthetic terms. Otherwise we are led down the path, as indeed some
are, of assessing the significance of a work of art on the basis of
what it may (for we cannot always know, especially if the artist is
dead, or perhaps teasing) signify for its creator. And the strength of
an artist's feelings while composing his work is no guarantee that he
can evoke any in his audience. I've heard people approvingly cite
Charlie Parker's anger at being a black in a white man's world as being
part of the "content" of his music. I cannot detect this at all.
| And most adults in this culture have spent considerably more time
learning
| about music than they have learning about art. It comes as no
surprise
| that despite almost 100 years of development some people still see
| abstraction as "arbitrary", or worse still "fraudulent" or "a scam"
| (emperor's new painting), or "my 5 year old could do this". Very
sad, but
| not surprising, given the state of visual literacy in this culture.
|
But to be literate connotes a generally acceptable level of
understanding of one's own language, whose meaning is gained through
its *social* context.There must be wide agreement as to the meanings of
words. If visual consensus over the meaning of "abstraction" existed,
Robert Hughes would not have had to spend a long time explaining a
Jackson Pollock, it would have been obvious. And in any case, how does
*he* know?
His explanation sounded convincing, but I took it on trust. Is this not
a grave artistic drawback? Who do you trust? If I paint two copies of a
work: a ragged white circle with a bright yellow centre. I call
one "Fried Egg" and the other "Ox-eye Daisy". Would you read the two
paintings appropriately?
| > If the person who composed "Na Na, Nee Nee, Noo
| > Noo" had in fact dropped the "words" altogether and called
| > it "Wittgenstein's Linguistic Theory Jive" would it have affected
the
| > way you look at the music?
|
| Well yes it would. It would go from being a very silly song to being
a
| very silly song with a puzzling title.
|
No artistic difference then.
| >
| >
| > If you replaced the title of "I Feel Pretty" with "I've Turned
| > Fifty" and the words of the song with related musings would the
*music*
| > suddenly provoke a middle-aged crisis in you? I don't think so.
|
| You're right, it wouldn't provoke a middle-aged crisis, because it
would
| then be a very upbeat, life-affirming song about turning 50.
|
Not for me :-)
| >
| >
| > In your case, if you had dropped dead before labelling the works,
| > can you honestly say that a viewer could deduce what they
were "about"?
|
| Well, thankfully I didn't! But really it's not a fair argument,
because
| the title is integral to the piece - and is, in many of these pieces
| incorporated into the painting along one of its edges.
|
But then the "title" is either abstract, i.e. a visual signal - hence
semantically meaningless (otherwise you're eating your cake and having
it too) or it is a label indicating content, and the painting is no
longer "abstract". But do not mistake the *content* of a work of art as
its meaning. Style is the thing (I've got a bee in my bonnet about
this). What do we expect a painting to do. How well does it do it?
| >
| > In any event, aren't words better than art for conveying ideas?
|
| It really depends on the ideas, doesn't it? Words are better at
expressing
| verbal ideas, images are better at expressing visual ideas, and music
is
| better at expressing musical ideas. Any one of these forms of
expression
| can be augmented or commented on by any of the others.
The "expressive" theory of art. Pure romanticism. What does a Mozart
Piano Concerto express? Careful there.
|
| > And if
| > you're talking about "emotional" responses, art can't contain
emotion,
| > only awaken it (even for a performer), so the emotional response
your
| > paintings may evoke (even in yourself as you look at them) would
have
| > nothing to do with jazz, but everything to do with your paintings
| > (which is after all their raison d'etre).
|
| I'm sorry but I'm really not sure what you mean by this last
paragraph.
|
Badly put, yes. Art is about *effect*. The importance of a work of art
is: what is the artist trying to do - how well did he succeed and last
but not least how does it grab me? That applies even to an artist as he
looks at his own work. In the case of Jazz, does it swing in the
correct way and evoke that spine-tingling excitement, or does it lower
your spirits? Is it Louis or only Frank? :-)
Are all the stylistic features there? And even you, when you create,
are as much a spectator of what you created as the ordinary guy in the
art gallery. When you are moved by a work of art it's by what's there,
not what you imagine you may have put in there (which is the doctrine
of "inspiration" - as old as Plato).
Cheers,
Phil Wilson
Anglesey
N. wales
Richard Thurston
MOMA and, face to face with Robert Motherwell's large and beautiful
abstractions utters (based merely on an observation of the work and
nothing else), "What a moving tribute to the the Republican side,
losers to the fascist in the Spanish Civil War."
--
Richard Thurston
Richard Thurston
Bruce LeClaire
Thomas Ziorjen wrote:
>
> I tried to echo in the paintings qualities I've found in the works of each
> musician. The off-kilter angularity an spaciousness of Monk, the dense
> funky brassy qualities I find in Mingus, the sensuous 50's - 60's lounge
> lizard thing in Getz, and Ornette's elegant layered arabesques.
>
> But I don't really think that way while I'm doing the work... just as a
> soloist wouldn't have that kind of analytical thought process going on in
> his head while playing -- it would get in the way of the improvisation.
>
Thomas, thanks for your comments, very compact and illuminating. And
thanks for your other replies in this thread- discussions on rmb can
often be rewarding and (more often!) challenging.
A couple of dumb questions if I may...
Do you actually listen to the music while you paint, or during any phase
of your painting process?
If so, is it the music of the particular artist you're "portraying"?
Or has the musician invoked a sufficiently strong impression in you that
you can mentally call upon it during the painting process, much like you
probably did in writing the descriptions quoted above?
--Bruce
Bruce LeClaire
no...@webtv.net wrote [in part]:
>
> For every citable example of captions which fit ... such as "Erehwon",
> "Ecaroh", and "Emanon," which obviously are true descriptive attachments
> to their works ...
> there are those which are captions for convenience which in themselves
> convey no inherent meaning.
>
But Norton, how would you recommend an artist title their work,
especially if the work is abstract?
And allow me to note that Thomas Z.'s original post merely referred to
each work as being an homage to a particular musician.
> [...]
>
> As for taking the artist at his word ... why? We all take our chances
> here. Against arguments such as yours, Richard ... he and you are
> obviously not taking me at mine.
>
> The only artists who of neccessity must be taken at their words are
> writers.
This is a (good) pun assumedly.
> Music and paintings ... no matter what they're "called" as
> identification markers ... speak for themselves. Music and paintings
> speak directly as to what they are ... and whatever information they
> convey is by the immediate and direct effect of their aural or visual
> qualities.
>
> Paintings which require verbal crutches to convey meanings or intentions
> are failed paintings. Art speaks for itself.
>
Yet, titles do occasionally convey immense content for some painting...
at least for me.
Sometimes a work's significance hinges on a context, in which case the
title can provide an important reference... Picasso's "The Death of
Casegemas" does not stand on it's own without the context explicit in
the title. Of course, "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon", would stand on its
own as a great painting sans title. Yet to fully appreciate its
intention and meaning would require knowing who these women are, which
in turn does require the title. And can "Guernica" be detached from its
title without actually losing its universality?
And as another example of great art, which most certainly would be lost
without words and title, one merely need consider the work of Blake
(whose words do stand on their own, yet before all the more meaningful
and significant when considered along side Blake's color engravings).
--Bruce
Thomas Ziorjen
Thanks for the kind words Bruce, and your questions aren't the least bit
"dumb".
Yes I listen to music while I paint, I have a cd changer in the studio that I
load up with cds of a particular artist. But I've also built up, over years
of listening to these players, ideas that I associate with them, so really I'm
drawing on both.
--
Francois Ziegler
>
> no...@webtv.net wrote [in part]:
> >
> > Paintings which require verbal crutches to convey meanings or intentions
> > are failed paintings. Art speaks for itself.
> >
>
> Yet, titles do occasionally convey immense content for some painting...
> at least for me.
>
> Sometimes a work's significance hinges on a context, in which case the
> title can provide an important reference... Picasso's "The Death of
> Casegemas" does not stand on it's own without the context explicit in
> the title. Of course, "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon", would stand on its
> own as a great painting sans title. Yet to fully appreciate its
> intention and meaning would require knowing who these women are, which
> in turn does require the title. And can "Guernica" be detached from its
> title without actually losing its universality?
>
> And as another example of great art, which most certainly would be lost
> without words and title, one merely need consider the work of Blake
> (whose words do stand on their own, yet before all the more meaningful
> and significant when considered along side Blake's color engravings).
...or Paul Klee. The interplay between his paintings, and their witty
titles is (to me) a large part of his appeal. Many times, seeing the
title will make you laugh and take a whole another look at the picture.
After him, I can't help regarding many "untitled" works in galleries
as, somehow, incomplete.
Francois Z.
--
Users of wide-range equipment should compensate for the RIAA curse.
no...@webtv.net
Paul Klee's titles ARE witty.
William Blake's words and pictures work together ... Very Much. They
were designed to.
There is a matter of relevance.
The paintings shown here could represent anything. Just because they're
CALLED something doesn't mean that they ARE something.
Of 11 of the works shown here ... titled with the names of Jazz
musicians ... only one shows relevance ... Ornette. The relevance that
it shows is not to Ornette Coeman but to the cover art of Ornette
Coleman's Atlantic record ... "Free Jazz".
That cover reproduces Jackson Pollock's painting "White Light" on it. I
can see the resemblance.
The other two works ... "Pepper I" and "Getz I" are collages. They
contain images of shoes. "Getz I" modestly displays a pair of Petty
Girl type legs ... long and stockinged ... a pair of hot lips
.. Very Lipsticky ... and what looks like a scrawl of hearts on a
blackboard.
Stan Getz?
You tell me.
Richard Thurston
based on viewing a thumbnail on your computer screen is
The thumbnail provides a bit of the color and composition but nothing
of the surface or and texture or scale of a work.
Would you limit your music listening to the thirty second snippets
amazon.com provides via Real Audio?
Somehow I doubt it.
Richard Thurston
Intended to finish sentence with the work 'unfair'.
>
> The thumbnail provides a bit of the color and composition but nothing
> of the surface or and texture or scale of a work.
>
> Would you limit your music listening to the thirty second snippets
> amazon.com provides via Real Audio?
>
> Somehow I doubt it.
> --
> Richard Thurston
>
>
Sorry.
Todd Bishop
>
>Paul Klee's titles ARE witty.
>
>William Blake's words and pictures work together ... Very Much. They
>were designed to.
>
>There is a matter of relevance.
>
>The paintings shown here could represent anything.
It's common for artists in any abstract medium to give their pieces
impressionistic, nonliteral titles. Some titles of this kind become a
part of the piece and give it an additional layer of meaning, some are
totally arbitrary and can be ignored.
>Just because they're
>CALLED something doesn't mean that they ARE something.
No halfway sophisticated grownup would claim otherwise.
>
>Of 11 of the works shown here ... titled with the names of Jazz
>musicians ... only one shows relevance ... Ornette. The relevance that
>it shows is not to Ornette Coeman but to the cover art of Ornette
>Coleman's Atlantic record ... "Free Jazz".
>
>That cover reproduces Jackson Pollock's painting "White Light" on it. I
>can see the resemblance.
An obvious reference. Is that what you want? Obviousness?
>
>The other two works ... "Pepper I" and "Getz I" are collages. They
>contain images of shoes. "Getz I" modestly displays a pair of Petty
>Girl type legs ... long and stockinged ... a pair of hot lips
>.. Very Lipsticky ... and what looks like a scrawl of hearts on a
>blackboard.
>
>Stan Getz?
>
>You tell me.
So tell me how the melody of, say, Nefertiti relates to its title. Or
Frank Stella's Coney Island. Or De Kooning's Asheville. You could make
the same complaint you're making about any piece of abstract art.
A title is not just a label telling you what you're looking at.
tb
>
>---
>norton shawn
>
>. .. .. .. ..
>
Todd Bishop
http://www.originarts.com/flatland
Todd Bishop
>
>Paintings are not more arbitrary than the expressions in any other art
>form.
>
>They are always as specific as the artist was capable of rendering.
>
>Abstract art in itself or any other art is always specific in its visual
>impact ... even if it's mud.
True.
>
>I'm glad that Mr. Ziorjen enjoys his art ... although I think that a
>young artist is more clearly on the road to fulfillment if he doesn't.
>Self-satisfaction can be illusionary and deadly paralyzing.
>
>I have no complaint whatever with the paintings and I do wish the artist
>good luck in his chosen career.
>
>But my argument here is not about the paintings, My argument is about
>the captions tacked on to them which in no way can be proved to be
>otherwise than arbitrary.
Proved? Now *there's* a term that's alien to any discussion of art!
>
>No matter what the artist's alleged inspiration ...
Why do you say alleged? Do you think he's lying?
the visual effect of
>the paintings would be exactly the same no matter what they'd been
>called. The visual effect would even be the same if the paintings had
>not been called by any names at all.
>
>The audience that says "Oh, yes. That's Him," and "Oh yes, that is so
>and truly Him,", etc. is acting as though quite hypnotized by the power
>of suggestion.
Suggestion is the *essence* of abstract art. You act as if he's
attempting some kind of deception.
>
>The paintings are specific to their titles only as suggestedly so. They
>could have been called anything.
But they weren't. The artist either wants to let us know what he was
thinking about when he was creating the work or what he wants us to
think about when we look at it. What's the big deal?
>
>What's needed here ... to be quite fair ... is to subject the works in
>question to the visual equivalent of the blindfold test. Remove the
>captions and see what you've got.
Why? To force the artist to title his work differently? What's your
fucking point?
Todd Bishop
wrote:
>
>
>"Thomas Ziorjen" <thomas_...@sunshine.net> wrote in message
>news:39F31EA6...@sunshine.net...
>| Philstein wrote:
>|
snip
>| And most adults in this culture have spent considerably more time
>learning
>| about music than they have learning about art. It comes as no
>surprise
>| that despite almost 100 years of development some people still see
>| abstraction as "arbitrary", or worse still "fraudulent" or "a scam"
>| (emperor's new painting), or "my 5 year old could do this". Very
>sad, but
>| not surprising, given the state of visual literacy in this culture.
>|
>
>But to be literate connotes a generally acceptable level of
>understanding of one's own language, whose meaning is gained through
>its *social* context.There must be wide agreement as to the meanings of
>words. If visual consensus over the meaning of "abstraction" existed,
>Robert Hughes would not have had to spend a long time explaining a
>Jackson Pollock, it would have been obvious. And in any case, how does
>*he* know?
>His explanation sounded convincing, but I took it on trust. Is this not
>a grave artistic drawback?
No. Pollock's work doesn't need Hughes.
Who do you trust? If I paint two copies of a
>work: a ragged white circle with a bright yellow centre. I call
>one "Fried Egg" and the other "Ox-eye Daisy". Would you read the two
>paintings appropriately?
What do you mean 'appropriately'?
>
snip
>| > In your case, if you had dropped dead before labelling the works,
>| > can you honestly say that a viewer could deduce what they
>were "about"?
>|
>| Well, thankfully I didn't! But really it's not a fair argument,
>because
>| the title is integral to the piece - and is, in many of these pieces
>| incorporated into the painting along one of its edges.
>|
>
>But then the "title" is either abstract, i.e. a visual signal - hence
>semantically meaningless (otherwise you're eating your cake and having
>it too) or it is a label indicating content, and the painting is no
>longer "abstract".
So what if it isn't? Do you think that artists worry about things like
that?
But do not mistake the *content* of a work of art as
>its meaning. Style is the thing (I've got a bee in my bonnet about
>this). What do we expect a painting to do. How well does it do it?
>
>| >
>| > In any event, aren't words better than art for conveying ideas?
>|
>| It really depends on the ideas, doesn't it? Words are better at
>expressing
>| verbal ideas, images are better at expressing visual ideas, and music
>is
>| better at expressing musical ideas. Any one of these forms of
>expression
>| can be augmented or commented on by any of the others.
>
>
>The "expressive" theory of art. Pure romanticism. What does a Mozart
>Piano Concerto express? Careful there.
Art is expressive as language is expressive as the way I drive my car
is expressive as a punch in the face is expressive. Expression is
innate to any human action.
>
>|
>| > And if
>| > you're talking about "emotional" responses, art can't contain
>emotion,
>| > only awaken it (even for a performer), so the emotional response
>your
>| > paintings may evoke (even in yourself as you look at them) would
>have
>| > nothing to do with jazz, but everything to do with your paintings
>| > (which is after all their raison d'etre).
>|
>| I'm sorry but I'm really not sure what you mean by this last
>paragraph.
>|
>
>Badly put, yes. Art is about *effect*. The importance of a work of art
>is: what is the artist trying to do - how well did he succeed and last
>but not least how does it grab me?
The first two are only important if you feel the need to be a critic
and, godlike, bestow Validity on other people's work. The last one is
the only one that matters to me.
>That applies even to an artist as he
>looks at his own work. In the case of Jazz, does it swing in the
>correct way and evoke that spine-tingling excitement, or does it lower
>your spirits? Is it Louis or only Frank? :-)
>Are all the stylistic features there?
What do you mean by the last sentence?
tb
>And even you, when you create,
>are as much a spectator of what you created as the ordinary guy in the
>art gallery. When you are moved by a work of art it's by what's there,
>not what you imagine you may have put in there (which is the doctrine
>of "inspiration" - as old as Plato).
>
>Cheers,
>
>Phil Wilson
>Anglesey
>N. wales
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
Todd Bishop
http://www.originarts.com/flatland
Thomas Ziorjen
>
> >
> >What's needed here ... to be quite fair ... is to subject the works in
> >question to the visual equivalent of the blindfold test. Remove the
> >captions and see what you've got.
>
> Why? To force the artist to title his work differently? What's your
> fucking point?
He seems to think art should be subject to double blind testing (government
approved?) before being unleashed on an unsuspecting and highly suggestible
public. Who know who might otherwise be duped?
Philstein
"Todd Bishop" <tb...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:39f49f9b...@news.uswest.net...
On Sun, 22 Oct 2000 22:09:28 GMT, Philstein <gerr...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
>> If visual consensus over the meaning of "abstraction" existed,
>>Robert Hughes would not have had to spend a long time explaining a
>>Jackson Pollock, it would have been obvious. And in any case, how does
>>*he* know?
>>His explanation sounded convincing, but I took it on trust. Is this
not
>>a grave artistic drawback?
>
>No. Pollock's work doesn't need Hughes.
I agree. And by not titling his works except by numbers Pollock was
saying it no longer needed Pollock either.
>>Who do you trust? If I paint two copies of a
>>work: a ragged white circle with a bright yellow centre. I call
>>one "Fried Egg" and the other "Ox-eye Daisy". Would you read the two
>>paintings appropriately?
>
>What do you mean 'appropriately'?
With reference to the "clues" (which might be completely misleading)
suggested by their titles.
>>The "expressive" theory of art. Pure romanticism. What does a Mozart
>>Piano Concerto express? Careful there.
>
>Art is expressive as language is expressive as the way I drive my car
>is expressive as a punch in the face is expressive. Expression is
>innate to any human action.
Here I have to disagree. Language can express meaning. Art has no
meaning to express (in the sense that it is *impossible* to translate
the "meaning" of a work of art, even poetry, into words). The "meaning"
of art is its capacity to evoke certain physiological responses in a
listener or viewer by quite distinct *technical* means. I believe that
it would be possible, using scientific experiments, to correlate
individual technical devices with predictable responses in the spectator
or auditor of art. The most trivial normal example of this is that
certain rhythms will tend to make humans tap their feet. This response
is triggered involuntarily, I would say. The task of the critic is to
try and correlate the "effects" of art with their evoked responses. Of
course its not easy to do this. The important thing about all this is
that it's not the wish of the artist, or his sincerity, or his anger,
love, expression, or any mental intent that produces these responses,
but the work of art itself as a *technical* artefact. A great artist is
better at divining what technical means produce what responses than a
mediocre one. But in the end, the artist's psychology is irrelevant. So
you can say goodbye to Tchaikovsky's gayness, Pollock's Jewishness or
any other red herring in the way of artistic production . All that
matters is that they are in control of their material.
The "rules" of art follow from our nature as human beings - but the way
you drive your car is, one would hope, governed by social & legal rules,
which operate to restrict your "expression". And while you can produce,
deliberately, an "expressive" walk, most of your walking is unconscious.
If you had to consider how your walk expressed something all the time,
you'd trip yourself. If you're talking about
innate qualities of expression, you are then in the quandary of
distinguishing art from any other human
activity.
>>Art is about *effect*. The importance of a work of art
>>is: what is the artist trying to do - how well did he succeed and last
>>but not least how does it grab me?
>
>The first two are only important if you feel the need to be a critic
>and, godlike, bestow Validity on other people's work. The last one is
>the only one that matters to me.
But a real artist welcomes criticism . What makes you think that an
artist is worth more than the beneficiary of his work, to whom he has
*offered* his work? Isn't criticism a perfectly honourable contribution?
Art is human collaboration at its finest, a love affair of the mind,
nothing godlike about it. You're not curious about the nature of your
responses and what provokes them?
>>Are all the stylistic features there?
>
>What do you mean by the last sentence?
> tb
I'll stick my neck out, and say that for anyone who has the time and the
money, there is a great project in store for any lover of Jazz, and that
is to demonstrate that certain so-called Jazz musicians *cannot* be Jazz
musicians, because the technical devices they employ in their music are
incompatible with real Jazz, which I think may prove to be quite
narrowly definable. This is not a value judgement, but an act of
stylistic discrimination. Trying to define what actually constitutes a
piece of Jazz might be profitable.
I seem to see myself prostrate & alone under the guillotine on this one.
And may I apologise for referring to artists as "he" all the time, but I
find the expression "he/she" doesn't come naturally. My fault.
Cheers,
Phil Wilson
Anglesey
N. Wales
UK
Tom Walls
>
This is not a value judgement, but an act of
>stylistic discrimination. Trying to define what actually constitutes a
>piece of Jazz might be profitable.
>I seem to see myself prostrate & alone under the guillotine on this one.
>
Jazz contains a multitude of styles, but IMHO it isn't a style: it's a manner
in which to approach self-expression with music.
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/zeus/
no...@webtv.net
This just in:
Presidential candidates George W. Bush and Al Gore both agreed to
support pending legislation requiring that all artists must be licensed
and that the titling of paintings be mandatory.
Third World candidate Ralph Nader has declared that in his opinion
free-for-all and deregulated art production "just has not been working".
The good fight as seen by all three candidates is against the anarchy
which now prevails.
"Makes this country look weak and wimpy".
"The one thing that this great country of our cannot afford is anarchy
in the arts".
"Without exclusionary rules, regulations and requirements, America will
be plunged into a dark and unenlightened age of chaos".
"Vote, vote often, vote now" was the rallying cry heard in all camps.
"No more fuzzy art. No more commie punk titles. Get with the program
.. or get out.!!"
Get it?
Todd Bishop
wrote:
>
>
>"Todd Bishop" <tb...@uswest.net> wrote in message
>news:39f49f9b...@news.uswest.net...
>On Sun, 22 Oct 2000 22:09:28 GMT, Philstein <gerr...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>>> If visual consensus over the meaning of "abstraction" existed,
>>>Robert Hughes would not have had to spend a long time explaining a
>>>Jackson Pollock, it would have been obvious. And in any case, how does
>>>*he* know?
>>>His explanation sounded convincing, but I took it on trust. Is this
>not
>>>a grave artistic drawback?
>>
>>No. Pollock's work doesn't need Hughes.
>
>
>I agree. And by not titling his works except by numbers Pollock was
>saying it no longer needed Pollock either.
I'm not sure what you're talking about- Pollock titled paintings
throughout his career, even during periods when he was giving a lot of
them numbers.
>
>>>Who do you trust? If I paint two copies of a
>>>work: a ragged white circle with a bright yellow centre. I call
>>>one "Fried Egg" and the other "Ox-eye Daisy". Would you read the two
>>>paintings appropriately?
>>
>>What do you mean 'appropriately'?
>
>With reference to the "clues" (which might be completely misleading)
>suggested by their titles.
I don't see how a title can be misleading any more than a particular
brushstroke could be.
>
>>>The "expressive" theory of art. Pure romanticism. What does a Mozart
>>>Piano Concerto express? Careful there.
>>
>>Art is expressive as language is expressive as the way I drive my car
>>is expressive as a punch in the face is expressive. Expression is
>>innate to any human action.
>
>Here I have to disagree. Language can express meaning. Art has no
>meaning to express (in the sense that it is *impossible* to translate
>the "meaning" of a work of art, even poetry, into words).
Do you suppose there might be such a thing as nonverbal meaning?
The "meaning"
>of art is its capacity to evoke certain physiological responses in a
>listener or viewer by quite distinct *technical* means. I believe that
>it would be possible, using scientific experiments, to correlate
>individual technical devices with predictable responses in the spectator
>or auditor of art. The most trivial normal example of this is that
>certain rhythms will tend to make humans tap their feet. This response
>is triggered involuntarily, I would say. The task of the critic is to
>try and correlate the "effects" of art with their evoked responses. Of
>course its not easy to do this. The important thing about all this is
>that it's not the wish of the artist, or his sincerity, or his anger,
>love, expression, or any mental intent that produces these responses,
>but the work of art itself as a *technical* artefact. A great artist is
>better at divining what technical means produce what responses than a
>mediocre one.
You're describing Steven Spielberg. Great artists are not merely
masters of manipulation.
>But in the end, the artist's psychology is irrelevant. So
>you can say goodbye to Tchaikovsky's gayness, Pollock's Jewishness
Waitaminit- Pollock's *Jewishness*? You're joking, right?
or
>any other red herring in the way of artistic production . All that
>matters is that they are in control of their material.
Actually, all that matters is the result. What happens in the studio
may be interesting to know about, but in the end the piece has to
stand on its own. So an artist who has less than stellar technical
skills, but knows when he has stumbled upon something good is going to
produce quality work. See Robert Rauschenberg.
>
>The "rules" of art follow from our nature as human beings - but the way
>you drive your car is, one would hope, governed by social & legal rules,
>which operate to restrict your "expression". And while you can produce,
>deliberately, an "expressive" walk, most of your walking is unconscious.
I'm saying that your walk is automatically expressive. And I see
you're not familiar with the methods of the surrealists.
>If you had to consider how your walk expressed something all the time,
>you'd trip yourself.
Improvisors have this problem (in relation to their music) all the
time. What they strive for is to play music as naturally as they walk.
>If you're talking about
>innate qualities of expression, you are then in the quandary of
>distinguishing art from any other human
>activity.
Art is just a saturated form of ordinary human expression.
>
>>>Art is about *effect*. The importance of a work of art
>>>is: what is the artist trying to do - how well did he succeed and last
>>>but not least how does it grab me?
>>
>>The first two are only important if you feel the need to be a critic
>>and, godlike, bestow Validity on other people's work. The last one is
>>the only one that matters to me.
>
>But a real artist welcomes criticism .
I would feel that way too, if I were a critic.
>What makes you think that an
>artist is worth more than the beneficiary of his work, to whom he has
>*offered* his work?
I didn't say that I thought that.
>Isn't criticism a perfectly honourable contribution?
Sure; it's just useless to the artists.
>Art is human collaboration at its finest, a love affair of the mind,
>nothing godlike about it. You're not curious about the nature of your
>responses and what provokes them?
>
>>>Are all the stylistic features there?
>>
>>What do you mean by the last sentence?
>> tb
>
>I'll stick my neck out, and say that for anyone who has the time and the
>money, there is a great project in store for any lover of Jazz, and that
>is to demonstrate that certain so-called Jazz musicians
>*cannot* be Jazz
>musicians, because the technical devices they employ in their music are
>incompatible with real Jazz,
People have been trying to do this since the 1920's. I'd say it's a
lost cause. Musicians are not going to let you tell them how to play.
which I think may prove to be quite
>narrowly definable. This is not a value judgement, but an act of
>stylistic discrimination. Trying to define what actually constitutes a
>piece of Jazz might be profitable.
Why? It's all music, right?
tb
>I seem to see myself prostrate & alone under the guillotine on this one.
>
>And may I apologise for referring to artists as "he" all the time, but I
>find the expression "he/she" doesn't come naturally. My fault.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Phil Wilson
>Anglesey
>N. Wales
>UK
>
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
Todd Bishop
http://www.originarts.com/flatland
eela...@hotmail.com
word here is 'referenced' to assume the titles are meant to be
anything other than a point of reference is ... well they've already
talked about that ...
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
no...@webtv.net
Richard Thurston imagines that I viewed Thomas Ziorjen artworks as
"thumbnail sketches on a computer screen".
Ha, ha.!!
I haven't got a computer.!! Got WebTV.
I viewed the paintings and collages on a 30" Sony screen and saw them at
life-size ... 12"x12".
Why the stupid assumptions, Richard? Your ignorance ... obviously ...
has no relation whatever to my reality.
In other words ... I know what I see but you don't even know what I'm
looking at.
But ... you idiot ... you spout as though you do.
Amazing.!!
no...@webtv.net
Unwilling or unable to focus on the issue ... Jazz & paintings & labels
.. that well-known idiot-about-town ... Richard Thurston ... feeling
compelled to make it personal ... wrote in challenge:
"So let's imagine a much younger Norton Shawn"....
Okay ... "Idiot" ... let's put on the gloves.
"... visiting the Guggenheim or MOMA and, face to face with Robert
Motherwell's large and beatiful abstractions...."
Wrong, again ... "Idiot".
They're not all large ... and beauty's in the eye of the beholder. And
.. before any of the numbered series of paintings known as Elegy to the
Spanish Republic were shown at any museums ... I saw the earliest of
them exhibited at the Kootz Gallery in New York in December, 1949.
"... utters (based merely on an observation of the work and nothng
else), "What a moving tribute to the Republican side, losers to the
Fascist in the Spanish Civil War."
Wrong, wrong, wrong again ... "Idiot". Now you're making lies based on
assumptions.
What a fool you are ... thinking that you know what I see and what I
think. I never "uttered" that or anything of the kind. Nor would I.
And you should know it.
In December of 1949 ... I was impressed by Motherwell's paintings ...
the broadly imaged graphic quality of them in particular. Sam Kootz
gave me his address and I sought him out. A very open fellow. A
regular guy. Eleven years older than myself ... he had a good attitude
and was able to speak his mind with no hesitation. We met many times at
galleries, museums, the Cedar Bar, and at other artist's studios ... and
always talked.
The Guernica. It had been on museum exhibit in New York for many years
by that period and all museum-goers knew it. At about 12'x25' it was
unmistakable and very impressive. It had its own room in New York's
Museum of Modern Art and occupied a wall specially built for it. It
became a shrine.
Monumental ... the stone in many an artist's road of that era was
Picasso's Guernica.
Like many others ... Motherwell wanted to paint a Guernica of his own.
He found his main chance in serendipity ... through his acquaintance
with Harold Rosenberg. As big things can start with little ones so did
Motherwell's series here. Rosenberg had called upon him to decorate a
poem of his to be published in a little magazine.
All of Motherwell's large works were enlargements of smaller paintings
and those were always based on sketches. His invariable technique was
to begin with scribbles ... warming-up exercises ... and then trying to
see what forms he could find inside those by straightening out some of
the curves. Motherwell saw the opportunity to respond to Rosenberg's
request by pursuing what he saw and most admired in Picasso's mastery
.. the skillful balancing of curves and lines. It was with this
graphic exercise in mnd that the Elegies Series began. The title had
been inspired by a book of poetry ... the Duinese Elegies of Rainer
Maria Rilke ... which appeared in English translation during the 1930's.
While I took Motherwell at his word for the political basis of the
Series title ... I took it as his verbally-expressed feelng ... but with
a grain of salt. I saw the titling as arbitrary and opportunistic.
There was a lot of left-wing sentiment in the New York air and
Motherwell cashed in on it. There are hundreds of paintings in the
series ... and even more sketches. They are perfect middlebrow
abstractions and sold marvellously well ... with prices always rising.
As the basic model for Motherwell's painting factory ... the Elegies to
the Spanish Republic brought in millions of dollars for Motherwell and
his dealers. Not bad.!!
God bless you,Bob but you did strike it rich.!!
At no time was I able to see any correlation between the titles and the
painting's contents. They are abstract paintings. They would have been
the same paintings ... making exactly the same visual impacts ... had
they had other titles or no titles at all.
Picasso did not make abstract paintings. The title "Guernica" therefore
truly fit the painting which ... as an identifying label ... it
represented.
Thurston: Give it up, "Idiot". When it comes to duking it out in:re
NewYork art history ... you're no contender. But with your imagination,
"Idiot" ...perhaps you'd be more at home writing little plays. Or
perhaps not. You weren't too successful at this one.
Quintessentially yours,
eela...@hotmail.com
Firstly, it is quite obvious that you are subcribed to webtv. There
is no way a 30" Sony television is going to get the same resolution
and color depth as a monitor that is running 1024 by 768 using 32 bit
True Color. Do yourself a favour, and stop trying to view art with
your current setup. It will only continue to frustrate you, and you
may very well end up humiliating yourself in another thread.
cheers
Bruce LeClaire
"That just in" was a nice piece of satire, and timely too. I got a
chuckle out of it anyways, thanks.
--Bruce
Richard Thurston
> norton shawn
>
> . .. .. .. ..
>
>
image full size in no way is comparable to viewing an actual work for
the very same reasons I've already mentioned.
However, as always, I bow to your superior knowledge of things stupid
and idiotic.
--
Richard Thurston
Philstein
tb...@uswest.net (Todd Bishop) wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 07:39:33 GMT, Philstein <gerr...@my-deja.com>
> I'm not sure what you're talking about- Pollock titled paintings
> throughout his career, even during periods when he was giving a lot of
> them numbers.
OK, but the titles are labels. Nothing more
> >
> >>>Who do you trust? If I paint two copies of a
> >>>work: a ragged white circle with a bright yellow centre. I call
> >>>one "Fried Egg" and the other "Ox-eye Daisy". Would you read the
two
> >>>paintings appropriately?
> >>
> >>What do you mean 'appropriately'?
> >
> >With reference to the "clues" (which might be completely misleading)
> >suggested by their titles.
>
> I don't see how a title can be misleading any more than a particular
> brushstroke could be.
It's only misleading if the viewer thinks he/she finds something in the
work that's not there as a result of the title. Otherwise it's just
irrelevant.
> >
> >>>The "expressive" theory of art. Pure romanticism. What does a
Mozart
> >>>Piano Concerto express? Careful there.
> >>
> >>Art is expressive as language is expressive as the way I drive my
car
> >>is expressive as a punch in the face is expressive. Expression is
> >>innate to any human action.
> >
> >Here I have to disagree. Language can express meaning. Art has no
> >meaning to express (in the sense that it is *impossible* to translate
> >the "meaning" of a work of art, even poetry, into words).
>
> Do you suppose there might be such a thing as nonverbal meaning?
No. All meanings are culturally agreed and can be converted into verbal
form. A sign has no meaning in itself whether it's a picture or a word.
One has to be careful not to assume too much. Take a picture of a man.
It's on the front of a gentleman's toilet. The actual meaning of the
sign in this case is more than just "man", because of the expectation of
the viewer. In an anthropological textbook the same sign could have a
completely different meaning. You can also have meaningless word
formations. Even the juxtaposition of two images or sounds as parody
depends on a previous expectation of the viewer or hearer being
"frustrated".
But if your talking about *significance* i.e. *how much* this "means" to
me, this is impossible to express in words, as all lovers know.
> >The important thing about all this is
> >that it's not the wish of the artist, or his sincerity, or his anger,
> >love, expression, or any mental intent that produces these responses,
> >but the work of art itself as a *technical* artefact. A great artist
> >is better at divining what technical means produce what responses
> >than a mediocre one.
> You're describing Steven Spielberg. Great artists are not merely
> masters of manipulation.
Oh yes, that is all they are. But Spielberg is not great to me, because
I don't think that he has correctly assessed the impact of his own work
on himself before offering it to the public. He may, for all I know,
assume that his sentimental view of childhood, his sense of social
justice, his passion for Jewish issues - his "caring" in other words,
are themselves enough to justify
his artistic work. But art is completely "amoral". An artist presents
his work, not as a social project to win favour, but as an incitement to
erotic mental and bodily self-enjoyment (which has nothing directly to
do with masturbation, for the more literal anong us). This is not to
downgrade the social virtues in the correct place, of course (I am
strongly socially concerned myself). But in the end of the day, what I
look for from art is a sense of being alive, dance, the erotic charge -
a passion for living, not a political manifesto. Ecstasy in other words.
Art is by its nature, subversive of *any* society, I'm pleased to say.
> >But in the end, the artist's psychology is irrelevant. So
> >you can say goodbye to Tchaikovsky's gayness, Pollock's Jewishness
> Waitaminit- Pollock's *Jewishness*? You're joking, right?
Hymie Pollock, the pavement artist :-) Sorry, I know nothing about
Pollock save a few scraps, and seemed to remember that he was a Jewish
Pollock from Poland. I have no interest in the biography of artists at
all, save that it sheds light on what they want to do with their work,
and the effects they are striving for so I can judge whether they were
successful. So I was very wrong. Sorry.
> or
> >any other red herring in the way of artistic production . All that
> >matters is that they are in control of their material.
>
> Actually, all that matters is the result. What happens in the studio
> may be interesting to know about, but in the end the piece has to
> stand on its own. So an artist who has less than stellar technical
> skills, but knows when he has stumbled upon something good is going to
> produce quality work. See Robert Rauschenberg.
>
> >
> >The "rules" of art follow from our nature as human beings - but the
way
> >you drive your car is, one would hope, governed by social & legal
rules,
> >which operate to restrict your "expression". And while you can
produce,
> >deliberately, an "expressive" walk, most of your walking is
unconscious.
> I'm saying that your walk is automatically expressive. And I see
> you're not familiar with the methods of the surrealists.
All I think it's expressive of is my desire not to fall over, and to get
from A to B. What else could it express? My personality? All that is '
is a collection of choices, which are event-dependent. There is no me to
express. All that I am is a socially-conditioned animal, just like
everybody else. What is interesting is why animals prefer one thing or
another. Hence aesthetics. And anyway, "all that matters is the result"
as you say elsewhere in this post, so I don't feel the need to know
their methods. I do know a lot of their work, and am not particularly
impressed by any of it. But that's life.
> >If you had to consider how your walk expressed something all the
time,
> >you'd trip yourself.
>
> Improvisors have this problem (in relation to their music) all the
> time. What they strive for is to play music as naturally as they walk.
But you still have to explain why they want to play naturally for other
people. I haven't met a player yet that didn't show some interest in the
responses of his audience, not just how much they were willing to pay to
see, listen etc.
> >If you're talking about
> >innate qualities of expression, you are then in the quandary of
> >distinguishing art from any other human
> >activity.
>
> Art is just a saturated form of ordinary human expression.
I don't know what that could mean.
> >
> >>>Art is about *effect*. The importance of a work of art
> >>>is: what is the artist trying to do - how well did he succeed and
last
> >>>but not least how does it grab me?
> >>
> >>The first two are only important if you feel the need to be a critic
> >>and, godlike, bestow Validity on other people's work. The last one
is
> >>the only one that matters to me.
> >
> >But a real artist welcomes criticism .
>
> I would feel that way too, if I were a critic.
>
> >What makes you think that an
> >artist is worth more than the beneficiary of his work, to whom he has
> >*offered* his work?
>
> I didn't say that I thought that.
That capital V at Validity. The risk of being an artist is that people
might think your work is worthless. They are perfectly within their
rights to think this. If an artist doesn't want to run that risk, they
should keep their art to themselves and revel in it. Somehow I think
that most artists would find that less than satisfactory.
> >Isn't criticism a perfectly honourable contribution?
> Sure; it's just useless to the artists.
No, some artists need to find out how to make better art. Like the young
chap who expressed his need to know whether people appreciated his work,
on rec.music.classical yesterday, and whether they could help him
improve it. Why is this such an unwelcome concept to you?
> >Art is human collaboration at its finest, a love affair of the mind,
> >nothing godlike about it. You're not curious about the nature of
your
> >responses and what provokes them?
> >
> >>>Are all the stylistic features there?
> >>
> >>What do you mean by the last sentence?
> >> tb
> >
> >I'll stick my neck out, and say that for anyone who has the time and
the
> >money, there is a great project in store for any lover of Jazz, and
that
> >is to demonstrate that certain so-called Jazz musicians
> >*cannot* be Jazz
> >musicians, because the technical devices they employ in their music
are
> >incompatible with real Jazz,
>
> People have been trying to do this since the 1920's. I'd say it's a
> lost cause. Musicians are not going to let you tell them how to play.
Sigh. Identifying the style of a piece of art & explaining how it
strikes you is not telling the artist what to do, but reporting on its
effects, perhaps helping sharpen its effectiveness. See above.
> which I think may prove to be quite
> >narrowly definable. This is not a value judgement, but an act of
> >stylistic discrimination. Trying to define what actually constitutes
a
> >piece of Jazz might be profitable.
>
> Why? It's all music, right?
Agreed. I was talking to myself there.
Cheers,
Phil Wilson
Anglesey
N. Wales
no...@webtv.net
Ricard Thurston: "Screen x 3". "That you saw a reproduction of the
image full size in no way is compatible to viewing an actual work".
Thurston -- as Todd Bishop in his second of three letters of Oct. 23rd
so delicately put it:
"What's your fucking point?"
As far as I know -- nobody here on rbn but Thomas Ziorjen -- the artist
himself -- saw anything but a computer-sent image of the art. TZ
presented the images to us as an "online portfolio". What we've got
here is a virtual gallery showing.
TZ's images came onscreen at about 4"x4" -- which were links to the
12"x12" blowups I was blessed with seeing.
Thurston wrote: "For you to determine the absolute success (or failure)
of a painting based on viewing a thumbnail on your computer screen is
unfair".
1. I didn't determine anything. If Thurston cries "unfair" -- let him
cry it to the artist who put the images on the screen. Like everyone
else here -- I'm just an audience to TZ's art. None of us here -- Fool
Thurston included -- saw anything different than what was shown.
2. repeat. "I view the paintings and collages on a 30" Sony screen and
saw them at life-size ... 12"x12"."
What could be better than that?
RT: "The thumbnail provides a bit of the color and composition but
nothing of the surface or and texture or scale of a work".
Wrong again, RT. The images that TZ sent out to us provide as much
surface and texture as an e-mailed photograph will allow. I see as much
as TZ sent ... including ... for instance ... the shadow on the wall
beneath Lacy II, Ornette, Rollins, etc., and wherever else they
appeared.
And as for scale -- I'm looking at an image on a screen. It's actually
12"x12" in realsize measure -- exactly the same as what the artist made
and what the artist looks at. And there's a room's white wall behind
the screen. I'm seeing the exact same scale in my room that the artist
sees in his studio.
I'm seeing -- therefore -- the art in realsize and in realscale. What
could be better than that? And -- I never took issue with any of the
art. I am involved here in a discussion as to the validity of the art's
labels. The art is fine -- unto itself. It's the literary referencing
of it that's in question. And that's what was being discussed. And --
the discussion was based on images that are very much the same to all of
us who've seen them -- no matter what the size or shape of the screen --
and no matter what server or IPS.
I do not understand the jibes of this cretinous Richard Thurston. The
idiot has no interest in the issues involved -- Jazz & paintings &
titles -- but only seeks to stir up personal argument. And with no
logic to his rants or raves.!! A natural-born troublemaker -- he seems
to delight his impoverished mind with the stirring up of trouble where
there's no need to. What a waste of time he is.
Richard Thurston
<28422-39...@storefull-146.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
no...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> Ricard Thurston: "Screen x 3". "That you saw a reproduction of
the
> image full size in no way is compatible to viewing an actual
screen and
> saw them at life-size ... 12"x12"."
>
> ---
> norton shawn
>
> . .. .. .. ..
>
>
No rant. No rave.
It is up to the artist to choose what he paints. It is up to the artist to
call his creation whatever he wants.
It is up to the artist to use anything or nothing as inspiration for his
work.
This fellow has painted a suite of paintings inspired by and in
reaction to music from musicians he admires. Jazz musicians as
it turns out.
For whatever reason you cannot make the connection between the
paintings (full scale and in color on WebTV, the next best thing to
being there) and their titles. You disapprove. You don't see a
connection.
The real question is "why blame the artist for your own lack of
imagination?"
no...@webtv.net
THIS JUST IN:
Jesse Jackson proclaims the mandate to be for paintings of all colors.
"I love all my colors. Black, White, Green, Red, Yellow. Paint is for
the People. Let a Great Rainbow prevail".
Pat Buchanan countered: "Brother Jesse means no harm. No harm at all.
But we must all ... all of us ... remember our good Christian titles for
the preservation of the moral decency of this Great Country of ours.
Besides ... it's the Law".
Janet Reno: "It does seem to be the law that the American People must
paint ... but I am asking that a Special Council be appointed to ensure
that the Law is being administered correctly".
Richard Thurston
no...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> >
> Janet Reno: "It does seem to be the law that the American People must
> paint ... but I am asking that a Special Council be appointed to
ensure
> that the Law is being administered correctly".
>
> ---
> norton shawn
>
> . .. .. .. ..
>
>
for the appointees?
no...@webtv.net
Richard Thurston's persistent mud-slinging is a bore.
And now ... back to the show.
Todd Bishop
wrote:
>In article <39f5ddee...@news.uswest.net>,
> tb...@uswest.net (Todd Bishop) wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 07:39:33 GMT, Philstein <gerr...@my-deja.com>
>
>> I'm not sure what you're talking about- Pollock titled paintings
>> throughout his career, even during periods when he was giving a lot of
>> them numbers.
>
>OK, but the titles are labels. Nothing more
If you can convince the *artists* of this fact, you'll be in business.
As it is, they're still rampantly titling their abstract works, in
their ignorance.
snip
>
>> >
>> >>>The "expressive" theory of art. Pure romanticism. What does a
>Mozart
>> >>>Piano Concerto express? Careful there.
>> >>
>> >>Art is expressive as language is expressive as the way I drive my
>car
>> >>is expressive as a punch in the face is expressive. Expression is
>> >>innate to any human action.
>> >
>> >Here I have to disagree. Language can express meaning. Art has no
>> >meaning to express (in the sense that it is *impossible* to translate
>> >the "meaning" of a work of art, even poetry, into words).
>>
>> Do you suppose there might be such a thing as nonverbal meaning?
>
>No. All meanings are culturally agreed and can be converted into verbal
>form. A sign has no meaning in itself whether it's a picture or a word.
>One has to be careful not to assume too much. Take a picture of a man.
>It's on the front of a gentleman's toilet. The actual meaning of the
>sign in this case is more than just "man", because of the expectation of
>the viewer. In an anthropological textbook the same sign could have a
>completely different meaning. You can also have meaningless word
>formations. Even the juxtaposition of two images or sounds as parody
>depends on a previous expectation of the viewer or hearer being
>"frustrated".
>
>But if your talking about *significance* i.e. *how much* this "means" to
>me, this is impossible to express in words, as all lovers know.
That's certainly not the kind of meaning I'm talking about.
You seem to define meaning as something crystalline- exactly
quantifiable, precisely reproduceable and universal- for me it's much
more fuzzy.
>
>> >The important thing about all this is
>> >that it's not the wish of the artist, or his sincerity, or his anger,
>> >love, expression, or any mental intent that produces these responses,
>> >but the work of art itself as a *technical* artefact. A great artist
>> >is better at divining what technical means produce what responses
>> >than a mediocre one.
>
>> You're describing Steven Spielberg. Great artists are not merely
>> masters of manipulation.
>
>Oh yes, that is all they are. But Spielberg is not great to me, because
>I don't think that he has correctly assessed the impact of his own work
>on himself before offering it to the public. He may, for all I know,
>assume that his sentimental view of childhood, his sense of social
>justice, his passion for Jewish issues - his "caring" in other words,
>are themselves enough to justify
>his artistic work. But art is completely "amoral". An artist presents
>his work, not as a social project to win favour, but as an incitement to
>erotic mental and bodily self-enjoyment (which has nothing directly to
>do with masturbation, for the more literal anong us). This is not to
>downgrade the social virtues in the correct place, of course (I am
>strongly socially concerned myself). But in the end of the day, what I
>look for from art is a sense of being alive, dance, the erotic charge -
>a passion for living, not a political manifesto. Ecstasy in other words.
>Art is by its nature, subversive of *any* society, I'm pleased to say.
True, but very old news. The 'social virtues' as you quaintly put it
are a total nonissue for the artists I know.
>
>
>> >But in the end, the artist's psychology is irrelevant. So
>> >you can say goodbye to Tchaikovsky's gayness, Pollock's Jewishness
>
>> Waitaminit- Pollock's *Jewishness*? You're joking, right?
>
>Hymie Pollock, the pavement artist :-) Sorry, I know nothing about
>Pollock save a few scraps, and seemed to remember that he was a Jewish
>Pollock from Poland. I have no interest in the biography of artists at
>all, save that it sheds light on what they want to do with their work,
>and the effects they are striving for so I can judge whether they were
>successful. So I was very wrong. Sorry.
It's not an easy biographical detail to miss, if you've read much
about him. You must have a mighty filter against that kind of thing.
;-)
>
>> or
>> >any other red herring in the way of artistic production . All that
>> >matters is that they are in control of their material.
>>
>> Actually, all that matters is the result. What happens in the studio
>> may be interesting to know about, but in the end the piece has to
>> stand on its own. So an artist who has less than stellar technical
>> skills, but knows when he has stumbled upon something good is going to
>> produce quality work. See Robert Rauschenberg.
>>
>> >
>> >The "rules" of art follow from our nature as human beings - but the
>way
>> >you drive your car is, one would hope, governed by social & legal
>rules,
>> >which operate to restrict your "expression". And while you can
>produce,
>> >deliberately, an "expressive" walk, most of your walking is
>unconscious.
>
>> I'm saying that your walk is automatically expressive. And I see
>> you're not familiar with the methods of the surrealists.
I mentioned the surrealists because they were all about devising
methods of working that would sidestep conscious decision. They were a
major influence on the abstract expressionists, and a lot of other
artists that came after them.
>
>All I think it's expressive of is my desire not to fall over, and to get
>from A to B. What else could it express? My personality? All that is '
>is a collection of choices, which are event-dependent. There is no me to
>express. All that I am is a socially-conditioned animal, just like
>everybody else. What is interesting is why animals prefer one thing or
>another. Hence aesthetics. And anyway, "all that matters is the result"
>as you say elsewhere in this post, so I don't feel the need to know
>their methods. I do know a lot of their work, and am not particularly
>impressed by any of it. But that's life.
The result is all that matters for the viewer- the artist (and some
might say the educated critic) has to be concerned with methods.
>
>> >If you had to consider how your walk expressed something all the
>time,
>> >you'd trip yourself.
>>
>> Improvisors have this problem (in relation to their music) all the
>> time. What they strive for is to play music as naturally as they walk.
>
>But you still have to explain why they want to play naturally for other
>people. I haven't met a player yet that didn't show some interest in the
>responses of his audience, not just how much they were willing to pay to
>see, listen etc.
It's gratifying to the ego to have people enjoy what you do. That has
nothing to do with *doing the music* though. It's actually a
hindrance.
>
>
>> >If you're talking about
>> >innate qualities of expression, you are then in the quandary of
>> >distinguishing art from any other human
>> >activity.
>>
>> Art is just a saturated form of ordinary human expression.
>
>I don't know what that could mean.
You were talking about the matter of distinguishing art from other
human activities. I'm saying that it's not that different at all.
>
>> >
>> >>>Art is about *effect*. The importance of a work of art
>> >>>is: what is the artist trying to do - how well did he succeed and
>last
>> >>>but not least how does it grab me?
>> >>
>> >>The first two are only important if you feel the need to be a critic
>> >>and, godlike, bestow Validity on other people's work. The last one
>is
>> >>the only one that matters to me.
>> >
>> >But a real artist welcomes criticism .
>>
>> I would feel that way too, if I were a critic.
>>
>> >What makes you think that an
>> >artist is worth more than the beneficiary of his work, to whom he has
>> >*offered* his work?
>>
>> I didn't say that I thought that.
>
>That capital V at Validity. The risk of being an artist is that people
>might think your work is worthless. They are perfectly within their
>rights to think this. If an artist doesn't want to run that risk, they
>should keep their art to themselves and revel in it. Somehow I think
>that most artists would find that less than satisfactory.
That being the case, it doesn't follow that I have to embrace my
critics and hand over the control of my work to them.
>
>> >Isn't criticism a perfectly honourable contribution?
>
>> Sure; it's just useless to the artists.
>
>No, some artists need to find out how to make better art. Like the young
>chap who expressed his need to know whether people appreciated his work,
>on rec.music.classical yesterday, and whether they could help him
>improve it. Why is this such an unwelcome concept to you?
I don't know what to tell you- once you've worked in the field awhile
and have some idea of what your goals are as an artist, other people's
criticism, advice and even praise cease to matter.
>
>> >Art is human collaboration at its finest, a love affair of the mind,
>> >nothing godlike about it. You're not curious about the nature of
>your
>> >responses and what provokes them?
>> >
>> >>>Are all the stylistic features there?
>> >>
>> >>What do you mean by the last sentence?
>> >> tb
>> >
>> >I'll stick my neck out, and say that for anyone who has the time and
>the
>> >money, there is a great project in store for any lover of Jazz, and
>that
>> >is to demonstrate that certain so-called Jazz musicians
>> >*cannot* be Jazz
>> >musicians, because the technical devices they employ in their music
>are
>> >incompatible with real Jazz,
>>
>> People have been trying to do this since the 1920's. I'd say it's a
>> lost cause. Musicians are not going to let you tell them how to play.
>
>Sigh. Identifying the style of a piece of art & explaining how it
>strikes you is not telling the artist what to do, but reporting on its
>effects, perhaps helping sharpen its effectiveness. See above.
You weren't talking about effectiveness, you were talking about
deciding who's a 'real jazz' musician and who isn't. In my opinion,
the only people qualified to make judgements like that are the
musicians themselves.
>
>> which I think may prove to be quite
>> >narrowly definable. This is not a value judgement, but an act of
>> >stylistic discrimination. Trying to define what actually constitutes
>a
>> >piece of Jazz might be profitable.
>>
>> Why? It's all music, right?
>
>Agreed. I was talking to myself there.
So then what does it matter if a certain working professional is
considered a jazz musician or not?
tb
>
>Cheers,
>
>Phil Wilson
>Anglesey
>N. Wales
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
Todd Bishop
http://www.originarts.com/flatland
no...@webtv.net
My thanks to Todd Bishop for getting this discussion back on a sane
track.
TB's mention of surrealism is a good place to again attempt a try at
defining art categories.
"Abstract" has been used as a catchall term for ALL art that isn't
obviously representative.
Surrealism ... highly symbolic ... was never abstract. It was always
representative of dreams ... of fantasies ... of visual jokes, puns, and
anagrams.
Symbols are not abstract. They are easily translatable literary
referencs.
True abstract art is devoid of literary references.
Therefore ... titles to symbolic or surrealistic art is quite
appropriate as those titles are extensions of the content of the works
to which they're attached.
The difference is like the two kinds of auto license plates available.
Ordinary license plates are assigned for identification purposes only
are clear and specific.
They are random and non-literary assemblies of numbers and letters.
Vanity license plates are not random assemblies. They are literary.
They are specific ID's inasmuch as the state DMV issuing them strives
for no duplications. But they represent names or ideas that the car's
owner has selected.
But both the usual and the vanity plates share a quality: they don't
represent the content that makes up a car.
Two otherwise identical cars with license plates in the two differing
styles will still be the same two cars. The name tags attached to them
change nothing.
A Toyota car with a license plate reading Mercedes does not make the
Toyota a Mercedes. Vanity license plates whether names or small jokes
or whatever have no affect at all on the intrinsic nature of the car.
And thus it is with titles applied to abstract paintings. They are
valid for ID purposes only.
And thus it is.
Thomas Ziorjen
> [...]
>
> Surrealism ... highly symbolic ... was never abstract. It was always
> representative of dreams ... of fantasies ... of visual jokes, puns, and
> anagrams.
Sorry Norton, your argument falls apart right there. Faulty premise based
on sloppy art history. Surrealism did have an abstract component that lead
directly to abstract expressionism. Eluard's experiments with automatic
writing, lead to Masson's automatic drawings, influencing Miro and Arp in
their abstract surrealism. But more importantly Automatic drawing leads
directly to Pollock and some of the other AbEx crew.
But hey, you were there right?
--
no...@webtv.net
I think that TZ and NS have different understandings of the concept we
call "abstract".
I see "abstract" in painting as that which is completely devoid of
literary reference or any possibility of it.
As for Pollock's roots ... it's not where he came from so much as it's
where he got to when he arrived.
and ... what he did with it when he got there.
Leo Scanlon
>As for Pollock's roots ... it's not where he came from so much as it's
>where he got to when he arrived.
>
>and ... what he did with it when he got there.
Which was...dribbling paint onto canvas, right?
Leo
Philstein
146.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
>> Surrealism ... highly symbolic ... was never abstract. It was always
>> representative of dreams ... of fantasies ... of visual jokes, puns,
and
>> anagrams.
>>
>> Symbols are not abstract. They are easily translatable literary
>> referenc(e)s.
I once overheard the following between Hymie Pollock, the pavement
artist and his wife Gloria:
H. I wanna go to the Gallery tommorow to see the Dali exhibition
G. Don't forget to take your "Complete Concordance and Compendium to
Dali's Private References"
H. But I'll be there for hours. It weighs three kilograms.
G. Don't worry, the Gallery have asked a critic to record a complete
explanation of all the private jokes, symbols, anagrams,literary
references on to tape, and you can listen to the tape for each painting
when you look at it.
H. OK
G. By the way, one of the paintings has been stolen, but it's not a
problem - the tape's still there.
H. But I want to SEE the painting.
G. Don't be ridiculous. It's all on the tape.
Cheers,
Phil Wilson
anglesey
no...@webtv.net
I'd decided to drop this thread which became so tedious... but I don't
feel satisfied that what I was trying to communicate was ever generally
understood here. So I'll try to make my thought straightforward and
simple.
Sometimes ... titles and captions have been used to provide context
through a literary device to a painting that does not have it on its
own.
Sometimes ... a title has been added to a painting as a gimmick.
A title that's made to IDENTIFY a painting in the context of others is
understandable.
But a painting that NEEDS a title to have it EXPLAINED ... is a weak
painting or one in which the artist has no confidence.
The art should speak for itself.
Richard Thurston
no...@webtv.net
Richard Thurston in response to a post which began "I'd decided to drop
this thread which became so tedious...>"
fatuously asked: "Is that a promise?"
No, Numbskull.
If you cannot correctly read the tense stated in the first word of the
snippet you presented as an implied whole ... then surely your stated
question ... as one more attempt at sabotaging an argument of some
cogency ... is but another mere lame and prissy gesture signifying
nothing but your ignorance, your impotence, and your basic dishonesty.
Unable to make intelligent response to a creditable thesis ... this
miserable cretin of a Richard Thurston snidely sneers at its author.
There is no evidence here of a counterthesis of his own.
His mother must be proud.
Richard Thurston
I did jump the gun just a bit but no one could really blame me.
Yourself excluded of course.
And yes, I have made my mother proud.
Why not save everyone a bit of wear and tear and come right out and say
that your taste was formed by exposure to a particular form of abstract
painting popular in New York City in the immediate post WWII years and
be done with it?
spin...@my-deja.com
no...@webtv.net
Why don't you just shoot me, Richard ... and get your troubles over
with?
no...@webtv.net
Thanks to spinalpap for posting RJ Hohlmer's art link.
www.jazzpainter.com.
Hohlmer's blurb reads: "... opens the door to big city street life.
Nights filled with hot Jazz and exotic perfume. Faraway beaches at
sunset. The settings are romantic and vibrant".
Well.!! I'm allergic to perfumes whether exotic or domestic ... but my
reader ... fortunately ... does not transmit attars or aromas.
Nonetheless ... "Chicago Blue" ... the art reproduced onscreen here ...
is a lot of fun.
Heartily recommended. It's delightful.