Schoenberg as painter
Ian Pace
sorts of verdicts are of the more perceptive art critics on Schoenberg's
paintings and drawings (which can be viewed at
http://www.usc.edu/isd/archives/schoenberg/painting/painting.htm )?
Especially from those who are experts on Expressionist art. Anyone have any
idea of what the type of critical consensus is these days? Would his
reputation as a painter be as high were he not also known as a seminally
important composer. I'm very taken by his paintings, but I'm interested in
wider perspectives on this.
Ian
david...@aol.com
Ian, the most obvious place to start is the catalogues of the
exhibitions listed at the URL you've provided. (A couple of years ago
there was a thread here about a Schoenberg-Kandinsky exhibit in NYC.)
-david gable
Ian Pace
<david...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1147991032....@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ian, the most obvious place to start is the catalogues of the
> exhibitions listed at the URL you've provided. (A couple of years ago
> there was a thread here about a Schoenberg-Kandinsky exhibit in NYC.)
>
more detached viewpoints.
Ian
Peter T. Daniels
Then go to the local newspapers for _reviews_ of the exhibits.
(But why do you think AS is "highly regarded" by art critics?)
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Ian Pace
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:446CFF...@worldnet.att.net...
seem highly regarded by lovers of Schoenberg's music, though.
I'm of course also interested in what posters to r.m.c.r., r.m.c.c., r.m.c.
think of the paintings as well.
Ian
jimj
paintings
seem highly regarded by lovers of Schoenberg's music, though>
In New York City I have ONLY seen mention of Schoenberg's
painting as "the composer also painted." Occasionally
there are retrospectives done of his painting, but I never
went, though I have seen photos (not impressed). I
remember vaguely that the venues were basically places
that aren't known for their art collections so much as
.... the southern Austrian cultural exchange encouragement
office of the Northern Croatian Business Junior League...
type of thing, and reviews have ranged from polite
to pretentious ("..... is illuminating in respect of ...... ").
Now, had he been American-born, I can guarantee you
the critics would find better things to say.
At the moment there is a retrospective exhibit of
Edvard Munch's paintings. Not at a gallery, not
at a museum, but at "Scandinavian House," where
it succeeds an exhibit of photos of Greta Garbo
through the ages (well.......... up to the retirement).
This is the kind of context I recall Schoenberg
being exhibited in, which is not to say it's bad,
since it's the type of space Munch is exhibited
in.
jimj
Steven de Mena
"Ian Pace" <i...@ianpace.com> wrote in message
news:DR5bg.1002$ll....@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
I like the playing card designs. Didn't someone sell replicas of those at
one time?
I see the majority of the paintings are owned by Belmont Music Publishers.
Is that his family?
Steve
david...@aol.com
"At the moment there is a retrospective exhibit of Edvard Munch's
paintings. Not at a gallery, not at a museum, but at 'Scandinavian
House'"
Not to mention the Munch show at MOMA. (I was at MOMA a few weeks ago,
but not to see Munch.)
-david gable
jimj
This I didn't know about. You mean a special
Munch exhibit?
<(I was at MOMA a few weeks ago,
but not to see Munch.) >
I was pretty shocked at the long-awaited new improved
second reopening in the past 25 years. It doesn't
seem to have any more space or to be any improvement
except in the size of the names of the patron families
on galleries' walls.
I couldn't find Guernica.
jimj
Paul Ilechko
> At the moment there is a retrospective exhibit of
> Edvard Munch's paintings.
Perhaps the most overrated painter of all time.
Matthew B. Tepper
following letters to be typed in
news:vIGdnU8fSfhniPDZ...@comcast.com:
> I like the playing card designs. Didn't someone sell replicas of those
> at one time?
If so, I might be interested. I remember reading the Schoenberg Centenary
article in High Fidelity back in 1974, which mentioned that he had designed
his own decks.
> I see the majority of the paintings are owned by Belmont Music
> Publishers. Is that his family?
Yes. Translate "Belmont" from French to German. ;--)
Let me know if you'd like an introduction to the family members I
occasionally correspond with.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made. ~ FDR (attrib.)
david...@aol.com
Yes:
http://www.moma.org/exhibitions/2006/Munch.html
-david gable
david...@aol.com
Mr. Ilechko said of Munch:
"Perhaps the most overrated painter of all time."
Whom d'you like?
-david gable
david...@aol.com
"it's the type of space Munch is exhibited in."
What painters besides Munch do you like?
-david gable
John Wiser
"Paul Ilechko" wrote
The competition for this distinction is astonishingly intense.
JDW
Raymond Hall
http://www.schoenberg.at/6_archiv/paintings/works/paintings_e.htm
Especially absorbing from the above link are four extracts from several of
his contemporaries on Schoenberg's visual art. Detailed analysis can be
found here.
For myself, I find at first glance, an amateur painter of exceptional
promise, unskilled technically, but possessing a sense of balance, and with
a gift for remarkable background illumination and luminosity, and with his
balance not merely confined to the forms, but to the use of colour as well.
I find some of his still lifes quite exceptional.
Ray H
Taree
jimj
Hence his being exhibited at Scandinavia House,
after they took down the photos of Greta Garbo.
I don't think one can place Schoenberg The Painter
above Munch.
jimj
jimj
"it's the type of space Munch is exhibited in."
What painters besides Munch do you like? >
I don't care much for Munch.
Big faves are Seurrat and Vermeer and
Jackson Pollack. And Edward Hopper.
I have very dull taste in painting. Show
me technique. I don't give a rat's *@(
about what critics claim it all means.
jimj
jimj
The competition for this distinction is astonishingly intense. >
Not really. Andy Warhol won that prize hands down
when the resale market for his works crashed. You can
hype a person up only so much.
jimj
Allen
Technique? I'll grant you Seurat and Vermeer--but _Pollack_? I get
dizzy on stepladders; does this prevent me from being an artist?
Allen
Alan Cooper
>I couldn't find Guernica.
And you won't, because it was returned to Spain more than 20 years
ago. You'll find it at the Queen Sofia Museum in Madrid, although the
Basques would like to have it installed in Bilbao instead.
AC
Alan Cooper
I guess you didn't notice the auction price achieved about a month ago
by the Campbell's Soup can with the torn label, or the portrait of a
drag queen that just sold for more more than three times its
pre-auction estimate (900K > 3.2M). Doesn't sound like a crash to me,
regardless of what you think of the quality of the work.
AC
Richar...@gmail.com
though the self-portraits have a definite impact and the picture of
Mahler's funeral is - as you'd guess - very moving.
When I saw the oil paintings at an exhibition I was taken with how
small and concentrated they are.
Peter T. Daniels
"Guernica" was returned to Spain, in accordance with Picasso's wishes,
shortly after the fall of Franco. That's what, 30 years ago now?
I can't afford to visit the new MoMA -- $20 flat admission fee, and more
for the blockbusters.
Peter T. Daniels
Have you ever actually seen a Warhol show? The Art Institute of Chicago
mounted a superb retrospective -- that sadly turned into a memorial --
showing that he far transcended the hype and really did know how to make
art.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> jimj wrote:
> > <jimj writes:
> > "it's the type of space Munch is exhibited in."
> > What painters besides Munch do you like? >
> >
> > I don't care much for Munch.
> > Big faves are Seurrat and Vermeer and
> > Jackson Pollack. And Edward Hopper.
> > I have very dull taste in painting. Show
> > me technique. I don't give a rat's *@(
> > about what critics claim it all means.
> dizzy on stepladders; does this prevent me from being an artist?
> Allen
What do stepladders have to do with Pollack? Have you never seen the
film(s) of him working? Every splash and dash was carefully planned --
only the minute details were left to stochastics.
Peter T. Daniels
Schoenberg's paintings aren't any more or less interesting than George
Gershwin's.
In your initial posting, you wrote, "Would his reputation as a painter
be as high were he not also known as a seminally important composer[?]"
That means you think his reputation as a painter is fairly high.
Larry Rinkel
>
> I can't afford to visit the new MoMA -- $20 flat admission fee, and more
> for the blockbusters.
And free for everybody on Fridays from 4-8 pm. I am not aware of any current
surcharge for "blockbusters," though I recall that having been the case for
the Picasso/Matisse show in Queens 3-4 years ago, while the Manhattan site
was being renovated.
david...@aol.com
"Have you ever actually seen a Warhol show?"
I have. The same one you saw in Chicago, and I'm still not convinced.
-david gable
Paul Ilechko
Depending on who you work for, many companies have corporate memberships
that their employees don't always know about. I always get in free.
Paul Ilechko
Vermeer, Caravaggio, Manet, Braque, Picasso, Klee, Matisse, Motherwell,
Taaffe, Polke and, of course, myself ;-)
Paul Ilechko
> Have you ever actually seen a Warhol show? The Art Institute of Chicago
> mounted a superb retrospective -- that sadly turned into a memorial --
> showing that he far transcended the hype and really did know how to make
> art.
I saw the huge show in NYC a few years ago, and I agree totally.
Paul Ilechko
I assume you all mean Pollock. A great artist, no doubt at all.
Lena
>
> > (But why do you think AS is "highly regarded" by art critics?)
> > --
> I don't think that, necessarily - I'm interested to find out. The paintings
> seem highly regarded by lovers of Schoenberg's music, though.
>
> I'm of course also interested in what posters to r.m.c.r., r.m.c.c., r.m.c.
> think of the paintings as well.
Ugh. :)
Lena
jimj
Yes -- at the New Music in Soho, and at MOMA.
jimj
jimj
Yes -- at the New New Museum in Soho (the highly touted
Marilyn Monroe panels). And at MOMA.
jimj
jimj
dizzy on stepladders; does this prevent me from being an artist? >
Yes, I see your point. I suppose a better way to phrase it is
that there's a tremendous amount of detail. It dazzles one.
And I say "boring" because he's not an unknown, but is
extremely well known, so in that respect my tastes are boring.
But yes, for me those splashes on huge screens are
technique.
jimj
Peter T. Daniels
Yeah, right -- rush hour traffic on PATH in _both_ directions.
Peter T. Daniels
Not an option for the self-employed ...
Peter T. Daniels
>
> <Have you ever actually seen a Warhol show?>
>
> Yes -- at the New New Museum in Soho (the highly touted
> Marilyn Monroe panels).
That's ONE Work. It doesn't stand alone in his oeuvre -- he did amazing
things with those multiple silkscreens.
> And at MOMA.
> jimj
Apparently as comprehensive as the Chicago show?
Larry Rinkel
I'm supposed to know where you're coming from? You're welcome, Peter.
jimj
I don't think so. What I have seen at MOMA is only certain
pieces, not a huge retrospective. I'm afraid the praises
I'm hearing now sound like quotes of the praises I heard
in the press.
I might as well confess to my other faves, all Top 40
names again: Magritte, Miro, Kandinsky. Warhol
has never been on any list of mine, though.
jimj
Paul Ilechko
There was a huge retrospective at MOMA, back in 1989 or thereabouts. I
still have the catalog.
John Wiser
> Ian Pace wrote:
> > > (But why do you think AS is "highly regarded" by art critics?)
paintings
> > seem highly regarded by lovers of Schoenberg's music, though.
> >
> > I'm of course also interested in what posters to r.m.c.r., r.m.c.c.,
r.m.c.
> > think of the paintings as well.
>
> Ugh. :)
Now this is an example of perfect ambiguity.
Is your comment an opinion of AS's painting,
or of the notion of collective/collected opinions
on an off-topic subject by contributors to three
ngs, or of the admittedly bizarre concept of
anybody actually soliciting such a potentially
odd body of, um, data.
Please clarify!
JDW
Peter T. Daniels
>
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:446E3E...@worldnet.att.net...
> > Larry Rinkel wrote:
> >>
> >> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> >> news:446DD0...@worldnet.att.net...
> >> >
> >> > I can't afford to visit the new MoMA -- $20 flat admission fee, and
> >> > more
> >> > for the blockbusters.
> >>
> >> And free for everybody on Fridays from 4-8 pm. I am not aware of any
> >> current
> >> surcharge for "blockbusters," though I recall that having been the case
> >> for
> >> the Picasso/Matisse show in Queens 3-4 years ago, while the Manhattan
> >> site
> >> was being renovated.
> >
> > Yeah, right -- rush hour traffic on PATH in _both_ directions.
> > --
> > Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
>
> I'm supposed to know where you're coming from? You're welcome, Peter.
Do you think rush-hour travel from anywhere (else) in the city is any
more pleasant?
Peter T. Daniels
Seemingly not what jimj's talking about.
jimj
I have not been to the Warhol Museum in Pittsburgh.
I do not go to Sotheby's auctions.
"Overrated" is by definition the distance between
the hype and the merit, both of which are difficult
to quantify. By this definition, Schoenberg is
not overrated, since he is not trumpeted by
art critics as a major figure as a painter. It is
hard to overstate just how huge the hype surrounding
Warhol was. I suspect it has receded somewhat.
Saying he really IS an artist and actually CAN
paint does nothing to that vast gap between
the subjective notions of "good" and the tremendous
fame and name value and intangible stuff which
is called "relevance" in the PR world. Sean Combs
is "relevant." He sells and young people listen
to him. He is also a musician and songwriter.
jimj
jimj
shortly after the fall of Franco. That's what, 30 years ago now? >
I saw it less recently than 30 years ago now. I had never stepped
foot into MOMA before 1977. That's 29 years ago now.
<I can't afford to visit the new MoMA -- $20 flat admission fee, and
more
for the blockbusters. >
That was the most shocking thing about the most recent
"improvement." Amazingly, they are getting it, and they
have more visitors than they did when it cost much
less. So there's a magic to the inflation at work. It's
all about creating illusions within the minds of the
consumers and treating them as consumers.
Try the restaurant and "cafe" on for size. Normally
one would expect a restaurant like "The Modern"
to have a small clientele well known to the owners.
Nope. People line up for the honor of a table.
Absolutely astounding.
jimj
jimj
things with those multiple silkscreens. >
That is ONE work mentioned in the post. If you had gone
to the same exhibit I saw, you would know that it had
more than ONE work in it. Surely you do not suggest
that Warhol is an underexposed artist whose vast output
is not appreciated by people who haven't undertaken the
hard work of uncovering it?
This is really very funny, but I promise you I will look
harder for what all the hype is all about, and when I'm
in Pittsburgh I'll go to the Warhol Museum. I'm very
understated here in my opinions about Warhol.
jimj
Peter T. Daniels
I really don't care what the PR world says.
I'm mighty impressed that Warhol was able to pile a socialite carroer
_on top of_ his career as an accomplished artist (in many media).
Peter T. Daniels
>
> <"Guernica" was returned to Spain, in accordance with Picasso's wishes,
>
> shortly after the fall of Franco. That's what, 30 years ago now? >
>
> I saw it less recently than 30 years ago now. I had never stepped
> foot into MOMA before 1977. That's 29 years ago now.
Franco died in 75 or 76 -- it was a running joke on the very first
season of SNL. That is, as I said, 30 or 31 years ago.
Your arithmetic is off. If you saw it in 1977 (you would have been one
of its last viewers in NY), then you saw it more recently than 1976.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> >That's ONE Work. It doesn't stand alone in his oeuvre -- he did amazing
> things with those multiple silkscreens. >
>
> That is ONE work mentioned in the post.
You didn't say you saw more than one on that occasion. You said you saw
a single individual work.
> If you had gone
> to the same exhibit I saw, you would know that it had
> more than ONE work in it.
You described the exhibit inadequately.
> Surely you do not suggest
> that Warhol is an underexposed artist whose vast output
> is not appreciated by people who haven't undertaken the
> hard work of uncovering it?
I don't know what you mean by "uncovering," but the AIC was _full_ of
people having the same experience I was -- being astounded by the skill
and imagination and brilliance of what he had been doing in his art.
People equate Warhol = soup cans or Warhol = Jackie -- and even in those
works, reproductions are useless in communicating their power and
effect.
> This is really very funny, but I promise you I will look
> harder for what all the hype is all about, and when I'm
> in Pittsburgh I'll go to the Warhol Museum. I'm very
> understated here in my opinions about Warhol.
I wonder how much _art_ can be in that museum -- after all, he _sold_
most of his stuff, and it's in private collections and museums around
the world. I have the impression that the Pittsburgh museum is more of
memorabilia than of art.
david...@aol.com
"Try the restaurant and "cafe" on for size. Normally one would expect
a restaurant like "The Modern" to have a small clientele well known to
the owners. Nope. People line up for the honor of a table. Absolutely
astounding. "
Even MoMA has bills to pay.
-david gable
jimj
those
works, reproductions are useless in communicating their power and
effect. >
Yes, and? Who is "people?" I do not equate Warhol with soupcans,
though I see MOMA has a very fine soupcan on display now.
The Marilyn series is quite well known. I saw an exhibit which
__included__ the highly touted Marilyn panels. This does not
mean it is either the only thing I saw or that it was the entire
exhibit. If you'd like my review of it, it would take a few pages.
A better description would be what Lichtenstein said in an
interview about Lichtenstein's work, in which the colors and
lines take on meaning in structures other than the ones
the mind associates with those forms on one level, i.,e.,
"this is a picture of Marilyn Monroe." I get it. We all get it.
Next............
jimj
jimj
skill
and imagination and brilliance of what he had been doing in his art. >
You also described the experience in the exact same words
as the review I read of it in the print media. Are you aware
of that? "transcends the hype" "people think of soupcans
and Jackie."
Did you write a review at the time that was published?
<I wonder how much _art_ can be in that museum -- after all, he _sold_
most of his stuff, and it's in private collections and museums around
the world.>
One reason I didn't go out of my way to go to it when
I was in Pittsburgh.
< I have the impression that the Pittsburgh museum is more of
memorabilia than of art. >
I'm afraid that's probably true, and those things are not
interesting no matter who the person or what the
memorabilia. It's another symptom of hype, although
in this case it's also civic pride, which is another reason
this type of museum gets built. Pittsburgh's residents
will exclaim to anyone who listens that that museum
is the largest museum in the country devovted to the
works of a single artist. They don't say whether it's
largest in terms of square footage.
Ironically, yesterday at around noon I went for a walk
to see if I could find either of two books at the Strand
and while I was at it, to check Virgin Records and
Tower Records for two specific CDs. I did not find
anything I was hunting for, and I was not looking for
Warhol, but I was astonished to see that in Tower
Records, of all places, which is not a bookstore
and does not have a books section, next to the
information desk, a special stand displaying a
large, oversized book of glossy color plates of
reproductions of Warhol's work. I wanted to thumb
through it, but unfortunately, someone else beat
me to it.
That should give you an idea for how well exposed
everyone is to Warhol's work.
It's interesting what you say about being confronted
with a large representative sampling of a person's
total life achievement. For instance, how much
space would Capote's writing take up? It proves
who spent the most time working. On the other
hand, you can put all of Seurrat's work in much
less space than most artists'. I know who I'm
most impressed by.
jimj
paulv...@gmail.com
Franco didn't fall, he merely died.
Matthew B. Tepper
in news:1148218602.5...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> "shortly after the fall of Franco"
>
> Franco didn't fall, he merely died.
And he's still dead.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made. ~ FDR (attrib.)
Dr Matt
Andy Warhol certainly made a lot of works.
His career as a socialite was not on-top-of anything but rather
essential to his fame. There's a lesson here which Mozart certainly
knew, which isn't taught in art schools nor music schools
because it's not about art per se, but is essential to the
fate of the art.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
Peter T. Daniels
You have of course missed the point. The art was created _despite_ the
fame.
Some superficial aspects of the art contributed to the fame (not vice
versa), and it takes intensive exposure to the art to detach it from the
fame.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> <People equate Warhol = soup cans or Warhol = Jackie -- and even in
> those
> works, reproductions are useless in communicating their power and
> effect. >
>
> Yes, and? Who is "people?" I do not equate Warhol with soupcans,
> though I see MOMA has a very fine soupcan on display now.
_One_ soup can?? Useless.
The AIC's permanent collection, OTOH, includes one Warhol -- an immense
Mao. It's powerful in itself (being at least 15 feet high, I'd guess).
(The Museum of Contemporary Art, about a mile up the street, is more
likely to have a fuller collection, though the AIC's new Renzo Piano
building, the construction of which began last summer, will make more
big spaces available for showing newer stuff than can be accommodated in
its already outgrown "new" wing to the south.)
> The Marilyn series is quite well known. I saw an exhibit which
> __included__ the highly touted Marilyn panels. This does not
> mean it is either the only thing I saw or that it was the entire
> exhibit.
But that's not what you originally said.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> <people having the same experience I was -- being astounded by the
> skill
> and imagination and brilliance of what he had been doing in his art. >
>
> You also described the experience in the exact same words
> as the review I read of it in the print media. Are you aware
> of that? "transcends the hype" "people think of soupcans
> and Jackie."
>
> Did you write a review at the time that was published?
Nope.
Seems, then, like what would occur to anyone.
> <I wonder how much _art_ can be in that museum -- after all, he _sold_
> most of his stuff, and it's in private collections and museums around
> the world.>
>
> One reason I didn't go out of my way to go to it when
> I was in Pittsburgh.
>
> < I have the impression that the Pittsburgh museum is more of
> memorabilia than of art. >
>
> I'm afraid that's probably true, and those things are not
> interesting no matter who the person or what the
> memorabilia. It's another symptom of hype, although
> in this case it's also civic pride, which is another reason
> this type of museum gets built. Pittsburgh's residents
> will exclaim to anyone who listens that that museum
> is the largest museum in the country devovted to the
> works of a single artist. They don't say whether it's
> largest in terms of square footage.
I believe the museum relates to Warhol's family, who wanted nothing to
do with the fag while he was alive. Now they're happy to cash in.
> Ironically, yesterday at around noon I went for a walk
> to see if I could find either of two books at the Strand
> and while I was at it, to check Virgin Records and
> Tower Records for two specific CDs. I did not find
> anything I was hunting for, and I was not looking for
> Warhol, but I was astonished to see that in Tower
> Records, of all places, which is not a bookstore
> and does not have a books section, next to the
> information desk, a special stand displaying a
> large, oversized book of glossy color plates of
> reproductions of Warhol's work. I wanted to thumb
> through it, but unfortunately, someone else beat
> me to it.
Tower downtown has been shrinking. Their bookshop used to be across
Lafayette, above Tower Video, but NYU evicted them.
Tower Lincoln Center has a book department. Tower in Chicago has a book
department.
> That should give you an idea for how well exposed
> everyone is to Warhol's work.
>
> It's interesting what you say about being confronted
> with a large representative sampling of a person's
> total life achievement. For instance, how much
> space would Capote's writing take up? It proves
About 8 inches on the shelf. Considerably more than Salinger.
Considerably less than Updike. What's that got to do with anything?
> who spent the most time working. On the other
> hand, you can put all of Seurrat's work in much
> less space than most artists'. I know who I'm
> most impressed by.
Whom? There's more Seurat than Leonardo or Vermeer.
david...@aol.com
"There's a lesson here [in Warhol's career] which Mozart certainly
knew, which isn't taught in art schools nor music schools because it's
not about art per se, but is essential to the fate of the art."
I'm not sure Mozart had the remotest conception of how to "play"
society as Warhol did. Nor am I sure your statement is true. Emily
Dickinson made not the slightest effort to publicize her poetry. She
is now routinely anthologized and available in critical editions.
-david gable
gravity
post Expressionist art. they don't really rank as something you'd buy for a
home collection, or put in a museum. obviously he has some talent, there's
no doubt about that, but so do many other artists.
i'll stick with his music.
Gravity
david...@aol.com
"it's some post Expressionist art."
It's not "post-expressionist" art; it IS expressionist art. Pure and
unadulterated.
"they don't really rank as something you'd buy for a home collection,
or put in a museum."
I don't agree. No less a master than Kandinsky had a very high regard
for Schoenberg's paintings. Marc and Macke were less enthusiatic, but
even they thought highly of some of the pictures. Museums are better
equipped to cope with Kleine Meistern than the concert hall, and many a
museum exhibits, for example, impressionist pictures by painters other
than the biggest names. Schoenberg may not have been a master on the
order of Manet or Cezanne, but he was not an insignificant talent. (We
also can never know what would have happened if he'd pursued painting
at the expense of music rather than vice versa.)
-david gable
Don Petter
<rayt...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>"Ian Pace" <i...@ianpace.com> wrote in message
>news:DR5bg.1002$ll....@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>>I am curious to know, now that a fair amount of time has passed, what the
>>sorts of verdicts are of the more perceptive art critics on Schoenberg's
>>paintings and drawings (which can be viewed at
>>http://www.usc.edu/isd/archives/schoenberg/painting/painting.htm )?
>>Especially from those who are experts on Expressionist art. Anyone have any
>>idea of what the type of critical consensus is these days? Would his
>>reputation as a painter be as high were he not also known as a seminally
>>important composer. I'm very taken by his paintings, but I'm interested in
>>wider perspectives on this.
>
>
>http://www.schoenberg.at/6_archiv/paintings/works/paintings_e.htm
>
>Especially absorbing from the above link are four extracts from several of
>his contemporaries on Schoenberg's visual art. Detailed analysis can be
>found here.
>
>For myself, I find at first glance, an amateur painter of exceptional
>promise, unskilled technically, but possessing a sense of balance, and with
>a gift for remarkable background illumination and luminosity, and with his
>balance not merely confined to the forms, but to the use of colour as well.
>I find some of his still lifes quite exceptional.
>
>Ray H
>Taree
>
>
One can't help being reminded of the Tommy Cooper joke about the
Rembrandt and the Stradivarius...
Don.
Margaret Mikulska
> "Steven de Mena" <st...@stevedemena.com> appears to have caused the
> following letters to be typed in
> news:vIGdnU8fSfhniPDZ...@comcast.com:
>
>>I like the playing card designs. Didn't someone sell replicas of those
>>at one time?
>
> If so, I might be interested. I remember reading the Schoenberg Centenary
> article in High Fidelity back in 1974, which mentioned that he had designed
> his own decks.
Perhaps the Schönberg Center in Vienna has some replicas. I'm pretty
sure I saw the original cards and other stuff he made during the bash on
the occasion of the opening of the center in March 1998. (They have a
web site.)
-MM
jimj
Nope.
Seems, then, like what would occur to anyone.>
No disrespect intended, but your use of the same
words as a reviewer's to me suggests the power
of marketing, the part I call "opinion leaders."
The phrases are planted in the mind.
I'm glad you enjoyed the show, though
<Tower downtown has been shrinking. Their bookshop used to be across
Lafayette, above Tower Video, but NYU evicted them. >
Do you remember the discount annex around the corner but
on the same block? For some reason I think it was all
classical. Interesting that you can buy whatever you
want from amazon, no matter how obscure, whereas
the stacks at Tower are getting smaller. I wonder if the
retailers just carry the latest and greatest and don't
bother with anything that doesn't move quickly.
<About 8 inches on the shelf. Considerably more than Salinger.
Considerably less than Updike. What's that got to do with anything? >
Mention has been made here of Warhol's stature as a
jetsetter socialite. Capote is a case of someone who
did not turn out lots of work while pursuing a full-time
socialite career. Capote is more typical than Warhol,
if what you say about the breadth of his work is true.
<Whom? There's more Seurat than Leonardo or Vermeer. >
Are you sure about that? S spent a tremendous amount
of time on a small number of huge canvasses. I also
don't need to see everything Vermeer did in his entire
life to be stunned by his achievements. I gather you
are a great admirer of Andy Warhol. That's too bad,
but to each his own.
jimj
Peter T. Daniels
>
> <> Did you write a review at the time that was published?
> Nope.
> Seems, then, like what would occur to anyone.>
>
> No disrespect intended, but your use of the same
> words as a reviewer's to me suggests the power
> of marketing, the part I call "opinion leaders."
> The phrases are planted in the mind.
>
> I'm glad you enjoyed the show, though
>
> <Tower downtown has been shrinking. Their bookshop used to be across
> Lafayette, above Tower Video, but NYU evicted them. >
>
> Do you remember the discount annex around the corner but
> on the same block? For some reason I think it was all
Tower Outlet moved from the ground floor on Lafayette across and up over
Tower Video (the books were the back half of the loft space) and the old
Tower Outlet became World Music. When the Video and Outlet depts. had to
leave across-the-street, Outlet took over maybe 1/3 of the Classical
space on the second floor. I don't know where Video ended up; at Lincoln
Center, Video has moved from the basement to the second floor where
Broadway and Soundtracks used to be (outside Classical), which have now
moved to the basement.
> classical. Interesting that you can buy whatever you
> want from amazon, no matter how obscure, whereas
> the stacks at Tower are getting smaller. I wonder if the
> retailers just carry the latest and greatest and don't
> bother with anything that doesn't move quickly.
Tower has been on the brink of bankruptcy for several years.
> <About 8 inches on the shelf. Considerably more than Salinger.
> Considerably less than Updike. What's that got to do with anything? >
>
> Mention has been made here of Warhol's stature as a
> jetsetter socialite. Capote is a case of someone who
> did not turn out lots of work while pursuing a full-time
> socialite career. Capote is more typical than Warhol,
> if what you say about the breadth of his work is true.
>
> <Whom? There's more Seurat than Leonardo or Vermeer. >
>
> Are you sure about that? S spent a tremendous amount
> of time on a small number of huge canvasses. I also
> don't need to see everything Vermeer did in his entire
> life to be stunned by his achievements.
IIRC at the Met Vermeer "retrospective" a few years ago, they said 36
paintings are known, and they had about half of them (scattered among
many more works by his contemporaries), and they're almost all very
small. Maybe all together, they're barely bigger than "La Grande Jatte"!
There are maybe a dozen Leonardo paintings, right? The Met had three, I
think, at their show of his drawings (plus I saw the Mona Lisa there in
'62, and the little one in the National Gallery). If you throw in the
Last Supper, you probably get more surface area than Seurat ...
> I gather you
> are a great admirer of Andy Warhol. That's too bad,
> but to each his own.
It's too bad your taste is so limited.
Nightingale
jimj wrote:
> Interesting that you can buy whatever you
> want from amazon, no matter how obscure, whereas
> the stacks at Tower are getting smaller.
I wish that was true. I actually had to change plans on what composer
to do my class presentation on, because I couldn't get any recordings by
my first choice. There was nothing in the local stores, and I'm still
waiting for 1 of the 2 CDs I ordered from Amazon back in February. (The
first one came sometime in April after the course was finished.)
--
Io la Musica son, ch'ai dolci accenti
So far tranquillo ogni turbato core,
Et or di nobil ira et or d'amore
Poss'infiammar le più gelate menti.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> jimj wrote:
> > Interesting that you can buy whatever you
> > want from amazon, no matter how obscure, whereas
> > the stacks at Tower are getting smaller.
>
> I wish that was true. I actually had to change plans on what composer
> to do my class presentation on, because I couldn't get any recordings by
> my first choice. There was nothing in the local stores, and I'm still
> waiting for 1 of the 2 CDs I ordered from Amazon back in February. (The
> first one came sometime in April after the course was finished.)
towerrecords.com is very quick, and postage is free on an order over $20
(I don't know whether that works to foreign-land), and they're always
having sales.
jimj
Last Supper, you probably get more surface area than Seurat >.
Peter, the proof of Warhol not being overrated you offered
up was a large exhibit of his work, showing a breadth
of output, presumably meaning amount of works. I don't
see how that changes his being overrated. I haven't
said Warhol was a bad artist; I have said he takes the
prize for being most overrated in a field where there are
many candidates. If there is something those of us
who missed the huge retrospective of his life's work
are not getting by seeing the Warhol pieces you believe
we are missing, it is ironic that without even trying to
find any images of Warhol's work I was confronted by
a printed retrospective of his work in as unlikely a
place as a record store which sells no books.
You started this whole defense of Warhol, who
doesn't need defending, since his reputation is
so overblown, by using chock phrases Warhol
himself would be proud of having gained currency,
"transcends the hype" and "people think of Jackie
and soupcans." This is exactly what successful
marketing is all about. I don't look at marketing
when I look at Warhol's work, but what I see is
drab, neat, clever, perfectly executed, crystal
clear, competent, overblown (in the case of
Chairman Mao). I'll grant you my taste is limited.
In fact, to point out how bizarre it is, I always tell
people about when a friend of mine had one of the
coveted tickets to the Van Gogh exhibit at the Met
that people stood in line to get for dates far in
advance.
I went to that exhibit, suffered through the frustration
of standing line with other people like cattle waiting
for slaughter, craning my neck to catch glimpses
of notebooks and sketches, gave up, got disgusted,
asked an usher for the nearest escape hatch
out of the Van Gogh exhibit, and took a rest in
the dreaded "Hudson School" landscapists' area,
where I spent quality time forgetting all the
vexations of being crowded and commoditized and
consumerized, by pretending I was walking around
inside the idealized landscapes of these declasse,
dated painters who I doubt anyone would dare to
call great or influential.
I doubt I would ever want to own one of those
huges landscapes, but I have never forgotten
the power of hype. Warhol is so hyped up it
is laughable. He's like real estate in the last
fiscal quarter of 2005. And you have no basis
on which to say my taste is limited, or anyone
else's taste is limited, because you don't
know what anyone's taste is, nor can anyone.
It changes constantly. Or at least it does with
people who are in a dynamic relationship to
the world around them, which most people
are not in an assembly-line culture.
jimj
jimj
The AIC's permanent collection, OTOH, includes one Warhol >
Now, why don't you stop for a minute and think about
this. "OTOH" means that you are contrasting, in this
case "one" against "many." I believe you are also
declaring that there is a superior knowledge of Warhol's
work which you have from having seen the "OTOH" AIC
permanent collection. So let's be a bit scientific here.
Did MOMA take the soupcans and use scissors to
extract one of them? Hmmmmm...... well, you could
believe that, I suppose, if you had not ever been to
MOMA, which I wouldn't blame you for. But does
that make sense, that MOMA would take the soup
cans and separate out one and display it without
the others? Is it possible jimj's English prose is
nonliteral, breezy and deliberately imprecise? I'm
afraid I don't see the vast knowledge and expertise
here. No, of course there is not one soupcan.
Are you sure you've seen Warhol's work? I'm
beginning to think you've seen less of it than even
I have.
But you and I have picked out something we have
in common: we were both impressed by Chairman
Mao. In fact, I had totally forgotten about it, but
yes, it's magnificent. And Warhol is still overrated.
That's just how big his reputation is. It is of
Chairman Mao proportions. He actually could
paint and draw. That's something.
jimj
Peter T. Daniels
>
> <If you throw in the
> Last Supper, you probably get more surface area than Seurat >.
>
> Peter, the proof of Warhol not being overrated you offered
> up was a large exhibit of his work, showing a breadth
> of output, presumably meaning amount of works. I don't
Look up "breadth" in a dictionary. It doesn't refer to quantity.
> see how that changes his being overrated. I haven't
> said Warhol was a bad artist; I have said he takes the
> prize for being most overrated in a field where there are
And I am telling you, on the basis of actually seeing the work (which
does not come off well in reproductions), that opinions of his celebrity
are irrelevant to his artwork, and the artwork is excellent.
> many candidates. If there is something those of us
> who missed the huge retrospective of his life's work
> are not getting by seeing the Warhol pieces you believe
> we are missing, it is ironic that without even trying to
> find any images of Warhol's work I was confronted by
> a printed retrospective of his work in as unlikely a
> place as a record store which sells no books.
I already told you, Tower does not sell "no books." Do you think I am
lying to you?
> You started this whole defense of Warhol, who
> doesn't need defending, since his reputation is
> so overblown, by using chock phrases Warhol
Do you not recognize contradictions in your very own writing?
His reputation is mistakenly overblown (because of his celebrity), and
of course this philistine view of him needs correcting.
> himself would be proud of having gained currency,
> "transcends the hype" and "people think of Jackie
> and soupcans." This is exactly what successful
> marketing is all about. I don't look at marketing
I think you meant "stock phrases."
Again, do you think I was lying when I told you I didn't get my
description from any other source?
> when I look at Warhol's work, but what I see is
> drab, neat, clever, perfectly executed, crystal
Then you haven't seen, for example, a wall of 24 or 25 or 36 soup can
paintings.
> clear, competent, overblown (in the case of
> Chairman Mao). I'll grant you my taste is limited.
> In fact, to point out how bizarre it is, I always tell
> people about when a friend of mine had one of the
> coveted tickets to the Van Gogh exhibit at the Met
> that people stood in line to get for dates far in
> advance.
>
> I went to that exhibit, suffered through the frustration
> of standing line with other people like cattle waiting
> for slaughter, craning my neck to catch glimpses
> of notebooks and sketches, gave up, got disgusted,
> asked an usher for the nearest escape hatch
> out of the Van Gogh exhibit,
The locus classicus for Impressionists in the Western Hemisphere is the
Art Institute of Chicago. Of all the Impressionist blockbusters hosted
there, the only one I ever went to was Monet, and that was only because
a visiting Belgian scholar (whose articles I was publishing in my book)
got me a ticket.
> and took a rest in
> the dreaded "Hudson School" landscapists' area,
It's called the Hudson River School.
The Met's holdings are rather pathetic in that area; when rich people
died and their heirs got rid of those old sentimental paintings that no
one wanted any more, they tended to go to the New-York Historical
Society (a considerably older institution). Its entire third floor used
to show those until recently despised works, and I would often go there
to look at them. Do you know Thomas Cole's "Course of Empire" series?
I've seen Frederick Church's magnificent "Petra" three times -- and
never in its home base, his mansion Olana which is Upstate somewhere.
Did you know that the New York Public Library used to have one of the
absolute masterpieces of Hudson River painting -- it was chosen to
represent the style in the sheet of American Painting stamps a few years
ago -- and not long ago, when I went to visit it in the main special
collections exhibit hall on the third floor, it had been replaced by a
Gilbert Stuart Washington, and I learned they'd sold it for $30,000,000.
> where I spent quality time forgetting all the
> vexations of being crowded and commoditized and
> consumerized, by pretending I was walking around
> inside the idealized landscapes of these declasse,
> dated painters who I doubt anyone would dare to
> call great or influential.
You're about two decades behind the curve.
> I doubt I would ever want to own one of those
> huges landscapes,
You must be referring to Church's view of the Andes. When we decorated
our offices some years ago with posters from the Met catalog that the
company paid for the framing of, that's the one I chose. When there was
a fire in the building, and we went in to retrieve personal stuff before
the renovation, it didn't occur to me to lug it down the stairs and take
it home (it didn't belong to me, after all), but the only other time I
saw it, it had mildewed from the water in the air and was ruined. (And
that was one expensive frame!)
> but I have never forgotten
> the power of hype. Warhol is so hyped up it
> is laughable.
And if you're unable -- even worse, unwilling -- to see past the hype,
it's a sad reflection on you. To force this message on topic, do you
refuse to listen to Beethoven's Fifth Symphony because of the "hype"?
> He's like real estate in the last
> fiscal quarter of 2005. And you have no basis
> on which to say my taste is limited, or anyone
> else's taste is limited, because you don't
> know what anyone's taste is, nor can anyone.
> It changes constantly. Or at least it does with
> people who are in a dynamic relationship to
> the world around them, which most people
> are not in an assembly-line culture.
I know that you have asserted, with inadequate (at best) data, that
Warhol isn't worth your attention.
If you now tell me that you love Jeff Koonz, I shall scream.
jimj
does not come off well in reproductions), that opinions of his
celebrity
are irrelevant to his artwork, and the artwork is excellent. >
I'm talking about the reputation of Warhol The Artist,
the man's ideas. They are very highly rated. He
is very good. He is not as great as people say he is.
<I already told you, Tower does not sell "no books." Do you think I am
lying to you? >
And I already told you, we all see Warhol's work. You
are contrasting your experience of a very large
exhibit of his work to the supposed ignorance of
others who did not see it.
An example you have come up with to contrast
something that knocked your socks off at that
exhibit was Chairman Mao. I have seen Chairman
Mao. Did you notice what it has in common with
the soupcans? It's the same color. Did you notice
what it has in common with Jackie? It's an
iconic personality. You say his art is excellent.
I have said he has perfectly executed clever ideas.
You haven't stated anything about his very large
surfaces in which he deliberately creates flatness,
something especially prominent in what you use as
an example of what "people think of," his soupcans.
They are flat. This is deliberate. This is not different
from Chairman Mao; it's the same. This is also very
difficult to pull off, the larger the size. There is no
contrasting Chairman Mao to soupcans, nor Chairman
Mao to Jackie.
The silkscreens you have said nothing about, and
I think I have told you what I saw in them, so obviously
they merited my attention. You haven't said anything
about what you see in them. I don't know if you even
noticed how they change, or why. For me it is
again a clever idea, certainly not coming out of
nowhere all on his own, perfectly executed as far
as it goes, and for me boring, taking up far too much
space. I also don't like any of the colors.
<And if you're unable -- even worse, unwilling -- to see past the hype,
it's a sad reflection on you. >
I look at what I see and am impressed up to a certain
point, then quickly bored. The hype has to do with
what people SAY about their experiences of seeing
the same works I see. The hype also has to do with
things like MOMA's very bad placement of their
soupcans when I saw them recently. What were
they thinking? Down in a corner crowded in a small
room. Is that the best way to display them? No.
Beethoven's Fifth is one of his greatest symphonies.
It's also extremely difficult to perform, and I would
like not to hear a mediocre orchestra perform it
again. Been there, done that, heard that. The
hype is idiotic. Beethoven's Third and Seventh
are every bit as good as Beethoven's Fifth. Neither
is as hyped as his Ninth Symphony, and yes, I do
have some problems with the Ninth, but no, I do
not not listen to it because of the hype, and yes,
I do have problems sitting in a crowd full of people
who are waiting for Beethoven's Greatest Hit to
play at the end and are moved into transcendent
joy not by what they hear but what they've told
themselves they will hear. But that is not as bad
as the hype of the big, loud ending on any symphony
at all by any composer at all, which is enough to
make most audience members say, "wow, that
was really GOOD!" Because they heard a big,
loud ending.
I believe Warhol was well aware of that and
was making some subtle statements about that
in his art. And I think that goes over many people's
heads.
<I know that you have asserted, with inadequate (at best) data, that
Warhol isn't worth your attention. >
Data? Let's go backwards here. Someone said there's an
awful lot of overrated painters out there, the competition is
keen for the title of most overrated. I said that's simple.
Most overrated is Warhol. He has superstar status, and
his paintings were fetching stratospheric prices at auctions
up to a point, and then they crashed down to earth and
didn't reach their expected prices. Auction prices are not
set as much by what people are willing to pay for pieces
so much as by what people believe OTHER people are
willing to pay for something. I couldn't say whether any
painting is worth $100 million. I also can't enjoy something
like Mona Lisa or Rembrandt's Night Watchmen, because
the hype ensures that they are always surrounded by too
many people for me to be able to see them. In this
respect, I suffer less from hype in the case of Warhol,
though I was very annoyed with people getting in my
way looking at Chairman Mao. What is it they need to
get up close and personal to see?
You say I couldn't possibly know what I'm talking about,
because you saw THE exhibit, but then size of exhibits
doesn't mean anything at all in relation to Seurat,
Leonardo (your choice here), Vermeer. An example of
something that surprises you is Chairman Mao. But
Chairman Mao has a lot in common with "people
think of soupcans and Jackie," and you haven't even
a glancing familiarity with two recent Warhol exhibits.
Warhol stares me in the face in a CD store which does
not sell books. I think you ought to just hold your
assumptions about other people, which you jump to
very quickly.
<think you meant "stock phrases." >
By your own admission?
<Again, do you think I was lying when I told you I didn't get my
description from any other source? >
It's irrelevant. Did a critic interview you and like your "stock
phrase"
so he used it in his review? You are an opinion follower. Do you
think thousands of people walk out of an exhibit and each come
up with the same "stock phrases" on their own? I don't say
this to embarrass you, and I think I've already told you
that. I can give you examples of how this works in my life:
I go to the optician and say "I want to buy a frame that
doesn't look like what everyone else is wearing. They
all have these tiny wire frames with rectangular shapes
to compete with how small their glasses frames are.
Sell me an ugly, large, oversized plastic frame that
makes you think of an old lady's leopard skin." And I buy
a frame which, guess what? Other people are buying
that same year. It may not be as in vogue as the tiny
little frames that are smaller than the eye's pupil, but
there sure were an awful lot of people who had the same
idea I had.
<It's called the Hudson River School. >
Yes, it is. It's also called many other things. I knew
you were going to say that. LOL
<The Met's holdings are rather pathetic in that area; when rich people
died and their heirs got rid of those old sentimental paintings that no
one wanted any more,>
I know. Remember the empty picture frames?
<Do you know Thomas Cole's "Course of Empire" series? >
I'm not sure. At first I'm thinking no, but searching my memory
banks it sounds familiar. I was thinking also of the seascapes
which I saw at the British Art Museum in New Haven once.
I recall the placards telling me not to like them too much,
because although they were once in style, they are now
frowned upon by connoisseurs. I still laugh when I think
of that.
<You're about two decades behind the curve. >
Behind the curve of what other people, in herds, are agreeing
upon as stock phrases and popularly held opinions. If I'm
out of style by 20 years, then that must mean it's important
to be in style? Or at least it's important to the person who
tells another one, "Hey, Joe, you're 20 years behind the
times." Sounds to me like you're telling me you're a
follower again, but it's a coincidence that the first words out
of your mouth about an exhibit you once saw are the exact
same comments about it that I read? Sounds to me like
you read the same review I read, although at first I only
thought that the "buzz" circulated word of mouth amongst
friends, and then when one of them printed it, the others
forgot who started it.
<Did you know that the New York Public Library used to have one of the
absolute masterpieces of Hudson River painting -- it was chosen to
represent the style in the sheet of American Painting stamps a few
years
ago -- and not long ago, when I went to visit it in the main special
collections exhibit hall on the third floor, it had been replaced by a
Gilbert Stuart Washington, and I learned they'd sold it for
$30,000,000. >
I don't remember seeing the one you saw, but I know they're always
changing their temporary exhibits now, and some of them are very
nice. What amazed me was their illuminated manuscripts exhibit.
That was astonishing, and they didn't even charge admission.
On the third floor, the last time I went up there I was looking
for the series of prints and drawings of Western Hemisphere
cities, but it had changed. So this third floor revolving display
thing may be a recent development.
<You must be referring to Church's view of the Andes. >
Sounds right. Has this stuff become popular now?
<I've seen Frederick Church's magnificent "Petra" three times -- and
never in its home base, his mansion Olana which is Upstate somewhere.>
I'd like to see Olana. I'm pretty sure I've only seen "Petra"
in reproductions.
Interesting what you say about the Met. We definitely have something
in common there. Although I think it's a fine museum, it does not
begin to compare with so many other museums. But there is this
tremendous ................... if you'll allow me to use the word
........
hype. I'll never forget the "New York is the center of the arts"
comments
of a friend of mine in college who was born and raised here. I read
his reviews and he continues to say these things ("what better place
to assemble these works together for the first time than in New
York, the center of.............")
New York? Why not Paris? Cologne? Sounds like, from what you
say, maybe Chicago? That is hype.
No, I don't like Koonz. I also don't like Lichtenstein. I
read an interview in which he explained his art. Although
that made me look at it with hopefully more insight,
thinking things I would not have thought, I still don't
like Lichtenstein. And back on topic -- I don't think
much of Schoenberg The Painter.
jimj
Peter T. Daniels
google groups user: click "Options" rather than "Reply."
> An example you have come up with to contrast
> something that knocked your socks off at that
> exhibit was Chairman Mao. I have seen Chairman
Apparently you can't read English. Mao is in the permanent collection of
the AIC, so I saw it every time I went there.
> Mao. Did you notice what it has in common with
> the soupcans? It's the same color. Did you notice
If you can say that, then you're colorblind.
As for all the rest, your failure to quote what you're commenting on
makes it very difficult to carry on a conversation, and the immensity of
your ego makes it very unrewarding. It doesn't occur to you that,
_sometimes_, at least, something is popular because it's intrinsically
good?
jimj
of
the AIC, so I saw it every time I went there. >
I've never been to AIC. Where do you think I saw it?
Hmmmm............. could have been a loan? Gee whiz!
<If you can say that, then you're colorblind. >
Indeed. I also saw that Mao is an icon, Campbell's soup's
branding is iconic, the Empire State Building is an icon,
Marilyn is an icon, The Last Supper is an icon, branding
is about reducing things to two-dimensional flat surfaces
and blowing them up in size and making associations
with colors crystal clear.
<your failure to quote what you're commenting on
makes it very difficult to carry on a conversation>
You haven't seen Warhol, have you?
<It doesn't occur to you that,
_sometimes_, at least, something is popular because it's intrinsically
good? >
I've told you over and over again. Warhol is good.
He's competent. He's extremely competent. He's
clever. He dealt with themes that many people have
dealt with, themes that are articulated beautifully
by Aldous Huxley, among others.
And you are missing his point entirely.
And you probably don't have the patience to watch
his film of a day in the life of The Empire State
Building, but if you get a chance to see it I have
a hunch you might learn something. No, I have
not seen it yet either; yes, I plan on doing so.
That still doesn't bring him up to his hype.
jimj
jimj
referring to. I'm thinking of something else, something
that looks like a stencil. Couldn't tell you if it's
Warhol's or someone else's.
jimj
gravity
"jimj" <JWesley...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1148560966....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
http://images.google.com/images?q=mao+warhol&hl=en
>