Contemporary Composers

[Iian Neill]

Greetings, Andreas,

> thanks again for your answer. And although I like to "fight" with
> words I
> think, that this discussion won't find an end, because our opinions
> are to
> different.

I am beginning to agree - I think it perhaps best if we bring our
discussion to a close within the next few posts. In many ways it seems
that we hold incompatible views on what defines art, and what delineates
good art from bad art. It seems folly, therefore, for us to continue an
'argument' if we cannot agree on certain 'objective' principles. I do
not say any of this in malice, merely out of practicality. I have
enjoyed our discussions, and was very interested to read of your reasons
for supporting modern music (and art). It has allowed me to see a side
which I am not often privy to.

> > Please give me some examples of realist paintings created in this
> century.
>
> How hard. I'm everything but not a specialist for painting. Above all
> it's
> hard for me to translate the names of the different realisitic art to
> English. Let's try: I know the "New Reality" with works by Christian
> Schad,
> Alexander Kanoldt, Edward Hopper, Peter Nagel, Dieter Asmus, Dietmar
> Ullrich
> and others; the "Critic Realism" by Georges Grosz and Otto Dix; the
> "Socialist Realism" by Willi Sitte, Werner Tübke, Wolfgang Mattheuer;
> the
> "Photorealism" by Chuck Close, David Parrish, Malcolm Morley, Franz
> Gertsch,
> Jacques Monory, Peter Klasen, Karolus Lodenkämpfer, Karl Hubbuch and
> Don
> Eddy.

Thank you for the list. The only artist I recognized straightaway was
Edward Hopper, so I turned to the internet for information on the
others. I managed to locate a number of sites for about half of them -
the other half were either not covered, or their works were not
available as images to download (or if they were, they eluded me). I by
no means claim that my search was exhaustive, and in the future I will
certainly try to track down at least one of the artists you referred to.

I have kept a list of the internet sites I discovered pertaining to
these painters, and have included very brief observations that occurred
to me upon inspecting the works available. Often only one painting (or
drawing) was locatable, so I by no means wish to imply that these
statements are meant to be any kind of attack or praise for the artists
concerned. To make any sound judgement on them, I should need to study
their work in much more detail, and have a broader representation of it.
Nevertheless, I thought it could not hurt to at least offer this very
rudimentary commentary. The comments and the URLs can be found in
APPENDIX 1.

After researching these artists the best I could via the electronic
medium, I thought it would not be too inappropriate were I to include a
list of my own selections, to illustrate what I mean when I advocate
'contemporary realism' and professional standards in the art of today,
and of the future. This information can be found in APPENDIX 2.

> > When you imply that Modern artists could work in the old styles if
> they
> >wished to, I assure you that you are incorrect. While it may be true
> of
> > music composition (although I have grave doubts), I know it for a
> >certainty that there is not one high-profile Modern artist (in the
> anti-
> > traditional sense) who could paint a 'traditional' style painting if
> he
> >wished to. He could not do this, because he does not have the
> training, nor
> > the ability.
>
> I can't speek for painting artists because my lack of knowledge
> (although I
> won't believe, that Picasso wasn't able to paint in a traditional way
> -
> especially when I look at his paintings til 1906).

Recently I chanced upon two of Picasso's early life drawings (I am not
sure exactly what age he drew them, though). They appeared to me to be
competent, or at the most slightly below average examples of the
standards expected of academic students at the time. Particularly
noteworthy was his drawing of nude black man - to me he had a good eye
for form. It is such a terrible shame that he degraded and eroded those
talents in draughtsmanship, and un-did the good work he had produced
there. At the same time, I also looked into the early drawings of
Cezanne - certain of his studies seem to me to be on the level of Degas
and other academic students. I will not claim that Cezanne did not have
potential - if he had developed his gifts instead of abusing them, he
may certainly turned out to have been a noteworthy artist.
So while it is certainly possible that the young Cezanne might have
made a good artist (and *possibly* Picasso), their successors can claim
much less. Even Matisse (who was no successor, I understand) was
incompetent at the rudiments of draughtsmanship, as is displayed by his
own works, and by the comments of some of his early teachers (who kicked
him out).

> > Do you see here that you are committing exactly the same 'crime'
> that you
> >accused me of? I believe that in a previous response you said that
> > you despised censorship, and that you did not like the idea of
> people such
> >as myself having an influence in the patronage of art & music in our
> > times. Yet here you are saying similar things, but from the opposite
> side.
> >You just claimed that the mass of Modern Art is important art, and
> that
> > anything that opposes it (which you call 'reflexive') should be
> kicked
> >out.
>
> This is a misunderstanding. I was not talking about artists, who
> developed
> new art with a reflection of the older ways like in music of the
> neo-classic
> pieces by Schoenberg, Strawinsky or Hindemith. The same in painting
> with the
> new realistic ways I mentioned at the beginnig of this message. I'm
> talking
> about artists, who say: "I don't want to be modern. I only want to
> paint/compose as my beloved old masters did. What a pity that I'm not
> Michelangelo." And there are many artists like that.

I understand that you have had different experiences in life from me. In
all my contact with artists who aspire to even *some* form of realism,
not one of them has said by word, nor demonstrated in their works, that
they wish to slavishly imitate the true artists of the past.
Understandably, I hope, I have dedicated most of my free time in trying
to find such (non-imitative) artists, whether through the internet,
through books, or in person. Not one of them has blindly imitated the
past - and part of that may be in the fact that they don't have the
talent, certainly. You don't become an Ingres just by looking at his
pictures, just as one does not become a Chopin merely by listening to
his music.
Strange as it may sound, I think I do sympathize with your
aforementioned point - that is if I understand it correctly. I do not
approve of plagiarists or imitators - but equally, I do not approve of
the incompetent charlatans who have done much to damage the integrity of
art. When I say that I wish artists today would live up to the standards
set by their illustrious predecessors, I do not at all claim that they
should imitate them - I instead say that they should LEARN from them,
for there is much to be learnt before one can make a truly original and
profound statement.

> > This, and other points you made later in the response lead me to
> conclude
> >that while you indeed respect and enjoy the art and music of
> > previous eras, you despise works of similar style when they are
> attempted
> >in our own age.
>
> That's absolutly correct. No more Sonatas in a Beethoven-way, they've
> been
> already composed.

And I don't think that to be a good composer he should necessarily
follow the forms of Beethoven. But neither should he ignore them, and if
he does it will be to his peril.

> > Do you mean to say that Modern music has similar qualities to
> 'Totentanz'?
> >Have the Post-Modern composers stuck to the same standards
> > and tradition of Liszt? Or have they merely retained the sensation
> of
> >horror that 'Totentanz' evokes?
>
> Mostly not. But that has to do with: "There's no scientific fact, that
> makes
> the music by Liszt better than a modern piece. The difference only can
> be
> found in the taste of the audience."

Do you believe that there is ANYTHING at all in music performance or
composition that can be judged in something even vaguely approaching an
objective manner? Can one seriously say of a pianist/composer/artist,
"He is not that good - he needs to practise more"? Or should one say
nothing at all? Is the opinion of the public all-important - or is it
totally irrelevant? In this century, in regard to modern art, it seems
that the latter view has become a cherished one in the art world.

> We two, although both
> art-fanatics, have different definitions about art. You define it in
> this
> high, superior and greatful way. For me art is every artificial
> expression.
> When I'm pissing in the corner with an idea about that, to state
> something
> or to express a special feeling, than this is still art - whether you
> like
> or not.

I am afraid to say that our definitions of art seem irreconcilable.
There is no way that I can accept such things as 'urinating in the
corner', or the exhibition of flayed pig carcasses in Munich museums, or
so-called 'performance art' which deals with public masturbation of
sado-masochism. To me such things should be exhibited within the walls
of a lunatic asylum, not a public gallery.

> You should realy read the book by Beuys. And I'll try Gammell (but
> please let me ask, whether he is still alive; because when he died yet
> a
> hundred years ago, I don't think that he is very competent about
> modern art
> of the last 50 years).

It seems to me best if I quote verbatim the Introduction in Gammell's
book, on the artist himself:

"R.H. Ives Gammell is a unique figure in American art history by virtue
of both the time in which he lived and his accomplishments.

Born in 1893 to a wealthy Providence, R.I. family, he was raised in an
environment of Edwardian privilege. By the age of ten he knew that
painting was to be his métier. The pursuit of this career took him into
a world far removed from the comfortable drawing room culture of his
parents and, as contemporary painters and their literary sycophants
moved further and further into what he considered the quagmire of
'modern art,' to an isolated position totally outside the existing
critical and artistic establishment. He voiced his beliefs clearly and
forcefully and in no way softened his criticism to gain personal
recognition or tactical advantage. He spoke the truth as he saw it
without regard to the personal and professional criticism which could
and did result.

Gammell is one of the few allegorical painters this country [USA] has
produced. His major works are complex pictures which use classical,
religious, contemporary cultural and imaginative elements to deal, in
visual terms, with the deepest human psychic experiences. They are
difficult pictures which make their beholder work. Even his landscapes
and portraits carry an element of artistic integrity that precludes the
use of pretty adjectives.

By the end of World War II Gammell was convinced that the fabric of art
education, which had historically produced well trained painters, had
ceased to exist. This conviction caused him to reorient his life: he
began to teach students and he began to write down what he knew about
the art and craft of painting. He taught and wrote until his death in
1981.

As a teacher he tried to provide his students with the training
necessary to solve the problems suggested by the creative impulse. In
addition to training in painting's technical aspects he insisted that
his students be exposed to literature, drama and music of their own and
prior periods so as to give them a sense of place in the continuity of
human creative expression. In his thirty-five years of active teaching
close to eighty men and women studied with Gammell. Of these, some
stayed only long enough to discover that painting was not to be their
life's work. But of those who completed their training and have become
working painters, fully six have also taken up the responsibility of
training yet another generation of painters. It is this increasing group
of young, well trained men and women who are keeping alive the art of
painting which R.H. Ives Gammell feared would be lost ........ "

> > I hope that my previous arguments will show that I reject such
> movements
> as Cubism because to me they betray the very fundamentals of
> > great art. If I have been in some way unclear or obscure, I will be
> happy
> to answer any questions on the matter.
>
> They not only betray the fundaments of the former art - they've
> destroyed
> them. It's all about Revolution!

It is not 'revolution' - it is pure barbarism. Such 'revolutions'
enacted by the Cubists, the Dadaists, the Futurists and the Abstract
Expressionists are attacks on the very integrity and meaning of art -
they have no place whatsoever in discussions of serious art; or if they
do, they serve as warning of what happens when men place theory above
practise.

> > And Tolstoy's essay has to do with ALL art, modern or past. It
> covers
> >music, painting, sculpture, literature and architecture.
>
> Once again I'm fighting: Tolstoy died in 1910, where modern art was at
> it's
> beginning. He never heard anything about cubism or serial music (and
> all the
> other new ways of art in the last 88 years). So I think, although he
> was a
> great author, he's not a very good comentator for modern art.

Do you think so? Do you think that the nature of art really changes so
quickly? Quality in art seems to be eternal - we can still appreciate
the sculptures of the Greeks, removed as they are more than 2000 years
in the past. Tolstoy attempted to embrace art from ancient times and up
to his present - why should we discard such discussions because they may
not cover the past eight decades? Tolstoy was no idiot - he was a very
eloquent writer and a profound thinker on the subject of art, music and
literature.

> > I merely meant to show that many more people despise Modernism than
> the
> >people who love it - and I think that is a simple enough fact that
> > we can both agree on.
>
> We can agree only considering music. Like I said before: the situation
> for
> modern paintings and fine arts is very good in Germany, France and
> Italy and
> a lot of other middle european countries. The people like modern art
> very
> much. When Christo and Jean-Claude wraped up the "Reichstag" in
> Berlin, over
> 300.000 people came to see this great event (me too).

If the situation regarding modern painting and music is so good in
Germany, France and Italy, I am then somewhat puzzled by your original
letter on this topic - which complained that modern art was widely (and
unjustly) misunderstood and reviled. Are you therefore retracting your
original objection?

> When making a inquiry with "normal people" in middle Europe about the
> question "Who have been the greatest painter of all time?" they would
> answer
> among some others: Michelangelo, da Vinci, Rubens, van Gogh and
> Picasso.
> That has nothing to with quality but with the acception of Picasso in
> Europa.

Fair enough, but if this is so, I renew my previous question: Why were
you worried about the lack of acceptance of modern art and music if so
many people recognise it as being 'great'?

> > When do you think you'll have your page translated into English?
> Please
> >notify me when this is done, for I'd like to give it a thorough look
> over.
>
> That's a huge problem. First I have not enough time to translate all
> the
> datas (about 10 MegaByte) and second my English is still to bad to
> translate
> complecated terms. You have to wait a bit longer.

You have 10,000 pages of information to translate?!! I wish you the best
on this matter!

Finally, do not think that I wish you ill will in your career. I hope
that you complete your studies successfully and become as great a
composer as you may wish to be ; in whatever area of composition it is
that you decide to follow. As much as you might disagree with the
arguments I have given in these past letters, I hope that at the least
you might consider them in the future - even if you use them as examples
to your friends of 'stupidity and ignorance' taken too far.

Sincerely,

Iian Neill.

APPENDIX #1
===========

Otto Dix - http://www.museum.cornell.edu/HFJ/permcoll/euro/dixll.html
While passages of the flesh are a little rough, the "Reclining Woman
on a Leopard Skin" shows talent in composition and execution - as well
as in its conception. So while some of it is a little stiff in parts, it
has promise.

David Parrish -
http://www.artincontext.com/listings/pages/artist/3/0o2vopc3/image.htm
There is evidence of technique. Focuses on plastic toy still-lifes.
Little feeling of interpretation or emotion. But does possess a superb
technique.

Edward Hopper - http://www.thinkage.on.ca/~dmowbray/hopper.html
Certainly not in the Old Master tradition. Perhaps an example of
contemporary application of the teachings of Post-Impressionism. Colours
have a flat, almost 'drab' appearance to them - perhaps meant to evoke
the feeling of an unfriendly city environment.

Wolfgang Mattheuer -
http://cottbus.lausitz.de/kultur/burgbeeskow/kuenstler/mattheuer.htm
One print of a standing Lenin, pointing toward the viewer. An
effective handling of light and dark tones, but no more so than some of
the better comics in print.

Chuck Close - http://www.pacewildenstein.com/close/recent1.html
He is a photo-realist 'portraitist' who sees fit to wildly distort his
images, through some bizarre patterned optical effect.

Christian Schad - http://www.galerie.de/neher/schad1a.htm
A not very accomplished watercolour of a landscape.

Karl Hubbuch -
http://plato.paedagogik.uni-bielefeld.de/~pkraft/museum/lesesaal/hubbuch/werke.htm

Barely qualifies as a realist with his crude, cartoon-like figures.

Peter Klasen - http://www.gkm.se/klasen/galleri.htm
His work consists of crudely drawn posters - effort at realism minimal
and ludicrous.

Dieter Asmus - No information.

Dietmar Ullrich - No information.

Georges Grosz - No information.

Jacques Monory - Unable to locate images.

Franz Gertsch - Pictures hard to find.

Karolus Lodenkämpfer - No information

Willi Sitte - Not available.

Werner Tübke - No pictures available.

Don Eddy -
http://sheldon.unl.edu/test/pages/Artists/Eddy/Eddy_lexing.html

APPENDIX #2
===========

Examples of higher quality contemporary realism:

The American Society for Classical Realism:
http://www.ee.pdx.edu/~pamela/ASCR/

A Stroke of Genius Portrait Gallery:
http://www.prtraits.com/

Allan R. Banks - Portraitist:
http://www.hol.gr/cjackson/banks/index.html

Jeffrey Jones - Contemporary Realist Sculptor:
http://www.ipa.net/~gothic/intro.html

Contemporary religious frescoes in the realist manner:
http://blueridgegraphics.com/July97/frescoes7-10/frescoes.html

'Aristos is an independent journal advocating objective standards in
arts scholarship and criticism. We vigorously oppose the increasingly
bizarre and meaningless work (beginning with "abstract" painting and
sculpture) promoted in the name of art in
the twentieth century. Equally important, we champion, in the art of our
time, the concern with fundamental human values and with craftsmanship
that characterizes the genuine art of the past.'
http://www.aristos.org/~kamhi/index.htm

Various paintings by contemporary realists:
http://www.realart.com/pitr.html

Brian Yoder's Art Gallery and Critic's Corner (of particular relevance
is his section on "Bad Art"):
http://www.primenet.com/~byoder/art.htm

Letters to the Publisher Regarding American Realist Art:
http://www.tfaoi.com/newsmu/nmus41.htm

The Pre-Raphaelite Collection:
http://www.webmagick.co.uk/prcoll/

______________________________________________________________
Iian Neill - s36...@student.uq.edu.au, jl_g...@hotmail.com
Come & visit my homepage, THE RENAISSANCE CAFÉ at -
http://student.uq.edu.au/~s367558/index.html

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this
sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

-- Jonathan Swift

[Andreas Heck]

Hi Iian,

>I am beginning to agree - I think it perhaps best if we bring our
>discussion to a close within the next few posts.

That's right. I hope that I'll find enough time to make a summary of our
discussion, because we can discuss for years and won't come together.

Thanks for the list about internet ressources of modern realism. As soon as
I'll have enough free time, I'll visit them.

>Do you believe that there is ANYTHING at all in music performance or
>composition that can be judged in something even vaguely approaching an
>objective manner?

The musical science is doing mostly examinations of the quality of a musical
piece. And no matter whether it's by Bach, Beethoven, Wagner or Ligeti.

> Can one seriously say of a pianist/composer/artist,
>"He is not that good - he needs to practise more"? Or should one say
>nothing at all?

I don't believe in judging with the terms of "good" and "bad" as I stated
before. But I do believe in judging with the terms "important" and "not
important", "true" or "untrue". And there are enough examples in the history
of art. And importance to me has to do with developing a new form, a new way
of expression, new artificial tastes and so on. And equal if
composed/painted/and so on 500 years or just 6 months ago.

> Is the opinion of the public all-important - or is it
>totally irrelevant? In this century, in regard to modern art, it seems
>that the latter view has become a cherished one in the art world.

When talking about our century, espacially the last 50 years, the taste of
the public/audience has become very important, special for the musical
industry. But for the work of an artist the opinion of the public is totally
irrelevant, when he wants to make art and not entermainment.

>I am afraid to say that our definitions of art seem irreconcilable.
>There is no way that I can accept such things as 'urinating in the
>corner', or the exhibition of flayed pig carcasses in Munich museums, or
>so-called 'performance art' which deals with public masturbation of
>sado-masochism. To me such things should be exhibited within the walls
>of a lunatic asylum, not a public gallery.

Why not? OK, I don't like such art-forms either but why shouldn't such
things be presented? Hasn't that to do with what I said before about
censorship?

The introduction about Gammell was interesting. Above all because now I know
your bible.

>Do you think so? Do you think that the nature of art really changes so
>quickly? Quality in art seems to be eternal - we can still appreciate
>the sculptures of the Greeks, removed as they are more than 2000 years
>in the past. Tolstoy attempted to embrace art from ancient times and up
>to his present - why should we discard such discussions because they may
>not cover the past eight decades? Tolstoy was no idiot - he was a very
>eloquent writer and a profound thinker on the subject of art, music and
>literature.

Hey Iian, we are talking about two different things. Art is invariable, but
the artistic forms are changing permanent. So I wanted to say that Tolstoy
maybe was competent in talking about art as the title for artistic work of
men. But when I posted the first mail I wanted to discuss about modern
music. And don't you agree with me, when I say that Tolstoy can't be very
competent about the music of the last 80 years, because he died in 1910?

>If the situation regarding modern painting and music is so good in
>Germany, France and Italy, I am then somewhat puzzled by your original
>letter on this topic - which complained that modern art was widely (and
>unjustly) misunderstood and reviled. Are you therefore retracting your
>original objection?

No, you should read it again. In the last posting I said, that the situation
for modern paintings and sculptures is good in middle Europe, not for modern
music, although it's more accepted than in the rest of the world. Now, art
has been in all times something mostly for an "intellectual elite". And what
I was crying about was, that even among this "elite" more and more don't
want to get down to contemporary art-forms. Do you know what is written in a
very popular German endcyclopedia about art (very hard to translate for me,
please forgive the mistakes)?

"Art = designation for the entirety of the by men produced, which is not
determined through a function clearly or exhausted therein, to whose
requirements belongs high and specific knowledge and that itself because of
his social worth distinguishes as expression of particularity. In the
present understanding is this entirety grouped in the parts literature,
music, the fine arts like architecture, sculpture, painting, and the
presenting like theaters, dance and film. In the evaluation of the art
dependent scales count in the respective society and epoche different, by
the historic conditions, with them value, function and meaning of the work
of art are determined. Works of art presuppose a cognitive and
practically-sensual annexation of the world; this annexation happens
thereby, that the world is perceived, pointed and in the execution willing
influence, transformation and processing is fashioned. As far as in this
formation the art is covered to knowledge, her suit a claim to truth,
which - in the trap of his suppression - the critical potential of art,
which turns against this suppression, become clear and effective. On the
other hand this cover of the art says to existential truth, that saturated,
academic or from what the state declares as official art, must remain
pseudo-art. The freedom of the art, at least from total regimentation, is
one of the basis of subsistence. [Snip] The 20th Century is described by
different attempts, to shake off the conventional art-term as too narrowly.
Especially it is pointed to the connection
by social reality and art, that is to say on one hand to the art as
self-deception of a society, on the other hand to the cover of the art to
the truth. From the idea of the narrow interlocking of lives - from
completely concrete human lives here and now - and art emerges the idea,
that everything is tendency-wise art, an arbitrary object of the daily life,
emerges also, that everyone is potentially an artist, in so far as he/she
confronts himself/herself with the reality without practiced exclusions.
With it the boundaries vanish between artists and public. Behind this view
looms as hope or utopia, that so a contribution could be successful, to
break crusted social structures and to cause so that social renewal and
change."

Wow, that was a hard one. Whether my translation isn't too worse, I hope
you'll understand now, why I am crying. Because discussion (like our one)
about modern music and the lack of performances on the one hand and the
"star"-status of Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner and all the others beloved
musicians on the other hand is not the whole art, as it is often stated.
That has been the starting-point of my first letter and my attempt to find
reasons for that. One reason was, that most people want to be enjoyed and
entertained by art-music. And therefore I'm still crying.

>You have 10,000 pages of information to translate?!! I wish you the best
>on this matter!

No, not 10,000 pages but over 300 with almost 10 MB datas.

>Finally, do not think that I wish you ill will in your career. I hope
>that you complete your studies successfully and become as great a
>composer as you may wish to be ; in whatever area of composition it is
>that you decide to follow.

What career? I'm not interested in career. I will express myself like I
want. And what people think about my work is not relevant to it. It's only
relevant for my ego and self-confidence. Because of that it's not my aim to
become a great composer but to become a composer at all.

>As much as you might disagree with the
>arguments I have given in these past letters, I hope that at the least
>you might consider them in the future - even if you use them as examples
>to your friends of 'stupidity and ignorance' taken too far.

Not "stupidity and ignorance" but I'll remember you as someone, who has not
yet (and perhaps will never) realised the fascinating quality of modern art.

And let my close with a remark by Michael Gielen, one of the most important
German conductors:
"The first duty of a musician is to play the music of his own time."

With best regards.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A ndreas'
C lassical Die Seite für Liebhaber der ernsten Musik.
P age
http://www.classicpage.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREAS HECK
Tobias-Maurer-Str. 17 - D-86154 Augsburg - Tel: 0049-821 / 416399
eMail ACP: webm...@classicpage.com
email Privat: a...@newsfactory.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"E come vivo? Vivo"
("La Bohème", Giacomo Puccini)
-------------------------------------------------------------------