Paris internat. contemp. arts. fair
didier Meurgues
opened in Paris for five days (until 30.10.00) at Parc des Expositions, Métro
Porte de Versailles :
For infos try :
then choose press, then catalogue, then ARTISTS or countries etc,
or visitors, etc..
didier Meurgues
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jack
I did the Fiac twice, and I'm a great amateur of contemporary art.
But,sometimes, wandering through the hundreds of alleys of the
ewhibition ,i asked myself: "Il ne faut quand meme pas exagerer "
:-):-), having an approval head nodding from my wife.
People who love contemporay art, the Fiac is a must like the Monte
Carlo festival is a must for the movie amateur. People who hate
contemporary art, stay away, it will get you cross and more convinced
that you are right :-).
jack
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my personal website where you'll find my
travel tips, hotel suggestions, and restaurant
reviews for Paris, most regions of France, Belgium,
Amsterdam and Venice.
http://www.jack-travel.com/
personal contact address: giti...@my-deja.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
didier Meurgues
Jack <ja...@skynet.be> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2000 20:58:58 GMT, didier Meurgues
> <meur...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >Today 25.10.00, the Foire Internationale d'Art Contemporains (FIAC) has
> >opened in Paris for five days (until 30.10.00) at Parc des Expositions, Métro
> >Porte de Versailles :
> >
> >For infos try :
> >
> >http://fiac.reed-oip.fr/#
> >
> >then choose press, then catalogue, then ARTISTS or countries etc,
> >or visitors, etc..
> >
> >didier Meurgues
> >
> >
> >Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> >Before you buy.
>
> I did the Fiac twice, and I'm a great amateur of contemporary art.
> But,sometimes, wandering through the hundreds of alleys of the
> ewhibition ,i asked myself: "Il ne faut quand meme pas exagerer "
> :-):-), having an approval head nodding from my wife.
> People who love contemporay art, the Fiac is a must like the Monte
> Carlo festival is a must for the movie amateur. People who hate
> contemporary art, stay away, it will get you cross and more convinced
> that you are right :-).
>
> jack
Hi, Jack,
I can't remember well. I've been only once to the FIAC 6 years ago but I will
return saturday. I've heard on the radio that there is already a russian
piece that is making scandal....
In Europe don't forget the Kassel Documenta in Germany, every 5 years
and the Venice bienale, every 2 years... by definition...
(don't know website).
There are so many artists nowadays that the few prominent ones that will stay
in history books are difficult to find on the moment. But there will be...
Each period of history have and still produce artists of great talent.
Personaly I prefer abstraction and love notably Simon Hantaï from hungarian
origin or... Pierre Alechinsky from BELGIAN origin... (he has decorated a
room of the national assembly I have visited durind the "journées du
patrimoine" heritage days , etc... But I can't afford to buy a picture of
them, unfortunately....
didier Meurgues
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Visit my personal website where you'll find my
> travel tips, hotel suggestions, and restaurant
> reviews for Paris, most regions of France, Belgium,
> Amsterdam and Venice.
> http://www.jack-travel.com/
> personal contact address: giti...@my-deja.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
Michael Forrest
deja.com> writes
>
>There are so many artists nowadays that the few prominent ones that will stay
>in history books are difficult to find on the moment. But there will be...
>Each period of history have and still produce artists of great talent.
Indeed. But they have seldom been recognised at the time in any age so
we should not be surprised that they are not easily (or at all)
identifiable at the moment.
>
--
Michael Forrest
Jack
<meur...@my-deja.com> wrote:
The "Documenta" is one of the most important gatherings of
contemporary art in the world. I'm a little proud to announce that it
is the conservator of the Ghent museum of Contemporaray art (since
1976) who is since 1992 the cultural organizer of the Kassel Documenta
IX. His name is JAN HOET and is one of the world leading figures in
that domain. He lives in Ghent
Jack
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my personal website where you'll find my
travel tips, hotel suggestions, and restaurant
reviews for Paris, most regions of France, Belgium,
Amsterdam and Venice.
http://www.jack-travel.com/
personal contact address: giti...@my-deja.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>http://www.documenta.de/
>
>and the Venice bienale, every 2 years... by definition...
>(don't know website).
>
>There are so many artists nowadays that the few prominent ones that will stay
>in history books are difficult to find on the moment. But there will be...
>Each period of history have and still produce artists of great talent.
>
>Personaly I prefer abstraction and love notably Simon Hantaï from hungarian
>origin or... Pierre Alechinsky from BELGIAN origin...
He is Belgian, from Antwerp and ...Jewish.
didier Meurgues
IMO, that was particulrly true at the end of the XIXth c. when occured a
strong rupture in technics with impressionists, then again with abstraction
in the 1910ies and finally with the extremes of minimalism, from which we
have fortunately come back since about 10 years. But for ex. even if Greco
was not apreciated by Felipe II or Manet by Napoleon III, their talent was
sufficiently recognised by many to allow them to live confortably and most of
the ancient famous painters were recognised during their lives, like the
quasi totality of the italian painters. Exceptions like Watteau are very
rare. Some antagonists artists have been both recognised during their lives
like Ingres and Delacroix, or even considered then as leaders in their cities
and farther, like Rubens, Tiziano, Rembrandt, etc... Then their exceptional
talent was easily detectable among few dozens artists in their own area. IMO,
with the communications improvements, the art amateurs, the museums etc...
can perfectly know all the artists of talent in each country now, but after a
first important burst in the 19th c. we saw in this century a real explosion
of the number of talentuous artists as well as a globalisation of art, an
exhaustion of the principal possibilities of representations and thus of the
chances to detect a real originality when true virtuosity is not concerned.
This adds to the usual difficulty to detect, at least at the beginning of
their career, the artists who will count in art history, and even if that's
not new, that makes more confortable for each country to tend to consider as
"sufficient" his own national artists. For ex., amateurs from each main
country of western Europe could easily give the names of more than 30 truely
talentuous national artists. But if they had to choose only two from each
country for a recent decade's room of a museum they would be very annoyed.
didier Meurgues
> --
> Michael Forrest
didier Meurgues
didier Meurgues <meur...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <P7FUGHA3...@sonning.demon.co.uk>,
> Michael Forrest <ml...@sonning.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <8ta5vf$4qu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, didier Meurgues <meurguesd@my-
> > deja.com> writes
> > >
> > >There are so many artists nowadays that the few prominent ones that will stay
> > >in history books are difficult to find on the moment. But there will be...
> > >Each period of history have and still produce artists of great talent.
> >
> > Indeed. But they have seldom been recognised at the time in any age so
> > we should not be surprised that they are not easily (or at all)
> > identifiable at the moment.
>
> IMO, that was particulrly true at the end of the XIXth c. when occured a
> strong rupture in technics with impressionists, then again with abstraction
> in the 1910ies and finally with the extremes of minimalism, from which we
> have fortunately come back since about 10 years. But for ex. even if Greco
> was not apreciated by Felipe II or Manet by Napoleon III, their talent was
> sufficiently recognised by many to allow them to live confortably and most of
> the ancient famous painters were recognised during their lives, like the
> quasi totality of the italian painters. Exceptions like Watteau are very
> rare.
Others have been rediscovered later while they were well recognised in their
time like Vermeer or La Tour.
Michael Forrest
deja.com> writes
>an
>exhaustion of the principal possibilities of representations
I wonder about this. Changing the subject to music for a moment I
suspect that many people thought before Beethoven came along that music
was "exhausted" (by the talents and breadth of Bach, Haydn and Mozart).
And, yes, I know, Beethoven was seen by many at the time as outrageous.
But somehow much serious modern art seems beyond outrageous -
meaningless rather.
--
Michael Forrest
didier Meurgues
Michael Forrest <ml...@sonning.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <8tcnha$7sc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, didier Meurgues <meurguesd@my-
> deja.com> writes
> >an
> >exhaustion of the principal possibilities of representations
>
> I wonder about this.
Yes Michael, I've probably not thought about this enough. And I don't think
even that I'm able to give a pertinent advice, since I'm not an art historian
nor an art dealer. In fact I was thinking of the main forms of the evolution
of representation or...non representation !!! in painting : I mean :
Figuration, Abstraction, Minimalism and Conceptualism ? Putting apart, the
different technics (oil, acrylic, collage, other materials, etc..), medias
(fixed pictures, moving pictures, 2, 3, 4...!!! dimensions, etc...) or
individual manners,... as well as those who will be invented in the future...
When I said that ancient artists where more recognised in their time than
modern artists representing a rupture in tecnics (or representations), of
whom Van Gogh is a good example, I was thinking of this : IMO, before 1800
artists were more dependant of the academies to be recognised as artists. If
not they were only considered as craftsmen by jobs "corporations". And the
constrainsts of both bodies were important. I've got the impression that the
liberty of the artists was reduced by a different working of the art market
and a more important role of the command and of the patrons. There were
galleries presenting contemporaneous paintings too for sale in the 18th c.
(take the picture of one of them, the "Enseigne de Gersaint" by Watteau in
Charlotenburg museum, and since the Renaissance the artists were even able to
decide their own subjects (Raphaël's Fornarina) and propose them to the
private market, like the dutch 17th c. still lives, wether through the
recognition of the academies, like the Watteau "fêtes galantes" theme, or
with the only help of the market, like Vermeer or Greuse "scenes de genre" or
Chardin still lives, but in the majority the painters were more passive than
active. I mean they were much more dependant of the commands and the good
will of their aristocratic or bourgeois patrons, notably through portraits
and decors and the galleries were not sustaining artists and movements in the
modern way Durand Ruel or Ambroise Vollard did at the turn of the century. At
this time the painters could hardly propose a totally new type of
representation, even if GRECO, who is certainly one of the greatest genius of
all times, did it in a way, with the means of his century. The pictures could
hardly be anything else than figurative and figurative representation was
mainly evolving through the continuous evolution of technics (oil with Van
Eyck), recognised taste, thanks to the influence of older masters (Raphaël,
Caravaggio, Rubens...), or the improvement of accuracy in representation
since the middle ages. I've got the impression that a good artist had first
to be a good technician in the use of oil painting and that the few one who
were really gifted or had an original tuch (Holbein, Rembrandt, etc...) were
more easily recognisable ; that despite the fierce competition wich was
already reigning in the 18th c., some paintors could produce less major
pieces just because there were not enough commands for them considering the
fact that all academicians had to be rewarded with some. I know at least 4
gifted but quasi unknowed 18th c. artists of this kind. That's why I think
that before, the major artists of their time were more easily recognisable by
the critique, and that the market was clearer and more fluid, while modern
artists can more easily shock the general opinion or even consider this will
of rupture as the essence of their art (avant-garde).
Changing the subject to music for a moment I
> suspect that many people thought before Beethoven came along that music
> was "exhausted" (by the talents and breadth of Bach, Haydn and Mozart).
> And, yes, I know, Beethoven was seen by many at the time as outrageous.
> But somehow much serious modern art seems beyond outrageous -
> meaningless rather.
I don't agree entirely. I'll tell it later why IMO, notably through the
description of the FIAC, that I had promised to Jack but have not had the
time to do.