OT: Power of Art - Picasso
Pete Fisher
Schama's 'Power of Art' next Friday: Picasso. Concentrating on Guernica.
Picasso - couldn't draw for toffee could he.
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Fisher at Home: Pe...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk |
| Voxan Roadster Gilera Nordwest Yamaha WR250Z |
| Gilera GFR Moto Morini 2C/375 |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
Pip
<Pe...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>A 'heads up' For all you Art fans and self confessed Philistines. Simon
>Schama's 'Power of Art' next Friday: Picasso. Concentrating on Guernica.
>Picasso - couldn't draw for toffee could he.
Couldn't eat a toffee and draw at the same time, for sure - and I
wouldn't want to eat one of his toffees either.
--
Pip: B12
Wicked Uncle Nigel
<gingerbl...@NOSPAMgmail.com> typed
Oh I dunno, those little cube shaped ones are quite nice.
--
Wicked Uncle Nigel - Podium Placed Ducati Race Engineer as featured in
Performance Bikes and Fast Bikes
WS* GHPOTHUF#24 APOSTLE#14 DLC#1 COFF#20 BOTAFOT#150 HYPO#0(KoTL) IbW#41
SBS#39 OMF#6 Enfield 500 Curry House Racer "The Basmati Rice Burner",
Honda GL1000K2 (On its hols) Kawasaki ZN1300 Voyager "Oh, Oh, It's so big"
Suzuki TS250 "The Africa Single" Yamaha Vmax Honda ST1100 wiv trailer
Gyp
<Pe...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> writes
>A 'heads up' For all you Art fans and self confessed Philistines. Simon
>Schama's 'Power of Art' next Friday: Picasso. Concentrating on
>Guernica.
>Picasso - couldn't draw for toffee could he.
:-|
--
Gyp
Change to dotcom to reply
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember Pete Fisher
<Pe...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> saying something like:
>Picasso - couldn't draw for toffee could he.
Certainly couldn't draw toffees very well.
--
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a
Every post contains Nutri-Ceramide-R and Pre-Biotics
for your reading pleasure.
Folding@Home Team UKRM http://www.tinyurl.com/jkxwv
Pete Fisher
Curmudgeon <grimly...@REMOVEgmail.com> cast forth these pearls of
wisdom
>We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
>drugs began to take hold. I remember Pete Fisher
><Pe...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> saying something like:
>
>>Picasso - couldn't draw for toffee could he.
>
>Certainly couldn't draw toffees very well.
<Reels in line and replaces lovingly hand tied fly in box>
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember Pete Fisher
<Pe...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> saying something like:
>In communiqué <fhphm253ov4qu4dj5...@4ax.com>, Grimly
>Curmudgeon <grimly...@REMOVEgmail.com> cast forth these pearls of
>wisdom
>>We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
>>drugs began to take hold. I remember Pete Fisher
>><Pe...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> saying something like:
>>
>>>Picasso - couldn't draw for toffee could he.
>>
>>Certainly couldn't draw toffees very well.
>
><Reels in line and replaces lovingly hand tied fly in box>
Curse those German bomb sights.
Actually, the Goimans were aiming for a pair of bridges, but the smoke
caused 'creepback', a bomb-aiming phenomenom which blighted the Allies
later on.
Pete Fisher
Curmudgeon <grimly...@REMOVEgmail.com> writes
>><Reels in line and replaces lovingly hand tied fly in box>
>
>Curse those German bomb sights.
>
>Actually, the Goimans were aiming for a pair of bridges, but the smoke
>caused 'creepback', a bomb-aiming phenomenom which blighted the Allies
>later on.
Says who ? The Red Baron's cousin, who had much more suitable Stukas
available anyway, apparently?
<isn't Google amazing?>
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Fisher at Home: Pe...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk |
| Visit my Home Page : http://www.flarefox.com/Lesbordes |
| "Do not adjust your mind - there is a fault in the reality" |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember Pete Fisher
<Pe...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> saying something like:
>>Actually, the Goimans were aiming for a pair of bridges, but the smoke
>>caused 'creepback', a bomb-aiming phenomenom which blighted the Allies
>>later on.
>
>Says who ? The Red Baron's cousin, who had much more suitable Stukas
>available anyway, apparently?
Sez the fudged history of the time. It looks like the Eyeties did the
right thing but the Sossidgemunchers took the piss and, going by the
bomb loads, set out to deliberately flatten the buildings and fire the
town.
DR
>A 'heads up' For all you Art fans and self confessed Philistines. Simon
>Schama's 'Power of Art' next Friday: Picasso. Concentrating on Guernica.
>Picasso - couldn't draw for toffee could he.
I appear to be completely lacking in the ability to appreciate art. If
an object has no function other than to be looked at, it is
meaningless to me.
--
Darren Robinson
GSF1200N K3
Ace
Oi, piss off, that's my meme.
<small voice>
Actually, it's not. My viwe is more that Art is fine as long as it's
just there to be looked at - the moment someone tries to make it
anything more than that is when it loses reality for me.
--
_______
.'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3 (slightly broken, currently missing)
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`
Pete Fisher
<blueb...@talktalk.net.invalid> cast forth these pearls of wisdom
I agree that some of the very modern stuff is very 'inaccessible'. The
point about 'Guernica' is that while it has no function other than to be
looked at, the looking is intended to cause an emotional reaction. The
painting was a condemnation of the brutality of war and that act of war
against civilians in particular. A series of shots by a war photographer
would have more impact for you perhaps as it would be literally a record
of what happened (although still an interpretation by that particular
photographer).
The other point about Picasso is that (as I am sure most knew already)
he was an accomplished draughtsman. When he was 14/15 he could draw and
paint like the 'old masters' [1]. I think he got bored with that and
hence his later unrealistic styles.
[1] http://www.nga.gov/images/noncol/fisherfs.htm
Pete Fisher
<see...@virgin.net> cast forth these pearls of wisdom
>>I appear to be completely lacking in the ability to appreciate art. If
>>an object has no function other than to be looked at, it is
>>meaningless to me.
>
>Oi, piss off, that's my meme.
>
><small voice>
>Actually, it's not. My viwe is more that Art is fine as long as it's
>just there to be looked at - the moment someone tries to make it
>anything more than that is when it loses reality for me.
>
I refer the honourable member to my earlier answer. ^^^^
Ace
<Pe...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>I refer the honourable member to my earlier answer. ^^^^
Yeah, I started to read it, but you mentioned some painter or other
I'de never heard of, so I got bored and stopped...
Ace
<Pe...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I agree that some of the very modern stuff is very 'inaccessible'. The
>point about 'Guernica' is that while it has no function other than to be
>looked at, the looking is intended to cause an emotional reaction.
Oh, one of that sort of 'Art'. Complete waste of space, then, if it
doesn't even look nice.
Pete Fisher
<see...@virgin.net> cast forth these pearls of wisdom
>On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 16:42:44 +0000, Pete Fisher
><Pe...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I agree that some of the very modern stuff is very 'inaccessible'. The
>>point about 'Guernica' is that while it has no function other than to be
>>looked at, the looking is intended to cause an emotional reaction.
>
>Oh, one of that sort of 'Art'. Complete waste of space, then, if it
>doesn't even look nice.
>
Now I understand. Decorative greetings card and chocolate box art only
adorning the walls of you place - assuming there are any images at all.
Ace
<Pe...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In communiqué <3shjm25a0bdg4gs7u...@4ax.com>, Ace
><see...@virgin.net> cast forth these pearls of wisdom
>>On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 16:42:44 +0000, Pete Fisher
>><Pe...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>I agree that some of the very modern stuff is very 'inaccessible'. The
>>>point about 'Guernica' is that while it has no function other than to be
>>>looked at, the looking is intended to cause an emotional reaction.
>>
>>Oh, one of that sort of 'Art'. Complete waste of space, then, if it
>>doesn't even look nice.
>>
>
>Now I understand. Decorative greetings card and chocolate box art only
>adorning the walls of you place - assuming there are any images at all.
<Looks around>
Not much, no. There's a Cellini print
http://en.easyart.com/art-prints/Mauro-Cellini/San-Giorgie-146550.html
in the bedroom, and there were (not atm, cos we're decorating) a
couple of big watercolours (plants & conservatory) by me ex-wife in
the hall. Cos they look quite colourful and decorative, see.
Previously we've had lots of cat pictures, but somehow never got round
to it in this house. Oh, there's still one, a 3-ft reclining black
cat, in the kitchen.
Pete Fisher
>
>Not much, no. There's a Cellini print
>http://en.easyart.com/art-prints/Mauro-Cellini/San-Giorgie-146550.html
>in the bedroom, and there were (not atm, cos we're decorating) a
>couple of big watercolours (plants & conservatory) by me ex-wife in
>the hall. Cos they look quite colourful and decorative, see.
>
Now you see, to me that Cellini is not just 'nice', it is not a mere
attempt at 'photographic' reproduction.
As SWMBO teaches Art there is a fair amount of it around including one
or two of her own paintings and couple of sculptures. I actually think
she is better at 3-D stuff. Otherwise: Cezanne, Courbet, Matisse,
Kandinsky , Rothko and Henri Rousseau. Most of which you would probably
class as 'nice', with the exception possibly of the Kandinsky and
Rothko.
>Previously we've had lots of cat pictures, but somehow never got round
>to it in this house. Oh, there's still one, a 3-ft reclining black
>cat, in the kitchen.
>
Loads of cat stuff in the downstairs loo (no actual cats in the house at
all though). Somewhere I have my own feeble attempt at an oil painting
of my old Manx stumpy, 'Sulby'.
Paul Carmichael
> A 'heads up' For all you Art fans and self confessed Philistines. Simon
> Schama's 'Power of Art' next Friday: Picasso. Concentrating on Guernica.
> Picasso - couldn't draw for toffee could he.
He was tit-obsessed and talentless.
Everyone here thinks he was spiffing. He's kind of the patron saint of
Málaga. Our airport was named after him. Yes, his real name was "Málaga
Airport".
--
Paul.
CBR1100XX SuperBlackbird
BOTAFOT #4
BOTAFOF #30
MRO #24
OMF #15
UKRMMA #30
Paul Carmichael
> Previously we've had lots of cat pictures, but somehow never got round
> to it in this house. Oh, there's still one, a 3-ft reclining black
> cat, in the kitchen.
>
I don't remember that. Mind you, all I saw in your house was the fridge
and a bed.
DR
<Pe...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> is alleged to have written:
>In communiqué <uedjm256egeanobt2...@4ax.com>, DR
><blueb...@talktalk.net.invalid> cast forth these pearls of wisdom
>
>>I appear to be completely lacking in the ability to appreciate art. If
>>an object has no function other than to be looked at, it is
>>meaningless to me.
>
>I agree that some of the very modern stuff is very 'inaccessible'. The
>point about 'Guernica' is that while it has no function other than to be
>looked at, the looking is intended to cause an emotional reaction. The
>painting was a condemnation of the brutality of war and that act of war
>against civilians in particular. A series of shots by a war photographer
>would have more impact for you perhaps as it would be literally a record
>of what happened (although still an interpretation by that particular
>photographer).
If a piece of art is not an accurate representation (as I perceive it,
obviously) of the subject matter, I disregard it. My emotional
reaction to the piece 'Guernica' is "what the fuck was he smoking?"
and to move on.
>The other point about Picasso is that (as I am sure most knew already)
>he was an accomplished draughtsman. When he was 14/15 he could draw and
>paint like the 'old masters' [1]. I think he got bored with that and
>hence his later unrealistic styles.
I am aware that Picasso's earlier work was in a far more traditional
vein. Personally I think he went utterly, completely loopy.
Pete Fisher
<ar...@tit.com> cast forth these pearls of wisdom
>Pete Fisher wrote:
>
>> A 'heads up' For all you Art fans and self confessed Philistines.
>>Simon Schama's 'Power of Art' next Friday: Picasso. Concentrating on
>>Guernica.
>> Picasso - couldn't draw for toffee could he.
>
>He was tit-obsessed and talentless.
>
I thought his favourite feathered friend subject was the dove.
>Everyone here thinks he was spiffing. He's kind of the patron saint of
>Málaga. Our airport was named after him. Yes, his real name was "Málaga
>Airport".
>
The 'Renault Málaga' - hmm doesn't quite work somehow.
Pete Fisher
>obviously) of the subject matter, I disregard it. My emotional
>reaction to the piece 'Guernica' is "what the fuck was he smoking?"
>and to move on.
>
A pretty extreme point of view (well perhaps not around here). No point
in Art after the invention of the camera then.
>>The other point about Picasso is that (as I am sure most knew already)
>>he was an accomplished draughtsman. When he was 14/15 he could draw and
>>paint like the 'old masters' [1]. I think he got bored with that and
>>hence his later unrealistic styles.
>
>I am aware that Picasso's earlier work was in a far more traditional
>vein. Personally I think he went utterly, completely loopy.
>
>
Yes mad as a balloon. I suppose he could have spent the rest of his life
knocking out pot boiler stuff for the tourist trade and been happier.
DR
<Pe...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> is alleged to have written:
>In communiqué <mkpjm2tuloulhabsc...@4ax.com>, DR
><blueb...@talktalk.net.invalid> cast forth these pearls of wisdom
>>If a piece of art is not an accurate representation (as I perceive it,
>>obviously) of the subject matter, I disregard it. My emotional
>>reaction to the piece 'Guernica' is "what the fuck was he smoking?"
>>and to move on.
>>
>
>A pretty extreme point of view (well perhaps not around here). No point
>in Art after the invention of the camera then.
Any mug can point a camera and press a button, but I do admire the
skill involved in transferring/creating an image by hand - mostly
because I haven't got the merest smidgeon of a femto-iota of it.
Pete Fisher
>>
>>in Art after the invention of the camera then.
>
>Any mug can point a camera and press a button, but I do admire the
>skill involved in transferring/creating an image by hand - mostly
>because I haven't got the merest smidgeon of a femto-iota of it.
>
>
I suspect, though, that like Ace, you can admire the skill of someone
who can create an image by hand that is not simply a perfectly faithful
representation of the subject down to the tiniest detail.
Art is a way of seeing [1]. At least, since the impressionists, artist
have tried to make more than just a simple 'picture', but to convey the
'essence' of what they see. I must admit though that I find
non-representational art doesn't usually do much for me.
[1] 'Ways of Seeing' by John Berger - recommended.
DR
<Pe...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> is alleged to have written:
>I suspect, though, that like Ace, you can admire the skill of someone
>who can create an image by hand that is not simply a perfectly faithful
>representation of the subject down to the tiniest detail.
I don't see the point in showing something as other than how it
actually is. If that made sense...
>Art is a way of seeing [1]. At least, since the impressionists, artist
>have tried to make more than just a simple 'picture', but to convey the
>'essence' of what they see. I must admit though that I find
>non-representational art doesn't usually do much for me.
If I take off my glasses I see the world as an Impressionist painting
anyway.
Wicked Uncle Nigel
<blueb...@talktalk.net.invalid> typed
>On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 20:30:42 +0000, Pete Fisher
><Pe...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> is alleged to have written:
>
>>have tried to make more than just a simple 'picture', but to convey the
>>'essence' of what they see. I must admit though that I find
>>non-representational art doesn't usually do much for me.
>
>If I take off my glasses I see the world as an Impressionist painting
>anyway.
And you were paying a very impressive homage to Hermann Nitsch at a
recent *OSM.
DR
<w...@wicked-uncle-nigel.me.uk> is alleged to have written:
>Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, DR
><blueb...@talktalk.net.invalid> typed
>
>If I take off my glasses I see the world as an Impressionist painting
>>anyway.
>
>And you were paying a very impressive homage to Hermann Nitsch at a
>recent *OSM.
With very little information, I believe I can make a guess at the
events to which you allude, and have a high probability of guessing
correctly. However, at this juncture I must confess I haven't got a
fucking scooby who that is...
<googles>
Ah.
Do you think if I ralph on to a bit of white canvas, I might persuade
that nice Mr. Saatchi to part with a million or two for it?
Wicked Uncle Nigel
<blueb...@talktalk.net.invalid> typed
>On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 22:09:53 +0000, Wicked Uncle Nigel
><w...@wicked-uncle-nigel.me.uk> is alleged to have written:
>
>>Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, DR
>><blueb...@talktalk.net.invalid> typed
>>
>>If I take off my glasses I see the world as an Impressionist painting
>>>anyway.
>>
>>And you were paying a very impressive homage to Hermann Nitsch at a
>>recent *OSM.
>
>With very little information, I believe I can make a guess at the
>events to which you allude, and have a high probability of guessing
>correctly. However, at this juncture I must confess I haven't got a
>fucking scooby who that is...
>
><googles>
>
>Ah.
>
>Do you think if I ralph on to a bit of white canvas, I might persuade
>that nice Mr. Saatchi to part with a million or two for it?
Depends. If you haven't been to art school, it's not really art. It's
just puke. If you *have* it's a statement about the damage done to the
planet by excess food and the evils of alcoholism. And then it's
certainly worth a few bob.
DR
<w...@wicked-uncle-nigel.me.uk> is alleged to have written:
>Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, DR
><blueb...@talktalk.net.invalid> typed
>>Do you think if I ralph on to a bit of white canvas, I might persuade
>>that nice Mr. Saatchi to part with a million or two for it?
>
>Depends. If you haven't been to art school, it's not really art. It's
>just puke. If you *have* it's a statement about the damage done to the
>planet by excess food and the evils of alcoholism. And then it's
>certainly worth a few bob.
I have driven past Carlisle Art College a few times, does that count?
How does one greet an art student?
Big Mac and fries please.
How does one greet an art graduate?
Big Mac and fries please, no mustard.
Pete Fisher
>
>actually is. If that made sense...
>
You are admirably consistent. Perfect sense. Do you enjoy fiction or
films that are not documentaries?
OK, not a good idea to introduce you to Cezanne and his "appleness of
apples" then.
>>Art is a way of seeing [1]. At least, since the impressionists, artist
>>have tried to make more than just a simple 'picture', but to convey the
>>'essence' of what they see. I must admit though that I find
>>non-representational art doesn't usually do much for me.
>
>If I take off my glasses I see the world as an Impressionist painting
>anyway.
>
>
I think your mistrust of Art is connected with the concept of the
"hierarchy of senses". On that pseud's corner note, I leave you to a
world in which everything must always be exactly what it appears to be
at first sight.
Pete Fisher
<w...@wicked-uncle-nigel.me.uk> cast forth these pearls of wisdom
>>
>>Do you think if I ralph on to a bit of white canvas, I might persuade
>>that nice Mr. Saatchi to part with a million or two for it?
>
>Depends. If you haven't been to art school, it's not really art. It's
>just puke. If you *have* it's a statement about the damage done to the
>planet by excess food and the evils of alcoholism. And then it's
>certainly worth a few bob.
>
Nah, just a Jackson Pollock wannabe. The conceptualists, that's where
it's really at.
porl
DR wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 20:30:42 +0000, Pete Fisher
> <Pe...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> is alleged to have written:
>
> >I suspect, though, that like Ace, you can admire the skill of someone
> >who can create an image by hand that is not simply a perfectly faithful
> >representation of the subject down to the tiniest detail.
>
> I don't see the point in showing something as other than how it
> actually is. If that made sense...
Do you see a point in an exact replication of something then? Is there
a point in hanging a painting of a cat on the wall if you already know
what cats look like anyway? Even more so if you own cats?
Most mind expanding stimuli occurs when the brain is coerced into
thinking about things from a difference perspective. This is one of the
reasons why travel is considered to "broaden one's horizons". By
leaving your comfort zone and essentially experiencing something
outside of your general spere, experiencing as in being an active
participant in the perception process, ie, thinking, interpreting and
correlating what you are seeing/experiencing, you can broaden your
perspective, thus becoming a better and more useful human being and
leading a fuller life.
A piece of art for instance give you the opportunity to connect in a
visceral way with the artist, not in a "I was thinking about a cat so I
drew it...awwwww isn't it cute" but a "I hate the world/love the
loneliness of existence/want to fuck my mother/find the vaccum of
social collectivity depressing" kind of way. You're not necessarily
expected to "get it". It's not a test but if you don't practice trying
to "get it" then you'll probably never get close to experiencing
anything worthwhile in the same way you wouldn't understand a joke in
Turkish if you'd never learned the language.
Some people might for instance find it comforting that others have the
same inability to relate to others and find life even more torturous
and these people have attempted to exorcise their demons and
communicate the pain through art inbetween chucking bottles of anti
depressants down and trying to elevate idiocy to the rank of pragmatic
heroism.
Champ
<blueb...@talktalk.net.invalid> wrote:
>If a piece of art is not an accurate representation (as I perceive it,
>obviously) of the subject matter, I disregard it. My emotional
>reaction to the piece 'Guernica' is "what the fuck was he smoking?"
>and to move on.
You seem quite quick to dismiss stuff (art, religion, to name but two)
which many people value highly. Perhaps you should pause a little?
I know you like music, and you certainly listen to stuff that isn't
representational (i.e. it doesn't sound like bikes engines, or waves,
or other real world stuff). Music is designed to elicit an emotional
response - why should the visual arts work in a similar way?
--
Champ
ZX10R
GPz750turbo
My advice as your attorney is to buy a motorcycle
to email me, neal at my domain should work.
Champ
wrote:
>Pete Fisher wrote:
>
>> A 'heads up' For all you Art fans and self confessed Philistines. Simon
>> Schama's 'Power of Art' next Friday: Picasso. Concentrating on Guernica.
>> Picasso - couldn't draw for toffee could he.
>
>He was tit-obsessed and talentless.
He may have been tit obsessed (after all, so is Hog, and no one has a
go at him about it), but to describe him as talentless shows your
ignorance. You may well not like his work, but calling him talentless
just reflects on you.
Ace
<Pe...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In communiqué <f1mjm2hplt808oot3...@4ax.com>, Ace
><see...@virgin.net> cast forth these pearls of wisdom
>><Looks around>
>>
>>Not much, no. There's a Cellini print
>>http://en.easyart.com/art-prints/Mauro-Cellini/San-Giorgie-146550.html
>>in the bedroom,
>Now you see, to me that Cellini is not just 'nice', it is not a mere
>attempt at 'photographic' reproduction.
So? It _is_ nice, which is my point. If it wasn't, I wouldn't care
about how 'good' it was.
Ace
<Pe...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In communiqué <mkpjm2tuloulhabsc...@4ax.com>, DR
><blueb...@talktalk.net.invalid> cast forth these pearls of wisdom
>>If a piece of art is not an accurate representation (as I perceive it,
>>obviously) of the subject matter, I disregard it. My emotional
>>reaction to the piece 'Guernica' is "what the fuck was he smoking?"
>>and to move on.
>>
>
>A pretty extreme point of view (well perhaps not around here). No point
>in Art after the invention of the camera then.
Now I see the reason for your comment to me. My views do not correlate
well with those of Darren.
Pete Fisher
>>attempt at 'photographic' reproduction.
>
>So? It _is_ nice, which is my point. If it wasn't, I wouldn't care
>about how 'good' it was.
>
OK, I am with you on not admiring a work simply because of technique.
'Good' - that's tricky word for a Monday morning. I presume you mean in
an Art criticism context. I have long debates with SWMBO about how I am
not keen on work that needs to be 'explained' to me.
So your nice mean just pleasing to the eye then ? No emotional response
allowed - even positive? Are all the books you read, films and plays you
watch 'nice'? Easy listening music only?
Ace
<Pe...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In communiqué <tf7lm2peapkqo3s13...@4ax.com>, Ace
><see...@virgin.net> cast forth these pearls of wisdom
>>
>>>Now you see, to me that Cellini is not just 'nice', it is not a mere
>>>attempt at 'photographic' reproduction.
>>
>>So? It _is_ nice, which is my point. If it wasn't, I wouldn't care
>>about how 'good' it was.
>So your nice mean just pleasing to the eye then ?
Why do you add the word 'just'?
>No emotional response allowed - even positive?
It's largely irrelevant to my view.
> Are all the books you read, films and plays you
>watch 'nice'? Easy listening music only?
'Music that sounds good' only. I admit it's a much more subjective
thing, but if, for a few very loose examples, something is played on
out of tune instruments[1], doesn't have a coherent melody or
deliberately uses discords to jar the listener then I'd generally not
count it as 'good'.
Although why you (and frequently Champ) want to bring music into the
equation I'll never understand. Just because they both fall under a
different definition of the word 'art' doesn't make them in any way
comparable. Similarly books, films, plays etc.
[1] Although I confess that Guggemusik can be quite entertaining.
Pete Fisher
>
>Why do you add the word 'just'?
>
In a domestic context I concede the word 'just'. Even SWMBO would not
have anything on the wall at home if it did not please her eye. As I
said earlier, what pleases hers might not please yours though. I give
you a Kandinsky:
http://www.latifm.com/artists/image/kandinsky-wassily-farbstudie.jpg
>>No emotional response allowed - even positive?
>
>It's largely irrelevant to my view.
>
This is the 'cleavage point' [feed line alert: smut shield activated]
between your view of Art, and the view of one or two of us it seems,
that Art is allowed, encouraged even, to elicit an emotional response. I
can accept your stance that in your home you want only decorative art.
It's your home. Do you extend that argument of irrelevance to
non-domestic Art: public galleries, public buildings or public open
spaces ?
>> Are all the books you read, films and plays you
>>watch 'nice'? Easy listening music only?
>
>'Music that sounds good' only. I admit it's a much more subjective
>thing, but if, for a few very loose examples, something is played on
>out of tune instruments[1], doesn't have a coherent melody or
>deliberately uses discords to jar the listener then I'd generally not
>count it as 'good'.
>
Not a Stravinsky or John Cage fan then. A pattern is emerging of not
rating anything avant-garde.
>Although why you (and frequently Champ) want to bring music into the
>equation I'll never understand. Just because they both fall under a
>different definition of the word 'art' doesn't make them in any way
>comparable. Similarly books, films, plays etc.
>
I can't speak for Champ, but in my case I think that whilst not directly
comparable their capacity to provoke reaction and thought is. I wouldn't
have you down as someone who reads or enjoys films only for
'mindless'[1] entertainment.
>[1] Although I confess that Guggemusik can be quite entertaining.
>
Heh - "Mozart et al on vacuum cleaner and bicycle instruments" - musical
'Dada'.
[1] Not that there is anything wrong with a bit of extreme zazen
mindlessness now and then
Ace
<Pe...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In communiqué <759lm2ph9rarmuuan...@4ax.com>, Ace
><see...@virgin.net> cast forth these pearls of wisdom
>>
>>>So your nice mean just pleasing to the eye then ?
>>
>>Why do you add the word 'just'?
>>
>
>In a domestic context I concede the word 'just'. Even SWMBO would not
>have anything on the wall at home if it did not please her eye. As I
>said earlier, what pleases hers might not please yours though. I give
>you a Kandinsky:
>
>http://www.latifm.com/artists/image/kandinsky-wassily-farbstudie.jpg
Looks OK. Nice and colourful.
>>>No emotional response allowed - even positive?
>>
>>It's largely irrelevant to my view.
>>
>
>This is the 'cleavage point' [feed line alert: smut shield activated]
>between your view of Art, and the view of one or two of us it seems,
>that Art is allowed, encouraged even, to elicit an emotional response. I
>can accept your stance that in your home you want only decorative art.
That's not my point at all. I guess I can put it like this - The use
of art to engender an emotional respose is just that - a use. It's not
inherent to any given media that it must, nor is it a primary function
thereof so to do. But there is no reason it should not do so, nor that
it cannot be specifically intended for such a use.
The cleavage point, as you so eloquently put it, is where a piece of
'art' is intended only to generate such an emotional response and
loses sight of any concept of visual appeal; when this point is
crossed, I fail to see how it can be called art.
>>> Are all the books you read, films and plays you
>>>watch 'nice'? Easy listening music only?
>>
>>'Music that sounds good' only. I admit it's a much more subjective
>>thing
>Not a Stravinsky or John Cage fan then.
Not a 'fan' of anything much in the 'classical' realm, but I'm sure
I've liked some Stravinsky stuff. Cage I've never heard. Don't try to
apply my 'loose' definitions too rigidly.
>A pattern is emerging of not rating anything avant-garde.
Isn't avant-garde just another term for 'not actually very good, but
it generates an emotional response'?
>I wouldn't
>have you down as someone who reads or enjoys films only for
>'mindless'[1] entertainment.
You don't know me very well then. I like films best that leave me with
a smile. Watched 'Catch me if you can' on BBC3 last night - seen it
once before, on a longhaul flight, but enjoyed it much more at home.
Pete Fisher
><Pe...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>In a domestic context I concede the word 'just'. Even SWMBO would not
>>have anything on the wall at home if it did not please her eye. As I
>>said earlier, what pleases hers might not please yours though. I give
>>you a Kandinsky:
>>
>>http://www.latifm.com/artists/image/kandinsky-wassily-farbstudie.jpg
>
>Looks OK. Nice and colourful.
>
Impressively big as well. SWMBO, you see, would also explain what
Kandinsky was up to with his use of colour and light. I will save 'our'
Rothko print for later.
>>>>No emotional response allowed - even positive?
>>>
>>>It's largely irrelevant to my view.
>>>
>>
Semantics again. We may have different meanings or ranges of meanings
for 'emotional'.
>
>The cleavage point, as you so eloquently put it, is where a piece of
>'art' is intended only to generate such an emotional response and
>loses sight of any concept of visual appeal; when this point is
>crossed, I fail to see how it can be called art.
Interesting. Now Picasso would say in the case of most of his work that
there was no 'intention' other than his exploration of the medium.
'Guernica' obviously was not only a 'statement' but also a commissioned
piece.
The emotional response to be engendered might be awe, wonder or even
thoughts of love. Still can't be called art?
<has uncontrollable urge to quote Blake>
"To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour."
Oops; poetry; more irrelevance.
>
>>>> Are all the books you read, films and plays you
>>>>watch 'nice'? Easy listening music only?
>>>
>Isn't avant-garde just another term for 'not actually very good, but
>it generates an emotional response'?
>
You know better than that - you speak French. Monet was 'not actually
very good'?
>>I wouldn't
>>have you down as someone who reads or enjoys films only for
>>'mindless'[1] entertainment.
>
>You don't know me very well then. I like films best that leave me with
>a smile. Watched 'Catch me if you can' on BBC3 last night - seen it
>once before, on a longhaul flight, but enjoyed it much more at home.
>
>
Well there is nothing as uplifting as a good laugh - and some Art can
produce that reaction.
ogden
>
> The other point about Picasso is that (as I am sure most knew already)
> he was an accomplished draughtsman. When he was 14/15 he could draw and
> paint like the 'old masters' [1]. I think he got bored with that and
> hence his later unrealistic styles.
Picasso and Dali were both like that. They could turn their hand to do
just about anything, and once they'd mastered everyone else's style,
they had no real option but to create their own. Likewise Munch and Van
Gogh, and most of the other true greats. Fucked if I get Cézanne, mind.
Painted like a cripple.
--
ogden
buy tat here: http://search.ebay.co.uk/_W0QQsassZdr.daifQQhtZ-1
ogden
>
> As SWMBO teaches Art there is a fair amount of it around including one
> or two of her own paintings and couple of sculptures. I actually think
> she is better at 3-D stuff. Otherwise: Cezanne, Courbet, Matisse,
> Kandinsky , Rothko and Henri Rousseau. Most of which you would probably
> class as 'nice', with the exception possibly of the Kandinsky and
> Rothko.
I still don't get Rothko. I was hoping to get face-to-face with some at
the Pompidou centre last week, but the cunts have closed half the museum
and turned the rest into a temporary exhibition on film, so the entire
visit was a complete washout. Bastards.
And don't get me started on the poxy Louvre...
Pete Fisher
>>
>> The other point about Picasso is that (as I am sure most knew already)
>> he was an accomplished draughtsman. When he was 14/15 he could draw and
>> paint like the 'old masters' [1]. I think he got bored with that and
>> hence his later unrealistic styles.
>
>Picasso and Dali were both like that. They could turn their hand to do
>just about anything, and once they'd mastered everyone else's style,
>they had no real option but to create their own. Likewise Munch and Van
>Gogh, and most of the other true greats. Fucked if I get Cézanne, mind.
>Painted like a cripple.
>
SWMBO's all time favourite. We visited his studio in Aix en Provence at
Easter (am I allowed to use that term). Absolutely amazing atmosphere
about the place with all his props and old brushes etc. around. We also
walked up to the spot where he did all the Mont St Victoire paintings.
One of her major MA marked presentations was on one of his works.
I think 'cripple' is a little harsh:
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/cezanne/st-victoire/1885/cezanne.st-victoire-1885.jpg
ogden
>
> ogden wrote:
> > Fucked if I get Cézanne, mind. Painted like a cripple.
> >
>
> SWMBO's all time favourite. We visited his studio in Aix en Provence at
> Easter (am I allowed to use that term). Absolutely amazing atmosphere
> about the place with all his props and old brushes etc. around. We also
> walked up to the spot where he did all the Mont St Victoire paintings.
> One of her major MA marked presentations was on one of his works.
>
> I think 'cripple' is a little harsh:
> http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/cezanne/st-victoire/1885/cezanne.st-victoire-1885.jpg
My bad, I meant Toulouse-Lautrec. Endless meditations on tarts and
drinking buddies. And hey, he *was* a cripple. Who knew!?
darsy
>Pete Fisher wrote:
>>
>> The other point about Picasso is that (as I am sure most knew already)
>> he was an accomplished draughtsman. When he was 14/15 he could draw and
>> paint like the 'old masters' [1]. I think he got bored with that and
>> hence his later unrealistic styles.
>
>Picasso and Dali were both like that. They could turn their hand to do
>just about anything, and once they'd mastered everyone else's style,
>they had no real option but to create their own. Likewise Munch and Van
>Gogh, and most of the other true greats. Fucked if I get Cézanne, mind.
>Painted like a cripple.
Van Gogh was mostly shit. Unlike Picasso and Dali, he *couldn't* draw
or paint.
--
d.
darsy
>My bad, I meant Toulouse-Lautrec. Endless meditations on tarts and
>drinking buddies. And hey, he *was* a cripple. Who knew!?
almost everyone, in fact.
Your modern art's OK, but for my money, you can't beat a bit of Bosch.
--
d.
Champ
heh. I can see why you might like paintings that look like an S&M wet
dream.
Are you *sure* you didn't have a catholic education?
--
Champ
ZX10R
GPz750turbo
darsy
>On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 13:15:56 +0000, darsy <da...@sticky.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>ogden <og...@pre.org> wrote:
>>
>>>My bad, I meant Toulouse-Lautrec. Endless meditations on tarts and
>>>drinking buddies. And hey, he *was* a cripple. Who knew!?
>>
>>almost everyone, in fact.
>>
>>Your modern art's OK, but for my money, you can't beat a bit of Bosch.
>
>heh. I can see why you might like paintings that look like an S&M wet
>dream.
heh.
>Are you *sure* you didn't have a catholic education?
fairly.
--
d.
Pete Fisher
>
>drinking buddies.
A bugger, the old 'Green Fairy', eh? [an observation not an exhortation]
>And hey, he *was* a cripple. Who knew!?
>
Touché. Very un-PC of me, has that blown my chances of BH&LC membership?
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember Pete Fisher
<Pe...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> saying something like:
>No point in Art after the invention of the camera then.
This is the right room for the 100-year argument?
Of course there's a point in Art post-camera; I can't paint for toffee,
just like some others, but I can admire those who can. If that what
floats their boat, more power to them.
--
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a
Every post contains Nutri-Ceramide-R and Pre-Biotics
for your reading pleasure.
Folding@Home Team UKRM http://www.tinyurl.com/jkxwv
Paul Carmichael
> Some people might for instance find it comforting that others have the
> same inability to relate to others and find life even more torturous
> and these people have attempted to exorcise their demons and
> communicate the pain through art inbetween chucking bottles of anti
> depressants down and trying to elevate idiocy to the rank of pragmatic
> heroism.
>
You must come here and have a beer with me. This time without being sick.
--
Paul.
CBR1100XX SuperBlackbird
BOTAFOT #4
BOTAFOF #30
MRO #24
OMF #15
UKRMMA #30
Paul Carmichael
> He may have been tit obsessed (after all, so is Hog, and no one has a
> go at him about it), but to describe him as talentless shows your
> ignorance. You may well not like his work, but calling him talentless
> just reflects on you.
No. He belonged to the Elvis Presley School of Talentless Hillbillies.
Spanish branch.
The airport's shit as well.
Clue: Your guitar playing is better than Picasso's piccies.
Phil Launchbury
Yeah - they make good cookers. Their powertools are a bit gash though.
Phil.
--
Phil Launchbury, IT PHB
Triumph Tiger 955i
'I'm training the bats that live in my cube
to juggle mushrooms'
Pete Fisher
Launchbury <ph...@launchbury.org.uk> cast forth these pearls of wisdom
>In article <t5plm2524u0sld2ic...@4ax.com>, darsy wrote:
>> ogden <og...@pre.org> wrote:
>>
>>>My bad, I meant Toulouse-Lautrec. Endless meditations on tarts and
>>>drinking buddies. And hey, he *was* a cripple. Who knew!?
>>
>> almost everyone, in fact.
>>
>> Your modern art's OK, but for my money, you can't beat a bit of Bosch.
>
>Yeah - they make good cookers. Their powertools are a bit gash though.
>
Only one possible comment time for a bit of conceptual video art -
'Angle Grinder Man':
http://www.websfunniestvideos.net/2006/11/13/superhero-rescues-illegally-parked-cars
<fingers crossed it is not a ginge>
DR
<Pe...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> is alleged to have written:
>In communiqué <eh0km29mo1ekrolb6...@4ax.com>, DR
><blueb...@talktalk.net.invalid> cast forth these pearls of wisdom
>>
>>I don't see the point in showing something as other than how it
>>actually is. If that made sense...
>>
>
>You are admirably consistent. Perfect sense. Do you enjoy fiction or
>films that are not documentaries?
As a matter of fact, yes, in fact low-grade speculative fiction is
pretty much my cup of tea (except I don't actually like tea - I can't
even manage a good metaphor).
>I think your mistrust of Art is connected with the concept of the
>"hierarchy of senses". On that pseud's corner note, I leave you to a
>world in which everything must always be exactly what it appears to be
>at first sight.
Things are what they are.
--
Darren Robinson
GSF1200N K3
DR
to have written:
>Do you see a point in an exact replication of something then? Is there
>a point in hanging a painting of a cat on the wall if you already know
>what cats look like anyway? Even more so if you own cats?
Like I say, I appreciate the skill involved in producing a picture of
an object that looks like that object, possibly because I lack that
ability.
>Most mind expanding stimuli occurs when the brain is coerced into
>thinking about things from a difference perspective. This is one of the
>reasons why travel is considered to "broaden one's horizons". By
>leaving your comfort zone and essentially experiencing something
>outside of your general spere, experiencing as in being an active
>participant in the perception process, ie, thinking, interpreting and
>correlating what you are seeing/experiencing, you can broaden your
>perspective, thus becoming a better and more useful human being and
>leading a fuller life.
I see that, and am in agreement with the principle.
>A piece of art for instance give you the opportunity to connect in a
>visceral way with the artist, not in a "I was thinking about a cat so I
>drew it...awwwww isn't it cute" but a "I hate the world/love the
>loneliness of existence/want to fuck my mother/find the vaccum of
>social collectivity depressing" kind of way. You're not necessarily
>expected to "get it". It's not a test but if you don't practice trying
>to "get it" then you'll probably never get close to experiencing
>anything worthwhile in the same way you wouldn't understand a joke in
>Turkish if you'd never learned the language.
What's worthwhile? It's entirely subjective, like art itself. I'm
not arguing as to the comparative worth of unconventional visual art,
just saying that it does nothing for me. If you like it, fine, go
stare at a blob on a wall and ascribe meaning to it. Take a Rothko,
for example. I'm sure the artist was trying to capture a state of
mind when he created his works. I just don't understand how there can
be a connection with an emotional condition and what could be entirely
random areas of vaguely rectangular colour. I also have documented
issues with colour perception, as do approximately 20% of the male
population of the planet, whether that makes a difference I don't
know.
>Some people might for instance find it comforting that others have the
>same inability to relate to others and find life even more torturous
>and these people have attempted to exorcise their demons and
>communicate the pain through art inbetween chucking bottles of anti
>depressants down and trying to elevate idiocy to the rank of pragmatic
>heroism.
I see the art in music; as a former allegedly trained (well, not to
any standard recognised by the RSM at least) wannabe musician of no
particular technical ability, I do feel the emotion in a piece of
music - yes, my main listening pleasure is hard rock and heavy metal,
decried and denigrated by many round here, who (in a strange
reflection of my stance regarding visual art) probably don't
understand the complexity and subtlety that can (that's *can*, not
*will*) be found therein. It's a form of escape, and I do listen to
other forms of music, when the mood takes me - I have the ability to
listen to a performance objectively, if I want to. I just can't feel
anything in an abstract image.
Oh, and most anti-depressants come in blister packs in cardboard boxes
nowadays. I'm off mine now.
--
Darren Robinson
GSF1200N K3
Idiocy is a right, not a privilege.
DR
alleged to have written:
>On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 19:15:16 +0000, DR
><blueb...@talktalk.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>>If a piece of art is not an accurate representation (as I perceive it,
>>obviously) of the subject matter, I disregard it. My emotional
>>reaction to the piece 'Guernica' is "what the fuck was he smoking?"
>>and to move on.
>
>You seem quite quick to dismiss stuff (art, religion, to name but two)
>which many people value highly. Perhaps you should pause a little?
I only know what feels right to me.
>I know you like music, and you certainly listen to stuff that isn't
>representational (i.e. it doesn't sound like bikes engines, or waves,
>or other real world stuff). Music is designed to elicit an emotional
>response - why should the visual arts work in a similar way?
Not sure if that "should" should have been a "shouldn't" - I'm not
arguing that as a general principle. Just that it has no meaning to
me. Music does; I've studied music (okay, I got a grade 2 CSE, could
have done better if I had tried harder, but that's another story) and
have played instruments (former trombonist, attempted guitarist
(failed)) both solo and in ensemble. A guitar is meant to sound like
a guitar (okay, Todd Rundgren did a good job of making it sound like a
motorbike) and that fits my world-view. I consider myself open to new
ideas, but obviously some just bounce off and some I'm (unconsciously
or otherwise) resistant to.
Lozzo
> Oh, and most anti-depressants come in blister packs in cardboard boxes
> nowadays. I'm off mine now.
That's good news. All you have to do now is stop listening to shite
music and your life will be complete.
--
Lozzo
Triumph Daytona 955i SE (Black with added black bits)
Suzuki Bandit 600S (Green with added shit bits)
DR
<ha...@drunkenbastards.spam.com> is alleged to have written:
>On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 20:05:16 +0000, DR
><blueb...@talktalk.net.invalid> blethered:
>
>>Any mug can point a camera and press a button, but I do admire the
>>skill involved in transferring/creating an image by hand - mostly
>>because I haven't got the merest smidgeon of a femto-iota of it.
>
>Yeah anyone can point a camera but how many people can take really
>good photos? I'm a graduate of the Carmichael school of photography,
>personally[1]. I admire people who can take good photographs almost as
>much as people who can paint good pictures.
I agree with you, and didn't mean to imply otherwise. I'm no David
Bailey myself, but with inexpensive equipment most people can capture
a reasonable image. A lot of the top stuff is, I believe, done
outside the camera IYKWIM.
Pete Fisher
>>films that are not documentaries?
>
>As a matter of fact, yes, in fact low-grade speculative fiction is
>pretty much my cup of tea (except I don't actually like tea - I can't
>even manage a good metaphor).
>
So you are quite happy to be entertained by 'unreality' then as long it
is not a still image?
>Things are what they are.
>
Positively Zen-like. "It is what it is."
I can relate to that.
DR
<ha...@drunkenbastards.spam.com> is alleged to have written:
>On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 21:09:36 +0000, DR
><blueb...@talktalk.net.invalid> blethered:
>
>>On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 20:30:42 +0000, Pete Fisher
>><Pe...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> is alleged to have written:
>>
>>>I suspect, though, that like Ace, you can admire the skill of someone
>>>who can create an image by hand that is not simply a perfectly faithful
>>>representation of the subject down to the tiniest detail.
>>
>>I don't see the point in showing something as other than how it
>>actually is. If that made sense...
>
>How do you know that's actually as it is? Aren't you even a teeny bit
>interested in seeing the world as someone else has seen it?
All I know is what I perceive. I can't answer your second question,
as the concept is, to me, indecipherable. A bottle of beer is a
bottle of beer. A pipe is, in fact, a pipe, whether the artist says
it is or not. A situation someone has lived through can only truly be
understood by somone who has lived through the same set of events, but
it can be approximated to others in ways they can understand. I think
the problem is not that (e.g.) I couldn't understand the events of
Guernica itself, but as portrayed by Picasso I can't understand what
he's trying to say, without it being explained by others. If I didn't
know what the painting was about, through being told, I wouldn't be
able to interpret it *as the artist intended*.
DR
to have written:
>Not a 'fan' of anything much in the 'classical' realm, but I'm sure
>I've liked some Stravinsky stuff. Cage I've never heard.
Please, PLEASE tell me that was unintentional...
Pete Fisher
<blueb...@talktalk.net.invalid> cast forth these pearls of wisdom
>On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 11:40:16 +0100, Ace <see...@virgin.net> is alleged
>to have written:
>
>
>>Not a 'fan' of anything much in the 'classical' realm, but I'm sure
>>I've liked some Stravinsky stuff. Cage I've never heard.
>
>Please, PLEASE tell me that was unintentional...
>
>
<snort>
Pete Fisher
>
>as the concept is, to me, indecipherable. A bottle of beer is a
>bottle of beer. A pipe is, in fact, a pipe, whether the artist says
>it is or not. A situation someone has lived through can only truly be
>understood by somone who has lived through the same set of events, but
>it can be approximated to others in ways they can understand. I think
>the problem is not that (e.g.) I couldn't understand the events of
>Guernica itself, but as portrayed by Picasso I can't understand what
>he's trying to say, without it being explained by others. If I didn't
>know what the painting was about, through being told, I wouldn't be
>able to interpret it *as the artist intended*.
>
>
"When pressed to explain them in Guernica, Picasso said, '...this bull
is a bull and this horse is a horse... If you give a meaning to certain
things in my paintings it may be very true, but it is not my idea to
give this meaning. What ideas and conclusions you have got I obtained
too, but instinctively, unconsciously. I make the painting for the
painting. I paint the objects for what they are.'"
Simon Gates
> On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 20:30:42 +0000, Pete Fisher
><Pe...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> is alleged to have written:
>
>>I suspect, though, that like Ace, you can admire the skill of someone
>>who can create an image by hand that is not simply a perfectly faithful
>>representation of the subject down to the tiniest detail.
>
> I don't see the point in showing something as other than how it
> actually is. If that made sense...
But that's the point of a large section of art! Like false-colour
pictures of astronomical objects, they're attempting to show what _is_
rather than just what you might see.
DR
<Pe...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> is alleged to have written:
>In communiqué <dpamm2tghd4ekksdm...@4ax.com>, DR
><blueb...@talktalk.net.invalid> cast forth these pearls of wisdom
>>>You are admirably consistent. Perfect sense. Do you enjoy fiction or
>>>films that are not documentaries?
>>
>>As a matter of fact, yes, in fact low-grade speculative fiction is
>>pretty much my cup of tea (except I don't actually like tea - I can't
>>even manage a good metaphor).
>>
>
>So you are quite happy to be entertained by 'unreality' then as long it
>is not a still image?
As long as no-one is trying to say "this is real", it's fine by me.
>>Things are what they are.
>>
>Positively Zen-like. "It is what it is."
>
>I can relate to that.
And the sound of one hand clapping is, appropriately, "whoooosh"...
DR
<Si...@invalid.semi-evolved.org> is alleged to have written:
Chalk and cheese. False colour images are showing things that are (or
were) there, but due to the wavelengths of light involved, the human
eye can't see without some modification to the image. I know that a
person doesn't generally have both eyes on one side of their face.
Owen
<Pe...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In communiqué <uedjm256egeanobt2...@4ax.com>, DR
><blueb...@talktalk.net.invalid> cast forth these pearls of wisdom
>>On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 20:15:00 +0000, Pete Fisher
>><Pe...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> is alleged to have written:
>>
>>>A 'heads up' For all you Art fans and self confessed Philistines. Simon
>>>Schama's 'Power of Art' next Friday: Picasso. Concentrating on Guernica.
>>>Picasso - couldn't draw for toffee could he.
>>
>>I appear to be completely lacking in the ability to appreciate art. If
>>an object has no function other than to be looked at, it is
>>meaningless to me.
>>
>>
>
>I agree that some of the very modern stuff is very 'inaccessible'. The
>point about 'Guernica' is that while it has no function other than to be
>looked at, the looking is intended to cause an emotional reaction. The
>painting was a condemnation of the brutality of war and that act of war
>against civilians in particular. A series of shots by a war photographer
>would have more impact for you perhaps as it would be literally a record
>of what happened (although still an interpretation by that particular
>photographer).
>
Guernica tries to communicate the sense of chaos and confusion of that
particular battle and of war in general. I think it succedes, you may
not find it pleasing to the eye or attractive, but it is chaotic and
gives a sense of confusion. So in its way it is succesful...
>The other point about Picasso is that (as I am sure most knew already)
>he was an accomplished draughtsman. When he was 14/15 he could draw and
>paint like the 'old masters' [1]. I think he got bored with that and
>hence his later unrealistic styles.
>
>[1] http://www.nga.gov/images/noncol/fisherfs.htm
--
O
Life... mostly works...
Simon Gates
But people do have two eyes, yes? You just can't see them from the side.
They are both representations, one put together by a scientist trying
to make the unseen features of a galaxy stand out, the other by an
artist trying to make the unseen features of a face obvious.
Manet's "Folies Bergeres" and Vermeer's "Music Lesson" are more subtle
paintings of "what is really there", even though they're physically
unrealistic.
Plenty of paintings use representations to suggest to the knowleageble
viewer things otherwise not visible - in fact art is mostly about
representation. Sometimes something as simple as "Mountains are pretty",
[(tm) Nivern & Pournel] sometimes something as fatuous as "Is this art?".
DR
<Si...@invalid.semi-evolved.org> is alleged to have written:
>But people do have two eyes, yes? You just can't see them from the side.
>
>They are both representations, one put together by a scientist trying
>to make the unseen features of a galaxy stand out, the other by an
>artist trying to make the unseen features of a face obvious.
That's my point. Astronomy is scientific, its purpose the expansion
of knowledge. Pretty pictures of nebulae, galaxies and other
phenomena are a bonus. If an artist depicts a face in an unrealistic
manner, it's just wrong, all the more so for it being deliberate. I
can't describe it any better.
>Manet's "Folies Bergeres" and Vermeer's "Music Lesson" are more subtle
>paintings of "what is really there", even though they're physically
>unrealistic.
In the former, she looks bored. Okay picture, if you like that sort
of thing; I can see the artist has disregarded things like laws of
reflection in order to show what he wanted to. However, the main
subjects look like people, and I can live with that. Don't think I
would give it wall space though. The Vermeer looks fine to me, in
terms of representation. The perspective looks a little off, but it's
multiple orders of magnitude better than anything I could produce.
>Plenty of paintings use representations to suggest to the knowleageble
>viewer things otherwise not visible - in fact art is mostly about
>representation. Sometimes something as simple as "Mountains are pretty",
>[(tm) Nivern & Pournel] sometimes something as fatuous as "Is this art?".
It's only really the complete abstract stuff I can't understand.
DR
<ha...@drunkenbastards.spam.com> is alleged to have written:
>On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 19:00:08 +0000, DR
><blueb...@talktalk.net.invalid> blethered:
>
>>On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 00:52:50 +0000, Halla
>><ha...@drunkenbastards.spam.com> is alleged to have written:
>>>
>>>How do you know that's actually as it is? Aren't you even a teeny bit
>>>interested in seeing the world as someone else has seen it?
>>
>>All I know is what I perceive. I can't answer your second question,
>>as the concept is, to me, indecipherable.
>
>No empathy, huh? You're certainly not the only UKRM poster who can
>claim that.
I wouldn't say none, but I will admit to being
empathically-challenged. It would explain a lot...
>>A bottle of beer is a
>>bottle of beer. A pipe is, in fact, a pipe, whether the artist says
>>it is or not.
>
>Well, it wasn't though, was it, it was a picture of a pipe, and the
>bit that said it wasn't a pipe was text, not a picture at all, IIRC.
>Someone explained that one to me a while back actually, I looked at it
>and thought 'OK, it's not a pipe'.
That one just annoys me. No, a picture of a thing is not a thing.
However, an artist trying to be clever is a cunt.
>>A situation someone has lived through can only truly be
>>understood by somone who has lived through the same set of events,
>
>Yes but you'd never get two eyewitness accounts of anything that
>matched exactly, and that's what I mean by seeing the world as another
>sees it. A bottle of beer might be a bottle of beer but to you it
>indicates a tasty beverage to come and to me it contains
>mouldy-tasting bitter shite. <shrugs>
That I can appreciate.
>>but
>>it can be approximated to others in ways they can understand. I think
>>the problem is not that (e.g.) I couldn't understand the events of
>>Guernica itself, but as portrayed by Picasso I can't understand what
>>he's trying to say, without it being explained by others. If I didn't
>>know what the painting was about, through being told, I wouldn't be
>>able to interpret it *as the artist intended*.
>
><waves hands around> Ah, but how can we know what the artist truly
>intended... yeah, I'll stop now. <g>
In retrospect, I feel maybe I shouldn't have started this...
Andy Wegg
> >
> >> A 'heads up' For all you Art fans and self confessed Philistines. Simon
> >> Schama's 'Power of Art' next Friday: Picasso. Concentrating on Guernica.
> >> Picasso - couldn't draw for toffee could he.
Like Lowry, Picasso has become famous for a certain style, that you tend
to love or hate. But he could do way more than the two eyes on the same
side of the head stuff.
http://www.museupicasso.bcn.es/images/obras/foto12.jpg
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Simon Gates
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 21:39:25 -0000, Simon Gates
>
>>They are both representations, one put together by a scientist trying
>>to make the unseen features of a galaxy stand out, the other by an
>>artist trying to make the unseen features of a face obvious.
>
> That's my point. Astronomy is scientific, its purpose the expansion
> of knowledge. Pretty pictures of nebulae, galaxies and other
> phenomena are a bonus. If an artist depicts a face in an unrealistic
> manner, it's just wrong, all the more so for it being deliberate. I
> can't describe it any better.
Well, fair enough, if that's your reaction, but a sciency unrealistic
depiction is no more valid than an arty one.
vulgarandmischevious
>I still don't get Rothko. I was hoping to get face-to-face with some at
>the Pompidou centre last week, but the cunts have closed half the museum
>and turned the rest into a temporary exhibition on film, so the entire
>visit was a complete washout. Bastards.
You have to see them face-to-paint, as it were. Go to the other end of
the room, and walk towards one, staring at it. You will see things in
it, which change and mutate as you get closer. It's remarkable.
--
vulgarandmischevious
porl
DR wrote:
> What's worthwhile? It's entirely subjective, like art itself.
That's the point. If it wasn't there'd be no glimpse into someone
else's perspective.
pe...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk
Halla wrote:
> >In retrospect, I feel maybe I shouldn't have started this...
>
> IKWYM. ;-)
<small voice mea culpa really>
"Time!"
--
Pete Fisher on tea break