A new thread
Lauri Levanto
So I thought people need a new target to attack.
Last night I wrote down a list of artists that have influeced me most.
They are in the order they appeared into my life.
1. Leger
2. Edward Munch
3. Hieronymus Bosh
4. Esher
5. Nam Sui Paik
6. Degas
7. Nefertiti head
8. Brancusi
9. Milles
I have left out some Finnish artists and designers, names that propably
mean
nothing to you.
Is anyone interested to compare lists?
-lauri
G*rd*n
That's a curious list. I wonder if you could relate them at
all. If I made such a list, I probably couldn't. Also, I
wonder what you mean by "influence". Some affect the way we
see or think, others suggest techniques.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 11/14/02 <-adv't
Chris
was profoundly influenced by the former, but I am not familiar with the
latter (unless this is one of those transliteration problems, and they are
one in the same).
Chris
"Lauri Levanto" <laur...@netti.fi> wrote in message
news:3E23E17F...@netti.fi...
Ivor E. Black
>Last night I wrote down a list of artists that have influeced me most.
>They are in the order they appeared into my life.
>
>1. Leger
>2. Edward Munch
>3. Hieronymus Bosh
>4. Esher
>5. Nam Sui Paik
>6. Degas
>7. Nefertiti head
>8. Brancusi
>9. Milles
>Is anyone interested to compare lists?
Okay. But I think you need to go back and ask
yourself at what age these artists began
influencing you. For example, I remember
being fascinated as a youth (that was 60-some
years ago, BTW) with Currier & Ives illustrations.
I'm not referring to their greeting card stuff
but rather to the illustrations that were
published before photographs took over in the
19th century. Later in my youth I was influenced
by regional artists who are still highly
regarded in the region but these are unknowns
in other areas probably.
Jose Cisneros
Tom Lea
Peter Hurd
Robert Wood
Manuel Acosta
Leona Freeman
and
Fred. Remington
Chas. Russell
Geo. Catlin
and all those beloved western artists of my
youth.
Niall
2. Rothko
3. Picasso
4. Mondrian
5. Kline
6. Newman
7. Pollock
8. Mani Deli
9. Richard
;-)
Niall
Thur <a@spamless.z> wrote in message
news:9mVU9.202$FF1....@newsfep4-win.server.ntli.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
> Nice to see Remington. You hardly hear anything
> about him on this ng.
> Love the one where the riders are racing for cover
> and the horses seem as frantic as the riders. Title
> something like "Dash for the ......"
> Thur
>
> "Ivor E. Black" <bla...@noemailever.com> wrote in message
> news:3e24...@news.zianet.com...
> > In article <3E23E17F...@netti.fi>, laur...@netti.fi says...
> >
> >
> >snip
> > >Is anyone interested to compare lists?
> >
> >
G*rd*n
| ...
| so many more!
| ...
Is this art people like, or art that has influenced their
work? There's often a considerable difference. There are
many artists in many arts whose work is (in my opinion) great
but also very difficult to learn from successfully, as is
shown by the paucity of successors -- for example Van Gogh or
the Beatles. Others have discovered or developed useful
methods which are easy to learn and put into practice.
Leo Papandreou
George Groz
I think it is the duty of every patriotic American to study the
work of the pitiless George Grosz, because he had interesting things
to say about society in the thrall of deeply stupid war profiteering
oil spivs and their cronies. Did I write that? I hate when the delete
key breaks.
Jack Vettriano
What can I say? He's my kind of Norman Rockwell.
--
Leo Papandreou
"The position of the artist if humble. He is essentially a channel."
(Piet Mondrian)
Tina Mammoser
they were very influential in my thinking and my technique. (Technique
meaning many things from brushwork to composition to color theory.)
1. Degas (loved his pictures from a very young age, sketched from his
bronzes later, and copied his figures when I first started learning to
paint)
2. Annette Johnson (my mentor and teacher)
3. Hockney (technique)
4. Dave McKean (ideas and technique, and the inkling to work with
photography and collage)
5. Colour field artists (Rothko, Frankenthaler, others) (ideas)
6. Expressionists (Kirchner, Kandinsky pre-abstract, Jawlensky)
7. Kokoschka (technique)
8. Rembrandt (ideas and technique)
9. Taoist art
10. Most recent - Barnett Newman. The Tate exhibition has left me reeling!
Tina.
--
********************
--Colorist expressionist contemporary landscapes direct from the artist!--
HTTP://WWW.TINA-M.COM
mailto:ti...@tina-m.com
-----Limited editions and original prints from London artists!-----
HTTP://WWW.BRIGHTNEWART.COM
mailto:ti...@brightnewart.com
********************
G*rd*n
| ...
| 10. Most recent - Barnett Newman. The Tate exhibition has left me reeling!
Can you explain Newman? It seems to me there's not much
there there.
John G. Rune
wrote:
>Most threads here have thinned to pointless and endless duells.
Ahh, Usenet. <g>
>So I thought people need a new target to attack.
Chumming for sharks?
>Last night I wrote down a list of artists that have influeced me most.
>They are in the order they appeared into my life.
>
>1. Leger
>2. Edward Munch
>3. Hieronymus Bosh
>4. Esher
>5. Nam Sui Paik
>6. Degas
>7. Nefertiti head
>8. Brancusi
>9. Milles
>
>I have left out some Finnish artists and designers, names that propably
>mean
>nothing to you.
No doubt. I have at times been fascinated by the work of different
fiber artists and surface designers although no names come immediately
to mind.
>Is anyone interested to compare lists?
Got a ruler? <g>
In no particular order, a partial list would have to include:
1. Anni Albers (weaver)
2. Henri Matisse
3. Alexie von Jawlensky
4. Wassily Kandinsky
5. Oskar Kokoschka
6. Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec
7. Jean Dubuffet (art brut)
8. Georges Rouault
Categorically, my interests include Italian fresco, Aboriginal art,
and early Expressionism.
I prefer a mixed-media approach with a strong tactile element.
John G. Rune
Lauri Levanto
I was hit by cementia, and had no easy way to check out the name.
There is only one piece I relate:
The Buddha looking himself in television.
-lauri
Lauri Levanto
>
> |
> | 1. Leger
1955, my first university year. One particular litography where lines and
colors were used independently (not coloring within the lines :-)
It was cheap, but I couldn't afford it. Made a copy.
| 2. Edward Munch
A couple of years later. When living in the student dorm in Oslo, every room
had
his lithographs. I still have a copy of "Damen med brosch". The point is the
black
hair that is not drawn at all.
>
> | 3. Hieronymus Bosh
That is hard to explain. Made Dali look timid.
> | 4. Esher
Some twenty years later. Especially the perspective works.
>
> | 5. Nam June Paik
In fact chronologically ten years earlier than Esher.
The Buddha looking himself in TV. I didn't like it at that time
but it has haunted my mind to this day.
When I started sculpting, one of my first pieces
was Digital Buddha, having a digital clock in place of heart.
>
> | 6. Degas
About a decade ago. At that time I had already started sculpting and drawing.
Saw the bronzes inCopenhagen
The body language.
>
> | 7. Nefertiti head
The granit one in Berlin. The perfection of stonework in the lips.
When I saw it, I wanted to give up sculpting.
>
> | 8. Brancusi
Mlle Poganny series. How memories are chrystallized.
>
> | 9. Milles
>
Millesgård in Stockholm. The pieces on high columns against a seascape.
The lightness, denial of gravity. Ignoring much of the poor form.
>
> G*rd*n :
> That's a curious list. I wonder if you could relate them at
> all. If I made such a list, I probably couldn't. Also, I
> wonder what you mean by "influence". Some affect the way we
> see or think, others suggest techniques.
I added some explanations.
thanks folks for the replies.
-lauri
>
>
>
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Marilyn Welch" <mwe...@NOSPAMislandnet.com> wrote in message
>
> Leave your rooms, your libraries and your computers
> people and go out there and look at some
> contemporary art.
>
That is excellent advice!
--
Yesterday's chip wrapper is enjoys eternal youth - something denied the
nectar of the gods; tomorrow's free beer.
Alison A Raimes
> time...@mac.com:
> | ...
> | 10. Most recent - Barnett Newman. The Tate exhibition has left me reeling!
> | ...
>
> Can you explain Newman? It seems to me there's not much
> there there.
Barnett Newman dealt with the sublime. The Colour Field Painters in
New York after World War 2, particularly Mark Rothko and Barnett
Newman, dealt with the idea of limitlessness and formlessness through
pure abstract art which relied on colour and scale for impact in the
aftermath of Malevich. Immediacy, autonomy and spontaneity were all
brought into play in works that offered nothing more than a means to
an experience of transcendence – experiences of the mind.
Existentialist ideas that originated from Kant's ideas of freedom and
autonomy that found its way into western art via Sartre and Camus and
later writers like Jack Kerouac. The Colour Field Painters demanded
that their viewer release himself from all that he thought he knew –
they acted as mediators between the spiritual and the human. They
were absolutely convinced that they had found a way to provide
spiritual experiences without traditional religious implications by
removing all signs and imagery that would deter from purity of
transcendental experience - an idea that started with Suprematism in
1915. It was this removal of signs and presence from the work than
Newman claimed represented the inadequacy of the images as a negative
sign of the immense power of the ideas – concept over image.
Jeremy Gilbert-Rolfe suggests that for Newman, the stripes in his
works were not in fact *zips* but *gaps* – the represented a break –
the Here and Now - Lyotard's idea that the contemporary sublime
experience is the now - the moment in time that is impossible to
represent.
The Barnett Newman show was one of the best I have ever seen at the
Tate. Experiencing a Rothko or a Newman in the *real* rather than in
reproduction are incomparable. But in order to experience it as it is
intended you have to be prepared to release the mind from all that you
think you know. Not many have the power to do that.
Alison A Raimes
http://raimes.com
Tina Mammoser
I was VERY dubious about going to see the exhibition. Didn't really want to but
a friend recommended it. Firstly, I had the advantage because the galleries
were nearly empty on new year's day. I found the pure colour very moving -
stood in front of them for ages just getting the feeling. So often the feeling
(joy, emptiness, anger) then matched the title, which I read after standing in
front of the paintings. His paintings, for me, were about the expression of
emotions - some of the 'zips' made the canvas feel disjointed or welcoming and
that often went with the colour. For instance "Three" was an intense orange
with zips on each side. I stood in front of it and though "well, it certainly
is *orange*". Gave it a chance and then thought "okay, but he clearly painted
this with a lot of joy - the orange is vivid and bright and the brushstrokes
very energetic. the zips on the side make you feel held." Three was the word
for God. With the Stations of the Cross I immediately felt the anger and fear
when I walked in the room. I still need to read more about the work becaues
the catalog, while being quite good, didn't cover enough. Oh, and the CANTOS!
Don't get me started!!! :) I could feel the musical notes of the colours, they
were lovely.
I do love colour though and it is probably the most important aspect of my own
paintings (after composition). I have always easily related colour to tone
(sound) and emotion even before I was a painter. My paintings have been
exploring flat planes of colour area more and more and Newman's paintings
really opened up some new ideas for me to simplify my landscapes even more and
use the colour on an emotional level as well as a literal (hot, cold) level.
Saying all that it isn't for everyone and I understand that. If you don't like
the elements behind the work then it's harder to appreciate. And I didn't like
all the paintings and felt the last room wasn't very interesting at all - I
went back to the earlier rooms. He moved into concepts later that weren't
important to me and I couldn't relate to.
Tina Mammoser
[snip]
I laughed at the fact that we described this from different angles, my response
being a personal recollection of how I felt in front of the paitnings. :) Just
found that interesting.
> Tate. Experiencing a Rothko or a Newman in the *real* rather than in
> reproduction are incomparable. But in order to experience it as it is
How true! I didn't buy any of the books for that reason. In fact, all the artists
on my list are artists I've seen in reality. I don't think the influence would be
there if I hadn't. Reproductions aren't enough.
> intended you have to be prepared to release the mind from all that you
> think you know. Not many have the power to do that.
Absolutely! That's why I often make the conscious effort to walk aroudn an
exhibition first and read all the signs and catalog later. It depressed me to see
everyone just zipping around the Newman rooms without stopping. (no pun intended!)
That goes for any exhibition. It was the biggest problem with the Vermeer at the
National Gallery. I just stood my ground and broke the 'queue' to look at each
one, stand back, wait for a gap, then go close in again. ;) If you go to the
theatre you sit and watch, if you go to a concert you sit and listen. Newman
wanted people to stand close to his canvases to consider them, but people just
glance around the room. :(
Alison A Raimes
> I laughed at the fact that we described this from different angles, my response
> being a personal recollection of how I felt in front of the paitnings. :) Just
> found that interesting.
Interesting indeed .... but did you *explain* Newman? ;-) Although
subjective responses are inevitable, I personally don't find them
useful other than to argue for or against. It's a bit like the
ridiculous sport here on rec.arse.find for making lists of *favourite*
artists! It's been going on for years and serves absolutely no purpose
but yet they love to do it.
Cheers
Alison
http://raimes.com
G*rd*n
paintings, I wouldn't have asked the question. It is hard
to query or rebuke one's intuition; one gets it or one doesn't.
I will say that my query was inspired by viewing Newman's work
at MoMA (and elsewhere) and reading a magazine article adulating
it. Being forewarned, I went right up to the paintings (as
closely as the museum guards would allow) and nosed along them
to see what might emanate. While I would concede that the works
might have decorative value in certain settings, so might,
after all, a blank panel spray-painted industrially in three
minutes by a fellow who was thinking about the price of
cigarettes. Even in the decorative realm, they did not seem
to do much or have much for me.
As for the conceptual side, it seems to me that the Sublime
is rather thin soup, a shallow idea. I would expect work
specializing in the embodiment of concepts to be dense and
knotty, as indeed are the works of symbolizers and illustrators
of conceptual realms like Blake, Goya, Duerer, Bosch and the
various Surrealists. The sad fact is, I find most contemporary
conceptual art sadly lacking in interesting concepts, possibly
due to the influence of Zen Buddhism on their immediate
forereunners. (I recall a Happening in San Francisco long
ago where the happenist poured a bucketful of short wooden
dowels down some metal stairs _just_out_of_the_hearing_ of
the assembled audience, who were then told to go home. That
sort of thing can cut quite a swath.)
So I guess I am going to have to wait for the intuition to
fall on me. Usually I see things fast, but it took many years
for an "understanding" of (with?) Andy Warhol to come upon
me. So maybe Newman.
-------------------------------------------------------------
time...@mac.com:
| > | ...
| > | 10. Most recent - Barnett Newman. The Tate exhibition has left me reeling!
| > | ...
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
| > Can you explain Newman? It seems to me there's not much
| > there there.
alison...@yahoo.co.uk (Alison A Raimes):
| I laughed at the fact that we described this from different angles, my response
| being a personal recollection of how I felt in front of the paitnings. :) Just
| found that interesting.
|
| > Tate. Experiencing a Rothko or a Newman in the *real* rather than in
| > reproduction are incomparable. But in order to experience it as it is
|
| How true! I didn't buy any of the books for that reason. In fact, all the artists
| on my list are artists I've seen in reality. I don't think the influence would be
| there if I hadn't. Reproductions aren't enough.
|
| > intended you have to be prepared to release the mind from all that you
| > think you know. Not many have the power to do that.
|
| Absolutely! That's why I often make the conscious effort to walk aroudn an
| exhibition first and read all the signs and catalog later. It depressed me to see
| everyone just zipping around the Newman rooms without stopping. (no pun intended!)
| That goes for any exhibition. It was the biggest problem with the Vermeer at the
| National Gallery. I just stood my ground and broke the 'queue' to look at each
| one, stand back, wait for a gap, then go close in again. ;) If you go to the
| theatre you sit and watch, if you go to a concert you sit and listen. Newman
| wanted people to stand close to his canvases to consider them, but people just
| glance around the room. :(
Peter H.M. Brooks
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote in message news:b054mv$nsf$1...@panix1.panix.com
> Of course, if I had the intuitive response to Newman's
> paintings, I wouldn't have asked the question. It is hard
> to query or rebuke one's intuition; one gets it or one doesn't.
> I will say that my query was inspired by viewing Newman's work
> at MoMA (and elsewhere) and reading a magazine article adulating
> it. Being forewarned, I went right up to the paintings (as
> closely as the museum guards would allow) and nosed along them
> to see what might emanate. While I would concede that the works
> might have decorative value in certain settings, so might,
> after all, a blank panel spray-painted industrially in three
> minutes by a fellow who was thinking about the price of
> cigarettes. Even in the decorative realm, they did not seem
> to do much or have much for me.
>
What's the use of decorative stuff that you have to go right up to?
The test is, I suppose, if the museum shop was flogging the pictures on
wallpaper rolls - and they were being bought.
I do think that much of the sort of stuff being discussed here wouldn't have
a snowball's chance in hell if the alternative was by William Morris.
>
> As for the conceptual side, it seems to me that the Sublime
> is rather thin soup, a shallow idea.
>
In the hands of somebody with imagination it could be really exciting. Maybe
somebody with imagination will try it some day.
--
Nor do I believe that a civilisation which uses torture to defend itself is
a civilisation worth defending. It has already given away one of the core
principles of which its enemy wants to deprive it: a sense of honour and
decency in its actions, however desperate the straits. - Adam Nicholson,
Telegraph 17/12/02
Alison A Raimes
> So I guess I am going to have to wait for the intuition to
> fall on me. Usually I see things fast, but it took many years
> for an "understanding" of (with?) Andy Warhol to come upon
> me. So maybe Newman.
One of the main obstacles is in not being able to position the work
historically - to see what came before and what came after and to be
open enough to respond to a concept belonging to the time in which it
was made. One only has to look around daily life to realise that the
aspirations of Newman and Rothko towards freedom and transcendence
could never be fulfilled in a world committed to materialism. It's an
infected world of greed that cares nothing for the mind.
I actually went into the Newman show with a negative attitude towards
him and his work - not believing that he had enough knowledge of the
sublime to be a leading figure in the development of thinking around
the concept in the late
twentieth century. In fact, Yves Alain Bois later confirmed this when
he told us that Newman wrote his essay on the sublime as a commission
and that it lacked a philosophical structure - Newman's dismissal of
the Romantic Sublime for what he called the Negative Sublime was based
on ignorance which was apparent to anyone who had studied the sublime
in depth (the only way possible to engage with the idea). When someone
doesn't understand something the easiest way to deal with it is to
reject it as nonsense - which is what Newman did.
However, it is also a reminder that artists should not attempt to
write and paint - because his work hit me in the gut the minute I
walked through the door and saw his early drawings. I was taken aback
by the power of the work and when I reached the 12 stations of the
cross my breath was taken away. Which goes against years of what I had
already formed in my opinions through seeing his work in reproduction.
G*rd*n
| > paintings, I wouldn't have asked the question. It is hard
| > to query or rebuke one's intuition; one gets it or one doesn't.
| > I will say that my query was inspired by viewing Newman's work
| > at MoMA (and elsewhere) and reading a magazine article adulating
| > it. Being forewarned, I went right up to the paintings (as
| > closely as the museum guards would allow) and nosed along them
| > to see what might emanate. While I would concede that the works
| > might have decorative value in certain settings, so might,
| > after all, a blank panel spray-painted industrially in three
| > minutes by a fellow who was thinking about the price of
| > cigarettes. Even in the decorative realm, they did not seem
| > to do much or have much for me.
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za>:
| What's the use of decorative stuff that you have to go right up to?
Why not?
| ...
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com>:
| > As for the conceptual side, it seems to me that the Sublime
| > is rather thin soup, a shallow idea.
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za>:
| In the hands of somebody with imagination it could be really exciting. Maybe
| somebody with imagination will try it some day.
The Sublime, as a concept?
Lauri Levanto
Marilyn Welch wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
> Lauri Levanto wrote:
>
> > >
> > > |
> > > | 1. Leger
> >
> > 1955, my first university year. One particular litography where lines and
> I bated for sharks, so far only Marilyn has attacked.
> It was a good observation, however. I have been
> thinking about it.
>
> Maybe the strongest living artists seldom exhibit
> in Finland.
>
> Maybe I am a bit conservative. I haven't seen the
> originals, but Tracy Emin's bed or
> Damien Hirst Shark in formalin hardly impress
> me if I see them.
>
> I also omitted Finnish artists, as the names
> tell not so much to you. However, you gave me an
> opportunity to introduce some living finnish artists
> that have affected me.
>
> Eila Hiltunen
>
> http://www.artists.fi/sculptors/hiltunen/
>
> Olavi Lanu
> http://www.helsinkisculpture.net/english/lanu-en.html
> http://www.pi-schools.gr/sxoleia/gymmet/comenius/finl
> nd/presentations/art/r1f.htm
> http://www.anu.edu.au/facilities/sculpture/20.html
>
> Has there been any radically new ideas recently?
> What is your list, Marilyn?
>
-lauri