opinion
Mani Deli
inferior work because it lacks competence skill and technique. Among artists
who I think will eventually be reevaluated are the classical
greats of this century, Picasso, Matisse, Mondrian, Chagall and
Leger to name a few. I believe that if these greats are
discredited the whole edifice of Modern Art will be a peril.
As to the majority of painters past 1940, Abstract Expressionists in
particular I do not even consider them to be artists. They are popular
charlatans devoid of talent and any technical ability whatever.
The are a product of critics, museum employees and art dealers in collusion to
bilk the rich.
The real artists of this century are those denegratingly called "Illustrators"
by the present holy critics. That amounts to anyone who can paint with
classical skill. I by no means claim that all so called
illustrators are all great artists. I only claim that they are
for the most part competent artists and that art great or not, at least
requires competence.
Today's so called fine artist for the most part cannot draw and
and lacks technical ability. For each great Modern Art success today there
are hundreds of so called artists capable of producing just about the same
stuff. These artists rarly sell a thing because the don't have a proper
pedigree.
I'll present lots of other controversial opinions if challenged.
So come on all you so called artists out there lets hear from
you.
"First learn to draw and paint like the Masters and everyone will
respect you." S. Dali
... No skill no art.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
HughGra
Deli) writes:
>>I think that the majority of so called great Modern Art is
>>inferior work because it lacks competence skill and technique.
Perhaps what you speak of here is only one part of an artistic process; we
may well do well to check with the classics to see how they would respond,
to wit:
In ancient Greek (and with appropriate apologies to any scholars of
ancient Greek) there were two words which roughly translated as 'art':
Techne and Poesis.
Techne refers, as you do, IMHO, to the technical process of creation,
while Poesis refers to the inspirational process of creation. It is only
when technical skill and inspiration are combined that there can be real
art. I think this places some restrictions on your belief that
illustrators are the 'great artists' of our time.
Perhaps, as Moliere said, we can only judge an artist after a lifetime of
artistic creation.
I welcome any dialogue on this subject. Send direct mail to
Hug...@aol.com.
"One lies all one's life long, notably to those that love one, and above
all to that stranger whose comtempt would cause one most pain - oneself"
---Proust
WYNNK
writes:
>Quoting Mani Deli: ">>I think that the majority of so called great Modern
Art is
>>inferior work because it lacks competence skill and technique."
It would be useful to define Modern Art. Everything after Manet?
Everything after Picasso? Everything after World War II? All abstract
art,non-Objective art,all non-narrative art. Where do we start the
discussion?
Mani Deli
>Quoting Mani Deli: ">>I think that the majority of so called great Modern
>>inferior work because it lacks competence skill and technique."
Wy> It would be useful to define Modern Art. Everything after Manet?
Wy> Everything after Picasso? Everything after World War II? All abstract
Wy> art,non-Objective art,all non-narrative art. Where do we start the
Wy> discussion?
I would avoid using the hard term, define. When I use the term I mean
everything after approximatly 1900 on. It starts with Matisse and Picasso. I
do mean something more however.
Modern art could mean "all" artwork produced after 1900. I refer to this as
"modern art" in small letters. By Modern Art, written with cap letters, I
refer to the works considered great by the favored critics of this century:
i.e. Picasso Chagall, Pollock, Rothko, Warhol etc.
I also consider the word critics to include artists, those who choose modern
museum collections, the owners of important galleries and art historians.
Mani DeLi
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
WYNNK
Deli) writes:
>By "Modern Art."I refer to a timespan which starts at about the beginning
> of
>this century. I do not mean to say that all Modern Art is bad and all so
>called "illustrators" are good.
Mani Deli
Hu> (Mani Deli) writes:
>>I think that the majority of so called great Modern Art is
>>inferior work because it lacks competence skill and technique.
Hu> Perhaps what you speak of here is only one part of an artistic
Hu> process;...
Correct I do.
It is
Hu>... only when technical skill and inspiration are combined that there can
Hu> be real art. I think this places some restrictions on your belief that
Hu> illustrators are the 'great artists' of our time.
I completely agree. But this confirms my statement, no skill no art.
Inspiration can not be conveyed without skill.
"The greatest tragedy is when one's ability does not live up to one's
aspirations." S. Dali
As to illustrators, please read read my other message I think this will
clarify the matter. I do not mean illustrator in the sense of just magazine or
book illustrator etc.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12