Something new at last!!
Peter H.M. Brooks
I still have to add a lot of things, pastels, pen&ink and
pencil drawings in particular. I am also wondering if, and
how, to add pictures of sculpture - it is rather difficult
to get the impression in three dimensions from a photograph.
It is bad enough without proper lighting to get a painting
on a web site properly.
Anyway, for those of you who might be interested, have a
look at: http://www.psyche.demon.co.uk
You might like the link to the dozen satanic commandments if the
pictures aren't ideal for you.
Peter H.M. Brooks
pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk - until dejanews is back.
Is it better to live, a slave, or die, free?
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
hank evans
but "tree" is half a megabyte! took forever to download... couldn't you
optimise it?
keep up the good work....
--
SapArt Studio & Gallery
www.sapart.freeserve.co.uk
Hand-made ceramic original sculptures and gifts,
cats,dogs,elephants,teddybears,
lions, tigers, chess and much much more.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Scarlett
Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
(snip)
:Anyway, for those of you who might be interested, have a
:look at: http://www.psyche.demon.co.uk
At the risk of having people hate you simply because I'm responding to you,
I'll give you my impressions ;-)
First, KUDOS to you for actually making art!!!! Maybe you will be an
inspiration to the many wanna-be Marilyns of this group!
MAGNUS: I like the inclusion of drips or drip-like effects in this work
which adds more of a sense of space to the work and also the dichotomy of
warm (few) and cool (many) colors is quite effective without being muddied
up as is far too common.
MOTHER AND CHILD MURDER: With less cluttered imagery you have successfully
managed to convey more. Excellent! Most people don't know how to use the
color red successfully but you have, KUDOS!
BOMBED HOUSE WITH VASE: Maybe the title put a certain expectation of the
work which somehow I haven't seen successfully? The house is a bit to
pleasant to carry if off IMO. Yet the work isn't a failure, the title just
threw me off...
I am glad to see you working away. It seems as though you are at a
crossroads at this point and will go in a specific direction soon. This
happens to everyone (with any sense at all!) and most importantly, you are
producing work. Congratulations!
(and a proof of my statement in another post - Alison doesn't like you or
your work, yet I do!)
:You might like the link to the dozen satanic commandments if the
:pictures aren't ideal for you.
Sorry, I've already read Marilyn today ;-)
:
:
:Peter H.M. Brooks
:pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk - until dejanews is back.
:Is it better to live, a slave, or die, free?
:
OK, I'll be honest, I'm not that nobel. I'd choose the first. but, I'd be a
subversive slave. Just want a few more whiffs of the early morning dew
(which I don't get here in AZ) and the sound of birds and a nice cool
breeze... I'd be free in my mind.
Now I am not going to think about it anymore :-P
Kay/Scarlettt
http://ScarlettDecker.homestead.com
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Scarlett" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
>
> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
> (snip)
> :Anyway, for those of you who might be interested, have a
> :look at: http://www.psyche.demon.co.uk
>
> At the risk of having people hate you simply because I'm responding to
you,
> I'll give you my impressions ;-)
>
thing! I would hate to think that people were so in fear of peer
pressure not to respond to a posting!!
Anyway, I don't acutally need a response in news - I can see the big
jump in hits on my web site when I mention it.
>
> First, KUDOS to you for actually making art!!!! Maybe you will be an
> inspiration to the many wanna-be Marilyns of this group!
>
Thank you! The main problem hasn't been the painting, I have been doing
a lot over the past six months, but rather in taking the photo's [trying
to get the lighting right] and then getting them posted on the web. I
will try to be better with this over the next few months.
>
> MAGNUS: I like the inclusion of drips or drip-like effects in this
work
> which adds more of a sense of space to the work and also the dichotomy
of
> warm (few) and cool (many) colors is quite effective without being
muddied
> up as is far too common.
>
Thank you very much! I enjoyed this as my first experiment with the
water soluble oil paint - that was what led me to the drip-like effect.
>
>
> MOTHER AND CHILD MURDER: With less cluttered imagery you have
successfully
> managed to convey more. Excellent! Most people don't know how to use
the
> color red successfully but you have, KUDOS!
>
Thank you again! I found it very useful to paint this one. We had just
learned of the brutal murder of a friend of ours and her six year old
daughter in the Eastern Cape. It was difficult to express my feelings
about it, but I found that making the painting helped to some extent.
>
>
> BOMBED HOUSE WITH VASE: Maybe the title put a certain expectation of
the
> work which somehow I haven't seen successfully? The house is a bit to
> pleasant to carry if off IMO. Yet the work isn't a failure, the title
just
> threw me off...
>
I have had interestingly mixed reactions to this one. My wife's nieces,
who are eleven and thirteen, are very, very keen on it. My mother is
upset by the 'mistake' in the perspective. Other people don't like the
flowers being too small. Few people are indifferent to it. I might give
it a better title - it was only a small bomb!
>
> I am glad to see you working away. It seems as though you are at a
> crossroads at this point and will go in a specific direction soon.
This
> happens to everyone (with any sense at all!) and most importantly, you
are
> producing work. Congratulations!
>
Yes, I am enjoying working very much. I have also been doing some
experiments in sculpture, some of which have been popular.
>
> (and a proof of my statement in another post - Alison doesn't like you
or
> your work, yet I do!)
>
Well, Alison has her position to keep up. I would worry if everybody
liked my pictures, particularly if some people liked them - it would
suggest that I was doing something seriously wrong.
>
> :You might like the link to the dozen satanic commandments if the
> :pictures aren't ideal for you.
>
> Sorry, I've already read Marilyn today ;-)
>
Keep it for another then.
>
> :
> :
> :Peter H.M. Brooks
> :pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk - until dejanews is back.
> :Is it better to live, a slave, or die, free?
> :
> OK, I'll be honest, I'm not that nobel. I'd choose the first. but, I'd
be a
> subversive slave. Just want a few more whiffs of the early morning dew
> (which I don't get here in AZ) and the sound of birds and a nice cool
> breeze... I'd be free in my mind.
>
I don't think that it is a matter of being 'noble'. I think that it is
daft to prefer being dead. As you say, your mind can still be free. I
think that it is quite possible to live a happy, contented and fulfilled
life as a slave - after all, monks and nuns choose a life of 'slavery'
and some seem to enjoy it.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
For man also knoweth not his time: as the fishes that are taken in an
evil net, and as the
birds that are caught in the snare; so are the sons of men snared
in an evil time, when it
falleth suddenly upon them. Ecclesiastes 9:12
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Alison A Raimes
>
>(and a proof of my statement in another post - Alison doesn't like you or
>your work, yet I do!)
Correct. I find this work very weak. Technically very poor and lacking
in any sort of substance. Schizophrenic in its lack of direction. In
addition to that, the website is one of the poorest I have ever seen.
The download time is too long - the homepage is way too cluttered - and
it lacks the design aspects that you expect of an artists who
understands how to arrange form in space. That is enough to tell if the
person is an artist or not. Demon provide enough space for something
like fifty pages on their homepages - why would anyone want to cram it
all onto one page. Would you hang all your work on one wall of a gallery
when there were three others available. In addition to that, having read
Peter here and on the philosophy groups - and a few other places too -
he seems to be drawn by the idea that of the tormented artist. There is
no place for myths in today's art world. A couple of pieces of work in
what, two years ? How can we applaud that in an artist. The artists I
know, including myself, produce that a day. I smell a fraud here.
Alison A Raimes
http://artlives.homestead.com
http://www.egroups/groups/artlives
Peter H.M. Brooks
See signature <floa...@address.in.sig> wrote:
> In article <pYHW4.115287$MB.22...@news6.giganews.com>, Scarlett
> <scarl...@theriver.com> writes
> >
>
> >(and a proof of my statement in another post - Alison doesn't like
you or
> >your work, yet I do!)
>
> Correct. I find this work very weak.
>
>
> Technically very poor and lacking
> in any sort of substance. Schizophrenic in its lack of direction.
>
attach these criticisms to some work, you really need to do better - a
bit of detail as to why you see no 'substance' might be a good start.
I wonder rather how you can detect 'direction' from just three
paintings, taken from a reasonably large selection. Can you enlighten
me? I think others might find a cue to the ability you have to detect
this rather useful too.
>
> In
> addition to that, the website is one of the poorest I have ever seen.
>
This is a matter of opinion, I find its simplicity appealing.
>
> The download time is too long - the homepage is way too cluttered -
and
> it lacks the design aspects that you expect of an artists who
> understands how to arrange form in space.
>
Funny that. If you look at most art sites, you find that they are keener
to show the pictures, than to arrange them on the page. After all,
pictures of paintings are not the paintings themselves, nor are they in
the context in which they will normally be seen. So I prefer a neutral
background that doesn't intrude.
Anyway, I prefer to spend my time doing other things. I took a conscious
decision not to make my web site fiddly, no frames or anything else,
just a simple collection of pictures. I would have left it an ftp site
if I thought that most people could read it.
I take it that minimalism isn't your thing.
>
>That is enough to tell if
the
> person is an artist or not. Demon provide enough space for something
> like fifty pages on their homepages - why would anyone want to cram it
> all onto one page.
>
The number of pages isn't constrained by the space. It is simply a
function of the html that you write. One could put each picture on a
different page, if you preferred it.
I like the freedom from the paper created tyrany of A4. You can make a
web page as long as you like - as you used to be able to with a scroll.
I like that and make use of it. I prefer to not to follow the crowd.
>
> Would you hang all your work on one wall of a
gallery
> when there were three others available.
>
Not a very good metaphor. Would you put your pictures on the walls if
you could display them around the room - making use of all the space?
Maybe not.
>
> In addition to that, having
read
> Peter here and on the philosophy groups - and a few other places too -
> he seems to be drawn by the idea that of the tormented artist.
>
I have absolutely no idea where you get this from! I would argue for
quite the reverse, in my case, anyway. I love painting and get great
fulfilment from it. I am certainly not in any way 'tormented'. Maybe you
could give a few quotes to explain how you arrive at this one - I would
be fascinated to learn.
>
> There
is
> no place for myths in today's art world.
>
No place for myths?? This is indeed a bizarre comment. I am interested
that my web-site should have provoked it from you. Maybe you could
explain how the careful weaving of mythology by Mr Sastchi doesn't work
in today's art world.
Alternatively, maybe you could explain how the myth of kitsch not being
art doesn't exist in today's art world.
>
>A couple of pieces of work in
> what, two years ? How can we applaud that in an artist. The artists I
> know, including myself, produce that a day.
>
I am sure that it doesn't take you very long to produce a piece of work.
However, your assumptions are showing rather. Just because I choose to
show three pieces, doesn't mean that they are my total output for the
day, week, or month. I choose to show what I wish to show, when I wish
to do it.
Anyway, it is interesting to see how important both speed and quantity
are to your judgement of the ability of an artist - no doubt if other
people did an art degree at your alma mater they could also understand
the cruical nature of these to the judging process.
>
> I smell a fraud here.
>
No doubt you do, I probably would smell it too, if I were there.
I wonder who you think is being defrauded...
Alison A Raimes
<pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> writes
>Anyway, I don't acutally need a response in news - I can see the big
>jump in hits on my web site when I mention it.
Jump in hits should never be measured as *success* - and this isn't
intended just for Peter. You might want to check how long the hitters
stayed at the site and then look at the response you have received as a
result of the visits. Did those people stay long enough to look at the
work or was it a thirty second and leave hit - which means that they
didn't actually see the work. Did you get favourable responses from
total strangers - or did your chums just give your ego a quick shine.
Don't deceive yourself into believing you are successful from statistic.
Alison.
Alison A Raimes
<pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> writes
>It is good that criticism isn't your bread and butter. If you do wish to
>attach these criticisms to some work, you really need to do better - a
>bit of detail as to why you see no 'substance' might be a good start.
You are right, criticism is not my bread and butter, but painting is,
and right now it is my only source of income so I have to take it very,
very seriously. My self, and the peer group I work with, fight daily to
make the years we spent studying our profession into a feasible career,
just like any musician or actor. The Internet has given every Tom, Dick
and Harry the opportunity to display their work now the art world has
changed value judgements are rare. I reserve the right to give mine, and
I suggest if you want to enter the game zone then you get used to people
criticising your work as well as your mates praising you. You have to
earn your place in the art world like any other career.
Recently I wrote to someone who had commented that your work was *good*
and asked him why. He said that he hadn't actually looked at your work
but thought that if Scarlett thought it was good then it must be. Is
that what you want ? So a few minutes ago, I went back and took one
more, and last look. There are 18 images on that site which I think is a
good enough number to give a pretty good representation of what you are
about. If you are the psychologist you claim, you will know what
schizophrenic art means - its a well used term - I don't need to explain
my comments further. I can't imagine why you would say that there are
only three, unless you are discarding the past ones, in which case I
suggest you remove them. The page took eleven long minutes to download,
the background is certainly not *neutral* - blue has never been a
neutral colour - and a number of the images are touching others. Why
would you expect anyone to wait eleven minutes to see your work ? Its a
cluttered mess, there is nothing simplistic about it. As to your claims
to minimal .... I guess you must have been cracking a joke. It certainly
wasn't an educated comment.
Alison A Raimes
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Thomas Ziorjen
I really can't see why you're praising this guy's work. He reminds me of
people I've come across who've done maybe 10 or 12 little paintings and they
'enjoyed it' so they had business cards printed up 'Joe So-and-so - Artist'.
And then it's another six months before they paint again. Not to come on like
Mani, but this guy just hasn't gotten anywhere with his work. He simply
hasn't done enough. Sure, everyone starts somewhere, but why the clamoring for
public attention to present (badly) what is at best, student work?
Nor does he seem to know anything about the art historical context he's trying
to prop himself up with. "Paintings, drawings and photographs - realist,
abstract, impressionist and expressionist" come on! And in case *that*
doesn't legitimate his amateurish efforts, how about "Peter Brooks (1958- )"
-- all ready for the art history texts.
I just don't see it Scarlett. I don't see how "wanna-be" doesn't apply here.
Thomas
Thomas Ziorjen
Peter H.M. Brooks
Thomas Ziorjen <thomas_...@sunshine.net> wrote:
>
> I really can't see why you're praising this guy's work.
>
found my web-site gave you something to think about. I think that it is
good that there are divided opinions about my paintings - I would be
much less happy if there was just one view! You should also realise
that, when looking at digital photographs of paintings, you need to
think about what the original is like - it is often rather different
from the photo'.
For people like you, it may help if I put a small selection of my less
colourful work on my web-site. Maybe you would like some pen&ink
drawings, some pastels or some pencil drawings. I think that I may do
that in the next week or too - it will give Alison something to get nice
and cross about too. I like to do my bit to make people happy!
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
For man also knoweth not his time: as the fishes that are taken in an
evil net, and as the
birds that are caught in the snare; so are the sons of men snared
in an evil time, when it
falleth suddenly upon them. Ecclesiastes 9:12
Peter H.M. Brooks
Alison A Raimes <ali...@see.signature.for.address> wrote:
> In article <8gglin$9mg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Peter H. M. Brooks
> <pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> writes
>
> >It is good that criticism isn't your bread and butter. If you do wish
to
> >attach these criticisms to some work, you really need to do better -
a
> >bit of detail as to why you see no 'substance' might be a good start.
>
> You are right, criticism is not my bread and butter, but painting is,
> and right now it is my only source of income so I have to take it
very,
> very seriously. My self, and the peer group I work with, fight daily
to
> make the years we spent studying our profession into a feasible
career,
> just like any musician or actor. The Internet has given every Tom,
Dick
> and Harry the opportunity to display their work now the art world has
> changed value judgements are rare. I reserve the right to give mine,
and
> I suggest if you want to enter the game zone then you get used to
people
> criticising your work as well as your mates praising you. You have to
> earn your place in the art world like any other career.
>
had an effect on art, just as in many other things. I think that it is
positive that people can see images in a value free environment and come
to their own conclusions - avoiding the hype that produces mythological
measures of value through.
What I do like, though, is informed and accurate criticism. Your rather
subjective objections to me personally do rather obviously colour your
views of my pictures! It has its amusing side, to be sure, but, if you
wish to be taken seriously, you do need to be a little more objective.
>
> Recently I wrote to someone who had commented that your work was
*good*
> and asked him why. He said that he hadn't actually looked at your work
> but thought that if Scarlett thought it was good then it must be. Is
> that what you want ?
>
That is intersting. More a comment on how people come to conclusions
than anything else. Clearly some people value your pictures because of
what they read, rather than what they see. I don't really see a problem
either way - until it gets to the level of a Damien Hurst being created
as a marketing triumph.
>
> So a few minutes ago, I went back and took one
> more, and last look. There are 18 images on that site which I think is
a
> good enough number to give a pretty good representation of what you
are
> about. If you are the psychologist you claim, you will know what
> schizophrenic art means - its a well used term - I don't need to
explain
> my comments further.
>
I have never actually claimed to be a psychologist - I wonder where you
got this idea. I know the term, it has been applied to van Gogh by some
critics. It isn't really an art criticism, though, as you say, it is
more of a psychologists attempt to understand some art. That is why it
is a bit peculiar for you to think that it is really an artistic
criticism.
>
> I can't imagine why you would say that there are
> only three, unless you are discarding the past ones, in which case I
> suggest you remove them.
>
I made the point that I had added three new pictures - as I have.
>
>The page took eleven long minutes to
download,
>
You should get a faster modem. However, as I said to another poster, I
will look at putting lower resolution photographs up - which will speed
up the download.
>
> the background is certainly not *neutral* - blue has never been a
> neutral colour - and a number of the images are touching others. Why
> would you expect anyone to wait eleven minutes to see your work ?
>
As you can see, over 10000 people have been interested in seeing my
work, and many have written to me saying how much they enjoy it. You are
very much the exception, if, as you seem to, you take numbers as being
any sort of indication.
>
> Its
a
> cluttered mess, there is nothing simplistic about it. As to your
claims
> to minimal .... I guess you must have been cracking a joke. It
certainly
> wasn't an educated comment.
>
I am always amused at how important you find it to be 'educated'.
Language is more than just jargon, you know, Alison.
Still, it was nice of you to go to the effort, no doubt with an open
mind, to download my paintings and photographs, count them and notice
that some were touching. I am impressed that you managed the exercise
without liking any of the images, not even a little bit. I imagine that
this really does show how unprejudiced you really are.
Michelle
some of the people who have responded to this posting.
Surely art is an intensely personal thing, and also a matter of taste.
Criticism which is based purely on personal distaste, rather than a
constructive appraisal, surely can only come from someone who has no
understanding of the individual's right to express themselves in the way
that they choose. There isn't "one way" - the most important thing is
that the artist believes in what they are doing, rather than trying to
fit into an accepted mode of thought at the expense of their own
individuality.
This isn't to say, of course, that there is anything wrong with adopting
styles of art which fit into an artists mode of working.
I don't see the point of "bitchy" attacks on other artists - they serve
no purpose other than to potentially demoralise and upset the artist - a
lot of us are sensitive creatures after all! Tactful criticism, on the
other hand, can be extremely helpful, and is what make such forms of
communication of great value.
To get back to the subject of the original posting, I would agree with
someone else who has replied that the site is far too slow - perhaps you
could split older or themed images onto seperate pages, or use
thumbnails?
Apart from that, the paintings were interesting, particularly the way the
titles invite you to look for stories within them.
Alison A Raimes
deja.com> writes
>At the risk of incurring wrath myself, I'm surprised by the vehemence of
>some of the people who have responded to this posting.
>Surely art is an intensely personal thing, and also a matter of taste.
Absolutely. And as I said to Peter in the other post, there is no
problem with that until the person making the work tries to become a
professional. I applaud those who make art in every form, but I will
challenge the motives of anyone who takes that art and places it on the
market. The two areas are very different although there is no reason
that they cannot sit side by side. As one of the most successful
professional artists i know said to me the other day, in the studio it
is art, outside it is a product and is no longer a personal thing. If
Peter chooses to make his art public property by exhibiting it and
asking money for it, then he must be prepared for the consequences of
that. The first thing you need is a tough skin, and I don't think he has
that.
Alison A Raimes
http://artlives.homestead.com
Alison A Raimes
Peter. I did try and look for something to praise in your work, and
decided that the little ditty at the end was fun. As to the 10,000 plus
people who have apparently visited your site, I would imagine you would
be overwhelmed by responses. That's an amazing amount of hits to one
site, you must let us know how on earth you achieved it. On this I have
to applaud you. And there I was about to question you on the
authenticity of the hits - but no one would need to inflate the number,
unless they were trying to deceive. I am sure you are not, because you
have said so, so I apologise for the doubts that went through my head.
My assessment was unbiased and made long before I ever exchanged with
you. It hasn't changed with the introduction of the three new works. If
you go back through the alt.brallen archives you will find I discussed
your work sometime ago with a few others. But I warn you, you might not
like some of the responses and criticisms. I questioned your
descriptions of your work as expressionist, impressionist and various
other terms, all in the same context. I see you have now removed that
description and wonder why.
I have absolutely no problem with anyone doing art of any sort, in fact
I encourage and teach art at all instances. But the minute that someone
starts talking about gallery representation and puts their work up for
sale, and start calling themselves an *artist*, then the game changes.
Call that bitchy if you want - I call it pride in something I am
committed to. On that note, I have a major exhibition coming up and a
lot of work to do. Perhaps this little exchange might help you to
evaluate what it is you think you want to achieve from your art making.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Michelle <michell...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> At the risk of incurring wrath myself, I'm surprised by the vehemence
of
> some of the people who have responded to this posting.
>
Alison has been anti-me for some time now for some reason, so you
shouldn't take her sour grapes too seriously - I don't!
I think that it is good that people feel strongly - I would prefer, as
you say, if the feelings were better directed, more specific, rather
than just emotings. Still, you can't expect everything to be the way you
would like it to be, and I am fairly philosophical about this.
>
>
> Surely art is an intensely personal thing, and also a matter of taste.
> Criticism which is based purely on personal distaste, rather than a
> constructive appraisal, surely can only come from someone who has no
> understanding of the individual's right to express themselves in the
way
> that they choose. There isn't "one way" - the most important thing is
> that the artist believes in what they are doing, rather than trying to
> fit into an accepted mode of thought at the expense of their own
> individuality.
>
I agree with this, mainly. I think that there is an objective
aesthetics. For this reason I am particularly interested in my, and
others, paintings that evoke strong reactions in both directions. I feel
that I am doing something right, and touching somewhere close to the
edge, when one person reacts in horror and anger to what another person
reacts to with delight, recognition and praise. Clearly this often says
more about the person so reacting rather than the painting itself, but I
think that, as triggers, the images must have an effect. After all,
hundreds of people post URL's to their web pages on usenet. Alison
ignores almost all of them, but makes a special point of attacking my
art - and she goes out of her way to pull out all the stops, she only
just managed to keep hereself from criticism of the particular hue of
blue that I used as a background. Still, she is given to extreme
emoting, so one shouldn't read too much into it.
Anyway, part of the job of art is to excite interest and comment. I feel
happy that mine plays this role - as well as providing me with a great
deal of satisfaction and enjoyment as I produce it (the reason that I
actually do it).
>
> This isn't to say, of course, that there is anything wrong with
adopting
> styles of art which fit into an artists mode of working.
>
Yes. This is one of Alison's (and I mention her only because she is
recent and extreme in her views), points. She is unhappy that I don't
fit into an easily analysable (and dismissable) 'school' or style. I
find this an interesting objection. Clearly one can, with many artists,
recognise them by their style quite easily. This is more the case with
visual artists (where it is seen as a virtue) than verbal artists (where
it is seen as a block).
It is funny that there is such a divergence. Few would argue that John
Fowles is a poor novelist because his books are all completely
different, or that the late Barbara Cartland was a great artist because
all her books were so similar. Though Alison would be right as far as
popularity is concerned, Cartland almost certainly made more money than
Fowles.
I must say that I prefer not to produce work that is the same. When I do
have an idea that I wish to follow, I see the initial sketches, drawings
and other development as just a means to an end, the final picture is
what I am aiming at. I am not keen on producing a whole gallery filled
with the same theme. I know that I am in a minority here (Alison calls
it schizophrenic) as I often feel a bit depressed at exhibitions that
show so little originality - one good idea done to death in twenty or
more paintings. Still, I may return to some of my earlier ideas and do
some more work in that direction, so I am not hard and fast in my
feelings about this.
>
> I don't see the point of "bitchy" attacks on other artists - they
serve
> no purpose other than to potentially demoralise and upset the artist -
a
> lot of us are sensitive creatures after all! Tactful criticism, on
the
> other hand, can be extremely helpful, and is what make such forms of
> communication of great value.
>
I think that Alison feels confident that I have a thick enough skin.
Actually these attacks do, as I say, say rather a lot about the person
making the attack - and sadly not that much about the art or artist that
they are directed against.
Look at some of Alison's fights with Mani, and then put her attack on me
into context. Alison wishes to refute the points that Mani raises
(admittedly at great length and in a rather extreme and not terribly
exciting way) by proving that her paintings, abstract as they are, have
artistic value. She does this by arguing for her knowledge of the
history of art from her degree - which I find unconvincing to say the
least - and, now, from attacking my paintings as inferior. Surely, she
is saying, to Mani and his ilk, if I can tell high quality from low
quality art, then my art has value. It does make some sense.
Another instructive exercise is to look at my reply to her posting, then
her reply to that - and see how many of my points she fails to address.
Also look at the particular points she leaves out. That will give you a
pretty good idea of what her agenda is - try it!
>
> To get back to the subject of the original posting, I would agree with
> someone else who has replied that the site is far too slow - perhaps
you
> could split older or themed images onto seperate pages, or use
> thumbnails?
>
Yes, I will speed it up. I will reduce the resolution of the jpeg files.
I am happy with the scrolling mechanism (though I may change it in
future, I certainly am not boxing myself in just because it has been
criticised!), but agree that, for people with slow modems, it is kinder
to give a faster download.
>
> Apart from that, the paintings were interesting, particularly the way
the
> titles invite you to look for stories within them.
>
Thank you for that! I think that I should probably change the 'bombed
house' title as some people have found it confusing. I am not quite sure
what to change it to, but that is something pleasant to think about.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
For man also knoweth not his time: as the fishes that are taken in an
evil net, and as the
birds that are caught in the snare; so are the sons of men snared
in an evil time, when it
falleth suddenly upon them. Ecclesiastes 9:12
http://www.psyche.demon.co.uk
Peter H.M. Brooks
Alison A Raimes <ali...@see.signature.for.address> wrote:
> deja.com> writes
> >At the risk of incurring wrath myself, I'm surprised by the vehemence
of
> >some of the people who have responded to this posting.
taste.
>
> problem with that until the person making the work tries to become a
> professional. I applaud those who make art in every form, but I will
> challenge the motives of anyone who takes that art and places it on
the
> market. The two areas are very different although there is no reason
> that they cannot sit side by side. As one of the most successful
> professional artists i know said to me the other day, in the studio it
> is art, outside it is a product and is no longer a personal thing. If
> Peter chooses to make his art public property by exhibiting it and
> asking money for it, then he must be prepared for the consequences of
> that.
>
ago, you were arguing that the value of art was not its commercial
succes - actually you made quite a point about it.
Anyway, whatever your motives (or mine, for that matter), you are too
late, I am already a professional artist, and have been so for some
time. I sold my first work in 1994 - I remember it particularly as I had
only just completed it and hadn't put it up for sale (or even considered
doing that, at that stage, actually) when somebody visiting insisted
that I put a price on it and bought it within minutes of having seen it.
It certainly inspired me to do more painting and drawing!
I agree with you about things on the market being products - though,
sadly, quite a lot of them weren't art when they were in the studio.
>
> The first thing you need is a tough skin, and I don't think he
has
> that.
>
Ah, well, I was wrong there. I said in a previous post that I thought
that you thought that I did have a thick enough skin. I hadn't realised
that you were actually attacking somebody who you thought had a thin
skin. I am afraid that it rather lowers my opinion of you. I admire
people who know when to pull their punches.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
For man also knoweth not his time: as the fishes that are taken in an
evil net, and as the
birds that are caught in the snare; so are the sons of men snared
in an evil time, when it
falleth suddenly upon them. Ecclesiastes 9:12
Peter H.M. Brooks
Alison A Raimes <ali...@see.signature.for.address> wrote:
account,
> Peter. I did try and look for something to praise in your work, and
> decided that the little ditty at the end was fun.
>
climbing group - they saw it as dangerous attack on their sport.
>
> As to the 10,000
plus
> people who have apparently visited your site,
>
counter - I have compared it to the figures for megabytes downloaded and
there is a pretty good relationship between the two, so I have no reason
to doubt the figure.
>
>I would imagine you
would
> be overwhelmed by responses. That's an amazing amount of hits to one
> site, you must let us know how on earth you achieved it.
>
major search engines and mentioned it on art groups like this. I think
that some of the controversy has helped - some time back a lot of hindus
were getting hot under the collar about my painting of Ganesh, thinking
that it was blasphemous.
>
> On this I
have
> to applaud you. And there I was about to question you on the
> authenticity of the hits - but no one would need to inflate the
number,
> unless they were trying to deceive. I am sure you are not, because you
> have said so, so I apologise for the doubts that went through my head.
>
deceive. Actually I was amused to see how the number of my posts on
usenet and the number of hits on my web site seemed to grow in a similar
way, though not at quite the same rate. Sadly dejanews seems to have
lost a few thousand of my posts, so I am not sure if the trend is
continuing.
As I pointed out, I think, when I made this most recent post, there was
a noticable increase in the hit rate.
>
> My assessment was unbiased and made long before I ever exchanged with
> you. It hasn't changed with the introduction of the three new works.
If
> you go back through the alt.brallen archives you will find I discussed
> your work sometime ago with a few others. But I warn you, you might
not
> like some of the responses and criticisms. I questioned your
> descriptions of your work as expressionist, impressionist and various
> other terms, all in the same context. I see you have now removed that
> description and wonder why.
>
I haven't intentionally removed the description - it must have been an
accident during the editing (if it is missing). I will put it back -
thank you for letting me know.
I know your feelings about my pictures - you made them evident some time
ago. I hadn't known of your discussion on the alt.brallen archives, I
may look it up some time. I am happy with any sensible response or
criticism, as I have pointed out in another post.
>
> I have absolutely no problem with anyone doing art of any sort, in
fact
> I encourage and teach art at all instances. But the minute that
someone
> starts talking about gallery representation and puts their work up for
> sale, and start calling themselves an *artist*, then the game changes.
> Call that bitchy if you want - I call it pride in something I am
> committed to. On that note, I have a major exhibition coming up and a
> lot of work to do. Perhaps this little exchange might help you to
> evaluate what it is you think you want to achieve from your art
making.
>
This 'little exchange' hasn't lead me to any new evaluation. I have been
quite happy about what I wish to achieve for some time now. I am
interested in your views of the matter, more for what they say about you
than for what they say about my pictures (since they don't say much
about them at all, apart from that they upset you).
As I said in another post, I am intrigued about your ambivalent position
on commercial art. Sometimes you breath fire about how important it is
not to judge art by its price or popularity, other times you claim that
it is the only measure. Maybe this exchange will help you consider your
understanding of this point.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
For man also knoweth not his time: as the fishes that are taken in an
evil net, and as the
birds that are caught in the snare; so are the sons of men snared
in an evil time, when it
falleth suddenly upon them. Ecclesiastes 9:12
Peter H.M. Brooks
Alison A Raimes <ali...@see.signature.for.address> wrote:
> questioned your
> descriptions of your work as expressionist, impressionist and various
> other terms, all in the same context. I see you have now removed that
> description and wonder why.
>
I am sorry, Alison, but you have built this heffalump trap all on your
own - then blundered into it.
I have checked my web-site and find (as I expected) that I have not
removed the above description from it. I simply changed the fonts.
So, your claim to have carefully re-loaded and examined the site is
shown up to be false. I don't know if I should describe it as
'fraudulent' [though this is a word you seem to like] - maybe you can
say.
Still, any claim for your observation of the site being accurate
(something that surely even a fairly ordinary artist ought to be good
at) and objective is shown to be tripe.
So, Alison, now that you have been found out, what can we expect? An
apology? An explanation as to why your observation is so bad? An
explanation as to why objective actually means 'subjective' when you
don't like somebody? I wonder.
Actually, given your attempt to imply that there was something
inauthentic about the hit count on my web-site, I would expect you to
try to claim that I {fraudulently} went and changed it back, to make my
claim, and show you up as an unobservant, subjective, biased and
vindictive {add fraudulent if you like} person.
I am so sorry to have to point this out, but, anybody with a netscape
browser can do a 'view info' and learn that I last changed the index
file on the 22nd of May. So, sadly, Alison, any attempt to crawl out of
your home made trap is going to fail.
Cue excuses - 'so busy', 'couldn't be bothered with the detail, even
though I chose to mention it in a newsgroup' 'concentrating on my
painting' 'hangover'.
Ah, well, you can't win them all, can you.
Still I suppost that you don't need to be that good at observation for
abstract art, now, do you.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
For man also knoweth not his time: as the fishes that are taken in an
evil net, and as the
birds that are caught in the snare; so are the sons of men snared
in an evil time, when it
falleth suddenly upon them. Ecclesiastes 9:12
Peter H.M. Brooks
Alison A Raimes <ali...@see.signature.for.address> wrote:
> <pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> writes
>
> >Anyway, I don't acutally need a response in news - I can see the big
> >jump in hits on my web site when I mention it.
>
> Jump in hits should never be measured as *success* - and this isn't
> intended just for Peter. You might want to check how long the hitters
> stayed at the site and then look at the response you have received as
a
> result of the visits. Did those people stay long enough to look at the
> work or was it a thirty second and leave hit - which means that they
> didn't actually see the work. Did you get favourable responses from
> total strangers - or did your chums just give your ego a quick shine.
> Don't deceive yourself into believing you are successful from
statistic.
>
volume downloaded, this give a good picture of how many people have
downloaded the whole site, a few pictures, or just moved on. I find that
this give a pretty fair indication of how much people are looking at -
this is what I count as 'hits' and I have been impressed.
Still, Alison, it is very nice of you to help me in case my ego was
shining too much!
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
"My choice of colours does not rest on any scientific theory; it is
based on observation, on feeling, on the experience of
my sensibility." Henri Matisse in Notes of a Painter, published in La
Grande Revue, 1908
http://www.psyche.demon.co.uk
Alison A Raimes
<pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>This is a funny argument. Just the other day, well a couple of months
>ago, you were arguing that the value of art was not its commercial
>succes - actually you made quite a point about it.
>
And if you read this mornings post about this you will see that I
endorse that here - and added that success is not measured by the hits
on your site either. There is a distinct difference between what I am
saying is making successful art, and the business of going out and
selling it. Success is not measured by sales, ever. Some of the worst
chocolate box artists sell work for a living. Does that mean they are
successful ? Nor does selling work make you instantly a professional
artist. Is an actor a professional because he gets to work as an extra
for the day ? is a musician a professional because his friend pays him
to play the guitar at his wedding ? Do you file your taxes as *artist* ?
Do you declare your sales even ? Is art your major source of income ?
Can you, in all honesty after telling us that you want to find a way of
selling your work, stand before these groups and say you are a
professional artist ? Who exactly is it that you are trying to deceive ?
Alison A Raimes
http://alisonraimes.com
http://artlives.homestead.com
Alison A Raimes
<pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> writes
>hundreds of people post URL's to their web pages on usenet. Alison
>ignores almost all of them, but makes a special point of attacking my
>art - and she goes out of her way to pull out all the stops, she only
>just managed to keep hereself from criticism of the particular hue of
>blue that I used as a background. Still, she is given to extreme
>emoting, so one shouldn't read too much into it.
>
Absolute rubbish. I have on many occasions looked at sites and praised
them when I believe praise is due, but I don't bother to comment on them
if I am indifferent. I do not make a special case of picking on you -
your work is amongst some of the worst on the net that I have ever seen.
You put up your work for evaluation and I have given my evaluation. So
far I can see only one favourable review of your work - where did the
other 10,700 people go ? You are free to go back through deja.news and
check to see some of the criticisms I have given on other's works,
particularly some of the new and younger artists. I even got one of them
a place in our co-op gallery from seeing his work on the net - he does
computer generated art. I show in a gallery alongside fourteen other
artists and work in studios with 180 artists, of which I am a director
and trustee of the company. Irrespective of my opinions of their work,
they get 100 percent support from me if I believe they are genuine
artists.
You have now accused me of not looking again at your site and I can't
see any reason for me not to have done this and then tell you that I
did. I went at around four thirty yesterday and looked - spent fifteen
minutes. I waited eleven minutes or so for the download on a 33k modem
and then looked at the images again. A few days ago I looked at the site
on a laptop with a 29k modem which I gave up waiting for the images to
arrive. I have made three trips to your site in total. I will not be
making another.
>Look at some of Alison's fights with Mani, and then put her attack on me
>into context. Alison wishes to refute the points that Mani raises
>(admittedly at great length and in a rather extreme and not terribly
>exciting way) by proving that her paintings, abstract as they are, have
>artistic value. She does this by arguing for her knowledge of the
>history of art from her degree - which I find unconvincing to say the
>least - and, now, from attacking my paintings as inferior. Surely, she
>is saying, to Mani and his ilk, if I can tell high quality from low
>quality art, then my art has value. It does make some sense.
This is absolute nonsense. Any argument with Mani has nothing to do with
my own art - my arguments are generally against his parrot fashion
attacks on artists because they do not fit into his academic classical
straight jacket. What gain could there possibly be from promoting my art
in a place like Usenet ? I don't need to, I live in the most incredible
art orientated city in the world where I am able to make a living out of
the one thing that is central to my existence. In that I am extremely
fortunate. When have I ever tried to fight a cause against Mani in order
to prove that my art has value ? You are very wrong. You are very
confused. But kudos to you on this account, you have used this to your
advantage to boost your ego. You even sound as though you believe what
you are saying, but to me you sound very confused about what art is and
what you are about. And no, I will not waste time addressing your points
- they are so inconsistent, I do believe that describing your work as
schizophrenic may have been a little closer to the truth than I first
imagined. You will have to go somewhere else and get your attention now.
I won't be responding further.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Alison A Raimes <ali...@see.signature.for.address> wrote:
> <pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> writes
>
> >ignores almost all of them, but makes a special point of attacking my
> >art - and she goes out of her way to pull out all the stops, she only
> >just managed to keep hereself from criticism of the particular hue of
> >blue that I used as a background. Still, she is given to extreme
> >emoting, so one shouldn't read too much into it.
> >
>
> them when I believe praise is due, but I don't bother to comment on
them
> if I am indifferent. I do not make a special case of picking on you -
> your work is amongst some of the worst on the net that I have ever
seen.
>
to be a special case, but also to be amongst the worst - an achievement
indeed.
>
> You put up your work for evaluation and I have given my evaluation. So
> far I can see only one favourable review of your work - where did the
> other 10,700 people go ?
>
that is actually what I request on the site - I give my e-mail address
near the top, quite near the description of the pictures.
>
> You are free to go back through deja.news and
> check to see some of the criticisms I have given on other's works,
> particularly some of the new and younger artists. I even got one of
them
> a place in our co-op gallery from seeing his work on the net - he does
> computer generated art. I show in a gallery alongside fourteen other
> artists and work in studios with 180 artists, of which I am a director
> and trustee of the company. Irrespective of my opinions of their work,
> they get 100 percent support from me if I believe they are genuine
> artists.
>
>
> You have now accused me of not looking again at your site and I can't
> see any reason for me not to have done this and then tell you that I
> did.
>
so unobservant that you claimed that the description was not there.
>
> I went at around four thirty yesterday and looked - spent fifteen
> minutes. I waited eleven minutes or so for the download on a 33k modem
> and then looked at the images again. A few days ago I looked at the
site
> on a laptop with a 29k modem which I gave up waiting for the images to
> arrive. I have made three trips to your site in total. I will not be
> making another.
>
as proved by the fact that you exposed your simple lack of observation
in asking why the description wasn't there - when it was.
>
> >Look at some of Alison's fights with Mani, and then put her attack on
me
> >into context. Alison wishes to refute the points that Mani raises
> >(admittedly at great length and in a rather extreme and not terribly
> >exciting way) by proving that her paintings, abstract as they are,
have
> >artistic value. She does this by arguing for her knowledge of the
> >history of art from her degree - which I find unconvincing to say the
> >least - and, now, from attacking my paintings as inferior. Surely,
she
> >is saying, to Mani and his ilk, if I can tell high quality from low
> >quality art, then my art has value. It does make some sense.
>
with
> my own art - my arguments are generally against his parrot fashion
> attacks on artists because they do not fit into his academic classical
> straight jacket. What gain could there possibly be from promoting my
art
> in a place like Usenet ?
>
to it? Maybe you are just a bit confused.
>
>
>I don't need to, I live in the most
incredible
> art orientated city in the world where I am able to make a living out
of
> the one thing that is central to my existence. In that I am extremely
> fortunate. When have I ever tried to fight a cause against Mani in
order
> to prove that my art has value ? You are very wrong. You are very
> confused. But kudos to you on this account, you have used this to your
> advantage to boost your ego.
>
in other people too.
>
> You even sound as though you believe what
> you are saying, but to me you sound very confused about what art is
and
> what you are about. And no, I will not waste time addressing your
points
> - they are so inconsistent,
>
your lack of objectivity, I certainly do expect you to cut and run.
>
> I do believe that describing your work as
> schizophrenic may have been a little closer to the truth than I first
> imagined. You will have to go somewhere else and get your attention
now.
> I won't be responding further.
>
Bye, bye, Alison. I thought that you were projecting more than just a
desciption onto me when you described the art as 'schizophrenic' - thank
you for the confirmation.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
"My choice of colours does not rest on any scientific theory; it is
based on observation, on feeling, on the experience of
my sensibility." Henri Matisse in Notes of a Painter, published in La
Grande Revue, 1908
Thomas Ziorjen
"Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
> In article <392C9DD8...@sunshine.net>,
> Thomas Ziorjen <thomas_...@sunshine.net> wrote:
> >
> > I really can't see why you're praising this guy's work.
> >
> Then maybe you should look a little closer. Still, I am glad that you
> found my web-site gave you something to think about.
Don't flatter yourself. Your website didn't raise any issues
that I
haven't already dealt with repeatedly when looking at so much amateurish
art on the web. What got me thinking was how Scarlett could
possibly praise your efforts.
> I think that it is
> good that there are divided opinions about my paintings - I would be
> much less happy if there was just one view! You should also realise
> that, when looking at digital photographs of paintings, you need to
> think about what the original is like - it is often rather different
> from the photo'.
No, really? Gee I've never dealt with issues around presenting
images of
my work. This is where you explain to me how images of paintings aren't
the paintings, isn't it?
>
>
> For people like you, it may help if ...
For people like me? You know nothing about me. What would
*help* is a few
years of 'paying your dues'. Learn to paint, learn composition,
learn art
history, figure out who you are as an artist. Can you imagine a musician
calling himself a professional and seeking public attention after spending
as much time with his instrument as you have with a brush? "Um,
where do
you think I should have my recital?" Pathetic.
> I put a small selection of my less
> colourful work on my web-site. Maybe you would like some pen&ink
> drawings, some pastels or some pencil drawings. I think that I may do
> that in the next week or too - it will give Alison something to get nice
> and cross about too. I like to do my bit to make people happy!
What would make *me* happy is if people like you stopped trying
to pass
yourselves off as professional artists.
WoN ereH
can't really think of himself as a professional artist. If he does, I'm going
to be sure to check for proof of license the next time I need a plumber.
Debra
Scarlett
Thomas Ziorjen wrote in message <392D5271...@sunshine.net>...
:
:
:"Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
:
:> In article <392C9DD8...@sunshine.net>,
:> Thomas Ziorjen <thomas_...@sunshine.net> wrote:
:> >
:> > I really can't see why you're praising this guy's work.
:> >
:> Then maybe you should look a little closer. Still, I am glad that you
:> found my web-site gave you something to think about.
:
:Don't flatter yourself. Your website didn't raise any issues
:that I
:haven't already dealt with repeatedly when looking at so much amateurish
:art on the web. What got me thinking was how Scarlett could
:possibly praise your efforts.
I'll answer that in a moment.
(snip)
:> For people like you, it may help if ...
:
:For people like me? You know nothing about me. What would
:*help* is a few
:years of 'paying your dues'.
Thomas & Peter,
I absolutely *hated* when professors would tell me I needed to "pay my dues"
(they were absolutely right, of course!)
: Learn to paint, learn composition,
:learn art
:history, figure out who you are as an artist. Can you imagine a musician
:calling himself a professional and seeking public attention after spending
:as much time with his instrument as you have with a brush?
They do = "rap"
"Um,
:where do
:you think I should have my recital?" Pathetic.
:
:> I put a small selection of my less
:> colourful work on my web-site. Maybe you would like some pen&ink
:> drawings, some pastels or some pencil drawings. I think that I may do
:> that in the next week or too - it will give Alison something to get nice
:> and cross about too. I like to do my bit to make people happy!
:
:What would make *me* happy is if people like you stopped trying
:to pass
:yourselves off as professional artists.
This is where I am becoming confused....
Is Peter calling himself a "professional" artist? If so, which artworld is
he a professional in?
There is the still-life/cows-in-pastures/country-pastoral-scenes "artworld".
Many make quite a good income in this specific "artworld" and gain some
recognition as well in their own specific "artworld" societies &
publications. I am not too familiar with it. There are various other
"artworlds" as well.
I didn't know Peter claimed to be a professional at the height of his
career. I spoke with Peter as I would speak with a student. Would anyone
here tell a student "this is crap!" like so many here are fond of doing? I
do hate teaching, but not the students and I have found that many students
who experiment with various styles are much more open and receptive to
growth and will go further in their art than those who begin with, for
example, a vague idea of Abstract Expressionism and never explore anything
else or aren't even aware of other possibilities. This is why, for any art
degree, a painting major will also be required to take many 3-D classes as
well as art classes outside their major. So, as a teacher critiquing Peter's
work, yes, I maintain that he has some intriguing images a good feel for
color and paint surface and if he continues to explore, create work, and
keep an open mind he may go far. To tell a student "your work sucks" is
absurd.
However, if Peter sees himself as my *peer* this is a different matter
altogether! I did notice a disparaging remark about a diploma sketch to
Alison though I haven't looked. I'd imagine this was an attack on the
educational system that many artists choose as part of their "dues-paying"
process. If that is the case Peter, I would like you to know that they don't
just *give* those degrees out, in fact, you can only earn one with an
incredible amount of blood,sweat,tears and self-sacrifice not to mention
dedication. And they are certainly resented in groups like this! If this is
the case, then Thomas' advice of "pay your dues" is right on!
Scarlett
http://ScarlettDecker.homestead.com
Alison A Raimes
<scarl...@theriver.com> writes
>keep an open mind he may go far. To tell a student "your work sucks" is
>absurd.
>
Peter isn't a student. The opposite. He says he is already a
professional and has been for six years and he hates art education and
sneers at those who have art degrees. Yet he still seeks to be part of
the *system* despite his claim to swimming against the tide.
Why are we wasting time on him ?
Incidentally, I was told many, many times at degree that my work was
*crap*. I also was told on many, many occasions that my work had a lot
of potential. Frankly, I took no notice of either - what I did do was
soak up everything about art that came my way, while at college and
university. My art education was government subsidised. In return, I
used up every possible hour in the studios; went to every lecture;
attended every talk; asked as many artists to come and give me tutorials
including fellow students; formed bonds with my peer group that will
last a lifetime; and came out determined that the five years that I had
devoted to studying would not be thrown in the garbage can like so many
of those who studied with me. Can you imagine any other situation where
you are able to devote your entire attention to art ? Certainly not out
here in the real world, unless you have a rich parent or spouse. Not
many have that. Over half of my day is doing the business of *being an
artist* - applying for grants and exhibitions; putting together
portfolios; meeting potential buyers and galleries; making stretchers
and priming canvases .... and so on. There is nothing romantic about
being an artist - its a hard slog and often a fruitless one. You can go
several months with no income and not know when your next sale will be.
It takes guts. However, I am privileged to have an art education and to
have benefited so much from the experience of those around me.
Interesting is an interesting way of describing work, isn't it ? I
always cringe when someone says that about my work - its so non
committal and flaky.
Alison A Raimes
http://artlives.homestead.com
Peter H.M. Brooks
Alison A Raimes <ali...@see.signature.for.address> wrote:
> <pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> writes
>
> >>
> >This is a funny argument. Just the other day, well a couple of months
> >ago, you were arguing that the value of art was not its commercial
> >succes - actually you made quite a point about it.
> >
>
> And if you read this mornings post about this you will see that I
> endorse that here - and added that success is not measured by the hits
> on your site either. There is a distinct difference between what I am
> saying is making successful art, and the business of going out and
> selling it. Success is not measured by sales, ever. Some of the worst
> chocolate box artists sell work for a living. Does that mean they are
> successful ? Nor does selling work make you instantly a professional
> artist.
>
member of a profession with a charter - a lawyer, accountant or a
doctor, for example - or somebody who sells his work. This is in
contrast to an amateur who does not sell his work. It is simply a matter
of definition.
>
>Is an actor a professional because he gets to work as an extra
> for the day ? is a musician a professional because his friend pays him
> to play the guitar at his wedding ? Do you file your taxes as *artist*
?
> Do you declare your sales even ? Is art your major source of income ?
> Can you, in all honesty after telling us that you want to find a way
of
> selling your work, stand before these groups and say you are a
> professional artist ? Who exactly is it that you are trying to deceive
?
>
misunderstand the meaning of the word.
If you wanted to describe yourself in the way your questions suggest,
then you could say that you are a 'full time professional artist as your
sole profession'. This would be necessary to encompase the range of
meaning that you wish to add to the word 'professional'.
I am interested in your continual harping on deception. In my experience
people who have such an obsession with it are either paranoid or
deceitful themselves.
For the record, it is not my intention to deceive anybody. I think that
anybody reading my posts can see that I have replied honestly to all
reasonable questions.
On the other hand, it appears that you try to deceive people into
thinking that you are a reasonable and pleasant human being. I was happy
to conceed this to you - until you admitted that you attacked me
thinking that I had a thin skin. In other words, you admitted, in public
that you are a bully. I have no respect for a bully, even though, in
this case, it was attempted rather than acutual bullying. I wasn't
surprised when you said that you were going to cut and run - most bullys
are cowards too.
Peter H.M. Brooks
I would certainly recommend that you check your plumbers, though, it
could be very messy and expensive, if you don't. I am sorry to hear that
you don't already check the credentials of plumbers, I thought that
everybody did.
I am a little surprised by your apparent comparison between artists and
plumbers, though. Most artists don't have licenses. I suppose that quite
a lot of plumbers don't either, but that doesn't make them similar.
What exactly do you see so similar between plumbers and artists? I am
curious.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Thomas Ziorjen <thomas_...@sunshine.net> wrote:
>
>
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
>
> > In article <392C9DD8...@sunshine.net>,
> > Thomas Ziorjen <thomas_...@sunshine.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > I really can't see why you're praising this guy's work.
> > >
> > Then maybe you should look a little closer. Still, I am glad that
you
> > found my web-site gave you something to think about.
>
> Don't flatter yourself. Your website didn't raise any issues
> that I
> haven't already dealt with repeatedly when looking at so much
amateurish
> art on the web. What got me thinking was how Scarlett could
> possibly praise your efforts.
>
praise my efforts was my web-page. So, though it was indirect, it was my
web-page that got you thinking. So, I didn't flatter myself (though
quite why I think it would be flattering is a bit of a mystery to me), I
simply stated the fact - you were given something to think about. You
were also led to look at the art, consider it and comment on it. Even
more evidence of your thinking about it.
So, you are wrong. My web site did, now also by your own admission, set
you thinking about issues that you hadn't thought about before. If my
site didn't exist, I wouldn't be pointing this out to you now!
>
> > I think that it is
> > good that there are divided opinions about my paintings - I would be
> > much less happy if there was just one view! You should also realise
> > that, when looking at digital photographs of paintings, you need to
> > think about what the original is like - it is often rather different
> > from the photo'.
>
> No, really? Gee I've never dealt with issues around presenting
> images of
> my work. This is where you explain to me how images of paintings
aren't
> the paintings, isn't it?
>
Well, actually, since you ask, that was what I was pointing out to you
in the paragraph above. So I hope that I don't need to do it again.
>
> >
> >
> > For people like you, it may help if ...
>
> For people like me? You know nothing about me. What would
> *help* is a few
> years of 'paying your dues'. Learn to paint, learn composition,
> learn art
> history, figure out who you are as an artist.
>
I like that idea, 'paying ones dues'. Is that what makes you so
emotional? The idea that somebody can be appreciated without 'paying
dues'? It does seem a rather dog in a manger approach, but then there do
seem to be a few with this particular hangup in this part of the world.
Quite interesting, really.
>
> Can you imagine a
musician
> calling himself a professional and seeking public attention after
spending
> as much time with his instrument as you have with a brush? "Um,
> where do
> you think I should have my recital?" Pathetic.
>
Well, since you ask, yes, at least up to a point. You may be too young
to remember it [your style suggests as much], but, in the eighties,
there was a movement in music known as 'punk'. It was very successful.
They spent considerably less time with their instruments than I have
spent with a brush, pen and pencil.
Maybe you should read up about them and learn something.
>
> > I put a small selection of my less
> > colourful work on my web-site. Maybe you would like some pen&ink
> > drawings, some pastels or some pencil drawings. I think that I may
do
> > that in the next week or too - it will give Alison something to get
nice
> > and cross about too. I like to do my bit to make people happy!
>
> What would make *me* happy is if people like you stopped trying
> to pass
> yourselves off as professional artists.
>
As I have pointed out, it is simply a fact that I am a professional
artist, by definition. You can't change that, unless you manage to put
together an exclusive charter for artists and have it recognised in law
- then art could become a profession just like law, or accounting. So,
your accusation of 'passing off' is actually a libel. I don't think that
I will bother to prosecute you, but you ought to be a bit more careful
in future before making unsupported and incorrect accusations.
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Scarlett" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
>
> :For people like me? You know nothing about me. What would
> :*help* is a few
> :years of 'paying your dues'.
>
> I absolutely *hated* when professors would tell me I needed to "pay my
dues"
> (they were absolutely right, of course!)
>
right, not because I don't think that it is necessary to work hard, and
long, on anything to be really good at it, but because it has too much
of a puritanical ring. It suggests a tedious and unpleasant process of
working only to repay a debt - when learning and working to get better
at something should be a delight, fun and exciting.
>
> : Learn to paint, learn composition,
> :learn art
> :history, figure out who you are as an artist. Can you imagine a
musician
> :calling himself a professional and seeking public attention after
spending
> :as much time with his instrument as you have with a brush?
>
>
Yes, my example was punk, but rap is probably a more contemporary
example. Funny how some people seem so out of touch with the music
world.
>
>
> This is where I am becoming confused....
> Is Peter calling himself a "professional" artist? If so, which
artworld is
> he a professional in?
>
in a twist about this. I simply remarked that, by definition, anybody
who had sold even one piece of art is a professional artist - since
there is no artistic equivalent to a bar exam. So, by this definition,
I am certainly a professional artist. It is funny how worked up some
people get about the simplest things.
>
> There is the still-life/cows-in-pastures/country-pastoral-scenes
"artworld".
> Many make quite a good income in this specific "artworld" and gain
some
> recognition as well in their own specific "artworld" societies &
> publications. I am not too familiar with it. There are various other
> "artworlds" as well.
>
great artists (though they may be, and often are, great technicians),
but, by the simple definition that they sell their work, which is
described as art, they are professional artists.
>
> I didn't know Peter claimed to be a professional at the height of his
> career.
>
anybody knows when the height of their career actually is anyway, only
after death can a judgement be made. I hope that, as long as I paint and
draw, I will continue to learn - I even hope that I learn at a greater
rate as I learn more (this has been my experience in other fields of
learning and has been my experience in art so far).
I think that it would be incredibly sad to meet any artist who claimed
to have 'arrived' - any real artist would, I am certain, claim still to
be a student, even though such an artist would be a professional artist,
maybe even one with this as his sole career.
Actually, if the day ever arrived that I did feel that I knew it all,
and was no longer a student, then that would be the day that I would
give it up and wait for death.
>
> I spoke with Peter as I would speak with a student. Would
anyone
> here tell a student "this is crap!" like so many here are fond of
doing?
>
Well, yes. Somebody who is not a teacher would. Somebody who was
insecure in their own ability would. Somebody who felt that their ego
was enhanced by putting down somebody else would. Also, as we have seen,
somebody who is a bully would too.
I don't think that a mature and able person would.
>
> I
> do hate teaching, but not the students and I have found that many
students
> who experiment with various styles are much more open and receptive to
> growth and will go further in their art than those who begin with, for
> example, a vague idea of Abstract Expressionism and never explore
anything
> else or aren't even aware of other possibilities. This is why, for any
art
> degree, a painting major will also be required to take many 3-D
classes as
> well as art classes outside their major. So, as a teacher critiquing
Peter's
> work, yes, I maintain that he has some intriguing images a good feel
for
> color and paint surface and if he continues to explore, create work,
and
> keep an open mind he may go far. To tell a student "your work sucks"
is
> absurd.
>
I think you have a very sound view of this. I am surprise that you hate
teaching, though. I have spent a good portion of the last twenty years
teaching and I have loved almost every minute of it. I have found that
it doesn't matter much what the subject is, the process of bringing
people to the realisation that they have the ability and potential to
succeed and to see their joy as they start to achieve is one of the most
fulfilling things that I know. Still, I know that teaching isn't for
everybody.
I do appreciate your helpful comments again. I certainly will always do
my best to keep an open mind - not necessarily so open that the wind
wistles through it, though!
>
> However, if Peter sees himself as my *peer* this is a different matter
> altogether! I did notice a disparaging remark about a diploma sketch
to
> Alison though I haven't looked. I'd imagine this was an attack on the
> educational system that many artists choose as part of their
"dues-paying"
> process. If that is the case Peter, I would like you to know that they
don't
> just *give* those degrees out, in fact, you can only earn one with an
> incredible amount of blood,sweat,tears and self-sacrifice not to
mention
> dedication. And they are certainly resented in groups like this! If
this is
> the case, then Thomas' advice of "pay your dues" is right on!
> Scarlett
>
I should really explain my point there too - since it clearly didn't
come across properly. I am fully aware of the difficulty in the degree
process and feel it cruical that degrees are testing, challenging and
consequently difficult - I have one myself, so I have personal knowledge
of this.
What I commented on was Alison's remarkable insecurity. I have met a
couple of other people on the web who are in a similar position, but it
is very peculiar to me to find somebody who goes on about their degree
ad nauseam. After all, whatever your degree is in, it is only a marker
of an achievement at a particular time, the real work starts after it.
With most of the people I work with, the implicit assumption is that
they do have a degree in something (and it is unusual when I find
somebody who doesn't) but this is as unimportant to getting the job done
as knowing how well they did at primary school.
Though having a degree in art can obviously help, particularly with the
history of art, it is certainly not necessary. Many artists don't have
degrees in art and don't need them. I think that the attempt to claim
some superiority for somebody with a degree is simply silly - after all,
it is the end product that matters, not the letters after the name.
Though they may help promote sales I am sure!
Peter H.M. Brooks
See signature <floa...@address.in.sig> wrote:
> In article <9feX4.120918$MB.23...@news6.giganews.com>, Scarlett
>
> >keep an open mind he may go far. To tell a student "your work sucks"
is
> >absurd.
> >
>
> professional and has been for six years and he hates art education and
> sneers at those who have art degrees. Yet he still seeks to be part of
> the *system* despite his claim to swimming against the tide.
>
with attention when you simply read for things to disagree with.
Sometimes you may benefit from taking a deep breath, counting to ten and
trying to concentrate on the matter at hand rather than your emotions.
I have pointed out that it is a matter of fact that I am a professional
- and, if you read my reply to Scarlett, that I am also a student and
hope always to remain one.
I don't hate art education, nor do I sneer at people with degrees. Far
from it! What I do, as I have pointed out, object to is the attempt to
use as degree as a method of argument by authority. Your art is your
art, a degree may have helped you get there, but it is not good just
because you have a degree, or even just because you spent so much time
working on it.
>
> Why are we wasting time on him ?
>
Good question. Though I think that, if you take my advice above, you may
find that you haven't wasted time, but, rather, have learned something -
about yourself, if nothing else. Which is generally found to be pretty
valuable.
>
> Incidentally, I was told many, many times at degree that my work was
> *crap*.
>
I thought that you may well have had bad teachers - it does go some way
to explaining (and maybe even excusing) your bullying behaviour. Recent
research has shown that bullies tend to have been bullied themselves.
>
> I also was told on many, many occasions that my work had a lot
> of potential
>
It is good that you had some good teachers too.
>
> Frankly, I took no notice of either -
>
This posting and your behaviour suggest that this is not true!
>
>what I did do was
> soak up everything about art that came my way, while at college and
> university. My art education was government subsidised. In return, I
> used up every possible hour in the studios; went to every lecture;
> attended every talk; asked as many artists to come and give me
tutorials
> including fellow students; formed bonds with my peer group that will
> last a lifetime; and came out determined that the five years that I
had
> devoted to studying would not be thrown in the garbage can like so
many
> of those who studied with me.
>
All good stuff! All very valuable and inspiring.
>
> Can you imagine any other situation
where
> you are able to devote your entire attention to art ?
>
Well, yes, but you need to be rich or in a monastry.
>
>Certainly not
out
> here in the real world, unless you have a rich parent or spouse. Not
> many have that. Over half of my day is doing the business of *being an
> artist* - applying for grants and exhibitions; putting together
> portfolios; meeting potential buyers and galleries; making stretchers
> and priming canvases .... and so on. There is nothing romantic about
> being an artist - its a hard slog and often a fruitless one. You can
go
> several months with no income and not know when your next sale will
be.
> It takes guts. However, I am privileged to have an art education and
to
> have benefited so much from the experience of those around me.
>
Indeed, you are privileged, I agree. I think that you have misunderstood
my comments quite radically. I am not sure quite what made you so cross
with me in the first place, but it probably was misunderstanding my
intent.
>
> Interesting is an interesting way of describing work, isn't it ? I
> always cringe when someone says that about my work - its so non
> committal and flaky.
>
Well, yes, normally when I use it, I mean that it is crap - I am simply
being polite when pressed. However, it does rather depend on the
emphasis you give to the word (difficult to see in this medium). I think
that a good painting is always interesting, certainly to begin with,
that is what makes you wish to spend longer looking at it. After that,
other qualities may emerge as well, if they don't it may reveal itself
not to be so interesting after all, or it may, though its originality,
style or execution, remain interesting, but not be any more than that.
Another meaning of 'interesting' is, good art, but not something that I
would like hanging on my wall.
Kromkowski
<pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> writes:
>Still I suppost that you don't need to be that good at observation for
>abstract art, now, do you.
Huh? Why would you think that?
Kromkowski
>I maintain that he has some intriguing images a good feel for ... paint
surface >
1. Can any really feel comfortable commenting on "paint surface" via an
internet gallery?
2. Not to turn this discussion too much back to sculpture (as in
alt.sculpture), but how do people really feel about whether the internet is
really ready for prime time when it comes to displaying sculpture. I can
certainly understand an electronic critique process for 2d works, but I'm not
very comfortable with an electronic critique process for 3d works, other than
(for the most part) a visceral ("I'd like to see it in real life" or "I have no
desire spend one more second looking at that"). I hope Alison jumps back in.
3. As the Internet influences style, I'd have to predict that we'd see an
emergance of more "painterly" sculptors concentrating on strong but simplier
forms?
JDKromkowski, http://members.aol.com/kromkowski/
sculpt...@my-deja.com
Good abstract art requires a far more discriminating sense of
observation than subjective realism or impressionism. (Bad
abstract art requires none)
Christopher
Stephen Morgana
Thomas Ziorjen <thomas_...@sunshine.net> wrote:
>
>
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
>
< big snip>
> > that in the next week or too - it will give Alison something to get
nice
> > and cross about too. I like to do my bit to make people happy!
>
> What would make *me* happy is if people like you stopped trying
> to pass
> yourselves off as professional artists.
>
>
I realize that you are expressing what would make *you* happy, so I
can't question that, but are you also saying people like him "should
not" pass themselves off as professional artists?
From my point of view on the outside looking in, I don't see a body that
explicitly sanctions a person as an "Artist", professional or otherwise.
(Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers, people who can do harm by
negligence/ignorance, do have sanctioning bodies)
In the art world I see a lot of people who call themselves "Artists" and
who produce artifacts that they call "Art". Some have a formal
education or other credentials, others don't. (They also almost all
seem to be ready to produce a case as to why the next person is not a
"Real Artist".) In the science world, there are objective measures to
determine if someones output is "crap" or not, but even that can break
down when someone approaches the fringe or (b)leading edge. The art
world does not seem to have an objective measure at any level, just
opinion.
I believe (and others do too) that everyone has the right to free
speech/expression and that everyone has the right to produce and sell
work, so long as it doesn't harm another. This is very basic and human.
So the question is, how does Peter's attempt to sell his "work" harm you
or anyone else? If it is indeed "crap", then it won't sell. If it never
sells, he will move on to another endeavor, or stick with it and be
frustrated, or stick with it and succeed. In two hundred years, someone
might discover his work and as a result change the world of art.
Personally I don't care about these details, if I see something I like,
I encourage the person who produced it (money, praise, etc). If I see
something I don't like, I skip it, someone else might like it -let them
encourage the producer. If I see something that merely offends me, I
think about how much freedom I have and what it costs. If I see
something that harms me or another, I object.
Others have mentioned "dues" that must be paid. I am a firm believer in
that principle. But I believe that the collector of the dues takes
payment in many forms, and charges each a different amount.
--
Stephen Morgana
Alison A Raimes
deja.com> writes
>From my point of view on the outside looking in, I don't see a body that
>explicitly sanctions a person as an "Artist", professional or otherwise.
>(Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers, people who can do harm by
>negligence/ignorance, do have sanctioning bodies)
Stephen: Thomas is expressing the same resentment as many of us towards
someone who is trying to be something he is not. Do you understand the
difference between a professional actor or a musician and an amateur ?
You can always call yourself an actor or a musician, but to call
yourself a professional actor or musician implies it is your primary
source of income - or a chosen career. Why do you have a problem with
visual artists in these categories ? You are perfectly correct - if you
are no good at your profession you will not make it however hard you try
and convince people. Selling one painting does not make you a
professional in any sense of the term. It only adds to the confuse the
boundaries that practising artists have to daily contend with in
convincing the bureaucrats that art is a viable and serious business. At
this time, artists are denied the same rights that most business people
have, because the term is so misused. Do you think that the wannabees
ever declare their odd sales with the tax departments ? How many do you
think claim unemployment benefit and sell work that they don't declare ?
No wonder professional artists are always viewed with so much suspicion.
And you are wrong - most countries have professional bodies for
practising artists. In Britain it is called the National Association for
Artists and you have to have a degree or have a proven record of
exhibiting or selling to become a member.
Alison A Raimes
http://artlives.homestead.com
Scarlett
Peter H.M. Brooks wrote in message
:Yes, so did I, when I was a lot younger. I don't think that they are
:right, not because I don't think that it is necessary to work hard, and
:long, on anything to be really good at it, but because it has too much
:of a puritanical ring. It suggests a tedious and unpleasant process of
:working only to repay a debt - when learning and working to get better
:at something should be a delight, fun and exciting.
I can tell you that the majority of artists I know don't find art a
"delight, fun and exciting" - It is DAMNED hard work. School is DAMNED hard
work as well as a sacrifice of time and money. It takes real dedication to
devote 4 years minimum of studies to art and at the end of 4 years (or more)
you realize that if you studied art the rest of your life you would BEGIN to
learn a little piece of all their is to know! Art requires discipline and
dedication which is why the most valid way is through the art school degree.
It is very seldome fun, gratifying - yes. Fun - no!
(snip)
:Don't worry about it! There is no need for people to get their knickers
:in a twist about this. I simply remarked that, by definition, anybody
:who had sold even one piece of art is a professional artist - since
:there is no artistic equivalent to a bar exam.
Yes, Alison pointed out a good one - filing your taxes with art as a
business. She does (don't know the specifics in Great Britain) and I have
filed a Schedule C for art as my business since 1991.
So, by this definition,
:I am certainly a professional artist. It is funny how worked up some
:people get about the simplest things.
It is easy to get worked up when you work extremely hard and are very
serious, almost tunnel-visioned in your work and someone dismisses it and
redefines it as "fun and enjoyable".
This is a hobby description, not a professional artist description.
I'm glad you are making art but this thread has become absurd.
Making art can be a wonderful hobby for some. Why be afraid to take the
term? You haven't earned the "professional artist" term.
Scarlett
http://ScarlettDecker.homestead.com
http://Artlives.homestead.com
Stephen Morgana
Alison A Raimes <stu...@alisonraimes.com> wrote:
> In article <8gmr7g$qpq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Stephen Morgana <scm2000@my-
> deja.com> writes
>
> >From my point of view on the outside looking in, I don't see a body
that
> >explicitly sanctions a person as an "Artist", professional or
otherwise.
> >(Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers, people who can do harm by
> >negligence/ignorance, do have sanctioning bodies)
>
> Stephen: Thomas is expressing the same resentment as many of us
towards
> someone who is trying to be something he is not.
I hope that there always will be a healthy number of people trying to
be something that they are not. Litterally *no* progress would be made
if everyone stopped trying to be something they are not. But I think
you really meant "someone who is lying about who they are" or "someone
who is an imposter".
>Do you understand the
> difference between a professional actor or a musician and an amateur ?
Yes. and I believe that the difference relates to monetary matters and
not the quality or quantity of the output or the devotion of the
artist. Amateur actors (to pick a category) may not put bread on their
table producing their art, but for many it is their life. Professional
actors may spend a good chunk of their lives waiting tables for their
bread.
> You can always call yourself an actor or a musician, but to call
> yourself a professional actor or musician implies it is your primary
> source of income - or a chosen career. Why do you have a problem with
> visual artists in these categories ?
I certainly do not treat visual artist differently (except that their
work touches me more than other types of artists). My post never
contained the word "visual", though I did use the word "see". Please
allow me to say I "see" music.
I do have a more liberal definition of the term "professional
<anything>" than you seem to. Certainly money (or something similar)
must change hands in the endevor. But who is to say how much or how
often. One sale is certainly a lower bound. But accepting money once
as an athlete is enough to lose your amateur status (at least in the
past) {are athletes artists? a few seem to be, but I wont argue the
point}
You even qualify your definition with the clause "-or a chosen
career". I assume that it is the person who choses the
career "professional artist". How do they have to prove the choice?
Not by having their primary source of income come from art since that
clause is disjoint. How do you say Peter hasn't chosen "professional
artist" as his career?
>You are perfectly correct - if you
> are no good at your profession you will not make it however hard you
try
> and convince people. Selling one painting does not make you a
> professional in any sense of the term.
"any" is an absolute. By now you see that I think that in "some" sense
of the term it does.
>It only adds to the confuse the
> boundaries that practising artists have to daily contend with in
> convincing the bureaucrats that art is a viable and serious business.
This seems to be the key point that I have been insensitive to. Up
until now I have wondered why you, with your definition, would not look
at Peter's claim with amusement or even pity. Here I infer that those
like Peter can harm your chances in the marketplace. Can't a
bureaucrat tell the difference between a high performing artist and a
low performer or wanabe? If not I think it is because the art world
has opinion as its basic measure. Everyone who has the mind to present
a business idea to a loan officer at a bank has a lot of work before
them.
> At
> this time, artists are denied the same rights that most business
people
> have, because the term is so misused.
The term is simply used. The prevailing usage is what defines a term.
Terms have multiple usages.
I think I understand what you mean, but save yourself some grief, no
action can be taken to change the prevailing meaning of a term.
(look into the vegetarian news group, I am sure they are still arguing
the meaning of that term.)
You need to fight for your rights as a business person regardless.
>Do you think that the wannabees
> ever declare their odd sales with the tax departments ? How many do
you
> think claim unemployment benefit and sell work that they don't
declare ?
There are crooks and cheats in all walks of life.
> No wonder professional artists are always viewed with so much
suspicion.
>
I have to defer to your experience here.
> And you are wrong - most countries have professional bodies for
How can a statement about what I see or not see be wrong? I get your
drift though.
> practising artists. In Britain it is called the National Association
for
> Artists and you have to have a degree or have a proven record of
> exhibiting or selling to become a member.
>
But in Britain, could a person who satisfies your definition
of "professional artist" practice as a professional artist and NOT be a
member of the National Association for Artists? Do they actually
legally regulate and certify artists in Britain? Or is it that the
National Association of Artists certifies you as a member who has met
their criterion for membership? I didn't say I didn't see professional
societies.
I am aware of societies in the US. But I am sure that I can create and
sell art if I choose to without being a member of anything, or being
certified in any way. Which brings me back to my implication, which
is: no one tells anyone that they are an artist but the artist
themselves, except perhaps the "market" (however that is defined) can
determine if you are a professional artist (by never buying your
product, or by buying it).
> Alison A Raimes
> http://artlives.homestead.com
> http://www.egroups/groups/artlives
>
Thank you for the conversation. I hope that I am not "part of the
problem."
sculpt...@my-deja.com
Object files (QTVR object)
These apparetly still web images can be manipulated with a
mouse to turn the perspective on the object to the left or right, up or
down.
Some allow an entire sphere of observation around the object of
the image file.
This type of viewing technology will be followed in short order by
3D images online. Both will be huge strides in presenting
sculpture on a monitor.
C hristopher
Alison A Raimes
deja.com> writes
>Yes. and I believe that the difference relates to monetary matters and
>not the quality or quantity of the output or the devotion of the
>artist. Amateur actors (to pick a category) may not put bread on their
>table producing their art, but for many it is their life. Professional
>actors may spend a good chunk of their lives waiting tables for their
>bread.
>
Nicely put, Stephen and I agree. I clean toilets when the money isn't
coming in. Its usually not coming in when I cease to produce work and
exhibit. The argument has never been about this - it has always been
about people like Peter who do the odd and very bad painting and then
decide they are ready for solo exhibiting because their mother or parrot
told them their work was good. You only have to look at Peter's site to
see he is not ready, and nothing has changed for years in his work.
Our objections here are to the devaluing of our profession. Everything
is NOT art and I don't know one single professional artist who would
ever advocate this. And objections to people expressing opinions and
then claiming free speech as a right is a travesty if you then say that
others cannot give bad criticism of another persons work. Or perhaps the
likes of Peter would rather not hear the truth. Knowing when work is
good and when it is bad is part of your profession - be it as an actor,
musician or visual artist. I think it is fruitless to take the
discussion away from the arts and start comparing it to sport, which is
always competitive at what ever level. In my professional life I know of
no competition unless I enter a *competition* - and I do not. I do know
of groups of artists who work together to help and promote their art
because I am involved in one of the largest studio providers in London.
Teamwork at our studios is astounding and, as I have experienced, many
help others at the cost of their own work. Art is not about competition
and I resent Peter trying to say that I have ever claimed my work is
superior simply because I have an art education. My work is more
accomplished than his because it is constantly developing and maturing.
That is so because I put one hundred percent of my energy into it over
the last eight years, at a financial cost that is too frightening to
evaluate. Its taken eight years of very hard work to finally see some
financial reward, but it will be years before that ever becomes a
*profit*.
Now compare his work from 1996 and mine
http://raimes.homestead.com/StudentWork.html
and then go and look at our current work. You will see what I mean. Its
as simple as that.
>
>You even qualify your definition with the clause "-or a chosen
>career". I assume that it is the person who choses the
>career "professional artist". How do they have to prove the choice?
>Not by having their primary source of income come from art since that
>clause is disjoint. How do you say Peter hasn't chosen "professional
>artist" as his career?
>
He needs a damned good accountant then. An artist has to be able to show
that art is his primary source of income in order to offset the cost of
making art against it. Peter can make it his secondary source of income
if he so wishes and will be taxed at basic rate tax in Britain, which is
approximately a third of the income. He cannot offset expenses though.
>This seems to be the key point that I have been insensitive to. Up
>until now I have wondered why you, with your definition, would not look
>at Peter's claim with amusement or even pity. Here I infer that those
>like Peter can harm your chances in the marketplace. Can't a
>bureaucrat tell the difference between a high performing artist and a
>low performer or wanabe? If not I think it is because the art world
>has opinion as its basic measure. Everyone who has the mind to present
>a business idea to a loan officer at a bank has a lot of work before
>them.
Again you have confused the issue. I have pride in my profession and
want more than anything, to stop those who are jumping onto what they
think is the romantic bandwagon of myth. I want what all other
professional want - recognition and protection from those who devalue
our industry.
The issue really stems around me making a negative criticism of Peter's
work - which I did almost a year ago and again when I saw his *new*
work. Nothing has made me change my mind and his constant barging into
threads over the last year to tell people to look at his *unique* work
has only confirmed in my mind, that his motives are not genuine. Its
just silly to say that I am threatened by Peter. Peter can send slides
to my agents and gallery if he wants. I am always giving the addresses
to other artists. Personally, I wouldn't want my work to be chosen for
any other reason than its quality.
>But in Britain, could a person who satisfies your definition
>of "professional artist" practice as a professional artist and NOT be a
>member of the National Association for Artists? Do they actually
>legally regulate and certify artists in Britain? Or is it that the
>National Association of Artists certifies you as a member who has met
>their criterion for membership? I didn't say I didn't see professional
>societies.
Of course they can and they do. We should change this to *practising*
artists, I think, in order for those who have a problem with the word
*professional*. Clearly we are not going to agree on its terminology.
But if they want the same protection and help that a professional body
provides as say Equity for actors, then they should support the
Association. The aims and objectives of the NAA are *to advance the
economic situation, working conditions and professional status of visual
artists* and *to ensure that the views of artists are represented at a
regional, national and international level*. They do this by
campaigning for increased representation by artists on decision making
bodies; informing member artists of their legal and other rights;
lobbying for increased rights for visual artists; and promoting codes of
practise and contracts for artists.
Without artist membership its impossible to lobby government for changes
in the law that currently hinder artists in Britain. This includes
contracts for artists with their clients and galleries; protection
against abuse of tenants and landlords acts by unscrupulous landlords
who misuse the charitable status given to arts groups; a tax system that
recognises art as a legitimate business and gives artists the same
access to benefits that others who do short term or temporary work get;
and the same recognition by insurers as musicians and actors get. The
only way that can possibly happen is to bring together those who are
professionals and create a structure that society will recognise as a
legitimate way of making a living. If Peter wants to file his taxes as
an artist and join the NAA as a member then so be it - even I will
recognise his sincerity. But he will have to be prepared that the tax
office will only let him do so if he is a self employed artists whose
primary source of income is from making art.
>
>I am aware of societies in the US. But I am sure that I can create and
>sell art if I choose to without being a member of anything, or being
>certified in any way. Which brings me back to my implication, which
>is: no one tells anyone that they are an artist but the artist
>themselves, except perhaps the "market" (however that is defined) can
>determine if you are a professional artist (by never buying your
>product, or by buying it).
Sell your work by all means. Call yourself an artist too. Be ready for
all that goes with it - like negative criticism and rejection. Also, let
the tax man know. Why should I be taxed on my sales when you are off
profiting from the odd sale here and there ?
>Thank you for the conversation. I hope that I am not "part of the
>problem."
Nice to hear from you again, Stephen. I often wonder how your art is
coming along. Last time I asked you said you hadn't made any for months.
Have you anything new to show since then ? Some of those last drawings
you showed looked as though they had a lot of scope to develop and grow
from. If I remember correctly you were going to drawing classes ? Let me
know.
Cheers.
Amazon0521
3D images online. Both will be huge strides in presenting
sculpture on a monitor.>>
For anyone interested in seeing a company that does this commercially, for
cars, people, products and even sculptures, go to
http://www.evox.com
they also have a 3d sculpture rendering area on this site.
Since I've worked in visual effects for 15 years, I understand how they use a
motion control rig to shoot the pieces. What I'd like to do is build a
mechanical version of this, not computer dependent (because of the cost of
building or buying a motion control setup, major bucks), that could still
accurately do the same angled references. I would then use Photoshop and Image
Ready to clean up the frames, and then create either a gif animation of the
file, or find out more about how to make this a quicktime file.
Are any of you doing this type of photography for your own pieces?
Caris
www.lightcatcher.com
"It's a drum and arms waving.
It's a bonfire at midnight on the top edge of a hill,
this meeting here with you."
Rumi
The Bluebird
it, since the posts seem to never end.
I'm a professional artist myself and to be honest with you I really didn't
like your work very much, seems something is missing. I wouldn't say much
about the technique aspects since I didn't see the paintings in person- only
the pictures and some are not very good- so I would only go as far as to
give my opinion on your choices of expression, your drawing style and your
composition.
As an artist and a teacher I would advise to see as much art as you can,
being British you are in a good position to do that. By doing that you can
go back to your atelier and see things in new perspective since an artist
should always be very critic about is own work. I don't mean only classic
works, you should see all kinds of things. Technically you would profit a
lot from that.
After seeing your work I would say you need to work a lot on your drawing,
the childlike style doesn't always work when you really can't do more than
that, it shows'.
It seems your don't even think about composition, it's all too simple and
poor. Things are layed out almost randomly, it's all too much obvious, and
that doesn't fit your kind of work, you should be more careful with that.
Also it looks like you don't really know where you're going with these
paintings, is it expressionism? What are you trying to say, are the titles
some kind of false clue or the only thing that you really work on? That is
not enough, you should really work more, but keep on doing it.
I believe there's no question about your bravery in putting up your webpage
and showing your work, many artists should do that so we can all profit with
the exchange of experiences. It also doesn't feel totally fair for me to
criticize your work without showing some of mine and explain you why I think
this or that.
I also think you react too much to critics, go back to the canvas and work
better.
Of course you have the right to paint, show your work and sell it, it just
doesn't mean we all have to like it and just because some people do don't be
too arrogant about it
--------------------
the bluebird
James W. Foster
paintings, because if I start on the paintings I'll start waffling about
postmodernism again which'll mean I won't sleep until 6am and I'll
oversleep, not get to the shops in time and not buy the VCR I need for my
exhibition. Which will suck. (Not getting the VCR that is, the exhibition
will only suck a bit)
Personally I would use thumbnails (with the BORDER="0" attribute in the IMG
tag - link borders are so tacky), or break the page up into several with no
more than two or three images on them. Also I'm really not a fan of that
purpley blue (it's too late at night for exact names), it's just so eugh.
On the plus side, the site redeems itself slightly by not using frames,
loads of javascripts or any other technical gimmicks so it should be easily
accessible to a variety of browsers and isn't as cluttered as it could be.
Also, if I remember rightly (I might be wrong on this one so don't quote
me), the other pages don't have 'back' links, which is annoying because it
forces you to use your 'back' button, which is inexplicably annoying
(although exactly why, I have never been able to place).
Generally in terms of site design, I think it needs work. You're using the
same approach I did when I first learnt HTML when I was 16. Also, why drop
resolution when you could just lower the number of images on the page?
You're making the quality of the online reproduction of your work suffer
just so you can cram it all on one page, why? If it really is just to be
different, there are hundreds of better ways to go about breaking web design
convention using only html. The Satanic quotes are funny though.
-james
Michelle <michell...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8giv3q$vgo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
<snip>
> To get back to the subject of the original posting, I would agree with
> someone else who has replied that the site is far too slow - perhaps you
> could split older or themed images onto seperate pages, or use
> thumbnails?
>
> Apart from that, the paintings were interesting, particularly the way the
> titles invite you to look for stories within them.
James W. Foster
Scarlett <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote in message news:9feX4.120918
> I'll answer that in a moment.
>
> They do = "rap"
>
I severely hope you're not using 'rap' as an insult.
Firstly, rap is a form of free-form poetry, It doesn't need instruments.
Secondly rap was the biggest thing to happen musically in a long time as it
gave popular music, albeit briefly, back into the hands of the people to
whom it matters. The nature of the music means drums and other backing are
substituted by drum machine and decks. Rap was doing very nicely until the
current wave of corporate sell-outs started producing all this bland,
lifeless MTV-friendly rubbish like Puff Daddy. The spokesmen for an entire
generation of depressed, dissillusioned, ghettoised youth were replaced by
some ponce swaggering about in expensive Hype Williams videos singing about
how much money he's got. To dismiss this large and influential musical
genre, just because the players are not accomplished at playing traditional
instruments, betrays an underlying ignorance of the culture it comes from.
-james
"R&B is killing hip-hop" - T-shirt
Stephen Morgana
Alison,
Your post completely fleshed out the situation and I feel somewhat
ashamed that you had to spend so much effort educating me. I still
hold to some of my opinions though, but I can see that I was responding
to and addressing a hypothetical "why cant peter call himself a
professional artist" In fact I didn't care in particular about peter
anyways, rather the hypothetical person who declares themself an artist
(professional or otherwise). You are LIVING the situation, and so are
the expert. On reflection I think I also was responding to all of the
people who ever told me I could not be something, without knowing
anything about me.
As for my work, I have no progress to show, and I will elaborate
privately. I personally have no allusions about being or becoming a
professional artist. That isn't even my goal. I do refer to myself as
an Amateur Artist when friends ask things like why there is paint on my
hands or what am I doing sketching people in meetings. Sometimes I say
I'm an "art student".
Alison A Raimes
deja.com> writes
><all snip>
>
>Alison,
>Your post completely fleshed out the situation and I feel somewhat
>ashamed that you had to spend so much effort educating me. I still
>hold to some of my opinions though, but I can see that I was responding
>to and addressing a hypothetical "why cant peter call himself a
>professional artist" In fact I didn't care in particular about peter
>anyways, rather the hypothetical person who declares themself an artist
>(professional or otherwise). You are LIVING the situation, and so are
>the expert. On reflection I think I also was responding to all of the
>people who ever told me I could not be something, without knowing
>anything about me.
>
Stephen ;-) And of course no one is saying anyone can't call himself a
*professional* - all anyone is doing is objecting to the devaluing of
our profession. Nobody likes fraud. Anyway, I love your last remark.
That's exactly one of the points that Scarlett and I are always making.
At art school we were always being told that we wouldn't make it - that
ninety percent of us wouldn't be making art in ten years time. Twenty
percent of those students didn't even make it to graduation, and it
seems that the percentage of those who wouldn't be making art after
school was exactly correct. I have friends who are far more talented
than me and have much better qualifications, that just are not making
art only a year after post grad studies. It infuriates me - I want to
shake them and remind them of what their aspirations were only a couple
of years ago. Most of all I want to show them a picture of them in ten
years time if they don't make their art. Its easy to be a quitter.
>As for my work, I have no progress to show, and I will elaborate
>privately. I personally have no allusions about being or becoming a
>professional artist. That isn't even my goal. I do refer to myself as
>an Amateur Artist when friends ask things like why there is paint on my
>hands or what am I doing sketching people in meetings. Sometimes I say
>I'm an "art student".
>
I mentioned in my other post on rec.arts.fine that your humility is as
inappropriate as Peter Brooks arrogance. You show talent in your drawing
and you are learning how to put it to use in a much more accomplished
way than Peter. And I applaud you for your honesty. And as I said in my
letter, you have made more progress than you realise. I wish you the
very best, its only what you deserve.
Cheers !
James W. Foster
Peter H.M. Brooks <pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8gla85$mta$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> Well, since you ask, yes, at least up to a point. You may be too young
> to remember it [your style suggests as much], but, in the eighties,
> there was a movement in music known as 'punk'. It was very successful.
> They spent considerably less time with their instruments than I have
> spent with a brush, pen and pencil.
Technical point - Punk started c. 1976 (if you don't count Iggy Pop) and was
in its final death throes by the time I was born in 1979. '80s was New
Wave, New Romantic and Goth (amongst others). Also, punk was about style
and attitude, the tunes were just really good pop tracks, often played very
badly. There's been a revival amongst the Americans (who we stole it off
originally) but this is by & large a pale imitation. I was lucky enough to
see the Buzzcocks live in Swansea last year and was somewhat disappointed
that they can play their instruments quite well. Tunes were as fresh as
ever though, despite the band looking about seventy. Also, did anyone see
the footage of Blondie at Glastonbury last year? I was down in the front
row thinking 'Oh my God, she dances like your Gran at a wedding reception.'
Sometimes retirement should be permanent. However, I guess punk is a good
enough analogy (better than rap). Only really commented because I'm a
popular music anorak. This thread has got far too long. I'll be off now...
-james
"I know it's only rock 'n' roll but I like it..." - Rolling Stones
"Rock & Roll has no future" - The Who
"You don't need permission for anything!" - Johnny Rotten
sleipnir
>
> At last I have had some time to update my web-site!
>
> I still have to add a lot of things, pastels, pen&ink and
> pencil drawings in particular. I am also wondering if, and
> how, to add pictures of sculpture - it is rather difficult
> to get the impression in three dimensions from a photograph.
> It is bad enough without proper lighting to get a painting
> on a web site properly.
>
> Anyway, for those of you who might be interested, have a
> look at: http://www.psyche.demon.co.uk
>
> You might like the link to the dozen satanic commandments if the
> pictures aren't ideal for you.
>
> Peter H.M. Brooks
> pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk - until dejanews is back.
> Is it better to live, a slave, or die, free?
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Congrats Peter,
At least your contribution is good for some discussion spread over the
newsgroups ;)
That must do you good!
Apart from each thoughts on how childish artists can get, or like what
you do, or do not like what you do, whatever, this should make the
contributants have another thought on why they react at all.
It's clear that you did not particularly studied the making of websites,
as Allison so charmingly put forward... but somehow I think that a cheap
excuse for questioning the contents. Its rather questioning the
presentation then.
Bitching like this on Peter doesnt't sound very selfassured to me. I
fear especially Allison desperately needs to sell more paintings... or
she must be Peter's ex-lover or something ;)
To be honest personally I can't care less what exactly all of you do.
Yes, I visited some of the websites... nope, I don't give out free
opinions. My opinion is that the web provided an excellent extra
exhibitionroom for all that want some. Repeat: ALL that want some.
Apparently there's a few that feel endangered in their profession, like
Allison... but really it's not artists endangering eachother's profits.
Just open competition. Sell a painting... or not. It's the buyers' of
artworks decision.
Best wishes all,
E.
home.wanadoo.nl/mh/artworks/artworks.htm
Peter H.M. Brooks
Stephen Morgana <scm...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> I realize that you are expressing what would make *you* happy, so I
> can't question that, but are you also saying people like him "should
> not" pass themselves off as professional artists?
>
that
> explicitly sanctions a person as an "Artist", professional or
otherwise.
> (Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers, people who can do harm by
> negligence/ignorance, do have sanctioning bodies)
>
simple point out.
>
> In the art world I see a lot of people who call themselves "Artists"
and
> who produce artifacts that they call "Art". Some have a formal
> education or other credentials, others don't. (They also almost all
> seem to be ready to produce a case as to why the next person is not a
> "Real Artist".) In the science world, there are objective measures to
> determine if someones output is "crap" or not, but even that can break
> down when someone approaches the fringe or (b)leading edge. The art
> world does not seem to have an objective measure at any level, just
> opinion.
>
in an artist's life time is often considered 'crap' shortly afterwards -
and, of course, the other way round.
>
> I believe (and others do too) that everyone has the right to free
> speech/expression and that everyone has the right to produce and sell
> work, so long as it doesn't harm another. This is very basic and
human.
> So the question is, how does Peter's attempt to sell his "work" harm
you
> or anyone else? If it is indeed "crap", then it won't sell. If it
never
> sells, he will move on to another endeavor, or stick with it and be
> frustrated, or stick with it and succeed. In two hundred years,
someone
> might discover his work and as a result change the world of art.
>
you don't see people like me as a threat and can understand that the
above is perfectly true. If you are not secure, and know that you are
yourself bogus, then I am indeed a major threat and somebody to be
strongly attacked.
>
> Personally I don't care about these details, if I see something I
like,
> I encourage the person who produced it (money, praise, etc). If I see
> something I don't like, I skip it, someone else might like it -let
them
> encourage the producer. If I see something that merely offends me, I
> think about how much freedom I have and what it costs. If I see
> something that harms me or another, I object.
>
>
> Others have mentioned "dues" that must be paid. I am a firm believer
in
> that principle. But I believe that the collector of the dues takes
> payment in many forms, and charges each a different amount.
>
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder
respectable,
and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
George Orwell "Politics and the English Language"
Peter H.M. Brooks
> deja.com> writes
>
> >From my point of view on the outside looking in, I don't see a body
that
> >explicitly sanctions a person as an "Artist", professional or
otherwise.
> >(Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers, people who can do harm by
> >negligence/ignorance, do have sanctioning bodies)
>
towards
> difference between a professional actor or a musician and an amateur ?
>
on the other hand, clearly don't understand it. You are also,
apparently, to arrogant to even look it up in a dictionary and see your
error.
To enter the olympic games (before it became corrupt), you had to be an
amateur - one simgle payment was enough to turn you into a professional
and to be excluded from the games. As, of course, on payment makes you a
professional.
>
> You can always call yourself an actor or a musician, but to call
> yourself a professional actor or musician implies it is your primary
> source of income - or a chosen career.
>
No it doesn't, you twit! Look it up and try to stop making such a fool
of yourself in public.
>
>Selling one painting does not make you a
> professional in any sense of the term.
>
It does in the literal meaning of the word. Look it up - if you don't
have a dictionary, borrow one.
>
> Do you think that the wannabees
> ever declare their odd sales with the tax departments ?
>
I, for one, have declared all my art sales to the receiver.
>
>
> And you are wrong - most countries have professional bodies for
> practising artists. In Britain it is called the National Association
for
> Artists and you have to have a degree or have a proven record of
> exhibiting or selling to become a member.
>
It isn't recognised in law as a profession, nor is this organisation
recognised in law as being the certifying body.
It is also rather pathetic that it only requires a 'proven record of
exhibiting' - thus meaning that anybody with enough money for a vanity
gallery can join.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Stephen Morgana <scm...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> This seems to be the key point that I have been insensitive to. Up
> until now I have wondered why you, with your definition, would not
look
> at Peter's claim with amusement or even pity. Here I infer that those
> like Peter can harm your chances in the marketplace. Can't a
> bureaucrat tell the difference between a high performing artist and a
> low performer or wanabe? If not I think it is because the art world
> has opinion as its basic measure. Everyone who has the mind to
present
> a business idea to a loan officer at a bank has a lot of work before
> them.
>
stated belief that there is a difference between her 'art' and my 'art'
(to be fair to both). If she was secure then it would be no issue or
problem for her.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder
respectable,
and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
George Orwell "Politics and the English Language"
Peter H.M. Brooks
Alison A Raimes <ali...@see.signature.for.address> wrote:
competition
> and I resent Peter trying to say that I have ever claimed my work is
> superior simply because I have an art education. My work is more
> accomplished than his because it is constantly developing and
maturing.
>
Mani for example, disagree strongly.
>
> That is so because I put one hundred percent of my energy into it over
> the last eight years, at a financial cost that is too frightening to
> evaluate. Its taken eight years of very hard work to finally see some
> financial reward, but it will be years before that ever becomes a
> *profit*.
>
Effort does not have anything to do with quality. Of course, most
quality requires effort, but the fact that there has been effort
certainly does not prove that their is high quality, far from it.
>
> Now compare his work from 1996 and mine
> http://raimes.homestead.com/StudentWork.html
> and then go and look at our current work. You will see what I mean.
Its
> as simple as that.
>
Not at all. We can see that you follow the fashion that has been going
for the past decade or two, that is all. You can't see that I don't, but
then observation is not your strong point.
>
> >
> >You even qualify your definition with the clause "-or a chosen
> >career". I assume that it is the person who choses the
> >career "professional artist". How do they have to prove the choice?
> >Not by having their primary source of income come from art since that
> >clause is disjoint. How do you say Peter hasn't chosen "professional
> >artist" as his career?
> >
>
> He needs a damned good accountant then. An artist has to be able to
show
> that art is his primary source of income in order to offset the cost
of
> making art against it.
>
Bullshit! You really should try a little harder to get your facts even
vaguely straight.
>
>Peter can make it his secondary source of
income
> if he so wishes and will be taxed at basic rate tax in Britain, which
is
> approximately a third of the income. He cannot offset expenses though.
>
You really must change your accountant if this is what you have learned!
>
> >This seems to be the key point that I have been insensitive to. Up
> >until now I have wondered why you, with your definition, would not
look
> >at Peter's claim with amusement or even pity. Here I infer that
those
> >like Peter can harm your chances in the marketplace. Can't a
> >bureaucrat tell the difference between a high performing artist and a
> >low performer or wanabe? If not I think it is because the art world
> >has opinion as its basic measure. Everyone who has the mind to
present
> >a business idea to a loan officer at a bank has a lot of work before
> >them.
>
> Again you have confused the issue. I have pride in my profession and
> want more than anything, to stop those who are jumping onto what they
> think is the romantic bandwagon of myth. I want what all other
> professional want - recognition and protection from those who devalue
> our industry.
>
The protection is already there - if, for example, I wished to sue you
for going beyond critisism and trying to interfere with my right to make
money as an artist, I could probably extract a fairly substantial sum
from you (taken from future profits over the next ten years or so).
>
> The issue really stems around me making a negative criticism of
Peter's
> work - which I did almost a year ago and again when I saw his *new*
> work. Nothing has made me change my mind and his constant barging into
> threads over the last year to tell people to look at his *unique* work
> has only confirmed in my mind, that his motives are not genuine. Its
> just silly to say that I am threatened by Peter. Peter can send slides
> to my agents and gallery if he wants. I am always giving the addresses
> to other artists. Personally, I wouldn't want my work to be chosen for
> any other reason than its quality.
>
If you weren't so threatened, then you wouldn't go on and on for days
about it.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder
respectable,
and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
George Orwell "Politics and the English Language"
Peter H.M. Brooks
Alison A Raimes <ali...@see.signature.for.address> wrote:
>
>
> artists, I think, in order for those who have a problem with the word
> *professional*.
>
problem is that you don't understand it. You are also to arrogant and
foolish to look it up.
>
>If Peter wants to file his taxes as
> an artist and join the NAA as a member then so be it - even I will
> recognise his sincerity. But he will have to be prepared that the tax
> office will only let him do so if he is a self employed artists whose
> primary source of income is from making art.
>
art sales. I have no desire to join any body of the sort you mention, it
isn't necessary. I decided some time ago to limit my membership of
clubs, associations etc. to membership only of the Hemlock Society.
>
>Why should I be taxed on my sales when you are off
> profiting from the odd sale here and there ?
>
admitted, you got through university subsidised by other people paying
their taxes, so I can see why you are so keen for others to pay. Anyway,
in my case (as usually seems the case), you are completely off the mark
- as I have pointed out, I have declared and paid tax on the proceeds of
all my art sales.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder
respectable,
and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
George Orwell "Politics and the English Language"
Peter H.M. Brooks
do value all honest opinion and advice, both positive and negative.
>
>
> Also it looks like you don't really know where you're going with these
> paintings, is it expressionism? What are you trying to say, are the
titles
> some kind of false clue or the only thing that you really work on?
>
after I have got to know them a bit.
>
>
That is
> not enough, you should really work more, but keep on doing it.
>
> I believe there's no question about your bravery in putting up your
webpage
> and showing your work, many artists should do that so we can all
profit with
> the exchange of experiences.
>
everybody a chance to benefit from a huge and varied audience.
>
> It also doesn't feel totally fair for me
to
> criticize your work without showing some of mine and explain you why I
think
> this or that.
>
less reason to criticise, but that doesn't stop them!!
>
> I also think you react too much to critics, go back to the canvas and
work
> better.
>
to go back and do more.
>
> Of course you have the right to paint, show your work and sell it, it
just
> doesn't mean we all have to like it and just because some people do
don't be
> too arrogant about it
>
the huge gulf I find in opinion. I would hate to produce things that
are just anodyne. I love the fact that my pictures cause such huge
outpouring of emotion - particularly from those artists who feel so
threatened.
Peter H.M. Brooks
change my mind about my layout. I intend to keep it simple, though. I
think it a big mistake to just go for the flash bits just because you
can.
>
> The Satanic quotes are funny though.
>
Peter H.M. Brooks
See signature <floa...@address.in.sig> wrote:
>
>
> Why are we wasting time on him ?
>
by Alison. Firstly it reveals her arrogance in the use of 'we' singular.
She doesn't realise that usenet is not like real life. You can't force
your own opinion onto other people and bully them into doing what you
wish them to by force of personality. If people find it useful to
discuss my paintings (as they obviously do) and the other interesting
topics that have risen out of this discussion, then they will, whatever
Alison does.
Secondly it shows that Alison is only happy with 'discussion' where she
controls the topic. If it isn't going her way, then she throws a little
temper tantrum. I suggest that, for self-understanding, Alison reads up
on the enneagram. She will find that she is a three, under its
classification system, and she will find good advice on how to overcome
the shortcomings in this personality type.
Peter H.M. Brooks
is a signal that I was using irony. This means that I am saying the
opposite of what I mean. Obvously you need observation to do good
abstract art, as you do with any other art, that some paintings could
be produced by somebody who has been blind from birth is a purely
incidental observation.
Peter H.M. Brooks
sculpt...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Jeez, Peter
> Good abstract art requires a far more discriminating sense of
> observation than subjective realism or impressionism. (Bad
> abstract art requires none)
>
Peter H.M. Brooks
sleipnir <slei...@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>>
> > Anyway, for those of you who might be interested, have a
> > look at: http://www.psyche.demon.co.uk
> >
>
Thank you.
>
> At least your contribution is good for some discussion spread over the
> newsgroups ;)
> That must do you good!
>
discussion.
>
> It's clear that you did not particularly studied the making of
websites,
> as Allison so charmingly put forward... but somehow I think that a
cheap
> excuse for questioning the contents.
>
javascript etc., but that has been in other capacities, not for my own
personal web site.
>
Its rather questioning the
> presentation then.
> Bitching like this on Peter doesnt't sound very selfassured to me. I
> fear especially Allison desperately needs to sell more paintings... or
> she must be Peter's ex-lover or something ;)
>
of mine - unless she used a different name.
Peter H.M. Brooks
"James W. Foster" <jwfo...@UKARTISTS.com> wrote:
>
from time to time. I don't agree that this thread has been going too
long - a thread has done that when nobody has anything interesting to
say and I think a lot of interesting points have been made.
Alison A Raimes
>To be honest personally I can't care less what exactly all of you do.
>Yes, I visited some of the websites... nope, I don't give out free
>opinions. My opinion is that the web provided an excellent extra
>exhibitionroom for all that want some. Repeat: ALL that want some.
>Apparently there's a few that feel endangered in their profession, like
>Allison... but really it's not artists endangering eachother's profits.
>Just open competition. Sell a painting... or not. It's the buyers' of
>artworks decision.
>
Expressing an opinion about work on the web is now equated with being
endangered ? What ever happened to taking pride in your profession ?
Perhaps there is none left. What would you prefer - no comment at all
... or a fabricated lie ? What sort of artists ... or wimps are you
people ? Peter can submit his slides to my agents, my gallery and to the
galleries at the studio complex I am part of. All the information is on
my website. And I won't be quaking in my boots ;-) And he can continue
to live under the illusion that he is a professional artist. He's the
one that has to live with himself.
Alison A Raimes
http://www.alisonraimes.com
http://artlives.homestead.com
Stephen Morgana
Peter H.M. Brooks <pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <8gnehi$7uu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Stephen Morgana <scm...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > until now I have wondered why you, with your definition, would not
> look
> > at Peter's claim with amusement or even pity. Here I infer that
those
> > like Peter can harm your chances in the marketplace. Can't a
> > bureaucrat tell the difference between a high performing artist and
a
> > low performer or wanabe? If not I think it is because the art world
> > has opinion as its basic measure. Everyone who has the mind to
> present
> > a business idea to a loan officer at a bank has a lot of work before
> > them.
> >
her
> stated belief that there is a difference between her 'art' and
my 'art'
> (to be fair to both). If she was secure then it would be no issue or
> problem for her.
>
You've expanded on my remarks in a pejorative way. Do you see a
difference between the question I asked and the statement you made?
In any case, I believe there IS a difference between your art and
Alison's art. So now you have at least two people holding that
position: me, and presumably Alison. I have stated elsewhere in the
record that I have no allusions about my own art. How now will you
refute my statement?
> --
> Peter H.M. Brooks
> "Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder
> respectable,
> and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
> George Orwell "Politics and the English Language"
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
--
Stephen
Construct my e-mail address as follows:
On a standard US keyboard,
type my first name followed by the character under
the greater than character, followed by my last name
followed by the character above the 2 character,
followed by the gee, tee and eee characters,
followed by the character below the greater than
character, followed by the word ten spelled
backwards. In the end you will have
somethin...@like.this :-) :-)
Dan Spector
in big pixel form. The bright violet bg is too much for anyone's color work.
--
Dan <arch...@earthlink.net>
http://www.archicast.com
----------
In article <200005191333...@hotmail.com>, "Peter H.M. Brooks"
<nobunnyg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> At last I have had some time to update my web-site!
>
> I still have to add a lot of things, pastels, pen&ink and
> pencil drawings in particular. I am also wondering if, and
> how, to add pictures of sculpture - it is rather difficult
> to get the impression in three dimensions from a photograph.
> It is bad enough without proper lighting to get a painting
> on a web site properly.
>
> Anyway, for those of you who might be interested, have a
> look at: http://www.psyche.demon.co.uk
>
mh
>
> In article <3931AB...@wanadoo.nl>, sleipnir <slei...@wanadoo.nl>
> writes
>
> >To be honest personally I can't care less what exactly all of you do.
> >Yes, I visited some of the websites... nope, I don't give out free
> >opinions. My opinion is that the web provided an excellent extra
> >exhibitionroom for all that want some. Repeat: ALL that want some.
> >Apparently there's a few that feel endangered in their profession, like
> >Allison... but really it's not artists endangering eachother's profits.
> >Just open competition. Sell a painting... or not. It's the buyers' of
> >artworks decision.
> >
>
> Expressing an opinion about work on the web is now equated with being
> endangered ? What ever happened to taking pride in your profession ?
> Perhaps there is none left. What would you prefer - no comment at all
> ... or a fabricated lie ? What sort of artists ... or wimps are you
Well, taking pride in what *I* do has little if nothing to do with what
YOU do, and little to do with most artist's endeavours more in general.
Can easily answer what I would prefer though: adult discussion, if
possible without calling eachother names over nothing about every 2
lines. And mostly I prefer just using the web as an ever changing
resource... saves me a lot of travel.
> people ? Peter can submit his slides to my agents, my gallery and to the
> galleries at the studio complex I am part of. All the information is on
> my website. And I won't be quaking in my boots ;-) And he can continue
> to live under the illusion that he is a professional artist. He's the
> one that has to live with himself.
Sure. All up to him. As I typed before: can't care less! But what is
that to you, to make such a fuzz?
Or is it just the kick you get out of rehearsing the acting like the
arrogant-but-cheapish bitch (proper bitches please don't feel insulted
now; nothing personal!) you perform here? In that case I can advise
changing your profession to stand-up comedian.
See how easy it is to beat you even in calling names? BTW: your art
stinks 2... shameless exhibition of void shapeless nothings typical for
people that have nothing really to say :)
But please don't mind me, as it surely would look OK as a backgound in
some hospital- or conference room!
LOL... nuf said in this stile/mode now.
What I was mainly wondering about is what makes you overreact like you
do? Anything rational? What do you get out of it? Do you feel something
in common with Peter? Personally I think it a waste of time to no end,
when you have nothing in common anyways... in this particular case it's
Peter's - or your, whatever - world, definitely not mine. But on the
other hand isn't it interesting to visit & have a peep there or anywhere
just a few clicks away?
Peter at least I think to understand: he asks for attention, AND gets it
for what it's worth. Chapeau! Well done!!
>
> Alison A Raimes
> http://www.alisonraimes.com
> http://artlives.homestead.com
sleipnir
>
SORRY> Used wrong mail signature. Excuse for any annoyance.
E.
sleipnir
Alison A Raimes
writes
>mh wrote:
>>
>
>SORRY> Used wrong mail signature. Excuse for any annoyance.
>
>E.
No annoyance here. I enjoyed the irony of your post ;-)
Alison
http://www.alisonraimes.com
http://artlives.homestead.com
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Dan Spector" <arch...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I liked Chaos 1 but otherwise this looks like beginner stuff. The
skull stayed
> in big pixel form. The bright violet bg is too much for anyone's color
work.
>
will be working to fix the pixel size - I reduced it a couple of days
ago to speed up download time that quite a few people asked for.
I suspect that different browsers may render the background differently
- I wouldn't describe it as 'bright violet' myself.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> writes
> >mh wrote:
> >>
> >
> >SORRY> Used wrong mail signature. Excuse for any annoyance.
> >
> >E.
>
> No annoyance here. I enjoyed the irony of your post ;-)
>
should read it again.
martin adler
On Tue, 30 May 2000, Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
> Thank you for your comment. I have also always rather liked Chaos.
'Chaos' is a somewhat 'noble', 'philosophical' concept.
Taking an orca for a shark is simple confusion.
;o)
martin adler, counter-of-tenebrionid-tarsal-elements.
Vecci Forum
martin adler wrote:
Fantastic!
Just spent my time wading my way through this thread, Great fun!
What will I do next? I know I think I'll go and have a crap!
Matt Selleck
Peter H.M. Brooks
Vecci Forum <fo...@fsg.com.au> wrote:
>
>
> martin adler wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 30 May 2000, Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
> >
> > > Thank you for your comment. I have also always rather liked Chaos.
> >
> > 'Chaos' is a somewhat 'noble', 'philosophical' concept.
> >
> > Taking an orca for a shark is simple confusion.
> >
> > ;o)
> >
> > martin adler, counter-of-tenebrionid-tarsal-elements.
>
> Fantastic!
>
>
> Just spent my time wading my way through this thread, Great fun!
> What will I do next? I know I think I'll go and have a crap!
>
Still, I must agree that it is a good idea to do something completely
different to give your mind a rest.
imediart
Come to visite us!!!
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
tra...@pipeline.com
It seems to me the real issue here is not with regards to
professionalism or amateurism in art - but rather it is
the agreement or disagrement as to whether or not the type of art
Peter does is any good. No?
And the type of art Peter does is an entire movement that has had
control of the "art world" for a long time....we have seen art that
does not require much in the way of skill since Kandinsky put out his
abstract work, and as far as I know it could have started even before
taht, with John Ruskin in the last century.
That is the real issue....will society ever again value real artistic
skill?
Tracy
On Sat, 27 May 2000 11:25:49 +0100, Alison A Raimes
<ali...@see.signature.for.address> wrote:
>In article <8gnehi$7uu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Stephen Morgana <scm2000@my-
>deja.com> writes
>
>>Yes. and I believe that the difference relates to monetary matters and
>>not the quality or quantity of the output or the devotion of the
>>artist. Amateur actors (to pick a category) may not put bread on their
>>table producing their art, but for many it is their life. Professional
>>actors may spend a good chunk of their lives waiting tables for their
>>bread.
>>
>Nicely put, Stephen and I agree. I clean toilets when the money isn't
>coming in. Its usually not coming in when I cease to produce work and
>exhibit. The argument has never been about this - it has always been
>about people like Peter who do the odd and very bad painting and then
>decide they are ready for solo exhibiting because their mother or parrot
>told them their work was good. You only have to look at Peter's site to
>see he is not ready, and nothing has changed for years in his work.
>
>Our objections here are to the devaluing of our profession. Everything
>is NOT art and I don't know one single professional artist who would
>ever advocate this. And objections to people expressing opinions and
>then claiming free speech as a right is a travesty if you then say that
>others cannot give bad criticism of another persons work. Or perhaps the
>likes of Peter would rather not hear the truth. Knowing when work is
>good and when it is bad is part of your profession - be it as an actor,
>musician or visual artist. I think it is fruitless to take the
>discussion away from the arts and start comparing it to sport, which is
>always competitive at what ever level. In my professional life I know of
>no competition unless I enter a *competition* - and I do not. I do know
>of groups of artists who work together to help and promote their art
>because I am involved in one of the largest studio providers in London.
>Teamwork at our studios is astounding and, as I have experienced, many
>help others at the cost of their own work. Art is not about competition
>and I resent Peter trying to say that I have ever claimed my work is
>superior simply because I have an art education. My work is more
>accomplished than his because it is constantly developing and maturing.
>That is so because I put one hundred percent of my energy into it over
>the last eight years, at a financial cost that is too frightening to
>evaluate. Its taken eight years of very hard work to finally see some
>financial reward, but it will be years before that ever becomes a
>*profit*.
>
>Now compare his work from 1996 and mine
>http://raimes.homestead.com/StudentWork.html
>and then go and look at our current work. You will see what I mean. Its
>as simple as that.
>
>>
>>You even qualify your definition with the clause "-or a chosen
>>career". I assume that it is the person who choses the
>>career "professional artist". How do they have to prove the choice?
>>Not by having their primary source of income come from art since that
>>clause is disjoint. How do you say Peter hasn't chosen "professional
>>artist" as his career?
>>
>
>He needs a damned good accountant then. An artist has to be able to show
>that art is his primary source of income in order to offset the cost of
>making art against it. Peter can make it his secondary source of income
>if he so wishes and will be taxed at basic rate tax in Britain, which is
>approximately a third of the income. He cannot offset expenses though.
>
>
>>This seems to be the key point that I have been insensitive to. Up
>>until now I have wondered why you, with your definition, would not look
>>at Peter's claim with amusement or even pity. Here I infer that those
>>like Peter can harm your chances in the marketplace. Can't a
>>bureaucrat tell the difference between a high performing artist and a
>>low performer or wanabe? If not I think it is because the art world
>>has opinion as its basic measure. Everyone who has the mind to present
>>a business idea to a loan officer at a bank has a lot of work before
>>them.
>
>Again you have confused the issue. I have pride in my profession and
>want more than anything, to stop those who are jumping onto what they
>think is the romantic bandwagon of myth. I want what all other
>professional want - recognition and protection from those who devalue
>our industry.
>
>The issue really stems around me making a negative criticism of Peter's
>work - which I did almost a year ago and again when I saw his *new*
>work. Nothing has made me change my mind and his constant barging into
>threads over the last year to tell people to look at his *unique* work
>has only confirmed in my mind, that his motives are not genuine. Its
>just silly to say that I am threatened by Peter. Peter can send slides
>to my agents and gallery if he wants. I am always giving the addresses
>to other artists. Personally, I wouldn't want my work to be chosen for
>any other reason than its quality.
>
>>But in Britain, could a person who satisfies your definition
>>of "professional artist" practice as a professional artist and NOT be a
>>member of the National Association for Artists? Do they actually
>>legally regulate and certify artists in Britain? Or is it that the
>>National Association of Artists certifies you as a member who has met
>>their criterion for membership? I didn't say I didn't see professional
>>societies.
>
>Of course they can and they do. We should change this to *practising*
>artists, I think, in order for those who have a problem with the word
>*professional*. Clearly we are not going to agree on its terminology.
>But if they want the same protection and help that a professional body
>provides as say Equity for actors, then they should support the
>Association. The aims and objectives of the NAA are *to advance the
>economic situation, working conditions and professional status of visual
>artists* and *to ensure that the views of artists are represented at a
>regional, national and international level*. They do this by
>campaigning for increased representation by artists on decision making
>bodies; informing member artists of their legal and other rights;
>lobbying for increased rights for visual artists; and promoting codes of
>practise and contracts for artists.
>
>Without artist membership its impossible to lobby government for changes
>in the law that currently hinder artists in Britain. This includes
>contracts for artists with their clients and galleries; protection
>against abuse of tenants and landlords acts by unscrupulous landlords
>who misuse the charitable status given to arts groups; a tax system that
>recognises art as a legitimate business and gives artists the same
>access to benefits that others who do short term or temporary work get;
>and the same recognition by insurers as musicians and actors get. The
>only way that can possibly happen is to bring together those who are
>professionals and create a structure that society will recognise as a
>legitimate way of making a living. If Peter wants to file his taxes as
>an artist and join the NAA as a member then so be it - even I will
>recognise his sincerity. But he will have to be prepared that the tax
>office will only let him do so if he is a self employed artists whose
>primary source of income is from making art.
>
>>
>>I am aware of societies in the US. But I am sure that I can create and
>>sell art if I choose to without being a member of anything, or being
>>certified in any way. Which brings me back to my implication, which
>>is: no one tells anyone that they are an artist but the artist
>>themselves, except perhaps the "market" (however that is defined) can
>>determine if you are a professional artist (by never buying your
>>product, or by buying it).
>
>Sell your work by all means. Call yourself an artist too. Be ready for
>all that goes with it - like negative criticism and rejection. Also, let
>the tax man know. Why should I be taxed on my sales when you are off
>profiting from the odd sale here and there ?
>
>>Thank you for the conversation. I hope that I am not "part of the
>>problem."
>
>Nice to hear from you again, Stephen. I often wonder how your art is
>coming along. Last time I asked you said you hadn't made any for months.
>Have you anything new to show since then ? Some of those last drawings
>you showed looked as though they had a lot of scope to develop and grow
>from. If I remember correctly you were going to drawing classes ? Let me
>know.
>
>Cheers.
>
>Alison A Raimes
>http://alisonraimes.com
>http://artlives.homestead.com
tra...@pipeline.com
It is real easy to let loose on people on a newsgroup, in a way one
never would in face-to-face relationships, simply because there are no
recriminations. One can be very rude, none the worse for wear, not to
one's career, and not to one's real face-to-face reltationships.
Seeing the tenor of your posts, I have to say - you are one of these.
If ony people in newsgroups or mailing lists would take just a momnent
to ponder the idea that are real people behind the posts.
Clouded with hate your mind is.
On Mon, 29 May 2000 07:15:36 GMT, Peter H.M. Brooks
<pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <s0JFHGAY...@raimes.demon.co.uk>,
> See signature <floa...@address.in.sig> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Why are we wasting time on him ?
>>
>It occured to me that this is one of the most revealing sentences posted
>by Alison. Firstly it reveals her arrogance in the use of 'we' singular.
>She doesn't realise that usenet is not like real life. You can't force
>your own opinion onto other people and bully them into doing what you
>wish them to by force of personality. If people find it useful to
>discuss my paintings (as they obviously do) and the other interesting
>topics that have risen out of this discussion, then they will, whatever
>Alison does.
>
>Secondly it shows that Alison is only happy with 'discussion' where she
>controls the topic. If it isn't going her way, then she throws a little
>temper tantrum. I suggest that, for self-understanding, Alison reads up
>on the enneagram. She will find that she is a three, under its
>classification system, and she will find good advice on how to overcome
>the shortcomings in this personality type.
>
Peter H.M. Brooks
I noticed in 'Star Wars' - I think that the idea is that a badly
constructed sentence gives the impression of profundity.
Actually, though I am unfortunately familiar with exactly what hatred
is, my mind is certainly not clouded with it at the moment. You may not
have noticed, but I am generally not interested in attacking people,
rather false ideas, misconceptions, and bogus claims. Read a little more
closely and you should see.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
As the brief fires of youth die in him, the ageing trendy conceives a
growing aversion to
feeling in all its forms. His fastidious distaste for kitsch becomes a
prudish fear of anything
that could - in the wrong hands - be turned into kitsch.
- Roger Scruton Aesthetics & Criticism
Peter H.M. Brooks
tra...@pipeline.com wrote:
> Hi ..
>
> It seems to me the real issue here is not with regards to
> professionalism or amateurism in art - but rather it is
> the agreement or disagrement as to whether or not the type of art
> Peter does is any good. No?
>
>
> And the type of art Peter does is an entire movement that has had
> control of the "art world" for a long time....we have seen art that
> does not require much in the way of skill since Kandinsky put out his
> abstract work, and as far as I know it could have started even before
> taht, with John Ruskin in the last century.
>
an abstract. If you look at it (http://www.psyche.demon.co.uk/tone.jpg)
or, in particular, if you look at the original, you will see that it is
actually an abstraction from reality, in other words, though it is an
abstract painting, it is representational. This is to contrast it to
decorative (or not) painting that is not abstracted, but rather
constructed.
The other paintings are not abstract, so the comparison with Kandinsky
is not apt.
>
> That is the real issue....will society ever again value real artistic
> skill?
>
It does now - though it rather depends on what you mean by 'society'.
tra...@pipeline.com
<pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <394060cb....@news.pipeline.com>,
> tra...@pipeline.com wrote:
>>
>> Clouded with hate your mind is.
>>
>The affectation of ending a sentence with a verb like that was one that
>I noticed in 'Star Wars' - I think that the idea is that a badly
>constructed sentence gives the impression of profundity.
>
>Actually, though I am unfortunately familiar with exactly what hatred
>is, my mind is certainly not clouded with it at the moment. You may not
>have noticed, but I am generally not interested in attacking people,
>rather false ideas, misconceptions, and bogus claims. Read a little more
>closely and you should see.
You assume too much. I did read your posts closely. And yes, you
write like a person full of hatred. Yes, you certainly do attack
people.
Try learning to debate properly.
tra...@pipeline.com
<pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <394060cb....@news.pipeline.com>,
> tra...@pipeline.com wrote:
>>
>> Clouded with hate your mind is.
>>
>The affectation of ending a sentence with a verb like that was one that
>I noticed in 'Star Wars' - I think that the idea is that a badly
>constructed sentence gives the impression of profundity.
>
>Actually, though I am unfortunately familiar with exactly what hatred
>is, my mind is certainly not clouded with it at the moment. You may not
>have noticed, but I am generally not interested in attacking people,
>rather false ideas, misconceptions, and bogus claims. Read a little more
>closely and you should see.
>
You assume too much. I did read your posts closely. You most
certainly do write like a person full of hatred. You most certainly
do attack people. Perhaps you should go back and read your own posts
a little more closely.
Joseph C.A. Bennett
> Hi ..
>
> It seems to me the real issue here is not with regards to
> professionalism or amateurism in art - but rather it is
> the agreement or disagrement as to whether or not the type of art
> Peter does is any good. No?
>
> And the type of art Peter does is an entire movement that has had
> control of the "art world" for a long time....we have seen art that
> does not require much in the way of skill since Kandinsky put out his
> abstract work, and as far as I know it could have started even before
> taht, with John Ruskin in the last century.
>
> That is the real issue....will society ever again value real artistic
> skill?
>
> Tracy
>
>
Tracy...For a good look at the current state of art in the U.S., take a peek
at the giant chia pet installed in NYC -- the pulsing heart of ARTWORLD --
and its throng of panting admirers, including most certainly the art critic
of the NYTimes.
Regardless of any raging conflict over amateur (lover) versus professional
(earning a living at it), your basic question offers its own fascination:
Will society ever again appreciate real artistic skill?
Then ponder: "Painting is an essentially concrete art," Courbet wrote in
1861, "and can only consist in the representation of real and existent
things. It is a wholly physical language, which uses visible objects instead
of words; the abstract -- invisible and nonexistent -- lies outside
the scope of painting."
Which, if M. Courbet is to be given credence, means that the entire art
effort since the late work of Cezanne has amounted to a bunch of people
trying to teach a pig to sing. With about the same result.
To be said in its favor, the Art World since Cezanne has afforded a very good
living to a lot of people skilled at faking sincerity, stringing together
artspeak of delicious sounds and no meaning, and a host of lesser lights have
made enough to stay off the street, out of the pool hall, and off the dole.
Additionally, many universities and specialized schools have taken in very
decent sums by consistently cloning incompetence.
But a small underground movement remains, and hopefully, Tracy, you are part
of it, and also hopefully, we might one day again come out of the shadows of
the ernestly driven misfits.
tra...@pipeline.com
do attack people. Perhaps you should go back read your own posts a
Todd E. Morgan
> professionalism or amateurism in art - but rather it is
> the agreement or disagrement as to whether or not the type of art
> Peter does is any good. No?
I think something else forgotten here is that art includes very much a large
representation of what is in the "artists" mind. In my own experience I
believe the human form to be an awesomely beautiful thing and because of
such I want to represent it as accurately and realistically as possible. Any
deviation from a realistic representation would destroy the beauty of the
original piece ... the actual human being. Peters work to me does not show
any reverent feelings toward this beauty at all but rather a montage of
violent, depressed, and somewhat hateful feelings that I can only imagine
come from the artists mind (as previously stated). Check out his Satanism
page (if you haven't already) at http://www.psyche.demon.co.uk/satan.html.
The bummer is that in this day and age just because your "art" represents
your emotions and thoughts (any emotion or thought) it can be classified as
art. It would, and has become, a disgusting notion that we as a society have
to view some peoples disgusting emotions and thoughts on canvas (i.e.
"art"), and classify it as art.
> And the type of art Peter does is an entire movement that has had
> control of the "art world" for a long time....we have seen art that
> does not require much in the way of skill since Kandinsky put out his
> abstract work, and as far as I know it could have started even before
> that, with John Ruskin in the last century.
>
> That is the real issue....will society ever again value real artistic
> skill?
Look at the works of Michaelangelo and D'Vinci. A huge portion of their work
goes back to admiring the beauty of the human form and attributing it their
creator. These are true representations of honoring the beauty of the human
body. This is what has been lost in the art world today (fortunately not
completely).
Todd
Geoffrey M. Beresford Hartwell
>It is real easy to let loose on people on a newsgroup, in a way one
>never would in face-to-face relationships, simply because there are no
>recriminations. One can be very rude, none the worse for wear, not to
>one's career, and not to one's real face-to-face reltationships.
I wonder if that is right. Although rudeness is very common in
newsgroups, there is really no justification for it. Good manners and,
for those who are unable to behave themselves, the rule of law still
apply.
There is a practical problem about locating individuals who behave
badly; they use the newsgroup in perhaps a more cowardly way, because
they feel that they cannot be found, but I suspect that is a false
concept of security. People can be found if the reason is strong enough.
The exchange in this thread has been very sad. It seems to have started
with two people whose standards are different and then developed into an
orgy of intolerance, the one thing that art exists to overcome, by
appealing to our better natures - albeit in different ways.
If newsgroup corespondents cannot do better than this, what useful
purpose does their correspondence serve?
Regards,
Geoffrey Hartwell
--
Eur Ing Professor Geoffrey M. Beresford Hartwell
BHA Cromwell House & University of Glamorgan School of Law
arbit...@computer.org www.hartwell.demon.co.uk
Kromkowski
<to...@automation.com> writes:
>Look at the works of Michaelangelo and D'Vinci. A huge portion of their work
>goes back to admiring the beauty of the human form and attributing it their
>creator. These are true representations of honoring the beauty of the human
>body. This is what has been lost in the art world today (fortunately not
>completely).
>
>Todd
All things being equal, is a marble less good than a "wax" which also
reproduces the color and texture more "realistically"? Is an accurate as
possible representation of a fat and balding middle-age American in nude really
more "beautiful" than a really well done abstraction? By the way, I have never
really liked most of Kandisky. What about an exact replica of a Bismuth
crystal? Is that abstract or realist?
To me, what your really talking about is style preference not about quality.
But, hey, some people like the mountains and others like the beach.
J.D. Kromkowski
Todd E. Morgan
kromk...@aol.com wrote on 6/9/00 1:03 PM:
> All things being equal, is a marble less good than a "wax" which also
> reproduces the color and texture more "realistically"?
To confine beauty to a specific medium is ludicrous. Is the sun made of
water or trees made of fire. All are glorious in their perfection, yet they
are not all made of the same compounds. This an absurd argument and I made
no such statement that should lead one to believe otherwise.
>Is an accurate as
> possible representation of a fat and balding middle-age American in nude
> really
> more "beautiful" than a really well done abstraction?
Please show me an example of the piece and I will gladly critique it for
you. I am not aware of any highly praised works that involve overweight
individuals of any ethnic origin. This in my opinion constitutes that
GENERALLY speaking people would not find that to be a beautiful thing. In
fact weight reduction solutions are at an all time sales high at this point
in time. In most cases sculptures found to be consensually beautiful show
the human form in an ideal context (relevant to the era of the production of
the piece. i.e. Roman, Greek, Victorian etc.)
>By the way, I have
> never really liked most of Kandisky.
My reply to the discussion wasn't to give my impression of Kandinksy or
Ruskin but to discuss the definition of "beauty".
>What about an exact replica of a Bismuth
> crystal? Is that abstract or realist?
If you like Bismuth Crystals and and wish to represent it for others to
agree in your delight of it I would suggest representing it in its true
form. How else can you truly represent the beauty of it. Once you have
abstracted from the original piece it no longer carries the look or feel of
the original that was found to be desirable to reproduce in the first place.
> To me, what your really talking about is style preference not about quality.
> But, hey, some people like the mountains and others like the beach.
I am certain I made clear that this is MY view. It is certainly of little
use to try and convince others who clearly have their own opinion. This is
why this forum is called a discussion forum.
lake
communication. A certain level of respect for the other person is
mandatory, no matter how passionately one might disagree.
The prolonged exchange between Brooks and Raimes might serve as an
example of how easily things can get out of hand. Artists are notorious
for this, but that's not a valid excuse. The solution hinges on respect
- if you can't respect another as an artist, you have to settle for
respecting him/her as a human being.
The common denominator - without it, attempts at communication are
absolutely futile.
- Lake
lake
raise. Went to court and lost his shirt. Then he painted his
"Nocturnes". and Ruskin was none too pleased.
So why did the most adventurous spirits of the 20th century follow
Whistler rather than Courbet? I doubt very much that it was due to the
verbosity of critics and theorists.
I am more interested in the answer to this question, than I am in which
direction is right or wrong. Surely, you don't classify all abstract
artists as "earnestly driven misfits".......or do you?
Joseph C.A. Bennett
Lake...
"...Ernestly driven"...possibly. "...misfits," certainly not.
I believe a host of physical-spiritual-psychological elements came into play to
dictate the course of art, which I believe is a window into the soul of an age.
The 20th Century was a savage time, chaotic, humanity wrestling both with its
own primitive nature and incredibly powerful changes in its world. Changes in
man-woman relationships, in communication, in personal mobility, unbelieveable
openings in lifestyle choices, all coming at a pace enough to bewilder the best
of us.
Art, it seems, is a perfect reflection of the angst of the century.
Hopefully, better times will produce better art. Not the old art, but better
art.
Regards...
Alison A Raimes
Beresford Hartwell <geof...@hartwell.demon.co.uk> writes
>If newsgroup corespondents cannot do better than this, what useful
>purpose does their correspondence serve?
>
>Regards,
>Geoffrey Hartwell
I suspect it gives a lot of people a *letting off steam* venue -
somewhat like going to the gym. In the real work, people have to hold
their tongues and suppress their opinions to the extent that they become
incredibly frustrated. That is when it gets dangerous. I vote for the
continuation of newsgroups in their current format - there are plenty of
alternative forums in cyber that allow serious debate where the conduct
on newsgroups is not tolerated, and there is ample opportunity to start
your own groups. I even run one myself where the atmosphere is fun and
lively and also, often, very intense ;-) Those who choose to post on
Usenet are acutely aware of circumstances in which they post. It's their
choice.
Contrary to Brooks accusations about me, I am an extremely confident
person, and the idea of being considered *insecure* in the real world
would be seen as absurd. In the real world, I have been elected, on more
many occasions, to represent those who feel uneasy about speaking in
public, and whose issues may be controversial, irrespective of whether I
agree with them. Because of the nature of my personality as an
aggressive debater and my extensive experience in management, I am able
to confront and challenge those who continue to exploit artists. As a
director of a large artist run organisation and trustee of a charity
with a turnover of quarter of a million pounds, I am currently in the
middle of a legal battle that will, if we win, change the rights of
artists throughout Britain. It will be well documented and written about
over the next few months.
If Brooks does decide to take me to court for alleged libel, he will
have to address what I am in *real* life and why my objections to his
claim to *professional* artist status are so offensive to me. He will
also have to stand accountable for provoking and encouraging the
argument, and for the ten posts in which he made defamatory remarks
about me prior to my comment. As to the allegations against me,
concerning my personality, he will most certainly have to show that he
is qualified to make personality judgements in the manner that he did.
I have agreed to withdraw my remark and to apologise publicly if he can,
as he claims, prove that he has been filing his taxes as an artist and
has declared all his sales. Not an unreasonable request.
Alison A Raimes
<lakeNO...@plateautel.net.invalid> writes
>The prolonged exchange between Brooks and Raimes might serve as an
>example of how easily things can get out of hand. Artists are notorious
>for this, but that's not a valid excuse. The solution hinges on respect
>- if you can't respect another as an artist, you have to settle for
>respecting him/her as a human being.
>
>The common denominator - without it, attempts at communication are
>absolutely futile.
Do you respect all human beings ? I certainly do not. Do you have
respect for the guy who shoots up a school room, or the machete wielding
maniac who charges into a church full of innocent people and slaughters
them ? Need I go on ? Its idiotic to believe that we have common
denominators - we are all different and have contrasting as well as
similar opinions. Are we now to live in fear of expressing those
opinions ?
Brooks has reported me to Demon for libellous remarks - and has
threatened me with legal action. I can only presume his motives are
financial. The consequences of reporting me are that Demon's lawyers
found 10 posts by Brooks that they considered to be defamatory towards
me. I have agreed with Demon, not to write anything that could be
considered defamatory towards Brooks through my Demon server. Not a
difficult decision - I could easily use one of my other accounts, but as
I do not consider any further communication with him to serve any
purpose agreeing to that was not a problem. Brooks will have received a
similar requirement by Demon in regard to the ten posts that their
lawyers found to be defamatory. Good for Demon, I say. They handled the
situation with the utmost attention to both of their clients and made no
judgements, except for giving useful advise and protecting their part in
this. If Brooks wants to take me to court, then that is fine. I will not
be retracting my remarks until he can prove that I am wrong.
Alison A Raimes
>And the type of art Peter does is an entire movement that has had
>control of the "art world" for a long time....we have seen art that
>does not require much in the way of skill since Kandinsky put out his
>abstract work, and as far as I know it could have started even before
>taht, with John Ruskin in the last century.
Absolutely correct. The birth of Abstract art is too often attributed to
Kandinsky, when in fact it was Turner who nurtured the idea. Its hard to
know how much of Turner's true abstract work was relegated to the trash
bin by Ruskin, but there is enough evidence that Turner was intent on
removing any reference to the human figure. That was, in essence, the
beginning of Abstract Art.
tra...@pipeline.com
>respect for the guy who shoots up a school room, or the machete wielding
>maniac who charges into a church full of innocent people and slaughters
>them ? Need I go on ? Its idiotic to believe that we have common
>denominators - we are all different and have contrasting as well as
>similar opinions. Are we now to live in fear of expressing those
>opinions ?
Gee, Allison, chill out! I think it is a good rule of thumb to live
by....not to apply withouth any common sense to ALL situations.
Obviously, if someone is not treating you with respect, one does not
just roll over and allow them to run right over you.
As for myself, I always give people the benefit of any doubt first,
and it is only as I get to know them that I may change that.
Alison A Raimes
writes
>Gee, Allison, chill out! I think it is a good rule of thumb to live
>by....not to apply withouth any common sense to ALL situations.
I love a dose of hypocrisy ! The art of good debate, my friend, is to
incite controversy. What would be the point without it. I can assure you
I am *chilled* - even have a cold beer here and the sound of jazz
drifting up from the studio courtyard. Maybe you should take some of the
advise that you gave Brooks ?
>
>Obviously, if someone is not treating you with respect, one does not
>just roll over and allow them to run right over you.
>
Exactly. If I don't treat someone with respect I don't expect them to
either. I don't go threatening to sue them !
>As for myself, I always give people the benefit of any doubt first,
>and it is only as I get to know them that I may change that.
>
Really. Watch this space then. I guess !
Cheers !
Andy Dingley
>Which, if M. Courbet is to be given credence, means that the entire art
>effort since the late work of Cezanne has amounted to a bunch of people
>trying to teach a pig to sing. With about the same result.
Oh come now ! Please don't treat the entire last century of art
history as if it were all as bad as Peter Brooks' "work".
tra...@pipeline.com
<ali...@see.signature.for.address> wrote:
>In article <394240f6...@news.pipeline.com>, tra...@pipeline.com
>writes
>
>>Gee, Allison, chill out! I think it is a good rule of thumb to live
>>by....not to apply withouth any common sense to ALL situations.
>
>I love a dose of hypocrisy ! The art of good debate, my friend, is to
>incite controversy. What would be the point without it. I can assure you
>I am *chilled* - even have a cold beer here and the sound of jazz
>drifting up from the studio courtyard. Maybe you should take some of the
>advise that you gave Brooks ?
Politeness and/or repecting other people as a general rules not a
synonim for hypocrisy. You are engaging in polemics for it's own
sake. You cannot derive from his post that he thinks one must be
respectful to all people in all situations. You are using inviduous
comparison. It si not a valid comparison, it is a comparison designed
designed to ignite ill-will. You are also engaging in ad hominem
attack by calling me a hypocrite. That is attacking the person
rather than the idea. It is also an error in logic, but is of course
used in debate because it works. It is up to people engaged in debate
to be informed and prepared for it. This is not a formal debate.
Just be aware that the techniques you are using are errors in logic.
"and the sound of jazz
drifting up from the studio courtyard."
heh. Must be Kenny G.
If you can't take a soft "chill-out" from somebody, then maybe you
don't belong in any sort of civilized conversation.
Joseph C.A. Bennett
> In article <394060cb....@news.pipeline.com>,
> tra...@pipeline.com wrote:
> >
> > Clouded with hate your mind is.
> >
> The affectation of ending a sentence with a verb like that was one that
> I noticed in 'Star Wars' - I think that the idea is that a badly
> constructed sentence gives the impression of profundity.
>
> Actually, though I am unfortunately familiar with exactly what hatred
> is, my mind is certainly not clouded with it at the moment. You may not
> have noticed, but I am generally not interested in attacking people,
> rather false ideas, misconceptions, and bogus claims. Read a little more
> closely and you should see.
>
> --
> Peter H.M. Brooks
> As the brief fires of youth die in him, the ageing trendy conceives a
> growing aversion to
> feeling in all its forms. His fastidious distaste for kitsch becomes a
> prudish fear of anything
> that could - in the wrong hands - be turned into kitsch.
> - Roger Scruton Aesthetics & Criticism
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Peter...
Oh, my. Commenting on Tracy's use of English? Really, you shouldn't. In
an earlier post -- I believe you were enumerating Alison's charms -- you
used the expression: "Firstly....." and then later, "Secondly...." Check
your Oxford English Usage. The "-ly" construction is purely an
affectation. "First...." and "Second...." would be preferred.
Just thought I'd mention it.
Also, while in the house I'll mention two things about your painting.
First, you are not alone is cultivating drawing remniscent of childhood. In
the US, a young painter named Justin K is doing the same thing with
significant commercial success. His work, as does yours, looks like my
grandson's third-grade work, which has a lifespan of about two weeks on the
refrigerator door before being quietly retired to the trash. Second, if
Picasso's statement that he spent half a lifetime "learning to draw like a
child" (or words to that effect) is the source of your inspiration, may I
suggest that P not be taken literally? I believe, in the total context of
that statement, what went before and what came after, his meaning was quite
different, and he was saying in his own way that he had worked to learn how
to draw with simple integrity, directly, without artifice.
We should all purse such a course. Integrity, without artifice.
Regards...
Peter H.M. Brooks
tra...@pipeline.com wrote:
> And yes, you
> write like a person full of hatred.
>
some people who are full of hatred write in a similar manner to the way
I some times do - to assume that this means that I am also full of
hatred is a logical error if this is your evidence. Of course, it is a
common logical error, easily made.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Alison A Raimes <ali...@see.signature.for.address> wrote:
not
> be retracting my remarks until he can prove that I am wrong.
>
You still have a day left. You should consult a lawyer who will confirm
that the onus is on you to prove your defamatory remarks - as you
clearly cannot as they are not only defamatory, but also untrue.