Willem De Kooning, criminal
William Palmer
> "keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com" <scot...@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<2qYA9.69407$YSz1....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
> only seems to be in opposition - art is always seen in an emotional
> context - at this point in your life you may need the reassurance that the
> sun will rise every morning and set every evening to be followed by the
> rising and setting moon. Cubism's multiple facets breaks up the
> conventional world and builds another strange possibly unpredictable world.
> That once fascinating world appears to have vanished from your horizon.
>
> Do not blame it's demise on age or mature years - for I am 63 and still
> find it fascinating. I find some not all modern art interesting. I am a
> selective modern art lover just as I am a selective traditional art lover. I
> am disliked by both camps because neither can claim my absolute allegiance
> (he who is not with me is against me) and I find their war mongering
> unilateral declarations of ultimate truth rather stupid.
In my view, you are fortunate because you are able
to enjoy more art. Some of the posters in these
particular groups deprive themselves of a lot of
enjoymentby totally rejecting artists they see as
being in a school or tradition that they are opposed
to. While I do think that the critical acceptance of
abstract art eventually led to galleries and museums
being dominated by very mediocre imitations and
off-shoots of the pioneering abstract artists,
there are some in that school that I enjoy very
much. One of them is Stuart Davis. While in
general critics have ranked him as not being in the
same league with Pollack, de Kooning, Rothko, and,
others, in my own estimation Davis is a far better
artist than any of them. Some of Davis' work is
definitely cubist, so I guess I am guilty of
appreciating cubism too. Yes, I do find a lot
of cubist work to be boring, almost to the
extent that I can sympathize with some of our
raving anti-cubists. Nevertheless, I think
Davis' "Arboretum by Flashbulb (1942" is an
absolutely stunning work of art, as is the
1943 "Ultramarine." I could list many other
Davis' works that I think are fabulous, too.
As to the reason some of the artists and art
lover/wirters who post about artists in these
group are so intolerant, it seems to me that
Philip Gilbert Hamerton, the distinguished
British art critic and writer put his finger
on their narrow views over one-hundred years
ago. He is referring to Ingres, when he
observes, "Like other men who have been
obstinately devoted to a single idea, Ingres
was personally disagreeable." Also, "Like most
artists, he not only believed himself to be
in the right, but considered other forms of
art than his own to be wrong, and a sort of
pestilence or scourge." And, "It is extremely
difficult, it would seem, for artists to avoid
these illusions and rise above this bitter
hostility and intolerance."
Maybe it is because I am not a practitioner of
the fine arts but an art lover that I have no
trouble enjoying the work of artists as diverse
as Fernand Khnopff, Gerome, Salvador Dali, Max
Ernst, Mucha, Charles Filiger, Robert Williams,
and Stuart Davis. Yet, I don't take real issue
with our posters who complain about the atocities
of abstract art, because I have seen that sort of
thing hogging space in too many fashionable galleries
around L. A. Sort of like, well, it is very easy
to do bad abstract art, and when abstract art is
not original and excellent it is atrociously boring.
> When we speak of people's taste we speak of trends not absolutes. You may
> belong to the proportion that does not follow the general trend. The
> exception to the trend (being yourself in this case) does not disprove the
> trend .
>
> keith
>
> Thur <a@spamless.z> wrote in message
> news:2lLA9.3305$B92.5...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
> > x-no-archive: yes
> > As a youngster, I never thought that paintings by impressionists
> > were difficult at all. Rather, they gave the mind more freedom
> > to interpret than the more realist paintings of earlier centuries.
> > I found the cubists interesting, and Kandinsky exciting.
> > I wonder to myself how it is that in my more mature years, I have
> > turned around on anything abstract, although Impressionism still
> > can impress me?
Monet is one of the greatest artists of all time.
I don't know why there are so many books on his
"Waterlilies," though, because in my view those
were some of his less exciting and successful
efforts. Some other famous Impressionists bore
me, though. Manet does little for me, for instance.
As I argue in my essay "Symbolism: A Century
of Neglect," I think the main reason that
Impressionism triumphed through most of the
20th century to the extent that many art
historians seemed to forget that Symbolism
even existed was that dealers were quick to
recognize that Impressionism, being easy to
produce, and often sunny enough to brighten
up anyone's wall, had a huge commercial
potential, while Symbolism, often being
perplexing, dark, and disturbing, did not
have that potential. (I mean, I don't
think too many dentists would want Schwabe's
"Death and the Gravedigger" on the walls of
their office.) Of course, you can argue
that Symbolism is somewhat elitist. Not
elitist in the sense that it was aimed at
attracting people with lots of money, as
Bouguereau's art was, but elitist in
intellectual sense. It was not for
everyone, and most of the great Symbolist
artists did not pretend to be painting
for everyone. Symbolism wasn't art for
the ordinary Joe. Has anyone in alt.writing
or rec.arts.prose but me ever read "A Rebours"
or "Against Nature" [really, "Against
NATURALISM]? I DOUBT it. Author J.-K. Huysman's
Des Esseintes is no Ordinary Joe, but in my view
he is one of the most fascinating characters
in all literature. Anyway, the common herd of
humanity does not like to deal with the sort
of questions and issues that Symbolism deals
with...Impressionism, for the most part, does
not ask questions and has very wide general
appeal.
> >This seems to be substantially in opposition
> > to your comment on the young mind.
> > Thur
> >
> > "keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com" <scot...@rogers.com> wrote in
message
> > news:a5CA9.82397$MGm1....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > > Training of Taste in The Art and Crafts: Littlejohns worked on this 1933
> > > publication (British). The younger the child the stronger the attraction
to
> > > realistic detail. The young mind appears to have difficulties with image
> > > generalities that require interpretation eg. impressionism. The
conclusion
> > > reached was that because many of the older the older children could
> > > appreciate impressionism, age was considered a major factor in that the
> > > young inexperienced mind had not yet formulated a collection of images
which
> > > could be called upon to assist with a more general interpretation of the
> > > world.
> > >
> > > They were using classical; figurative and impressionistic paintings in
their
> > > study.
> > >
> > > I can understand yours and mani's problem - de kooning is too much of a
jump
> > > from the psychological security of image certainty. The problem you face
is
> > > that your tendency to jump to conclusions and treat those conclusions as
> > > reality may in the end narrow your artistic maturity.
> > >
> > > keith
> > >
> > >
> > > Richard <cool_a...@z.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1ni5tuss2pls4nu5h...@4ax.com...
> > > > *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
> > > >(speaking of de Kooning)
> > > >
> > > > I know he's dead, but if he were still alive, he should be hunted down
> > > > like a dog and brought to trial and prosecuted for crimes against
> > > > humanity and atrocities against art. Or maybe he should be awarded
> > > > some sort of prize for perpetrating a bigger hoax than Andy Warhol and
> > > > for being a bigger charlatan? He made the most hideous paintings I've
> > > > ever seen. Before I saw his paintings, I didn't know it was possible
> > > > to create such ugliness with abstract smears of paint. His paintings
> > > > remind me of large quantities of human guts splattered onto a canvas.
> > > > I think perhaps the inside of a slaughterhouse would be less
> > > > unpleasant to look at than a de kooning atrocity. One thing I know for
> > > > sure. This isn't art.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> > > > http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> > > > -----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >