Strive to be Artificially Genuine
Nikolaus Maack
Let me sound pretentious for a moment.
My goal has always been to create art that is art, not art that merely
looks like art.
It's a criticism I want to thrust upon a lot of work I see. The artist
is struggling to create "art", instead of expressing themselves. The
results they come up with are "what people think art is supposed to be"
not "what art is".
It's the difference between "communicating" and "talking", between
"being" and "posing". The picture, the story, the poem -- it comes
across as fake, as trying too hard. Not genuine. Playing up to the
audience, anticipating the ear and the eye, yielding too much, giving it
all away, flinging flattery.
"Too many notes."
The irony is that the naturalness I am looking for in my art and
literature -- it's a pose. An extremely calculated one, far more
carefully put together than any other pose possible. As the old saying
goes, "To be a success in life, you need to be sincere. Once you can
fake that, you've got it made."
That is what I look for in my art, and in the art of others -- a kind of
honest, open, fake sincerity. If that's missing from the work, I get
extremely irritable.
All art is lies and deception. If you're lying without pretending it's
the truth, you're a terrible liar -- and therefore, a terrible artist.
Chris
"Nikolaus Maack" <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3EAE58C8...@sympatico.ca...
>
> Let me sound pretentious for a moment.
>
> My goal has always been to create art that is art, not art that merely
> looks like art.
>
> It's a criticism I want to thrust upon a lot of work I see. The artist
> is struggling to create "art", instead of expressing themselves. The
> results they come up with are "what people think art is supposed to be"
> not "what art is".
>
Hi Nik;
Your post was pretty amusing, and so maybe this isn't the place to bring it
up...But I am curious about the idea of "self-expression". I tend to look at
self-expression as perhaps a side benefit of art, and then only insofar as
it allows one to objectify one's biases. I am much more fascinated with
using art to understand my percepetions, and the world around me. I'd be
curious as to how others feel about that notion of self-expression...
Chris
New Work on paper (as of Apr 28): http://tinyurl.com/90e5
Hans Soutt
>All art is lies and deception.
Compared to a photograph, I suppose? Thereby
continuing the argument about whether photography
is art or non-art?
>If you're lying without pretending it's
>the truth, you're a terrible liar -- and therefore, a terrible artist.
And if you're an admitted pretender, does that mean you're
a professional liar and therefore a professional artist? Hmmmm....
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Hans Soutt" <ha...@dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:3eae...@news.zianet.com...
Hitler and Churchill, to name but two.
--
The happiest people on earth are those few fortunates who seem to be in a
state of mild, stable hypomania. - David Horrobin 'The Madness of Adam and
Eve' (How schizophrenia shaped humanity)
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> My goal has always been to create art that is art, not art that merely
> looks like art.
>
Wouldn't it be easier to say that you'd like to create art rather than
something that looks like art? As well as making more sense.
To what do you imagine you are pretending by having this desire?
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> My goal has always been to create art that is art, not art that merely
> looks like art.
>
art'?
Paul Mesken
>
>"Nikolaus Maack" <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:3EAE58C8...@sympatico.ca...
>>
>> Let me sound pretentious for a moment.
>>
>> My goal has always been to create art that is art, not art that merely
>> looks like art.
>>
>> It's a criticism I want to thrust upon a lot of work I see. The artist
>> is struggling to create "art", instead of expressing themselves. The
>> results they come up with are "what people think art is supposed to be"
>> not "what art is".
>>
>
>Hi Nik;
>
>Your post was pretty amusing
It all started with Maack badmouthing some artist selling digital art.
It completely baffled me, nice guy Nik suddenly siding with Deli! I
didn't know what I read, I was gaping the monitor for hours. Then it
suddenly dawned upon me : Deli and Maack are posting from the same
server, I say they're the same person! ;-)
> and so maybe this isn't the place to bring it
>up...But I am curious about the idea of "self-expression". I tend to look at
>self-expression as perhaps a side benefit of art, and then only insofar as
>it allows one to objectify one's biases. I am much more fascinated with
>using art to understand my percepetions, and the world around me. I'd be
>curious as to how others feel about that notion of self-expression...
"Self expression" is about as elusive a concept as "Art". I don't feel
I'm expressing myself when doing a painting. I'm expressing an idea of
me or simply painting after an example which interests me for some
reason.
Chris
"Paul Mesken" <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
news:673tavog6hl14f35b...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2003 08:46:43 -0300, "Chris" <n...@this.address> wrote:
> It all started with Maack badmouthing some artist selling digital art.
> It completely baffled me, nice guy Nik suddenly siding with Deli! I
> didn't know what I read, I was gaping the monitor for hours. Then it
> suddenly dawned upon me : Deli and Maack are posting from the same
> server, I say they're the same person! ;-)
>
Yeah, Nik's rant (even though by raf standards, was very gentle) caught me
by surprise too. Glad to see he's really, deep down, one of us :)
But Mani as Nik....hmmmm. that would be a schizophrenia you could get a
nobel prize for. Or maybe two.. And tinman posts from ottawa too, though not
through sympatico....
> "Self expression" is about as elusive a concept as "Art". I don't feel
> I'm expressing myself when doing a painting. I'm expressing an idea of
> me or simply painting after an example which interests me for some
> reason.
>
I usually feel similarly, though there are times when I have a vague visual
idea in my head, and drawing it (or painting it) is the only way to force it
into focus. Something caught in a glance that stays with me, sort of like
one of those musical phrases you can't get rid of...
But I'd be curious to hear from people who look at art as self expression,
and how they feel about it, what does that phrase mean to them.
Chris
New Work on paper (as of Apr 28): http://tinyurl.com/90e5
Auctions: http://tinyurl.com/akon
Leo Papandreou
Interesting but I wouldn't trust first person statements to answer
independently accessible reality. I don't mean to trivialize introspection
with barely scientific opinion about the system of whirling particles that
demonstrates consciousness, but I do not think you know why you do what you
do. Your psychology is a black box internally related to its expression --
"I" contemplating "I" -- but the expression itself is a conceptual tongue
fondling a broken tooth in the mind. I mean, what is "the difference between
communicating and talking, between being and posing?" We can spend the rest of
our lives debating metaphors, words and their categories -- writing sentences
about sentences – and in the end, we will have become dead.
That is fine, discussion is what a garrulous species does; and art is a form of
discussion, I suppose, as well as lovely plumage if it's the girly peacocks you
are after, which, in the final analysis of the species, is what you are after.
Ask a rock star artist if you don't believe me.
Paul Mesken
>
>"Paul Mesken" <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
>news:673tavog6hl14f35b...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 29 Apr 2003 08:46:43 -0300, "Chris" <n...@this.address> wrote:
>> It all started with Maack badmouthing some artist selling digital art.
>> It completely baffled me, nice guy Nik suddenly siding with Deli! I
>> didn't know what I read, I was gaping the monitor for hours. Then it
>> suddenly dawned upon me : Deli and Maack are posting from the same
>> server, I say they're the same person! ;-)
>>
>
>Yeah, Nik's rant (even though by raf standards, was very gentle) caught me
>by surprise too. Glad to see he's really, deep down, one of us :)
You hear that Maack? We're all very shocked ;-)
>But Mani as Nik....hmmmm. that would be a schizophrenia you could get a
>nobel prize for. Or maybe two.. And tinman posts from ottawa too, though not
>through sympatico....
I've always been somewhat amazed by the high Canadian content of this
newsgroup. The Canadians outnumber every other nationality, even the
americans. What is it that drives Canadians to r.a.f.? ;-)
>> "Self expression" is about as elusive a concept as "Art". I don't feel
>> I'm expressing myself when doing a painting. I'm expressing an idea of
>> me or simply painting after an example which interests me for some
>> reason.
>
>I usually feel similarly, though there are times when I have a vague visual
>idea in my head, and drawing it (or painting it) is the only way to force it
>into focus.
Absolutely, that's the sheer joy of drawing for me. To get a vague
visual idea out of your head and onto the paper. I'm one of the lucky
who can remember his dreams and this got me quite some interesting and
spooky backgrounds :-)
>But I'd be curious to hear from people who look at art as self expression,
>and how they feel about it, what does that phrase mean to them.
I wonder whether there is a connection between "art as self
expression" and extravert people. Extravert people seem to me (being
at about the most extreme point of introvertness :-) as people
imposing their personality upon everything they do whereas introvert
people are more into ideas and dreams.
Erik A. Mattila
But we're the ones who think our interpretation of the world is reality,
Leo. Ah...that song comes back in my memory - Les McCaan's "Compared to
What."
The President, he's got his war
Folks don't know just what it's for
Nobody gives us a rhyme or reason
Have one doubt, they call it treason
We're chicken feathers all with out one gut
Goddamn it!
Try to make it real compared to what!
Eugene McDaniel wrote that. Great musician/writer. Here's a sound clip:
http://www.allthingsdeep.com/sounds/emcdaniels.mp3
>
> That is fine, discussion is what a garrulous species does; and art is a form of
> discussion, I suppose, as well as lovely plumage if it's the girly peacocks you
> are after, which, in the final analysis of the species, is what you are after.
> Ask a rock star artist if you don't believe me.
Oh, yeah, another song comes to mind - Don Henley's "All she wants to do
is dance."
Don't mind me. I thought I could communicate by quoting songs. Does it
work? Here's Henley's lyrics below - a simple copy/paste -
DON HENLEY
All She Wants To Do Is Dance
They're pickin' up the prisoners
And puttin em in a pen
And all she wants to do is dance, dance
Rebels been rebels
Since I don't know when
And all she wants to do is dance
Molotov cocktail the local drink
And all she wants to do is dance, dance
They mix 'em up right
In the kitchen sink
And all she wants to do is dance
Crazy people walkin round with blood in their eyes
And all she wants to do is dance, dance, dance
Wild-eyed pistols wavers who ain't afraid to die
And all she wants to do is dance
And make romance
She can't feel the heat
Comin off the street
She wants to party
She wants to get down
All she wants to do is
All she wants to do is dance
Well the government bugged the men's room
In the local disco lounge
And all she wants to do is dance, dance
To keep the boys from sellin
All the weapons they could scrounge
And all she wants to do is dance
But that don't keep the boys from makin a buck or two
And all she wants to do is dance, dance
The still can sell the army
All the drugs that they can do
And all she wants to do is
All she wants to do is dance
And make romance
Well we barely make the airport
For the test plane out
As we taxied down the runway
I could hear the people shout
The said, "don't come back here Yankee"
But if I ever do
I'll bring more money
Cause all she wants to do is dance
And make romance
Never mind the heat
Comin off the street
She wants to party
She wants to get down
All she wants to do is
All she wants to do is dance
And make romance
All she wants to do is dance
Erik A. Mattila
> I wonder whether there is a connection between "art as self
> expression" and extravert people. Extravert people seem to me (being
> at about the most extreme point of introvertness :-) as people
> imposing their personality upon everything they do whereas introvert
> people are more into ideas and dreams.
Do you mean "hiding?" But as to self-expression I think of J. Lacan -
and the "self" is the image in the mirror. Self-expression must be a
form of narcissism then. Why isn't it just as "art-heroic" to recycle
ideas?
Erik
Paul Mesken
Hmm, I think it's a matter of appreciation by the larger public. A
work of art should ideally stand on its own but in reality the life
and person of the artist itself is taken into the equation as well.
A person like van Gogh or Picasso is extremely interesting to the
public and this is reflected in the appreciation of the work. Artists
who are interesting to the public are typically also narcissistic (in
the broadest sense). Their art and life are about one and the same
(self expressionism), it looks like a recording of it. This gives
their work a depth greater than could be accomplished by the work
alone.
Dr. Slick
>
> My goal has always been to create art that is art, not art that merely
> looks like art.
>
Art is a visual medium, so if it looks like it should, then maybe
it IS as it should.
>
> The irony is that the naturalness I am looking for in my art and
> literature -- it's a pose. An extremely calculated one, far more
> carefully put together than any other pose possible. As the old saying
> goes, "To be a success in life, you need to be sincere. Once you can
> fake that, you've got it made."
>
> That is what I look for in my art, and in the art of others -- a kind of
> honest, open, fake sincerity. If that's missing from the work, I get
> extremely irritable.
>
> All art is lies and deception. If you're lying without pretending it's
> the truth, you're a terrible liar -- and therefore, a terrible artist.
>
Are you saying that if I honestly try to convey an emotion into
people, that i'm not a good artist? Or are you saying that simply the
attempt to convey the emotion is in itself a lie?
I would not say all of the best artists were great liars,
although some like Warhol have apparently admitted that their careers
were driven mainly by media hype. But not all great artists rely on
hype.
In regards to sounding pretentious:
"Poets muddy their waters so that they may appear to be deep"
cliche..i know.
Dr. Slick
Nikolaus Maack
> Your post was pretty amusing, and so maybe this isn't the place to bring it
> up...But I am curious about the idea of "self-expression". I tend to look at
> self-expression as perhaps a side benefit of art, and then only insofar as
> it allows one to objectify one's biases. I am much more fascinated with
> using art to understand my percepetions, and the world around me. I'd be
> curious as to how others feel about that notion of self-expression...
My art and writing often surprise me. My voice is in them, but they say
more and talk about things I otherwise wouldn't know about myself and
the world. In this sense, they are self-expression and much more.
Many writers talk about characters that refuse to behave the way the
author expects them to. They seem to take on their own life and demand
to be allowed to follow their natural way.
When it comes to painting, sometimes the colour choices and lines seem
to come from beyond me -- they come from somewhere else. And when I'm
really "in the zone", I couldn't tell you what it is I'm doing to the
paper in front of me.
This, to me, is what "self-expression" means -- letting that other
voice, inside me, that is me but isn't, have its say. What it wants to
express almost always turns out to be of some importance.
I wrote my little blurb this morning (strive to be artificially genuine)
after waking up at 4:30 AM and writing chapter 3 of my novel. It was
good, and genuine, and fake, all at the same time. I'm very happy with
where this book is going.
Nikolaus Maack
>>All art is lies and deception.
>
>
> Compared to a photograph, I suppose? Thereby
> continuing the argument about whether photography
> is art or non-art?
No. I believe photography lies too -- in the way the photographer
frames the shot, manipulates light and shadow, and crops the photograph.
The person behind the camera forces an artificiality on reality.
The very best photographs do this -- create an artificial world -- that
appears complete genuine and real.
Nikolaus Maack
> Art is a visual medium, so if it looks like it should, then maybe
> it IS as it should.
A story should have a beginning, a middle, and an end. But if you sit
down and write a story that very painfully has these points, it won't be
much of a story.
In the same sense, if you know what a painting is "supposed to" look
like, and you sit down and paint that beast, what you have created is a
rather sloppy, knock-off version of art.
Real art, and real stories, have enough of a framework that they're
recognizable, but don't ape the framework to the extent that they become
caricatures of themselves.
>>All art is lies and deception. If you're lying without pretending it's
>>the truth, you're a terrible liar -- and therefore, a terrible artist.
> Are you saying that if I honestly try to convey an emotion into
> people, that i'm not a good artist? Or are you saying that simply the
> attempt to convey the emotion is in itself a lie?
What I am saying is, there is no emotion in your paint. When you strive
to create an emotional piece of art, you're "lying", in the sense that
you're "making it up", creating a "lie" that will evoke the feeling in
someone.
If you're a shitty painter, you'll try to evoke that feeling with
something heavy-handed -- like a weeping child. If you're a good
painter, you will conceal your true intentions (evoking an emotion) and
make it look like an afterthought.
Hence, the artifically genuine.
All art is a lie, in the sense that all art is manufactured,
constructed, with intentions of some kind behind it. Good art is
manufactured, just like bad, but it appears natural.
The violinist who labours over her violin is a chore to the ear. The
violinist who plays "with ease" is a delight. But we all know that the
ease the second violinist achieves is based on hard labour.
> "Poets muddy their waters so that they may appear to be deep"
Real water has mud in it. Artificial water appears to be crystal clear.
It's the artist's job to make the crystal clear water seem believable.
Dr. Slick
>
> Hence, the artifically genuine.
>
> All art is a lie, in the sense that all art is manufactured,
> constructed, with intentions of some kind behind it. Good art is
> manufactured, just like bad, but it appears natural.
>
Then if your think all manufactured things are lies, then all
buildings and bridges and cars are all lies as well. You could even
bring the concept to the extreme end of your whole life is an
illusion, even the material things.
> The violinist who labours over her violin is a chore to the ear. The
> violinist who plays "with ease" is a delight. But we all know that the
> ease the second violinist achieves is based on hard labour.
>
So the better artist is the better actor or liar? I see your
point in the sense that musicians and actors are playing a role, but
the painters are too, but in a more subtle sense.
But a "Method" actor supposedly actually feels the emotions of
his/her character, so that they are actually believing the story is
really happening to them.
What's real and what's not? If you cry during the movie, are the
emotions you feel real? You certainly feel them, even if they are
based on a story or myth.
> > "Poets muddy their waters so that they may appear to be deep"
>
> Real water has mud in it. Artificial water appears to be crystal clear.
> It's the artist's job to make the crystal clear water seem believable.
>
Interesting concept. The clear water can be shallow and the
muddy water can be deep, it's just that you cannot tell how deep the
later is.
The artist, actor, or musician as illusionist then.
It's not all lies, in the sense that to make the clear water
believable, you actually need to have some depth to your artistic
insight.
Slick
Nikolaus Maack
> Then if your think all manufactured things are lies, then all
> buildings and bridges and cars are all lies as well. You could even
> bring the concept to the extreme end of your whole life is an
> illusion, even the material things.
There's a difference between manufacturing a BRIDGE and a painting of a
bridge. The actual bridge is what it is -- a bridge. The painting of
the bridge is an illusion of colour, lines, and perspective, meant to
invoke the concept of a "bridge".
> But a "Method" actor supposedly actually feels the emotions of
> his/her character, so that they are actually believing the story is
> really happening to them.
Not precisely. A method actor uses memories of their past to create an
emotional experience in themselves that's similar to the situation
they're in. For example, Dave is in a play where he is supposed to be
afraid of losing someone, so he thinks back to memories of when his
mother was in the hospital with cancer. He uses those REAL feelings to
make the PRETEND feelings for the play more realistic.
In this sense, it's still a lie -- while the emotions on stage might
seem real, might even feel real to the actor, they're still being
"faked" in the sense that they're being transposed from one place to the
other.
But what's interesting about your raising method acting is that the
"artificially genuine" that I look for in art is very much like method
acting. I'd even go so far as to say I'm a "method writer", taking real
experiences and feelings and trying to work them into a narrative, in an
attempt to make the story more real.
> What's real and what's not? If you cry during the movie, are the
> emotions you feel real? You certainly feel them, even if they are
> based on a story or myth.
If I tell you a lie, and you believe it, and it moves you, does it
matter if it's a lie? Quite possibly not.
A useful, moving lie is for more valuable than an uninteresting, useless
truth.
> The artist, actor, or musician as illusionist then.
Yes. The ease of the thing is illusory. And the techniques create the
illusions.
> It's not all lies, in the sense that to make the clear water
> believable, you actually need to have some depth to your artistic
> insight.
Or be very good at creating the illusion of depth. One of the oddest
lessons I have learned over the years comes from haiku. Someone
challenged me to write a haiku about apathy. One of the poems I wrote was:
The chess pieces look
much better to me in their
starting positions.
A reader came along one day and said, "Wow! What a great anti-war
poem!" A perfectly valid interpretation, but one I'd certainly never
intended to create in the reader.
What struck me as interesting about this is that good art can be
interpreted in many different ways. That's what makes it good, in a
strange sense.
Another good example is "Frankenstein" by Mary Shelley. There are so
many ways of analyzing the text, of interpreting what the story "means"
that it is quite a classic of literature. There's man against science,
man against nature, seeing the monster as a piece of the scientist,
seeing the story as about parents and children, and on and on.
In a sense, this is an illusion of depth. Shelley says she wrote the
novel based on a dream. Did she create the depth? Did she have
profound artistic insight? Or was the depth merely contained in the
dream she related?
Does the artist create the depth, or merely set up a situation where the
audience can perceive the depth they crave?
Dr. Slick
>
> > But a "Method" actor supposedly actually feels the emotions of
> > his/her character, so that they are actually believing the story is
> > really happening to them.
>
> Not precisely. A method actor uses memories of their past to create an
> emotional experience in themselves that's similar to the situation
> they're in. For example, Dave is in a play where he is supposed to be
> afraid of losing someone, so he thinks back to memories of when his
> mother was in the hospital with cancer. He uses those REAL feelings to
> make the PRETEND feelings for the play more realistic.
>
But I believe the greatest actors have an ability to even fool
themselves for a few moments, when they have to. Almost an altered
state of consciousness. That's what makes their performances so
convincing.
>
> If I tell you a lie, and you believe it, and it moves you, does it
> matter if it's a lie? Quite possibly not.
>
> A useful, moving lie is for more valuable than an uninteresting, useless
> truth.
>
The lie about killing for Democracy and Freedom has certainly been
useful for Oil-man Bush. Telling people to lay their lives down to
make me richer would certainly be a useless truth, in that case.
>
> > It's not all lies, in the sense that to make the clear water
> > believable, you actually need to have some depth to your artistic
> > insight.
>
> Or be very good at creating the illusion of depth. One of the oddest
> lessons I have learned over the years comes from haiku. Someone
> challenged me to write a haiku about apathy. One of the poems I wrote was:
>
But i think those who are talented enough to create a convincing
illusion of depth, ARE intellectually deep people (or great
con-artists, hehe! Interesting that they use the word "artist" to
describe a con, eh?). So in a certain sense, there is truth to the
lie.
Slick
Hans Soutt
>Does the artist create the depth, or merely set up a situation where the
>audience can perceive the depth they crave?
>
> Nik
>http://www.nikart.ca
There's an equal parallel in theater (as analogous
to visual art). It's referred to in theater
as 'the suspension of disbelief.' I think any
visual artist worth their salt strives for the
same 'suspension of disbelief' in the viewer.
Though I doubt most artists do it consciously.
UNFORTUNATELY, we, as artists, have to put up
with viewers who haven't the ability or
desire to think more deeply than they do
watching a soap opera or ball game on TV.
Lucky we are when we get a viewer who does more
than glance at our work, no matter how 'deep'
the content.
Chris
> I've always been somewhat amazed by the high Canadian content of this
> newsgroup. The Canadians outnumber every other nationality, even the
> americans. What is it that drives Canadians to r.a.f.? ;-)
>
That's probably because Canadians have been wired to the internet for longer
than most people - when your country is essentially 80 miles wide by 4000
miles long, it's ideal for modern communications. It's also relatively cheap
here - for example, I have DSL for three computers to the house, and the
marginal cost on my phone bill for internet is something like $20 US per
month.
But maybe it has to do with the (apparent) fact that Canadians are truly
miserly when it comes to art - I was reading a local business magazine that
quoted the owner of the most important gallery here in Halifax as sayng that
statistics indicate that Canadians spend $0.22 US per capita per year on
art, Americans about $1.80, and the Dutch about $9.80...I thought that was a
bit extreme - if anyone knows better I'd be glad to hear from them! But in
the meantime, I think that the Dutch folks on this list should be helping
the Canadians out & spreading the wealth a bit:)
Cheers;
Chris
Paul Mesken
Wow, I didn't know we spend that much to art but IMO there are a
number of reasons for it :
1- There's a directive that 1% of the budget of all public buildings
should be spend to art
2- We have "Kunstuitleen" centers ("Kunst" = art, "Uitleen" = lending)
in which people can hire art which is ofcourse a great idea since art
starts to bore after a while :-)
3- Art is quite popular and much respected, even in my own 16000
people town there are 5 galleries (and I live in the "grumpy"
calvinistic north).
Erik A. Mattila
> Renaissance images were everything to everyone.
> Trouble was, they took so long to create, even with a workshop
> full of highly talented apprentices.
> Thur
A prof I studied under exclaimed "I wish I knew about the art that hung
on the kitchen wall of the average Florentine in 1500." He was talking
about attrition rates, which are very high for "Renaissance" art - about
5% or less survived. And that 5% is what we know today as "Renaissance
art." It survived because it was favored a small segment of society
that had the means to protect it.
Anyway, with this in mind, it raises a question about your statement.
The idea of the images being "everything to everyone" may not be
accurate. But you're right about the time factor (which would have to
be part of the value, even if "affordable" by the working stiff). One
type that did survive, for example, were ceramics - often mould-cast -
and what I've seen are very fine and reflect a lot of labor and skill.
Erik
Hans Soutt
>A prof I studied under exclaimed "I wish I knew about the art that hung
>on the kitchen wall of the average Florentine in 1500."
I get your point, but the fact is that some
of the art on walls, having been fresco paintings,
does survive to this day. And don't forget the
popularity of ceramic mosaics. Now how one goes about
finding it in private kitchens is another matter!
Erik A. Mattila
Actually, very few frescos have survived, and mosaics weren't that
popular during the Renaissance. We know from reference in literature
that in Florence, for example, a huge amount of art was produced, aimed
at the consumption by rank and file citizens. The engine that drove the
Renaissance was capitalism, fueled by the booty stolen from people in
that "new world" the Europeans had just discovered.
Hans Soutt
>Actually, very few frescos have survived, and mosaics weren't that
>popular during the Renaissance.
I should have expanded on the 'ceramics' to
include decorative painting on ordinary
household objects, which would, IMO, be
representative of 'everyman's art' of that
era.
How much of any of the art from your average
Renaissance household remains today would
be very difficult to verify, I suspect, beyond
that archived and cataloged in museums.
Evgenij Barsukov
>
> Let me sound pretentious for a moment.
>
> My goal has always been to create art that is art, not art that merely
> looks like art.
>
> is struggling to create "art", instead of expressing themselves. The
> results they come up with are "what people think art is supposed to be"
> not "what art is".
>
> It's the difference between "communicating" and "talking", between
> "being" and "posing". The picture, the story, the poem -- it comes
> across as fake, as trying too hard. Not genuine. Playing up to the
> audience, anticipating the ear and the eye, yielding too much, giving it
> all away, flinging flattery.
>
> "Too many notes."
>
> literature -- it's a pose. An extremely calculated one, far more
> carefully put together than any other pose possible. As the old saying
> goes, "To be a success in life, you need to be sincere. Once you can
> fake that, you've got it made."
>
> That is what I look for in my art, and in the art of others -- a kind of
> honest, open, fake sincerity. If that's missing from the work, I get
> extremely irritable.
>
> the truth, you're a terrible liar -- and therefore, a terrible artist.
>
> http://www.nikart.ca
There is a way to get out of the vicious cycle you just painted.
It is to state things simple, from scratch, from original inate purpose of
art. There was 3.
1) To communicate information, how the bear look like, how to set up a trap for
a mamot etc.
2) To play, just like kids are playing with blocks, pensils, paints. Adults are also
playing. During play, they excircise their brain and get smarted and more phsichicaly
balanced.
3) What stays on paper after this excircise might be amuzing to look at, as it gives
certain insite inside a brain of other person. Usually quite a prohibited area, and therefore enticing.
Looking at the result or process of others playing is also a game. So art provides a matrix for
a play, sets up new never seen before game for another person.
Is there any more? I cant find them. So what does it leave an artist with, as a
possible call to action?
- Obviously, (1) is useless now. Well, almost useless. Engeneers still need to make
scatches in their notebooks to visualize stuff they are doing. It helps to think, but not
worth much for others.
- (2) is just a good for professional artist as it is for 3 years old kid, as it
is for anybody who enjoys plaing with a pensil. It will
be always good, does not matter how talented somebody is. It will help to excel in other works,
and help to develop your brain. It is a free phsicho-therapy for yourself.
- (3) obviously does not depend much on what artist is trying to do. If person posesses large
processing power in his brain, he will produce high inforation complexity in whatever he
is doing, including playing with paper. It will be more interesting to pear into this high-power brain
through the leaks to the paper, particularly if brain has unusual configuration and information in it.
Artist can try to increase such leaks, but I think this is futule.
If complexity and unusual stuff is there, it will show. If it is not there, leak more and it will
just irritate the viewer. General rule is that to be enticing, processing power of the creators
brain should be equal or more then that of the viewer to provide useful matrix for viewer's own play.
How to know it for yorself? Well, if people like your paintings, do more. If they dont, still do
more (as long as it is fun and a play for you), because it develops your brain and at some
moment it might become powerful enough to produce useful stuff and if it does not, still
number (2) applies. If it is not fun, dont do it at all.
Regards,
Evgenij
--
__________________________________________________
*science&fiction*free programs*fine art*phylosophy:
http://sudy_zhenja.tripod.com
----------remove hate_spam to answer--------------
Nikolaus Maack
[snip]
Your approach seems quite reasonable to me. And I agree with your idea
that play should be at the forefront of what art is. The artist should
be playful when they make the art, and looking at it should bring about
a sense of play.
This is not to say that all art has to be HAPPY. There's also playing
at being gloomy and depressed and evil. What a fun sort of play THAT is!
Speaking of play, now I must walk my dog.
WoN ereH
how to set up a trap
>for
>a mamot etc.
>2) To play, just like kids are playing with blocks, pensils, paints. Adults
>are also
>playing. During play, they excircise their brain and get smarted and more
>phsichicaly
>balanced.
>3) What stays on paper after this excircise might be amuzing to look at, as
>it gives
>certain insite inside a brain of other person. Usually quite a prohibited
>area, and therefore enticing.
>Looking at the result or process of others playing is also a game. So art
>provides a matrix for
>a play, sets up new never seen before game for another person.
>Is there any more? I cant find them. So what does it leave an artist with, as
>a
>possible call to action?
Greetings Evgenij. Congratulations on the birth of your daughter (enjoyed your
website and free art). Have a question for you: I also see art as play. When
making art, I usually start out 'playing around' making a sketch. However, I
often feel compelled to bring the sketch to 3dimensional *reality*. However,
once I do this, it is more engineering, or figuring out. Perhaps a form of
play? Then, once figured out, it is a matter of producing, marketing, a form
of play too? I used to sell candy as a kid, felt like play, and quite
enjoyable to earn a pocketful of change. Art a bit trickier of course, due to
the intrusion of the *ego*, but can be fun to see it "out there", though giving
it away free as you do is another take. Anyway, just wondering about your
thoughts on this. Doesn't quite fit into 1, 2 or 3 but still part of the art
making.
Debra
Hadley
here, pardon the french. However, I really feel a need to comment. But
please, don't take my opinions too seriously as I'm really JUST AN
ACCOUNTANT PRETENDING TO BE AN ARTIST...
First of all, Nikolaus Maack, I think you are dead wrong in your
assumption that ART is really ALL LIES. Let's separate bad telly
writing from REAL ART, and what do you have? Art is consistent in that
it always reveals TRUTH. Art, by its nature, cannot lie. It merely
uses a disguise to reveal (in this case with method actors) the true
inner motivations of a character. Perhaps you were absent when method
acting and Stanislovski was studied, but method actors BECOME their
subjects. It is not "lying" per se, because their motivations are
being TRANSPOSED onto their subjects. LYING IS WHEN ONE IS PURPOSELY
DECEITFUL, that is, "faking" an emotion or reponse that IS NOT REAL.
Don't mistake one with the other. If this confuses you, think of it as
sex. Does an artist fake an orgasm or does she really have one? (hint:
art doesn't fake)
However, you may be confused with the commercialism that occurs after
"art" becomes mainstream. Say all the fakes made in Picasso, whomever,
whatever, Modigliani's style sold off by Sotherbys. So what? It's easy
to copy after the fact. Copying takes no artistic skill, all it merely
incorporates is technical skill. However, this in NO WAY devalues the
original art created by the artist herself.
Art, by nature, CANNOT LIE. The reason why it remains timeless is
because it reveals TRUTH, whether it be political, social, personal or
all of the above.
Regards,
Hadley
Hans Down
hadle...@hotmail.com says...
>Art, by nature, CANNOT LIE. The reason why it remains timeless is
>because it reveals TRUTH, whether it be political, social, personal or
>all of the above.
>
>Regards,
>Hadley
I apologize for the fact that I've not been
following this thread in its entirety. I
do get your point in your rebuttal to Nik's,
but I think Nik's 'truth in art' is a more
simplistic interpretation of 'art as representation.'
In other words, photos and paintings are NOT
the thing they depict, but rather 'representations'
of same and therefore 'untruthful' in that sense.
In Nik's view, I wonder what 'art objects' that
are NON-representational have to say to us?
Are they too, 'lies?' If so, what are they lying
about? If I've never seen anything like the
art object before, does that mean I've been mislead
into believing the artist has found a radical new
way to 'represent' something? How could that
possibly be if the object is truly the first-ever
original so presented? Isn't this 'original'
object the 'only true' one?
Evgenij Barsukov
> Greetings Evgenij. Congratulations on the birth of your daughter (enjoyed your
> website and free art). Have a question for you: I also see art as play. When
> making art, I usually start out 'playing around' making a sketch. However, I
> often feel compelled to bring the sketch to 3dimensional *reality*. However,
> once I do this, it is more engineering, or figuring out. Perhaps a form of
> play? Then, once figured out, it is a matter of producing, marketing, a form
> of play too? I used to sell candy as a kid, felt like play, and quite
> enjoyable to earn a pocketful of change. Art a bit trickier of course, due to
> the intrusion of the *ego*, but can be fun to see it "out there", though giving
> it away free as you do is another take. Anyway, just wondering about your
> thoughts on this. Doesn't quite fit into 1, 2 or 3 but still part of the art
> making.
Quite a pleasant thought. I was always thinking of the selling part as something
unpleasant, but the way you put it gives it a more enjoyable outlook. I quite
agree. Marketing can be seen as a game and can be enjoyed just like any other activity
where you can employ creativity and enthusiasm. And, because marketing is so
important for bringing almost any undertaking into some useful form, treating it
as a game might help to do it well - because only things we enjoy
are usually done well.
I agree also that art creating activity can suck into it a lot of other fields of
interest - thinkering, engineering, chemistry, you name it. In fact you can see it all
another way around and say that Art is a way of life - seeing whole life as a field
of creative play and this way turning any activity into Art.
Evgenij Barsukov
>
> Evgenij Barsukov wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Your approach seems quite reasonable to me. And I agree with your idea
> that play should be at the forefront of what art is. The artist should
> be playful when they make the art, and looking at it should bring about
> a sense of play.
>
> This is not to say that all art has to be HAPPY. There's also playing
> at being gloomy and depressed and evil. What a fun sort of play THAT is!
This particular game involves playing around with insides of own brain,
as unconsiously as possible (not excluding using excelent technic in process).
What stays on paper after the game can make happy impression or unhappy one
(depending on particular turns the play has taken).
Surprizingly, that might even depend on the one who is looking.
Another question is, does it look beautiful. I guess the answer to this question
realy defines how useful the art will be for application (3).
Hadley
art is a truth but that art is not objective. That is, in his opinion,
a painting of a bridge is supposed to evoke the idea of the bridge. I
however, think that with that example a painting does not necessarily
have to evoke the idea of a bridge for it to be "truthful." Rather, I
think art as being both extremes at the same time in that it is
entirely subjective and objective at the same time.
In french, "I think that..." & "In my opinion..." statements are
considered FACTUAL in that they represent the speaker's own thoughts
that are true. However in english, such phrases are considered
opinions, not facts. In english, facts represent objective data only.
So therefore, I am going to say that art is not a fact, but a truth.
However, I do think Nikolaus Maack makes some interesting points, as I
am sure he is a fine artist & thinker. My apologies to him if I seemed
like a jerk in my reply.
Regards,
Hadley
ha...@dontemailme.com (Hans Down) wrote in message news:<3eb7...@news.zianet.com>...
william deraymond
> > "Self expression" is about as elusive a concept as "Art". I don't feel
> > I'm expressing myself when doing a painting. I'm expressing an idea of
> > me or simply painting after an example which interests me for some
> > reason.
> >
>
> I usually feel similarly, though there are of...
>
> But I'd be curious to hear from people who look at art as self expression,
> and how they feel about it, what does that phrase mean to them.
>
> Chris
> New Work on paper (as of Apr 28): http://tinyurl.com/90e5
> Auctions: http://tinyurl.com/akon
>
>
usually keep my mouth shut, don't usually come thru here anymore. about
self expression.....my opinion...my experience...if it isn't self expression
it isn't art. one must understand the medium to the point where each mark
represents this understanding. the brush is like the vocal chords to a
singer, color the sound...giving expression to the artist"s intuition,
thought and feeling. this is not about concept, but rather about direct
experience. true style is the direct expression of the individual in terms
of the medium. In art the image is never more important than the artist
creating it! Anyone who knows this aesthetic language can discern all there
is to know about the communication the artist is making. All one does is
self expression. As an artist you reveal it all whether you want to or
not....your motivation....where you are in consciousness....you ultimately
can fool no one about your knowledge, heart, consciousness or lack thereof.
May you all experience the ecstasy of true self expression...the true
artist's birthright.
Hadley
I'm glad you opened your mouth...:) I think your ideas are very
heartfelt, thoughtful & genuine. You also seem to me like an auteur
theorist; that is underneath colours, materials, ideas, and time, the
work of the artist has her fingerprint on it...and despite
plargarists, marketing and commeralism, the work always reveals
something about the artist herself. Thank you for contributing your
thoughts.
Regards,
Hadley
Seagull Manager
"william deraymond" <artr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:35xva.12756$%_3.65...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> self expression.....my opinion...my experience...if it isn't self
expression
> it isn't art.
But what is self expression? Would it be true to say that if someone looking
at a work of art is able to infer what was the artist's true state of mind
when making it, then the work is an instance of self-expression, and if
someone looking at a work cannot reliably make any such inference, the work
is *not* an example of self-expression?
rtmca
merely is. No ratiocination or second guessing itself. Achieving
emptness and then letting the brush move, mysteriously reflecting the
melding of outer and inner.
And to behold it later, as displayed art: a new dynamic, a new story,
a new possibility for each perceiver, each time. Words miss the mark
and are neither the art, the world nor the eye, but merely brain
chatter...words.
Robert
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?rec.arts.fine
Erik A. Mattila
Then again, is "state of mind" equivocal with "self-expression"? It
could be diet related or something.
Erik
Seagull Manager
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
news:3ECC63B...@oco.net...
Hmmm, good question. What is this "self" that is to be expressed? I seized
on the possibility that the "self" is tantamount to the "state of mind", but
it could be something else. Could it be the collection of attitudes and
values, habits and inclinations, and knowledge and opinion that make up
one's "character" or "personality"?
When we look at a Van Gogh, are we able to say: "clearly, this guy was a
left-wing, antisocial, freakazoid religious loon", and when we look at a Max
Ernst, can we tell that he studied philosophy at uni?
Is *that* what "self expression" is, perhaps? (And if it is, why is it
important in art?)
Paul Mesken
Personally I believe "Self Expression" to be most overrated. If I give
someone the finger in an act of rage then I'm performing an act of
self expression, but it ain't art (not even performance art :-)
Mani Deli
<seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>When we look at a Van Gogh, are we able to say: "clearly, this guy was a
>left-wing, antisocial, freakazoid religious loon", and when we look at a Max
>Ernst, can we tell that he studied philosophy at uni?
>
>Is *that* what "self expression" is, perhaps? (And if it is, why is it
>important in art?)
>
I believe that the statement "art is self expression" is doubletalk.
Most artwork isn't self expression.
Self expression by those who don't know their craft is self delusion.
In fact most art schools teach little more then self delusion and it
lasts a life time with many graduates.
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Erik A. Mattila
>>Then again, is "state of mind" equivocal with "self-expression"? It
>>could be diet related or something.
>>
>>Erik
>
>
> Hmmm, good question. What is this "self" that is to be expressed? I seized
> on the possibility that the "self" is tantamount to the "state of mind", but
> it could be something else. Could it be the collection of attitudes and
> values, habits and inclinations, and knowledge and opinion that make up
> one's "character" or "personality"?
>
> When we look at a Van Gogh, are we able to say: "clearly, this guy was a
> left-wing, antisocial, freakazoid religious loon", and when we look at a Max
> Ernst, can we tell that he studied philosophy at uni?
>
> Is *that* what "self expression" is, perhaps? (And if it is, why is it
> important in art?)
Van Gogh is a good example. I was really impressed reading his letters
- the level of pure contrivance he put into his work. I don't remember
his exact words, but to the effect "I wanted to make this landscape
appear miserable and oppressive, so I used...." He was constructing
moods, intellectually, not practicing automatic writing and revealing
his soul.
But blame the psychologists. "Self Expression" is their babe, I think.
"Self" is just a word used in psychoanalysis..."ego" "id"
"subconscious" are all attempts to encapsulate behavior in nouns that
produce the effect of reality.
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
> Personally I believe "Self Expression" to be most overrated. If I give
> someone the finger in an act of rage then I'm performing an act of
> self expression, but it ain't art (not even performance art :-)
You can't get out of it that way. San Francisco sculptor Benny Bufano
gave Franklin Roosevelt the finger once - Bufano actually cut-off his
finger and mailed it to the President as a war protest.
Art is everywhere...
Erik
>
Nikolaus Maack
> I believe that the statement "art is self expression" is doubletalk.
> Most artwork isn't self expression.
I don't know what other artists mean when they say "self expression",
but here's what it means to me:
In my experience, human beings are very much split into conscious and
unconscious portions. The conscious part thinks it's in charge, but is
little more than the skin on the balloon -- the inside of the balloon is
the unconscious. (Proving this to people is a big chore, so for the
purposes of this one post, I am going to state this model as though it
is fact.)
I have to work at seeing my unconscious. One way of getting a look at
it is by creating art. No matter what I might plan to do, my
unconscious plays a major role in the creation process, and will say
things I never intended to say, add elements I didn't expect.
In writing, characters take on a life of their own, and act in ways I
didn't expect. In painting, colour choices, lines, and other elements
are made by my unconscious me. The result is a mix of what I expected,
and something else, something more complicated.
Seeing this material in my art is "self expression" -- not the surface,
conscious self, but the deeper, darker, difficult to reach me. When I
look at my own art, it allows me to understand myself better. I can see
aspects to my own consciousness that I didn't previously see or understand.
Another aspect to this is to encourage others to dig into their own
minds and produce art that contains their own unconscious self. To what
end? I think knowing who we really are, down deep, is how we make
ourselves sane.
> Self expression by those who don't know their craft is self delusion.
> In fact most art schools teach little more then self delusion and it
> lasts a life time with many graduates.
I disagree. Your art standards are based on a classical model. Mine
are based on a psychological one. It's my belief that ANYONE -- trained
or not -- can create interesting art. Your argument is, anyone can make
"modern art" so it has no value. My argument is, anyone can make it, so
everyday ordinary people can make it too, and thus express themselves
using it.
Far from being an inacessably language, anyone can pick it up and use it
to explore themselves. So, while I might not encourage people to buy
modern art for a hefty price, I would encourage them to make their own.
Why buy art that expresses something you like, when you can create
your own art, and express that concept more personally?
Nikolaus Maack
> But blame the psychologists. "Self Expression" is their babe, I think.
> "Self" is just a word used in psychoanalysis..."ego" "id"
> "subconscious" are all attempts to encapsulate behavior in nouns that
> produce the effect of reality.
Encapsulate behaviour? More an attempt to describe reality. Like any
map, it won't be perfect, but can serve as a useful point of reference.
Think Carl Jung, not Sigmund Freud. Freud was a (cough) scientist.
Jung was an artist.
Hans Phul
says...
If I give
>someone the finger in an act of rage then I'm performing an act of
>self expression, but it ain't art (not even performance art :-)
How about if you're wearing a tu-tu when you
'flip the bird?'
Mani Deli
<nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>. Freud was a (cough) scientist.
>Jung was an artist.
>
Freud wasn't a scientist and both were to a great extent phonies.
Nikolaus Maack
> <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>. Freud was a (cough) scientist.
>>Jung was an artist.
>>
>
> Freud wasn't a scientist and both were to a great extent phonies.
All human beings make mistakes. Don't assume I am putting forward Jung
and Freud as deities to be worshipped. They both made some extremely
bizarre and idiotic decisions in their lifetime.
Freud, for example, fell under the influence of a friend named Fliess.
Fliess believed all neurotic behavior happens because of physical
anomalies in the nose. In order to cure people of their neurotic
behaviour, Fliess performed surgery on noses. Freud not only bought
into Fliess' model -- he assisted in the surgeries on occasion!
Freud only questioned Fliess' model when Fliess botched an operation,
and then tried to blame the resulting aftermath on the woman's neurosis.
Shortly after that, Freud and Fliess were friends no more.
This doesn't change the fact that Freud totally revolutionized the way
we think about human psychology. Whether you like Freud's system or
not, you have to admit that it has had an extremely profound effect on
the entire world.
Every great thinker, every great hero, and yes, every great artist
occasionally did something stupid. Even our beloved Dali occasionally
did some profoundly moronic things -- as I'm sure you know. Signing
blank pieces of paper, for example. There was that whole scandal. But
that doesn't change the great importance and profound influence of his work.
Seagull Manager
> Seagull Manager wrote:
>
> > Is *that* what "self expression" is, perhaps? (And if it is, why is it
> > important in art?)
>
> Van Gogh is a good example. I was really impressed reading his letters
> - the level of pure contrivance he put into his work. I don't remember
> his exact words, but to the effect "I wanted to make this landscape
> appear miserable and oppressive, so I used...." He was constructing
> moods, intellectually, not practicing automatic writing and revealing
> his soul.
Sounds like Van Gogh is a good example of the opposite of what you're
talking about. If his landscapes were intended to express misery and a sense
of oppression, then he failed spectacularly. Most punters like Van Gogh
landscapes because they find the bright colours and swirling, rhythmic
brushstrokes pretty, cheerful and invigorating. Van Gogh's earlier gloomy
scenes of peasants doing peasant things are far, far less popular, so
although people are entertained by the myth of the tortured genius that Van
Gogh's life story supposedly represents, they have no desire to see that
grimness and misery on their walls.
> But blame the psychologists. "Self Expression" is their babe, I think.
These romantic ideas go back to the mid 19th century, or even the 1820s, I
think. They're illustrated (mocked?) in Zola's "The Masterpiece", and they
get crystallized into philosophy in Croce's "Aesthetic" in 1902, and again
recast in Collingwood's "Principles of Art" in the 1930s. I've no doubt that
the ideas of psychoanalysis added to much to the mix (in particular, the
idea that prolonoged self-exploration is good for you, rather than fatuous,
indulgent and egotistical), but I don't think they were the starting point.
I think the general idea of encouraging artists not to worry about "mere
beauty", "mere skill", "mere illustration", etc., but focus instead on
"expressing" themselves gets most of its apparent intellectual justification
from Croce and Collingwood - indirectly, of course, through a system of
Chinese whispers.
Seagull Manager
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
news:3ECDDDF5...@oco.net...
If you're trying to suggest that cutting off your finger as an act of
protest is art, you're wrong.
>
> Erik
>
> >
>
Erik A. Mattila
> Erik A. Mattila wrote:
>
>> But blame the psychologists. "Self Expression" is their babe, I
>> think. "Self" is just a word used in psychoanalysis..."ego" "id"
>> "subconscious" are all attempts to encapsulate behavior in nouns that
>> produce the effect of reality.
>
>
> Encapsulate behaviour? More an attempt to describe reality. Like any
> map, it won't be perfect, but can serve as a useful point of reference.
OK. I'll have to scratch my id and get back to you on that.
> Think Carl Jung, not Sigmund Freud. Freud was a (cough) scientist. Jung
> was an artist.
Yes, but you have to at least broach the topic of the role of language
in epistemology. The act of "naming" creates the sense of reality.
Jung's greatest contribution, in my opinion, was his research of Alchemy
- not his theories. One idea that persisted in his description of
alchemy was the assault on language for the purpose of attaining wisdom.
The "mysterium conuinctionis" in a nutshell.
But "describe" reality is what I'm talking about. I'm sure you see the
root concept: "describere" - to write down. For all intents and
purpose, language "creates" reality rather than describe it. Or, that
which is written is language, posturing as reality.
Erik
>
> Nik
> http://www.nikart.ca
>
>
>
Seagull Manager
"Nikolaus Maack" <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3ECE140...@sympatico.ca...
> Mani Deli wrote:
> > I believe that the statement "art is self expression" is doubletalk.
> > Most artwork isn't self expression.
>
> ...I have to work at seeing my unconscious.
Why do you want to see your unconscious (assuming you can), and can other
people? If they can, why should *your* unconscious interest them,
particularly, given that they have an unconscious of their own.
> One way of getting a look at
> it is by creating art. No matter what I might plan to do, my
> unconscious plays a major role in the creation process, and will say
> things I never intended to say, add elements I didn't expect...
So, anything you do that is due to impulses not explained by reason is
attributable to your "unconscious". Fine, suppose we accept that's true and
not tautological. Why is it *good* (let alone *necessary*) to demonstrate
this fact again and again in your art?
> In painting, colour choices, lines, and other elements
> are made by my unconscious me. The result is a mix of what I expected,
> and something else, something more complicated.
Are you saying that unplanned is *necessarily* more complicated than the
planned?
> Seeing this material in my art is "self expression" -- not the surface,
> conscious self, but the deeper, darker, difficult to reach me.
What's deep and dark about your "unconscious"? And if it is all deep and
dark, why should it not stay that way, instead of being dragged into the
open. Some people argue that all non-human animals are unconscious. If this
is true, does it make them more, or less, interesting as psychological
beings? Pebbles are unconscious. How interesting is this fact?
As I reflect on this topic, it seems to me that consciousness is more
interesting than unconsciousness.
> When I
> look at my own art, it allows me to understand myself better. I can see
> aspects to my own consciousness that I didn't previously see or
understand.
Ah, so it is consciousness, not unconsciousness that your interested in, at
bottom. Have you considered taking a degree in psychology or neuroscience?
Surely a more practical way of studying consciousness, wouldn't you say?
There are many other activities that are purported to increase
self-knowledge besides art. Do none of these appeal to you?
Besides, no matter how interesting may be the things you discover about
yourself, this says nothing about why or how your art is to be of interest
to someone *else*.
> Another aspect to this is to encourage others to dig into their own
> minds and produce art that contains their own unconscious self.
What happens if they're not interested in their unconscious self. Are they
under some moral obligation to study it anyway?
> To what
> end? I think knowing who we really are, down deep, is how we make
> ourselves sane.
Funny how many nutcases are hugely into art, and how many sane people
aren't, and how many crazy people are obsessed with "finding themselves",
and how many sane people are not, then, isn't it?
> It's my belief that ANYONE -- trained
> or not -- can create interesting art.
Interesting to whom? Anthropologists? Psychologists? Neurologists?
And HOW interesting? Interesting enough to find a market? Interesting enough
to provide the artist with a decent living?
> Your argument is, anyone can make
> "modern art" so it has no value. My argument is, anyone can make it, so
> everyday ordinary people can make it too, and thus express themselves
> using it.
Most people prefer to express themselves by watching TV, going to the mall,
etc. What makes you so sure they need you coming along telling them to make
"art" that will probably end up being thrown away or stuffed in a cupboard
somewhere and forgotten about?
> Why buy art that expresses something you like, when you can create
> your own art, and express that concept more personally?
Why waste time making it (let alone learning how to make it) if you can buy
it?
If you happen to like, say, Preraphaelite painting, it could take you
decades to learn to paint the stuff you like, and you might never be good
enough. If you've got no aptitude for drawing, then there's no point even
starting. In that case, how can it be wrong to do what Andrew Lloyd Webber
does: make millions from doing something you're good at (in his case,
composing musicals), and spend it all on the art you love?
Seagull Manager
> Mani Deli wrote:
>
> This doesn't change the fact that Freud totally revolutionized the way
> we think about human psychology. Whether you like Freud's system or
> not, you have to admit that it has had an extremely profound effect on
> the entire world.
Who do you mean, "we"? Freud's approach was far from scientific. He was a
good, clever, essay writer, that's about all.
> Even our beloved Dali occasionally
> did some profoundly moronic things -- as I'm sure you know. Signing
> blank pieces of paper, for example. There was that whole scandal. But
> that doesn't change the great importance and profound influence of his
work.
I think it has. I think a lot of collectors were hardened against Dali as a
result of that scandal, and his prices are far, far lower than you'd expect
given that he was once spoken of (along with Picasso) as one of the two
greatest artists of the twentieth century. The public still love him,
though.
Mani Deli
<nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Mani Deli wrote:
>> <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>. Freud was a (cough) scientist.
>>>Jung was an artist.
>>>
>>
>> Freud wasn't a scientist and both were to a great extent phonies.
>
>All human beings make mistakes.
I'm not referring to their mistakes.
>This doesn't change the fact that Freud totally revolutionized the way
>we think about human psychology. Whether you like Freud's system or
>not, you have to admit that it has had an extremely profound effect on
>the entire world.
I admit it . They had the wrong effect. They were quacks like
astrologers and phrenoligists etc.
Erik A. Mattila
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> news:3ECDDC87...@oco.net...
>
>>Seagull Manager wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Is *that* what "self expression" is, perhaps? (And if it is, why is it
>>>important in art?)
>>
>>Van Gogh is a good example. I was really impressed reading his letters
>>- the level of pure contrivance he put into his work. I don't remember
>>his exact words, but to the effect "I wanted to make this landscape
>>appear miserable and oppressive, so I used...." He was constructing
>>moods, intellectually, not practicing automatic writing and revealing
>>his soul.
>
>
> Sounds like Van Gogh is a good example of the opposite of what you're
> talking about. If his landscapes were intended to express misery and a sense
> of oppression, then he failed spectacularly. Most punters like Van Gogh
> landscapes because they find the bright colours and swirling, rhythmic
> brushstrokes pretty, cheerful and invigorating. Van Gogh's earlier gloomy
> scenes of peasants doing peasant things are far, far less popular, so
> although people are entertained by the myth of the tortured genius that Van
> Gogh's life story supposedly represents, they have no desire to see that
> grimness and misery on their walls.
You're buildig strawmen here, my friend. I was quoting, to the best of
my recollection, a statement the artist wrote. I was not characterizing
his body of work. Besides, you're wrong. The "Potato Eaters" is
probably his best-known work, next to Sunflowers etc.
>>But blame the psychologists. "Self Expression" is their babe, I think.
>
> These romantic ideas go back to the mid 19th century, or even the 1820s, I
> think. They're illustrated (mocked?) in Zola's "The Masterpiece", and they
> get crystallized into philosophy in Croce's "Aesthetic" in 1902, and again
> recast in Collingwood's "Principles of Art" in the 1930s. I've no doubt that
> the ideas of psychoanalysis added to much to the mix (in particular, the
> idea that prolonoged self-exploration is good for you, rather than fatuous,
> indulgent and egotistical), but I don't think they were the starting point.
> I think the general idea of encouraging artists not to worry about "mere
> beauty", "mere skill", "mere illustration", etc., but focus instead on
> "expressing" themselves gets most of its apparent intellectual justification
> from Croce and Collingwood - indirectly, of course, through a system of
> Chinese whispers.
1820 is the 19th century, btw. But the concept of "self" emerged in
discourse during the Renaissance, in opposition to the idea of the
preordination of personhood in the Middle Ages. The "self" is
intimately connected to the rise of middle class existence and early
capitalism. But the question here is how ideas circulate in culture -
you can find discussions on the "self" all the way back to Plato and
beyond, but here we are talking about how the idea of "self-expression"
in art became so popular in culture, to the point of being accepted as
the "given" in any argument about art and artists (a "naturalized"
concept.) The New York Armory exhibit, 1913, is a good example of the
birth and spread of the concept as we know it today. John Dewey and
others immediately began to lay down the foundation, and the draw was
directly from the emergent "science" of psychoanalysis. I mean,
psychoanalytic theory was the first new thing to come along in ages -
(accompanied by General Relativity and Quantum Theory, of course). The
impact of pyschoanalytic theory on wester culture was HUGE. Did you
know, for example, that Sigmund Freud actually visited "Dreamland" on
Coney Island around 1905? Yes, his ideas had been translated into a
proto-theme park. Windsor McCay followed suit with his "Little Nemo in
Slumberland." You can go on and on...it's fascinating.
So I'll stand by my guns. The idea is the babe of psycholanalysis.
Erik
>
>
>
Erik A. Mattila
Hmmm...I'll try to dumb it down so you'll see it clearly. Paul said
giving the finger is "self-expression", not "art." I responded with the
Bufano story, which embellished the idea of "giving the finger" to
someone - going along with the idea of it being "self-expression."
No one, except you, said that giving the finger or mailing a finger was
"art." Do you understand the idea of a "strawman?" It's when you
invent an idea and then argue against it, as if your opponent had
invented the idea.
Erik
>
>
>>Erik
>>
>>
>
>
Nikolaus Maack
> If you're trying to suggest that cutting off your finger as an act of
> protest is art, you're wrong.
Oh, I see. Uh, perhaps you don't understand how communication works.
You provide an argument, or a description of your experience, and we use
your point of view to reconsider our own points of view.
Stating your opinion blandly, without detail, without argument, without
your personal experience -- it's hard to take you seriously.
Hans Klapeen
seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk says...
>Sounds like Van Gogh is a good example of the opposite of what you're
>talking about. If his landscapes were intended to express misery and a sense
>of oppression, then he failed spectacularly.
I'm wondering what Charles Burchfield would have
to say about it? In fact I'm wondering what
YOU would have to say about Burchfield's works?
Hans Klapeen
seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk says...
>If you're trying to suggest that cutting off your finger as an act of
>protest is art, you're wrong.
Well, don't you think it was an 'artful' act?
Maybe he's the one who gave Chris Burden and
that crowd their ideas for self-mutilation as
an art form - doya think?
Nikolaus Maack
> Yes, but you have to at least broach the topic of the role of language
> in epistemology. The act of "naming" creates the sense of reality.
Absolutely. Our language definitely shapes our perception. For example...
I'm reading a book about alien abduction ("Close Encounters of the
Fourth Kind" by C.D.B. Bryan). In it, people who underwent some kind of
strange experience have a hypnotherapist bring forth memories of the
past. These people bring out memories of alien abduction. Aliens make
babies and steal them. There is no physical evidence that any of these
abductions ever took place.
In other books I've read, people in a similar situation undergo
hypnotherapy, and bring out memories of Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA). The
victims claim they are made pregnant and the babies are sacrificed to
the devil. The victims also lay accusations of sexual abuse on many
people around them. There is no physical evidence that any of these
SRAs took place.
I have to wonder, if we took these same people, hypnotized them, and
asked them if perhaps invisible lemurs from Microsoft were causing them
to feel strangely, if they'd recover memories of that.
The question we ask seems to bring back the type of answer you get.
> Jung's greatest contribution, in my opinion, was his research of Alchemy
> - not his theories. One idea that persisted in his description of
> alchemy was the assault on language for the purpose of attaining wisdom.
> The "mysterium conuinctionis" in a nutshell.
>
> But "describe" reality is what I'm talking about. I'm sure you see the
> root concept: "describere" - to write down. For all intents and
> purpose, language "creates" reality rather than describe it. Or, that
> which is written is language, posturing as reality.
I agree. The feelings in our head and the perceptual data we get, in
order to be understood, has to be translated into words. Can we deal
with what happens in our head if we don't have the words for it?
I think we can -- by expressing those feelings and perceptions with art.
It can give a voice to concepts that are beyond words. Which takes me
back to what I said about artistic self-expression. A person can
express the parts of their psyche that they don't have words for by
creating art.
Nikolaus Maack
> Why do you want to see your unconscious (assuming you can), and can other
> people? If they can, why should *your* unconscious interest them,
> particularly, given that they have an unconscious of their own.
Ever seen Dali's artwork? Ever seen a David Lynch film? Know how many
great artworks are based on dreams?
>>One way of getting a look at
>>it is by creating art. No matter what I might plan to do, my
>>unconscious plays a major role in the creation process, and will say
>>things I never intended to say, add elements I didn't expect...
>
> So, anything you do that is due to impulses not explained by reason is
> attributable to your "unconscious".
No. The actions we take are based on conscious and unconscious impulses.
> Why is it *good* (let alone *necessary*) to demonstrate
> this fact again and again in your art?
That's not what art using unconscious material is about. Ever read
"Frankenstein"? Mary Shelley based the novel on a dream. While she
used material from the unconscious, the book isn't about
>> In painting, colour choices, lines, and other elements
>>are made by my unconscious me. The result is a mix of what I expected,
>>and something else, something more complicated.
>
>
> Are you saying that unplanned is *necessarily* more complicated than the
> planned?
No.
> What's deep and dark about your "unconscious"?
I'm getting the feeling this is a subject you know little or nothing
about. Ever hear of the "collective unconscious" and archetypes and the
like?
> And if it is all deep and
> dark, why should it not stay that way, instead of being dragged into the
> open. Some people argue that all non-human animals are unconscious. If this
> is true, does it make them more, or less, interesting as psychological
> beings? Pebbles are unconscious. How interesting is this fact?
Pebbles are not "unconscious". They lack any form of consciousness
whatsoever. That's not the same thing.
> Ah, so it is consciousness, not unconsciousness that your interested in, at
> bottom. Have you considered taking a degree in psychology or neuroscience?
I have a BA in psychology.
> Surely a more practical way of studying consciousness, wouldn't you
> say?
Ever hear of art therapy? It's the idea of using artistic creation in
order to understand one's mind better, and to explore one's psyche.
> There are many other activities that are purported to increase
> self-knowledge besides art. Do none of these appeal to you?
Why would you assume that an interest in ONE thing would mean I have no
interest in OTHER things? I'm also very interested in psychotherapy and
therapy in general.
> What happens if they're not interested in their unconscious self. Are they
> under some moral obligation to study it anyway?
Yes. I will go to their home and BEAT THEM if they refuse.
No. Of course people are totally entitled to their own ways of
thinking. The reason we are having this conversation is because I'm
defending the concept of art as self expression. What I am NOT saying
is that this is the ONLY reason to create art.
> Funny how many nutcases are hugely into art, and how many sane people
> aren't, and how many crazy people are obsessed with "finding themselves",
> and how many sane people are not, then, isn't it?
I don't know how you reached the above conclusion, and strongly disagree
with it.
>>It's my belief that ANYONE -- trained
>>or not -- can create interesting art.
>
>
> Interesting to whom? Anthropologists? Psychologists? Neurologists?
The world at large. Ever heard of outsider art?
>
> And HOW interesting? Interesting enough to find a market? Interesting enough
> to provide the artist with a decent living?
Again, ever heard of outsider art?
> Most people prefer to express themselves by watching TV, going to the mall,
> etc. What makes you so sure they need you coming along telling them to make
> "art" that will probably end up being thrown away or stuffed in a cupboard
> somewhere and forgotten about?
I sense a broken childhood in your past.
People can, and will, do whatever they want. Try to remember the scope
of this conversation. I'm suggesting that people can better themselves
by creating art. I'm not suggesting that they MUST create art or a
squad of armed police thugs will raid their home and force a paintbrush
into their hand.
> If you happen to like, say, Preraphaelite painting, it could take you
> decades to learn to paint the stuff you like, and you might never be good
> enough. If you've got no aptitude for drawing, then there's no point even
> starting. In that case, how can it be wrong to do what Andrew Lloyd Webber
> does: make millions from doing something you're good at (in his case,
> composing musicals), and spend it all on the art you love?
I probably shouldn't talk to you. You strike me as the sort of person
who, if I gave you a free donut, would complain about the hole in the
middle.
Nikolaus Maack
>>This doesn't change the fact that Freud totally revolutionized the way
>>we think about human psychology. Whether you like Freud's system or
>>not, you have to admit that it has had an extremely profound effect on
>>the entire world.
>
> Who do you mean, "we"? Freud's approach was far from scientific. He was a
> good, clever, essay writer, that's about all.
I don't follow your argument. I say Freud has revolutionized how we
think about human psychology. You reply that he's not a scientist and
that he just wrote clever essays. How does that address the point I've
raised -- that he has been a profound influence?
>> Even our beloved Dali occasionally
>>did some profoundly moronic things -- as I'm sure you know. Signing
>>blank pieces of paper, for example. There was that whole scandal. But
>>that doesn't change the great importance and profound influence of his
>
> work.
>
> I think it has. I think a lot of collectors were hardened against Dali as a
> result of that scandal, and his prices are far, far lower than you'd expect
> given that he was once spoken of (along with Picasso) as one of the two
> greatest artists of the twentieth century. The public still love him,
> though.
Your last sentence seems to say it all -- if you judge Dali by price tag
alone, you might not like him. If you judge him for his ART, you'll
think he's of value.
I only used the example of Dali because I know Mani is a fan of him.
Personally, I'm a little tired of Dali. I can't walk five feet without
tripping over one of his melting watches in some poster store.
Paul Mesken
<nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> What happens if they're not interested in their unconscious self. Are they
>> under some moral obligation to study it anyway?
>
>Yes. I will go to their home and BEAT THEM if they refuse.
That is your "shadow" speaking Maack ;-)
Erik A. Mattila
The irony about Beniamino Benvenuto Bufano was that his critics said he
was obsessed with the phallus, since his trademark was somewhat
phalliform figures. Or is it? Look at one of his "Madonna's" -
http://www.mistersf.com/notorious/index.html?notbufano03.htm
To me, it looks more like a finger than a penis. I would be willing to
speculate that he spent a good deal of his career doing his missing
finger. Oh, here's one where you can see the missing finger (a good trick):
http://www.mistersf.com/notorious/index.html?notbufano03.htm
So he's giving the finger to Mayor Alioto's kids, in the form of a
Madonna. And he also brought a prostitute to the wedding as his date.
What a guy!
Erik
Mani Deli
<nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Seagull Manager wrote:
>> Why do you want to see your unconscious (assuming you can), and can other
>> people? If they can, why should *your* unconscious interest them,
>> particularly, given that they have an unconscious of their own.
>
>Ever seen Dali's artwork?
I've seen most of his finest work in the original.
> Ever seen a David Lynch film? Know how many
>great artworks are based on dreams?
Know how many great works are based on Bible bullshit? It doesn't
confirm that there is any proof in the bible or that it is scientific.
Freud had more influence on talk about art and what artists say then
on what they actually do.
I don't even think Dali's babble about Freud influenced more then the
ideas for what he and others said about his subject matter. Dali's
main influence was classical painting and technique and an extreme use
of the idea of putting real looking subject matter in an unreal
context.
I think Dali was an expert in sizing up what he felt people wanted. He
carefully said, "give people what they want." He was very cynical and
approached it with a great sense of humor. What Dali really engaged
in for public consumption was counter-Artspeak.
>Ever hear of art therapy? It's the idea of using artistic creation in
>order to understand one's mind better, and to explore one's psyche.
Doing artwok isn't more theriputic than any hobby which engages the
senses and is an activity. Ever hear of golf therapy, bible therapy
etc?
>> Funny how many nutcases are hugely into art, and how many sane people
>> aren't,
and how many nut are interested in other things. Don't forget them and
all the sane people interested in art.
>> and how many crazy people are obsessed with "finding themselves",
>> and how many sane people are not, then, isn't it?
I never met anyone who found himself. There also used to be lots of
people looking for the holy grail.
>The world at large. Ever heard of outsider art?
Seen lots, mostly the usual crap which by the way is usually no worse
than the insider stuff that inhabits the modern sections of museums.
> I'm suggesting that people can better themselves
>by creating art.
I suggest using the word artwork. Art is something few can do.
Nikolaus Maack
>>Ever seen a David Lynch film? Know how many
>>great artworks are based on dreams?
>
> Know how many great works are based on Bible bullshit? It doesn't
> confirm that there is any proof in the bible or that it is scientific.
> Freud had more influence on talk about art and what artists say then
> on what they actually do.
Creating art based on dream, and creating art based on the bible are two
very different things.
Dreams are personal, can be extremely intense, provide a source of
fascinating complexity that our conscious minds don't seem capable of,
and seem to be a source of profound messages guiding us in our lives. I
have experimented with my dreams, played with them, studied them, and
there are experiences I've had that, to me, suggest there's something
extremely fascinating and complex in this world worth knowing.
Maybe none of that is in the dream. Stare at any random pattern and
you'll find complexity. All the same, dreams have proven to be
extremely useful to me.
> I don't even think Dali's babble about Freud influenced more then the
> ideas for what he and others said about his subject matter. Dali's
> main influence was classical painting and technique and an extreme use
> of the idea of putting real looking subject matter in an unreal
> context.
Wow. How can a big Dali fan like you be missing so much? Have you done
ANY reading about surrealism at all?
The entire surrealist movement is based on concepts raised by
psychotherapy. Andre Breton, leader of the movement, was eager to meet
Freud and discuss this. The main idea of surrealism was an attempt to
make unconscious material conscious, through art. Dreams, automatic
writing, and even therapy played a part in the surrealist movement.
When Breton finally got a chance to meet Freud, he was extremely
disappointed. Freud couldn't figure out what this babbling poet was
going on about -- he saw no connection between surrealism and
psychoanalysis whatsoever. I think that has mostly to do with Freud
having little understanding and appreciation for art.
When Dali got a chance to meet Freud, and actually got along with the
guy, Andre Breton seethed with rage and jealousy. Freud walked away
from the meeting saying that Dali was a true "fanatic" of psychoanalysis.
Almost all of Dali's paintings contain autobiographical symbols -- and
they all have a psychoanalytic bent. Castration anxiety, fear of death,
phallic symbols, and on and on -- Dali was well aware that he was
playing with psychoanalytic symbols, and that these gave his work an
added power.
To say that Dali was influenced by classical painting and that the rest
of it is "babble about Freud" -- that's like saying that when an
architect builds a house, he's just creating a complex frame to hold
windows.
> I think Dali was an expert in sizing up what he felt people wanted. He
> carefully said, "give people what they want." He was very cynical and
> approached it with a great sense of humor. What Dali really engaged
> in for public consumption was counter-Artspeak.
Then how do you explain all the personal symbolism in Dali's work? Most
critics think of him as one of the greatest exhibitionists of all time.
Totally self-centred, always talking about himself, using his own
psyche as a point of reference, pouring his own visions and neuroses
into all that he does -- is it any wonder he and Freud got along so well?
>>Ever hear of art therapy? It's the idea of using artistic creation in
>>order to understand one's mind better, and to explore one's psyche.
>
>
> Doing artwok isn't more theriputic than any hobby which engages the
> senses and is an activity. Ever hear of golf therapy, bible therapy
> etc?
Spoken like someone who clearly knows nothing about art therapy.
When using art therapy with children, it can be used to get them to talk
about things they don't have words for. For example, if a kid has been
sexually abused, but isn't old enough or experienced enough to know the
sexual parts, art therapy can be used to get some of the facts and
feelings out in the open, without using words.
In adults and children, there are feelings disociated from themselves.
One way of accessing that material is to get them to draw it out,
express it with paint and drawing.
I suppose it's possible to express your feelings using "golf therapy",
but it seems to me that art therapy would be a little more tangible.
"Show me how you feel about that situation by drawing a picture of
yourself," seems like a better line of thought than, "Show me how you
feel about that situation by swinging at this golf ball."
> I never met anyone who found himself. There also used to be lots of
> people looking for the holy grail.
Finding oneself isn't an "on/off" process. Who we are is constantly
changing. And the depths of our personalities have no bottom. There's
always more to see.
>>I'm suggesting that people can better themselves
>>by creating art.
>
>
> I suggest using the word artwork. Art is something few can do.
You define art in such a narrow way that, for you, there are only two or
three paintings on the entire planet.
Again, Mani, we agree in so many ways, even as we appear to disagree.
I agree with you that modern art can be made by just about anyone.
While that might take away from its financial value, I don't believe
that makes it completely worthless. It means that anyone can make it,
instead of just buying it. And it also means people can use it to
explore their own thoughts and feelings.
Seagull Manager
> Ever seen Dali's artwork? Ever seen a David Lynch film? Know how many
> great artworks are based on dreams?
Interesting examples you choose. Salvador Dali's paintings and David Lynch's
films may seem to random outpourings of "the unconscious", but both Dali and
Lynch have profound technical mastery of their respective chosen arts.
Indeed, Dali once said something along these lines: that, to succeed as an
artist, one should first learn to draw like an old master, and then one may
do whatever one likes.
Also, the impression that Dali's paintings are "unconscious" is an illusion.
The Surrealists were suspicious of his work because it was too carefully
composed. It is an interesting fact that the two Surrealists who are most
widely admired today, Dali and Magritte, besides being technically
accomplished, also put a lot of conscious planning into their work. The more
doctrinaire surrealists are much less well known and loved.
Furthermore, it is almost incidental that Dali chose Freudian subject matter
in a lot of his paintings. Freud was fashionable in the mid 20th century, so
it made sense to be in touch with fashion. His deepest interest was in Roman
Catholic imagery, and a lot of his work uses this, and has nothing to do
with dreams. The flat, eerie-looking landscape backdrop of his paintings
does not come from dreams - it is the physical landscape of his childhood in
Catalonia.
The important things are these: sure, we all have dreams, and if we can turn
them into art, the results may be interesting. But, without the application
of craft and intelligence, it is unlikely that they will be competitive in
the market. Just as one can make an interesting work that is based on
dreams, it is possible to make a dull or cliched work using the same subject
matter. Also, other subject matter also yields interesting art, as any visit
to a museum will reveal. It is not necessary to engage in bathypsychology in
order to produce good art, and doing so does not guarantee that one's art
will be any good.
> > Why is it *good* (let alone *necessary*) to demonstrate
> > this fact again and again in your art?
>
> That's not what art using unconscious material is about. Ever read
> "Frankenstein"? Mary Shelley based the novel on a dream.
Ever read "Pride and Prejudice"? Jane Austen did *not* base the novel on a
dream. Art doesn't have to be based on a dream in order to be good.
In the heyday of pulp SF, there was a rather bad writer whose name I forget,
who admitted basing most of his fiction on dreams. Basing art on dreams
doesn't guarantee it will be any good.
And this is what I'm getting at: the difference between great and
not-so-great art does not lie in how much you explore your "unconscious"; it
lies in mastery of craft.
> > What's deep and dark about your "unconscious"?
>
> I'm getting the feeling this is a subject you know little or nothing
> about. Ever hear of the "collective unconscious" and archetypes and the
> like?
Of course I have. Doesn't mean I believe that there's much truth behind
those ideas, though. (And I don't.)
> I have a BA in psychology.
Good for you. May I now suggest that you desist from confusing art and
psychotherapy? They are two different fields of endeavour.
> Ever hear of art therapy?
Yes. Art therapy is not art. And the drawings, paintings, etc. produced in
an art therapy group are not created for artistic, but for therapeutic
purposes. If they have value in that context, fine. But what gives them
value in the therapeutic context is quite different from what gives such
artefacts value as art. There is no need to confuse the two.
> I'm also very interested in psychotherapy and therapy in general.
I can see that. Are you interested in art, as such?
> No. Of course people are totally entitled to their own ways of
> thinking. The reason we are having this conversation is because I'm
> defending the concept of art as self expression. What I am NOT saying
> is that this is the ONLY reason to create art.
You haven't defended the concept of art as self-expression, though. All
you've done is talk about art therapy, which is not art. The fact is art is
not self-expression (or if it is to some slight extent, it is only
incidentally so).
> > Funny how many nutcases are hugely into art, and how many sane people
> > aren't, and how many crazy people are obsessed with "finding
themselves",
> > and how many sane people are not, then, isn't it?
>
> I don't know how you reached the above conclusion, and strongly disagree
> with it.
Art doesn't make you sane. Nor does it make you insane. Nor does
philistinism make you sane or insane. Sanity and art are not related.
> >>It's my belief that ANYONE -- trained
> >>or not -- can create interesting art.
> >
> > Interesting to whom? Anthropologists? Psychologists? Neurologists?
>
> The world at large. Ever heard of outsider art?
Of course. It has two roots: the art of the insane - first collected by
psychiatrists, and the art of Africa and Oceania - first collected by
anthropoligists. In the early twentieth century there was a fascination with
the "primitive", because it was believed to be somehow more "truthful" than
the supposedly over-sophisticated and therefore "decadent" art that was to
being produced in the West. It has gradually evolved into a massive fraud.
Most so-called "naive" and "outsider" artists are no such thing, but are in
fact just as skilled and sophisticated (and sane) as a typical art-school
graduate. They parody folk and primitive styles of art in certain fairly
conventional ways. There's no more self-expression involved than in any
other art. It's just another way of getting high prices for low craft,
another trick to stun the punters.
> > Most people prefer to express themselves by watching TV, going to the
mall,
> > etc. What makes you so sure they need you coming along telling them to
make
> > "art" that will probably end up being thrown away or stuffed in a
cupboard
> > somewhere and forgotten about?
>
> I sense a broken childhood in your past.
Really? My, my, telepathy, eh? Do you have a BA in parapsychology, too?
What happens to most low-skill amateur art? It gets thrown away.
> People can, and will, do whatever they want. Try to remember the scope
> of this conversation. I'm suggesting that people can better themselves
> by creating art.
Maybe, if the art is good, but how is a person who makes a painting better
than a person who plays a video game, unless the painting has value?
> > If you happen to like, say, Preraphaelite painting, it could take you
> > decades to learn to paint the stuff you like, and you might never be
good
> > enough. If you've got no aptitude for drawing, then there's no point
even
> > starting. In that case, how can it be wrong to do what Andrew Lloyd
Webber
> > does: make millions from doing something you're good at (in his case,
> > composing musicals), and spend it all on the art you love?
>
> I probably shouldn't talk to you.
Why not try answering the question: Why is it wrong to enjoy art made by
others instead of making it for oneself?
Try this one, also: Is one's choice of what art to enjoy, and how much, not
self-expression?
Seagull Manager
> Seagull Manager wrote:
> >>This doesn't change the fact that Freud totally revolutionized the way
> >>we think about human psychology. Whether you like Freud's system or
> >>not, you have to admit that it has had an extremely profound effect on
> >>the entire world.
> >
> > Who do you mean, "we"? Freud's approach was far from scientific. He was
a
> > good, clever, essay writer, that's about all.
>
> I don't follow your argument. I say Freud has revolutionized how we
> think about human psychology.
At the risk of repeating myself, who do you mean, when you say "we"? I think
most of Freud's theories are very wide of the mark. And I know I'm not
alone. Elsewhere you said you have a degree in psychology. In that case you
will be aware that *most* psychologists do not buy most of Freuds best-known
ideas, and most are not even much interested in Freud.
You reply that he's not a scientist and
> that he just wrote clever essays. How does that address the point I've
> raised -- that he has been a profound influence?
Being influential is not the same thing as being a scientist. His methods
were thoroughly unscientific.
> if you judge Dali by price tag
> alone, you might not like him. If you judge him for his ART, you'll
> think he's of value.
I have not judged Dali by his price tag. I merely suggested that the scandal
of the signed blank sheets has affected his standing in he art world.
Anyway, if I did judge him by his price tag alone, I'd have to rank him
fairly highly. He does currently fetch healthy prices, just a lot lower than
Picasso.
Seagull Manager
> Seagull Manager wrote:
> > "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> > news:3ECDDC87...@oco.net...
> >
> Besides, you're wrong. The "Potato Eaters" is
> probably his best-known work, next to Sunflowers etc.
The Potato Eaters is not popular. Ask someone who sells art posters.
> 1820 is the 19th century, btw.
Where did I say it is not? Maybe you need to reread what I wrote.
> The New York Armory exhibit, 1913, is a good example of the
> birth and spread of the concept as we know it today.
The Armory exhibition did not show the birth of something, but the
culmination of a trend in European art that had been developing since the
1880s. In New York, it may have looked like a birth, but it was actually
something that had been going on somewhere else for years.
> The
> impact of pyschoanalytic theory on wester culture was HUGE.
Yes, but the West was ready for it, because of ideas that had been evolving
throughout most of the nineteenth century. This becomes very apparent when
an examination of the evolution of Symbolist art from Moreau onwards shows
that some of the most "Freudian" looking art was made during the nineteenth
century, before Freud had published any of his psychoanalytic theories.
> So I'll stand by my guns. The idea is the babe of psycholanalysis.
And psychoanalysis is the babe of Romanticism.
> Erik
Bruce
Seagull Manager
"Hans Klapeen" <ha...@dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:3ece...@news.zianet.com...
Not much, except that there was a bunch of British artists of the same
generation who followed the a similar approach. The best of them was
probably Graham Sutherland. At least in his case, when he wants to make a
painting look "edgy", it looks edgy.
Seagull Manager
No, I don't think it was an artful act, and I don't care whether he gave
Chris Burden ideas or not.
Seagull Manager
> Seagull Manager wrote:
> > "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> > news:3ECDDDF5...@oco.net...
> >
> >>Paul Mesken wrote:
> >>
> >>Art is everywhere...
> >
> > If you're trying to suggest that cutting off your finger as an act of
> > protest is art, you're wrong.
>
> "art."
What do you suppose Paul meant by "Art is everywhere", then?
Paul Mesken
<seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
>news:3ECE8A94...@oco.net...
>> Seagull Manager wrote:
>> > "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
>> > news:3ECDDDF5...@oco.net...
>> >
>> >>Paul Mesken wrote:
>> >>
>> >>Art is everywhere...
>> >
>> > If you're trying to suggest that cutting off your finger as an act of
>> > protest is art, you're wrong.
>>
>> No one, except you, said that giving the finger or mailing a finger was
>> "art."
>
>What do you suppose Paul meant by "Art is everywhere", then?
>
I didn't mean anything by it since I didn't write that, Erik did.
Seagull Manager
> Mani Deli wrote:
>
> Creating art based on dream, and creating art based on the bible are two
> very different things.
Not all that different. They are basically a source for vivid imagery and
subject matter. The decline of Christianity in Europe, with certain other
factors, has meant that the Bible is a much less popular source than it used
to be. A fashionable disgust with the supposed over-refinement of
"bourgeois" high culture led to the eclipse of classical sources as a
favourite source for subject matter, too. Modernism led to galleries being
full of cubist still-lifes. The appeal to dreams and the unconscious was
just a means to an end: namely the revival of imagination, and the search
for subject matter suitable for a secular, democratic world.
> The entire surrealist movement is based on concepts raised by
> psychotherapy.
Ostensibly, yes. More profoundly, it is a resurgence of Symbolism.
> Almost all of Dali's paintings contain autobiographical symbols -- and
> they all have a psychoanalytic bent. Castration anxiety, fear of death,
> phallic symbols, and on and on -- Dali was well aware that he was
> playing with psychoanalytic symbols, and that these gave his work an
> added power.
He was also well aware that Freudian subject-matter was a great marketing
device.
> Then how do you explain all the personal symbolism in Dali's work? Most
> critics think of him as one of the greatest exhibitionists of all time.
> Totally self-centred, always talking about himself, using his own
> psyche as a point of reference, pouring his own visions and neuroses
> into all that he does -- is it any wonder he and Freud got along so well?
Quite. He was playing up to Romantic ideas of "genius". These ideas do not
stem from Freud. The autobiographical material is part of that Romantic
genius stuff, but the language with which it was expressed was Freudian. In
other words, the Freudian stuff is superficial. The deep stuff is
pre-Freudian.
Freud's popularity also stemmed to a large degree from the fact that he
tapped into Romantic ideas of individuality, genius and "transgression".
Seagull Manager
"Paul Mesken" <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
news:e84vcv0mc7vo072a7...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 24 May 2003 16:20:16 +0100, "Seagull Manager"
> <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I didn't mean anything by it since I didn't write that, Erik did.
Yes, sorry. It was indeed Erik who said "Art is everywhere", and in the
context, it seems very reasonable that he was trying to suggest that Benny
Bufano's action was art. If that wasn't the intent, one must wonder what it
meant. I'm at a loss to see another construal that makes sense.
Mani Deli
<nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Mani Deli wrote:
>>>Ever seen a David Lynch film? Know how many
>>>great artworks are based on dreams?
>>
>> Know how many great works are based on Bible bullshit? It doesn't
>> confirm that there is any proof in the bible or that it is scientific.
>> Freud had more influence on talk about art and what artists say then
>> on what they actually do.
>
>Creating art based on dream, and creating art based on the bible are two
>very different things.
Agreed, but that's not the point.
>Maybe none of that is in the dream. Stare at any random pattern and
>you'll find complexity. All the same, dreams have proven to be
>extremely useful to me.
Each to his own. My point about Freud is that the idea that getting
into ones dreams in order to cure clinical illness is defunct.
>
>> I don't even think Dali's babble about Freud influenced more then the
>> ideas for what he and others said about his subject matter. Dali's
>> main influence was classical painting and technique and an extreme use
>> of the idea of putting real looking subject matter in an unreal
>> context.
>
>Wow. How can a big Dali fan like you be missing so much? Have you done
>ANY reading about surrealism at all?
I have, and I think most of it is baloney. As I said Dali gave people
what the wanted and I add what they wanted to hear. I think most of
what Dali said on this matter was said for effect.
>
>The entire surrealist movement is based on concepts raised by
>psychotherapy.
I partially agree. However it also had political factions and great
personal rivalry.
> Andre Breton, leader of the movement, was eager to meet
>Freud and discuss this. The main idea of surrealism was an attempt to
>make unconscious material conscious, through art. Dreams, automatic
>writing, and even therapy played a part in the surrealist movement.
agreed!
>When Breton finally got a chance to meet Freud, he was extremely
>disappointed. Freud couldn't figure out what this babbling poet was
>going on about -- he saw no connection between surrealism and
>psychoanalysis whatsoever. I think that has mostly to do with Freud
>having little understanding and appreciation for art.
>
>When Dali got a chance to meet Freud, and actually got along with the
>guy, Andre Breton seethed with rage and jealousy. Freud walked away
>from the meeting saying that Dali was a true "fanatic" of psychoanalysis.
As far as I read Dali met Freud only briefly. I'm sure that Dali got
ideas from not only Freud but the intellectually fashionable topics of
the time.
>Almost all of Dali's paintings contain autobiographical symbols -- and
>they all have a psychoanalytic bent. Castration anxiety, fear of death,
>phallic symbols, and on and on
Until the mid 1930's
>- Dali was well aware that he was
>playing with psychoanalytic symbols, and that these gave his work an
>added power.
I agree, but that doesn't validate any truth to psychoanalysis. Nutty
theories inspired subject matter to a lot of great art. Religion is
the best example.
>To say that Dali was influenced by classical painting and that the rest
>of it is "babble about Freud" -- that's like saying that when an
>architect builds a house, he's just creating a complex frame to hold
>windows.
Tons of garbage was produced claiming Freudian ideas. Dali's paintings
are great because his subject matter is done with masterly craft and
technique unlike the work of many others which was also be based on
good ideas.
>> I think Dali was an expert in sizing up what he felt people wanted. He
>> carefully said, "give people what they want." He was very cynical and
>> approached it with a great sense of humor. What Dali really engaged
>> in for public consumption was counter-Artspeak.
>
>Then how do you explain all the personal symbolism in Dali's work?
Its the subject matter he chose. I'm not saying that Dali wasn't at
all influenced by Freud. It certainly was part of his schtik for a
while. Read what he has to say about Vermeer, Raphael, de Sade,
rhinoceroses, assholes, Catholicism perspective de Vinci etc.
In my opinion the major influence on Dali was an intellectual aspect
of comedy. However, Dali unlike most artists was intelligent and well
read. He was also very superstitious. His stuff has a grain of
personal truth which he inflated with his great artistic ability and
intelligence. I believe Dali's major influence was the shock schlock
ideas of Dada but unlike most modern artists Dali was a master
craftsman while they were little more than babbling patzers. And when
it came to babble, he could outdo all his critics and remain amusing
while inferring the profound.
> Most
>critics think of him as one of the greatest exhibitionists of all time.
> Totally self-centred, always talking about himself, using his own
>psyche as a point of reference, pouring his own visions and neuroses
>into all that he does -- is it any wonder he and Freud got along so well?
>In adults and children, there are feelings disociated from themselves.
>One way of accessing that material is to get them to draw it out,
>express it with paint and drawing.
>
>"Show me how you feel about that situation by drawing a picture of
>yourself," seems like a better line of thought than, "Show me how you
>feel about that situation by swinging at this golf ball."
Check my self portrait on the net.
>>>I'm suggesting that people can better themselves
>>>by creating art.
>>
>>
>> I suggest using the word artwork. Art is something few can do.
>
>You define art in such a narrow way that, for you, there are only two or
>three paintings on the entire planet.
You define art in a way which contains what I consider mostly garbage.
>Again, Mani, we agree in so many ways, even as we appear to disagree.
>
>I agree with you that modern art can be made by just about anyone.
>While that might take away from its financial value, I don't believe
>that makes it completely worthless. It means that anyone can make it,
>instead of just buying it. And it also means people can use it to
>explore their own thoughts and feelings.
>
I don't think that artwork which we both call Modern Art is art
precisely because most anyone can do it. As for its therapeutic value,
it doesn't interest me.
Nikolaus Maack
> Interesting examples you choose. Salvador Dali's paintings and David Lynch's
> films may seem to random outpourings of "the unconscious", but both Dali and
> Lynch have profound technical mastery of their respective chosen arts.
> Indeed, Dali once said something along these lines: that, to succeed as an
> artist, one should first learn to draw like an old master, and then one may
> do whatever one likes.
I think you might be having an argument with yourself. Try to remember
where this conversation started -- self-expression in art. I'm arguing
that this is a valid point of view, and that there is useful information
in our unconscious that can be expressed in artistic media.
I am NOT saying:
1) A complete lack of technical mastery is fine and good.
2) That ALL art must be about dreams and the unconscious.
Which is what you seem to think I'm saying, which makes you very
annoying talk to. It's like I say, "It's raining outside today," and
you respond with great passion, "Well it wasn't raining yesterday!"
Yeah, okay, it wasn't raining yesterday -- but I'm talking about today.
In other words, when I express that a particular perspective on art
interests me, do not assume that 1) it's the only perspective I have, 2)
that I feel everyone must adopt my perspective, and 3) that I'm trying
to convert you to my religion.
> Also, the impression that Dali's paintings are "unconscious" is an illusion.
> The Surrealists were suspicious of his work because it was too carefully
> composed.
Carefully composed based on images from dreams and the unconscious.
Yes, other surrealists took them to task, because they felt the
automatic process was a necessary component. I disagree with that
stance. Surrealist art does not need to be created "automatically".
> Furthermore, it is almost incidental that Dali chose Freudian subject matter
> in a lot of his paintings. Freud was fashionable in the mid 20th century, so
> it made sense to be in touch with fashion. His deepest interest was in Roman
> Catholic imagery, and a lot of his work uses this, and has nothing to do
> with dreams. The flat, eerie-looking landscape backdrop of his paintings
> does not come from dreams - it is the physical landscape of his childhood in
> Catalonia.
Don't forget that Dali, like all human beings, evolved over time. He
went from Freudian imagery to Catholic imagery. He changed. You sound
like you're saying he was into both kinds of imagery, when in fact he
moved from one place to another.
>>That's not what art using unconscious material is about. Ever read
>>"Frankenstein"? Mary Shelley based the novel on a dream.
>
> Ever read "Pride and Prejudice"? Jane Austen did *not* base the novel on a
> dream. Art doesn't have to be based on a dream in order to be good.
"I am stunned. "Pride and Prejudice" wasn't based on a dream? My god.
You mean some art isn't based on dreams? That cannot be! I insist
that all art must be based on dreams or it is shit. You sir, are a
liar! Clearly if Jane Austen wrote this book, and it is considered
good, it MUST be based on a dream!"
Someone else recently accused you of attacking strawmen in your
arguments. Seems to me you've created a straw army.
> Good for you. May I now suggest that you desist from confusing art and
> psychotherapy? They are two different fields of endeavour.
>
>
>>Ever hear of art therapy?
>
>
> Yes. Art therapy is not art.
It isn't? Then why do they call it "ART therapy" instead of "not-art
therapy"?
> And the drawings, paintings, etc. produced in
> an art therapy group are not created for artistic, but for therapeutic
> purposes.
What's the difference? And why can't it be both?
> I can see that. Are you interested in art, as such?
No. I post in rec.arts.fine because I hate art. I run a website where
I post my paintings because I loathe art in all its shapes and forms.
Stop being such a dumbfuck.
> You haven't defended the concept of art as self-expression, though. All
> you've done is talk about art therapy,
*ALL* I have done? Really? That's it? That's all I've said.
> which is not art. The fact is art is
> not self-expression (or if it is to some slight extent, it is only
> incidentally so).
You're defining away the issues. "Art therapy isn't art, so it doesn't
matter if it's self-expression or not." How convenient for you. With a
wave of your magic dictionary, the world is transformed into that bland
little circle that is the inside of your skull.
> Art doesn't make you sane. Nor does it make you insane. Nor does
> philistinism make you sane or insane. Sanity and art are not related.
Proof? Or even, personal experiences demonstrating this?
You are very prone to making assertions without actually stating
anything. Please stop this. It's very tiresome.
> Maybe, if the art is good, but how is a person who makes a painting better
> than a person who plays a video game, unless the painting has value?
Your definition of value is extremely limited.
Nikolaus Maack
> Being influential is not the same thing as being a scientist. His methods
> were thoroughly unscientific.
All I said that Freud was influential. I never said a thing about him
being a scientist. Your response to my posting is the equivalent of the
following conversation:
"That is a nice cloud. I like the way it looks."
"Clouds make rain you know."
"Yes, but it's still an attractive cloud."
"It cannot be an attractive cloud, because clouds make rain. Sometimes
those rainfalls turn out to be torrential downpours. Worse still, bad
weather can involve tornadoes. How can you be so foolish as to defend
tornadoes? What the hell is wrong with you?"
"All I said was that it's an attractive cloud!"
"Right. And I'm telling you that defending tornadoes is insane."
Do you see the problem here? You're having a conversation with some
voice inside your head, not me. If you insist on carrying on in that
internal conversation, might I suggest you go do so somewhere OFF the
Internet?
Nikolaus Maack
> I have, and I think most of it is baloney. As I said Dali gave people
> what the wanted and I add what they wanted to hear. I think most of
> what Dali said on this matter was said for effect.
Are you sure Dali just said what people wanted to hear? Perhaps what's
happening is you're listening to Dali, and only hearing what you want to
hear.
> You define art in a way which contains what I consider mostly garbage.
Oh well.
> I don't think that artwork which we both call Modern Art is art
> precisely because most anyone can do it. As for its therapeutic value,
> it doesn't interest me.
Keen.
Mani Deli
<nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Mani Deli wrote:
>> I have, and I think most of it is baloney. As I said Dali gave people
>> what the wanted and I add what they wanted to hear. I think most of
>> what Dali said on this matter was said for effect.
>
>Are you sure Dali just said what people wanted to hear?
He said a lot more. I think most of
what Dali said on this matter was said for effect. The matter being
surrealism.
> Perhaps what's
>happening is you're listening to Dali, and only hearing what you want to
>hear.
>
>> You define art in a way which contains what I consider mostly garbage.
>
>Oh well.
>
>> I don't think that artwork which we both call Modern Art is art
>> precisely because most anyone can do it. As for its therapeutic value,
>> it doesn't interest me.
>
>Keen.
>
> Nik
>http://www.nikart.ca
...no skill no art!
Seagull Manager
> Seagull Manager wrote:
> > Being influential is not the same thing as being a scientist. His
methods
> > were thoroughly unscientific.
>
> All I said that Freud was influential. I never said a thing about him
[ad hominem snipped]
Really?
On Fri, 23 May 2003 08:31:48 -0400, Nikolaus Maack
<nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Think Carl Jung, not Sigmund Freud. Freud was a (cough) scientist.
> Jung was an artist.
(message ID <news:3ECE14B4...@sympatico.ca>)
Erik A. Mattila
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> news:3ECE8A94...@oco.net...
>
>>Seagull Manager wrote:
>>
>>>"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
>>>news:3ECDDDF5...@oco.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Paul Mesken wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Art is everywhere...
>>>
>>>If you're trying to suggest that cutting off your finger as an act of
>>>protest is art, you're wrong.
>>
>>No one, except you, said that giving the finger or mailing a finger was
>>"art."
>
>
> What do you suppose Paul meant by "Art is everywhere", then?
He was quoting Milan Kundera.
eam
>
>
Erik A. Mattila
No, I said Benny Bufano's finger was everywhere.
Erik
>
>
Erik A. Mattila
It's not that hard to decipher if you follow the thread. art =
self-expression; self-expression = giving the finger to someone; Bufano
gave his finger to Woodrow Wilson...I'm sure you can make the connections.
eam
>
>
Seagull Manager
>
> It's not that hard to decipher if you follow the thread. art =
> self-expression; self-expression = giving the finger to someone; Bufano
> gave his finger to Woodrow Wilson...I'm sure you can make the connections.
>
> eam
So, were you trying to suggest that Bufano's act was art, or were you being
ironic? I'm sure you realize that even if you don't believe Bufano's act was
art, some would, and they might use the idea that art is self-expression as
justification. In light of that, the remark might or might not be ironic,
but there's nothing in the text itself to indicate that it is.
Anyway, interesting that you think that bone of contention is whether or not
art IS self-expression. Paul Mesken denies that he is supporting that
position. (Or is he back-pedalling?)
Seagull Manager
"Seagull Manager" <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote in
message news:baq357$6nl$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> Anyway, interesting that you think that bone of contention is whether or
not
> art IS self-expression. Paul Mesken denies that he is supporting that
> position. (Or is he back-pedalling?)
Aargh, what's wrong with me? I'm getting people's handles mixed up again.
Paul Mesken, of course, thinks self-expression overrated, and he's the one
who introduced the "giving the finger" idea. I meant Nikolaus Maack.
Paul Mesken
I stand my ground. Self expression is not the same as art and although
I agree that art may be the _means_ of self expression (Maack's point)
I find the importance typically attached to it by the Modernist art
scene to be overrated.
Paul Mesken
I don't even *know* Milan Kundera and I didn't quote him. Straw men?
Smoke screens! ;-)
Nikolaus Maack
> "Nikolaus Maack" <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3ECFB8B6...@sympatico.ca...
>
>>Seagull Manager wrote:
>>
>>>Being influential is not the same thing as being a scientist. His
>>
> methods
>
>>>were thoroughly unscientific.
>>
>>All I said that Freud was influential. I never said a thing about him
>>being a scientist...
>
>
> [ad hominem snipped]
Oh god. You're one of them. A "rationalist". Do you like Ayn Rand, by
any chance.
> Really?
>
> On Fri, 23 May 2003 08:31:48 -0400, Nikolaus Maack
> <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Think Carl Jung, not Sigmund Freud. Freud was a (cough) scientist.
>>Jung was an artist.
What do you suppose the *COUGH* meant?
Nikolaus Maack
> I don't even *know* Milan Kundera and I didn't quote him. Straw men?
> Smoke screens! ;-)
Get to know him. He wrote "The Unbearable Lightness of Being", and many
other terrific books.
Everything is art. Not everything is art of value. How we put a price
tag on the object, how we determine whether the art has a profound
meaning, is a whole other matter. It is all art. This can be
demonstrated simply by grabbing the thing, the event, the gesture, and
isolating it -- that's all it takes to prove it's art. Put it in a
frame, stick it on a stage, capture it with a camera, trap it on video.
Voila! Art!
The Dadaists demonstrated this quite viciously. This urinal I now hang
on the art gallery wall is art. Prove me wrong, motherfucker.
One argument against this approach is to say that, if everything is art,
then the word "art" is meaningless. This is narrow-minded dictionary
debating. Everything around you is a part of your life. Does that mean
you life is meaningless? (Well, probably.)
The difficulty I have is with people who decide that only art of value
can be called "art". They then use a very narrow, very personal
determination of value and try to impose it on the entire universe.
"THIS," they yell, "IS ART! THAT IS NOT ART!"
Like some tiny would-be deity, dividing the light from the darkness.
They ignore cultural bias, personal bias, the limits of their own
physical senses, their upbringing, their lack of intellect, their excess
of intellect.
Why should we let tiny, phony deities determine what's art and what's
not? Let them phrase their preference in the proper manner:
"I like this," they should say, "and I don't like that."
Because that's all they're really doing. Stating a preference.
Unfortunately, we live in the Western World, where stating a preference
is seen as a waste of time. "Objectively Determining Facts" is seen as
scientific, reasonable, rational, and good. For this reason, most
people choose to disguise their opinions as scientific investigations.
Who knows why Dave can't appreciate ballet? Perhaps he was forced to
take lessons as a child, and it scarred him for life? Now he bellows
out, "Ballet is not art!" every chance he can get. His boring
arguments, his bland pronouncements -- don't they just make you want to
smack him? Who is he, to tear ballet out of the ART dictionary? He's a
pompous little fascist -- that's what he is.
Typically, Dave doesn't really have an argument. He has a
pronouncement. Like Moses coming down the mountain, only his arms carry
a stack of "Art In America" magazines.
Don't make the same mistake Dave does. Don't state your opinions as
though they were facts. Acknowledge the uncertainty -- admit the
possibility that there are other valid opinions around you. Other
cultures appreciate other things. Your parents forced your eye into a
certain shape. Your high intellect (or lack of it) prevents you from
appreciating (or understanding) some work.
So stop being a fascist! If you don't stop, I'll have my army shoot you.
Seagull Manager
>
> ...self-expression in art. I'm arguing
> that this is a valid point of view, and that there is useful information
> in our unconscious that can be expressed in artistic media.
Let's start again.
The point being debated - in this part of the thread, at least - is not
"self-expression in art", but "self-expression IS art: true or false", or,
as William deRaymond puts it: "if it isn't self expression it isn't art". I
express skepticism, and suggest that that the idea of "self-expression" is
itself very unclear. Thur takes a middling position, saying "Some art is
dedicated almost solely to self expression and the subject is hardly worth
consideration, and in the other extreme are realist representations of a
well defined subjects".
Mani Deli put the view that the statement "art is self expression" is
doubletalk.
And that's where you came and volunteered a definition of self-expression as
exploration of the unconscious, and informed us that you make art in order
to express yourself (in your terms, to explore your unconscious). You then
added that "anyone can make interesting art".
In the context, it is natural that you will be read as defending the idea
that art in general is, or should be, self-expression, and that
self-expression is at least an important source of value in art, if not the
main source of value in art. After all, this discussion is not taking place
in a vacuum: the idea that art is self-expression is one that has a history,
and has played a very prominent role in art practice and theory since the
early twentieth century. Therefore, if that's not what you wished to say,
you would have done well to make that explicit from the first.
>
> I am NOT saying:
>
> 1) A complete lack of technical mastery is fine and good.
But you are most definitely saying that "anyone" (obviously including people
who have no mastery of technique) can make "interesting" art, by expressing
themselves through their art. So complete lack of mastery would seem to be
at least somewhat fine and good, by your account.
> 2) That ALL art must be about dreams and the unconscious.
No, but you stress the importance of such subject matter, and you stress the
value of self-exploration through art. By contrast, I question whether
self-exploration (a.k.a. navel-gazing) has much value in general or any
particular value in art. As for dreams, my position is that they are just
another source of imagery and themes, not deserving special status among the
panoply of sources that exists. When it comes to "the unconscious" (with a
definite article), I don't even believe in such a thing. Sure, there are
plenty of cognitive processes that are inescapably subliminal, but that is
quite different from imagining a hairy critter called Id sitting near a
person's ear like a little demon.
> Which is what you seem to think I'm saying, which makes you very
> annoying talk to.
No, I think you're saying that self-exploration through art, leading
(according to you) to art that is self-expressive, is important to artistic
value. And that is something I strongly doubt. Furthermore, you say that art
of value (or "interest", at any rate) can be made by the technically
unskilled, if they rely on their "unconscious".
> > Also, the impression that Dali's paintings are "unconscious" is an
illusion.
> > The Surrealists were suspicious of his work because it was too carefully
> > composed.
>
> Carefully composed based on images from dreams and the unconscious.
Well, there isn't really an unconscious, in my view (a view that is widely
held), and it is hard to say how many images in Dali's paintings came to him
through dreams. Most of them seem to have been "dreamt up" while he was
awake, if his memoirs are anything to go by.
> Don't forget that Dali, like all human beings, evolved over time. He
> went from Freudian imagery to Catholic imagery. He changed. You sound
> like you're saying he was into both kinds of imagery, when in fact he
> moved from one place to another.
You are quite right, but the deeper truth is that Dali was mercurial and
eclectic, as well as contrary. That said, his interest in Catholic imagery
was quite long-lasting, and he was out on a limb in pursuing it.
> > Yes. Art therapy is not art.
>
> It isn't? Then why do they call it "ART therapy" instead of "not-art
> therapy"?
Becase it USES art towards therapeutic ends. It doesn't care about how good
or bad a drawing or painting or sculpture or collage is *as art*; it only
cares about it as a diagnostic tool, or as a way for the patient or client
to "develop" or "heal".
> > And the drawings, paintings, etc. produced in
> > an art therapy group are not created for artistic, but for therapeutic
> > purposes.
>
> What's the difference? And why can't it be both?
You claim to be interested in art, so you ought to know. However...
...if something is made for "artistic purpose", it is made to be appreciated
and valued as art, which means, among other things that it needs to be good
(well-made, imaginative, clever, astute, etc.), and it seeks to be
appreciated regardless of whether the audience is interested in well-being
and state of mind of the artist. It doesn't matter whether the artist enjoys
making it, or finds it stressful - it is the resultant artefact that counts.
By contrast, if it is made for therapeutic purposes, it need not be good at
all, on usual artistic criteria, so it does not matter if a drawing is
utterly crude, if the colours are bad, if there is no originality; it only
needs to be revealing, as far as the therapist is concerned, or relaxing, as
far as the maker is concerned. It doesn't even need to be finished, since
the resulting artefact may be considered valueless after its therapeutic
purpose has been achieved.
Of course, a maker may aim to achieve both artistic and therapeutic aims in
a single work, but these two aims are potentially in conflict.
> > You haven't defended the concept of art as self-expression, though. All
> > you've done is talk about art therapy,
>
> *ALL* I have done? Really? That's it? That's all I've said.
It was pretty much all you had done. I stand by that.
>
> > which is not art. The fact is art is
> > not self-expression (or if it is to some slight extent, it is only
> > incidentally so).
>
> You're defining away the issues.
No, I was stating my position as a conclusion to the argument that went
before. Recall that the post I was responding to was one that you wrote that
began with a quotation from Mani Deli to the effect that the assertion that
art is self-expression is "doublespeak". It seemed to me that you had failed
to refute Mani Deli's claim.
> "Art therapy isn't art, so it doesn't
> matter if it's self-expression or not." How convenient for you. With a
> wave of your magic dictionary, the world is transformed into that bland
> little circle that is the inside of your skull.
Ha, ha. It does not require a magic dictionary to tell one that "art
therapy" is not art. Art therapy is therapy that makes use of the materials
and some of the processes of art (but "amateur" art, rather than "serious"
art). Art proper inevitably entails ambition - in art proper, there is
always a sincere desire in the artist to produce something excellent. Art
proper is focused on the audience, not the artist. Art proper fails if the
audience does not find it admirable. By contrast, art therapy discourages
clients from concerning themselves about excellence, insists that skill is
not a requisite, encourages stress on process rather than results, and
considers irrelevant the question of whether the work is admirable to an
audience.
>
> > Art doesn't make you sane. Nor does it make you insane. Nor does
> > philistinism make you sane or insane. Sanity and art are not related.
>
> Proof? Or even, personal experiences demonstrating this?
Did poetry save Sylvia Plath? Did painting save Vincent Van Gogh or Richard
Dadd?
Countless are the artists in every field who suffered from mental illness
and were not cured by their art. They are the proof.
Art alone won't make a sick person well or a well person sick (beyond the
passing feeling of nausea that extremely bad art can sometimes induce). I've
no doubt that art can *help* a person, but it is not special in that regard;
other things, such as sport, socializing, country walks, work, rest, phoning
home, eating well, etc. all can have therapeutic effect.
> > Maybe, if the art is good, but how is a person who makes a painting
better
> > than a person who plays a video game, unless the painting has value?
>
> Your definition of value is extremely limited.
No, my definition of value is as broad as most people's. The question
stands. If I make a painting that is worthless to me and everyone else, how
does that improve me more than if I spend the time playing a video game?
Skill in painting, if I am not a professional of that art, is probably of no
more use to me than skill in playing video games, so it is not obvious to me
why one activity counts as self-improvement and the other doesn't.
Seagull Manager
> Seagull Manager wrote:
> > "Nikolaus Maack" <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:3ECFB8B6...@sympatico.ca...
> >
> >>Seagull Manager wrote:
> >>
> > [ad hominem snipped]
>
> Oh god. You're one of them. A "rationalist". Do you like Ayn Rand, by
> any chance.
Not particularly.
> >>Think Carl Jung, not Sigmund Freud. Freud was a (cough) scientist.
> >>Jung was an artist.
>
> What do you suppose the *COUGH* meant?
Either disapproval or qualification.
Seagull Manager
I apologize for mixing you up with Nikolaus Maack.
> I find the importance typically attached to it by the Modernist art
> scene to be overrated.
I agree with the thrust of this.
Erik A. Mattila
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> news:3ED0525F...@oco.net...
>
>>It's not that hard to decipher if you follow the thread. art =
>>self-expression; self-expression = giving the finger to someone; Bufano
>>gave his finger to Woodrow Wilson...I'm sure you can make the connections.
>>
>>eam
>
>
> So, were you trying to suggest that Bufano's act was art, or were you being
> ironic? I'm sure you realize that even if you don't believe Bufano's act was
> art, some would, and they might use the idea that art is self-expression as
> justification. In light of that, the remark might or might not be ironic,
> but there's nothing in the text itself to indicate that it is.
What went over your head was that I was making a joke with Paul, S&M.
That certainly is something "in the text" that points to irony. You
shouldn't take yourself so seriously - few others do.
>
> Anyway, interesting that you think that bone of contention is whether or not
> art IS self-expression. Paul Mesken denies that he is supporting that
> position. (Or is he back-pedalling?)
You're not making any sense here. Are you saying tha Paul denies my
observation that this thread was about the legitimacy of
"self-expression" as art, or that he does not support his view that
"self-expression" as art is a crock of shit?
eam
>
>
>
Erik A. Mattila
What's wrong with you is that you are swooning before the thrill of the
debate for debate's sake. Clement Greenburg would be impressed.
eam
>
>
Erik A. Mattila
I'm surprised, Paul. "The Unbearable Lightness of Being"??? "The Book
of Laughter and Forgetting"??? Well, I was construction a very tenuous
pun that probably only Kundera fans would get:
"Art is Everywhere" .... "Life is Elsewhere (Kundera,1969)."
No smoke-screen, no strawman - just a failed pun. This NG is getting so
grim...
Erik
Mike Stengl
> Everything is art. Not everything is art of value. How we put a price
> tag on the object, how we determine whether the art has a profound
> meaning, is a whole other matter. Let them phrase their preference in the proper manner:
>
> "I like this," they should say, "and I don't like that."
>
> Because that's all they're really doing. Stating a preference.
Agreed, absolutely and then one begins to fine tune their opinions:
"This is really cool. This is interesting. This really stinks! And
this sucks so bad as to make me wanna barf!"
There are differences in opinion, fer sure, but then there is really
bad art. Ever been to an open mike poetry meeting? There is a
difference between censoring and editing, a lot of people's so called
work needs some editing. Have some sympathy for your viewer.
Everything one spends a lot of precious time on is not necessarily
worth a nail on the wall.
I have spoken. (again)
Paul Mesken
<nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Paul Mesken wrote:
>> I don't even *know* Milan Kundera and I didn't quote him. Straw men?
>> Smoke screens! ;-)
>
>Get to know him. He wrote "The Unbearable Lightness of Being", and many
>other terrific books.
>
>Everything is art. Not everything is art of value. How we put a price
>tag on the object, how we determine whether the art has a profound
>meaning, is a whole other matter. It is all art. This can be
>demonstrated simply by grabbing the thing, the event, the gesture, and
>isolating it -- that's all it takes to prove it's art. Put it in a
>frame, stick it on a stage, capture it with a camera, trap it on video.
> Voila! Art!
>
>The Dadaists demonstrated this quite viciously. This urinal I now hang
>on the art gallery wall is art. Prove me wrong, motherfucker.
>
>One argument against this approach is to say that, if everything is art,
>then the word "art" is meaningless.
Not meaningless, just redundant (because we have the word "all",
"everything", etc. already for it). Also it goes against what people
consider the meaning of the word "art". That the exact meaning is
quite hard to pin down (although I have put forward a completely
unnoticed effort) doesn't mean we should go completely the other way
around and declare it applicable to everything.
>The difficulty I have is with people who decide that only art of value
>can be called "art". They then use a very narrow, very personal
>determination of value and try to impose it on the entire universe.
IMO it's possible to judge the quality of art without taking taste
into the equation. Also : I'm against a definition of art that
incorporates a "quality stamp" (in that only "good" art equals art, I
believe Deli to be of this opinion).
>Don't make the same mistake Dave does. Don't state your opinions as
>though they were facts. Acknowledge the uncertainty -- admit the
>possibility that there are other valid opinions around you.
At some point there should be some form of consensus. "Art" is a word
and as such it can be attributed to a number of things, that's the use
of words. "Art" labels one of more prototypes (I'm carefull not to use
the word "rules" or "lists" for this is not how language works). There
should be some "collective prototype" (think of it as Jung's
"Collective Consciousness" with its archetypes) in order for the word
"Art" to be of any value in communication.