Questions for Cantor about CRAP!
mdeli
Bob Cantor wrote:
>I have to wonder about artists who are willing to call the work of other
>artists "crap". Serious artists put so much of their own self into their
>work that this is the same thing as calling the artist themselves
>"crap".
What is a "serious" artist?
What is "putting one self" into a painting?
What part of "Yourself" do you put into your paintings?
Are you a "serious artist?"
If I said you did a crappy looking painting how does that mean that
I'm calling you crap?
>I would have to be pretty damn certain that I knew everything
>about a particular person and their motivations before I would be
>willing to go out on such a limb.
Do you study the motives of all artists?
>Unfortunately, its human nature to
>create a fantasy world of simple dichotomies which lets people ignore
>the many uncertainties and complexities of the real world, which might
>be otherwise cause a great deal of stress.
When you like a painting is this just a simple dichotomy?
> And so they must have a
>strong simple opinion on everything no matter how little they know about it,
Cantor, did you ever look at a painting for the first time and just
like it?
Or does that also necessitate delving into the artists motives?
I bet Cantor won't answer any of these questions.
> and they will act as if their every opinion is fact, and they will
>therefore think nothing of calling an artist crap.
I know quite a bit about Matisse including some of his motivations and
I still think 99% of his work is pure CRAP. The reasons do not lie
with his motivations but with his technical incompetence.
All technically incompetent work is looks crappy for that reason
alone.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
Bob Cantor
mdeli wrote:
>
> Bob Cantor wrote:
> >I have to wonder about artists who are willing to call the work of other
> >artists "crap". Serious artists put so much of their own self into their
> >work that this is the same thing as calling the artist themselves
> >"crap".
>
> What is a "serious" artist?
A simply quick definition might be "one who believes in what they are
doing and works hard at it". Just because something looks like crap
doesn't mean that a person didn't put a lot of time and effort into it.
Doesn't mean that they don't truly think there is something of value in
it.
>
> What is "putting one self" into a painting?
>
> What part of "Yourself" do you put into your paintings?
>
These I don't think I can explain. Either you get it or you don't.
> Are you a "serious artist?"
Not really, but close. Because I work full time at an intellectually
demanding job, I end up putting very little intellectual effort into my
painting and instead just paint what I feel is right. Unfortunately, I
know from experience that I could be getting more out of myself if I
were to make the effort to put more thought into it. I also don't paint
nearly as often as I should, but I do work very hard during those times
that I am painting.
>
> If I said you did a crappy looking painting how does that mean that
> I'm calling you crap?
This follows from the "putting yourself into the painting" thing, so I
can't explain that either.
Realize, however, that there's a big difference between calling a
painting crap and specifically identifying what you don't like about the
painting. Look up crap in the dictionary and tell me just how
descriptive you think that word is (ie. being specific does not mean
saying "the colors look like crap"). "Crap" is neither a description or
an evaluation; it's just an insult.
Why do you feel it necessary to insult any work of art that you don't
like?
Do you regularly insult EVERYTHING and EVERYONE that you don't like?
What do you think you accomplish when you insult something or someone?
>
> >I would have to be pretty damn certain that I knew everything
> >about a particular person and their motivations before I would be
> >willing to go out on such a limb.
>
> Do you study the motives of all artists?
No. And I have never called the work of any of them crap. I have,
however, expressed my dislike of certain works and occasionally
questioned the motivations and seriousness of the artist.
>
> >Unfortunately, its human nature to
> >create a fantasy world of simple dichotomies which lets people ignore
> >the many uncertainties and complexities of the real world, which might
> >be otherwise cause a great deal of stress.
>
> When you like a painting is this just a simple dichotomy?
I'm not sure I understand this question. A simple dichotomy is the idea
that there exists only 2 completely independent options - "like" and
"dislike" - and that one of these options must be 100 percent correct
with 100 percent certainty.
>
> > And so they must have a
> >strong simple opinion on everything no matter how little they know about it,
>
> Cantor, did you ever look at a painting for the first time and just
> like it?
Yes. Did you? Are you trying to make some kind of point here?
>
> I bet Cantor won't answer any of these questions.
>
how much? Never mind, you'll come up with some explanation about how I
didn't really answer any of them.
>
> I know quite a bit about Matisse including some of his motivations and
> I still think 99% of his work is pure CRAP. The reasons do not lie
> with his motivations but with his technical incompetence.
>
Why does the review on your web page primarily evaluate his painting as
if it were an attempt at traditional realism?
Do you think it is possible that he was using skill to try to accomplish
something other than traditional realism and traditional standards of
beauty?
Is it possible that you simply believe that there is no value in what he
was trying to accomplish, regardless of his skill level?
If so, why don't you just say so rather than insulting the artist?
Do you really think that criticizing the work of Matisse based on what
you would have liked him to paint demonstrates an understanding of what
he actually was trying to paint (I'm not asking whether or not you have
that understanding, I'm asking if you think you have demonstrated it).
- Bob
kag...@ecr.net
Art... do we look at it subjectively or objectively or perhaps both?
I think both.
I remember my first still life painting. When my boss (at work) saw
it, he eventually said, "I like the glass (goblet) best." He might
have thought the entire painting was crap, but at least he was
somewhat polite about it. He's reaction did make me feel like crap,
however! The painting was done in an adult-type painting class in a
small community, and I still have it because it shows me from whence I
came as an artist. It took much courage for me to even go to the
class, but the instructor approached me encouraging me to take
additional instruction. (My boss thought the instructor was just
after money, but has since changed his tune.)
My point? If someone hadn't given me some positive encouragement, I'm
sure I would not be painting today. I regret not having realized my
ability sooner in life. Having a more than full-time job, time to
devote to painting is hard to find, and I sometimes envy those who do
art as their full-time job. But... perhaps it would then not give me
so much pleasure!
As to "crap," I'm not sure the word is the best choice. And, I'm not
saying I haven't seen work that would qualify. I could be wrong, and
probably am, but I have to think that an "artist" who does crappy work
must know it deep inside. One can wonder at works hanging in museums,
"Why is that hanging here... Did someone donate it so they placed it
on the wall just because... What is the museum trying to say... What
benefit are they showing to artists..."? But, that's the way things
are, and not just with art. It's just sometimes hard to understand!
Young at art!
k
(Sorry for being a chatterbox.)
On Sun, 12 Apr 1998 15:32:57 -0400, Bob Cantor <bob...@erols.com>
wrote:
Ninguno
Bob Cantor <bob...@erols.com> wrote:
>mdeli wrote:
>>
>> Bob Cantor wrote:
>> >I have to wonder about artists who are willing to call the work of other
>> >artists "crap". Serious artists put so much of their own self into their
>> >work that this is the same thing as calling the artist themselves
>> >"crap".
>>
>> What is a "serious" artist?
>
>A simply quick definition might be "one who believes in what they are
>doing and works hard at it". Just because something looks like crap
>doesn't mean that a person didn't put a lot of time and effort into it.
This might be a definition of "serious"..... the "artist" part seems
to be missing.
>Doesn't mean that they don't truly think there is something of value in
>it.
So? What's your point?
>> What is "putting one self" into a painting?
>>
>> What part of "Yourself" do you put into your paintings?
>>
>These I don't think I can explain. Either you get it or you don't.
[laughing]
Are you aware that this is one of the signs of mental illness?
>
>> Are you a "serious artist?"
>
>Not really, but close.
To bad.
>> If I said you did a crappy looking painting how does that mean that
>> I'm calling you crap?
>
>This follows from the "putting yourself into the painting" thing, so I
>can't explain that either.
How convenient.
>Realize, however, that there's a big difference between calling a
>painting crap and specifically identifying what you don't like about the
>painting. Look up crap in the dictionary and tell me just how
>descriptive you think that word is (ie. being specific does not mean
>saying "the colors look like crap"). "Crap" is neither a description or
>an evaluation; it's just an insult.
Unfortunately, it's also a description of a lot of work. Accurately
so.
>Why do you feel it necessary to insult any work of art that you don't
>like?
Why do you feel it necessary to lie about things?
>
>Do you regularly insult EVERYTHING and EVERYONE that you don't like?
You're such a sensitive guy! :)
>
>What do you think you accomplish when you insult something or someone?
[laughing]
What do *you* think you accomplish when *you* insult someone,
hypocrite?
>
>>
>> >I would have to be pretty damn certain that I knew everything
>> >about a particular person and their motivations before I would be
>> >willing to go out on such a limb.
>>
>> Do you study the motives of all artists?
>
>No. And I have never called the work of any of them crap. I have,
>however, expressed my dislike of certain works and occasionally
>questioned the motivations and seriousness of the artist.
That's nice.
>
>>
>> >Unfortunately, its human nature to
>> >create a fantasy world of simple dichotomies which lets people ignore
>> >the many uncertainties and complexities of the real world, which might
>> >be otherwise cause a great deal of stress.
>>
>> When you like a painting is this just a simple dichotomy?
>
>I'm not sure I understand this question. A simple dichotomy is the idea
>that there exists only 2 completely independent options - "like" and
>"dislike" - and that one of these options must be 100 percent correct
>with 100 percent certainty.
My, that's rather narrow-minded.
>
>>
>> > And so they must have a
>> >strong simple opinion on everything no matter how little they know about it,
>>
>> Cantor, did you ever look at a painting for the first time and just
>> like it?
>
>Yes. Did you? Are you trying to make some kind of point here?
>
>>
>> I bet Cantor won't answer any of these questions.
>>
>
>how much? Never mind, you'll come up with some explanation about how I
>didn't really answer any of them.
You really didn't answer much -- and that was rather lame.
mdeli
> Just because something looks like crap
>doesn't mean that a person didn't put a lot of time and effort into it.
>Doesn't mean that they don't truly think there is something of value in
>it.
>
But it still looks like crap doesn't it?
>> What is "putting one self" into a painting?
>>
>> What part of "Yourself" do you put into your paintings?
>>
>These I don't think I can explain. Either you get it or you don't.
I don't and I doubt that anyone can explain it. I suspect it is just
vacuous artzy babble.
>> If I said you did a crappy looking painting how does that mean that
>> I'm calling you crap?
>
>This follows from the "putting yourself into the painting" thing, so I
>can't explain that either.
Can someone do a painting without putting himself into it?
Do you generally put yourself into the front or the back of your
paintings?
>Why do you feel it necessary to insult any work of art that you don't
>like?
How can one insult a painting? Do any of your paintings get insulted?
>Do you regularly insult EVERYTHING and EVERYONE that you don't like?
Do you regularly beat your mother?
>> Do you study the motives of all artists?
>
>No. And I have never called the work of any of them crap. I have,
>however, expressed my dislike of certain works and occasionally
>questioned the motivations and seriousness of the artist.
Does your touching tolerance preclude everyone in the world from
labeling some things as crap?
>> I know quite a bit about Matisse including some of his motivations and
>> I still think 99% of his work is pure CRAP. The reasons do not lie
>> with his motivations but with his technical incompetence.
>>
>
>Why does the review on your web page primarily evaluate his painting as
>if it were an attempt at traditional realism?
I doesn't.
You get this impression because your conformist education has
taught you to imagine that any rejection of Modern Academic Art
implies the necessity of a return to some imaginary paradigm you call
traditional realism.
>
>Do you think it is possible that he was using skill to try to accomplish
>something other than traditional realism and traditional standards of
>beauty?
Matisse is used his lack of skill to accomplish something other than
traditional realism. He fails completely because all he manages to
create is traditional realism with utter incompetence. Matisse painted
little more than what you would call traditional realism.
>Is it possible that you simply believe that there is no value in what he
>was trying to accomplish, regardless of his skill level?
It is highly possible.
>If so, why don't you just say so rather than insulting the artist?
If pointing out the reasons why a painting is an incompetent disaster
insults the artist in your mind then so be it. So what?
>Do you really think that criticizing the work of Matisse based on what
>you would have liked him to paint demonstrates an understanding of what
>he actually was trying to paint (I'm not asking whether or not you have
>that understanding, I'm asking if you think you have demonstrated it).
I never mentioned what I would like Matisse to paint. Those are your
words.not mine.
Your logic is muddled. What counts is what hangs on the wall and I
have pointed out the reasons why I think it is an abomination.