Mondrian/Dali
Ross Green
> Mondrian, the puritan, the aesthetic anorexic, did not "paint."
Yes, Mondrian did paint: he painted all his life, and he did it
with genius.
Not everyone likes his work, but it's foolish to say he didn't
paint.
> To compare him with Dali, the divine photographer of
> thought, is blasphemous.
Oh, good, let's blaspheme a little... It's so ironic that you guys
who think modernism was some kind of hoax, then turn around and
revere Salvador Dali, the ultimate poseur!
> Of all the artists of the 20th century, Dali was
> the most able to do what he wanted!
Dali was a technical virtuoso, and he invented some interesting
motifs, but so what?--the 20th century has seen many far better
painters (including Mondrian)... besides, your contention is trite,
since all artists have some weaknesses (Dali was no colorist, for
example)---and isn't the recognition of limits part of artistic
maturity? (Many good artists even cultivate limits.)
-Ross
Mani Deli
Li> Yes, Mondrian did paint: he painted all his life, and he did it
Li> with genius.
Of course he painted. He just couldn't draw very well. He is the genius of
stripes. Who else could evoke that much Artspeak for a few stripes? Even
Malavich who was 20 years ahead of Mondrian evoks scarcely a burb by
comparison.
Li> Not everyone likes his work, but it's foolish to say he didn't
Li> paint.
Right on. Foolish. He might have even learned to paint EXIT signs if he had the
time. That would have really shown Wartball what he could do with his soup
cans.
Li> Oh, good, let's blaspheme a little... It's so ironic that you guys
Li> who think modernism was some kind of hoax, then turn around and
Li> revere Salvador Dali, the ultimate poseur!
Yes, but Dali could draw. I didn't turn around. I'll say it facing you dead on,
"Mondrian is a primal idiot of Modern Academic Art." However he is not that
primal. There are far greater idiots.
Li> Dali was a technical virtuoso, and he invented some interesting
Li> motifs, but so what?
That should be enough. Thats about 100% more than 99% of the rest of our
holiest Modernists could accomplish.
--the 20th century has seen many far better
Li> painters (including Mondrian)... besides, your contention is trite,
Li> since all artists have some weaknesses (Dali was no colorist, for
Li> example)
What example?
---and isn't the recognition of limits part of artistic
Li> maturity? (Many good artists even cultivate limits.)
Mondrian was the greatest colorist of the century after Rothko. Even better
than Franz Klein. Every 5 pound Mondrian book will attest to that. Mondrian's
limit was skill and he cultivated limits on intelligence.
Mani DeLi
Lets hope the Archbishop ignores this one lest his wrath be upon us all.
.. No skill no art.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
Ross Green
University wrote:
> I think the Dali vs. Mondrian argument is
> meaningless. Apples and Oranges, man...
Yes--if you're talking about a critical comparison between
Mondrian's geometric paintings and Dali's Surrealism--that would
be, as you say, meaningless. (Similarly ridiculous comparisons
lead Mani Deli and others into endless confusion.)
On the other hand, it's quite possible to debate their relative
merits as artists and as historical figures. For instance,
Mondrian's painting (style/philosophy) was a major influence on
modern abstract painting, especially on Minimalism; whereas Dali's
polished, classical painting style did not find many disciples.
Yet Dali's creative philosophy (as a Surrealist) was of seminal
importance to many artists, including (guess who?): Jackson
Pollock, Willem de Kooning, Cy Twombly, (a long list would be
possible...)
> The talk of "art burning" in one of the posts,
> though meant in jest, isnt funny at all. The Nazi's
> didnt like modern art either and they certainly
> burned a few things... Damn scary, eh??
Salvador Dali was a complicated man, who at times was genuinely
deranged (it was not an act). One point that seems to be missing
from our discussions so far is that Dali was himself very broad-
minded (in many ways) and often extremely tolerant. He numbered
among his many friends, radicals like Marcel Duchamp, Pablo
Picasso, Federico Garcia Lorca...(many others).
People like r.a.f.'s Mani Deli, who are obsessed with making
pseudo-debates out of pseudo-issues, such as 'Duchamp vs. Dali,'
are just being stupid ... Duchamp and Dali admired and respected
each other, and they were lifelong friends.
For many years, Dali was a great admirer of Picasso. When he
first met Picasso (in Paris) he said: "I have come to see you,
before visiting the Louvre." Picasso answered: "Quite right."
-Ross
Ross Green
> lib...@uvsc.edu (Ross Green) wrote:
>> Yes, Mondrian did paint: he painted all his life, and he
>> did it with genius.
> Of course he painted. He just couldn't draw very well.
He drew very well. (Study his figurative works.)
> I'll say it facing you dead on, "Mondrian is a primal
> idiot of Modern Academic Art."
Yes, Mani, every abstract artist is an idiot---and you are sane.
> Even better than Franz Klein.
^^^^^
You don't even get the names right: Franz Kline--Yves Klein--
--two different artists, with similar last names. I think this is
the 3rd time I've mentioned this--next time you will be fined ($)
> Mondrian's limit was skill and he cultivated limits on
> intelligence.
Mondrian was a trained, highly-skilled artist. (He was also an
intellectual.)
> Lets hope the Archbishop ignores this one lest his
> wrath be upon us all.
Ignoring you should be the official policy in r.a.f.--you never
say anything new or constructive--trying to debate with you
is a total waste of time.
-Ross
Madame M
arguments about the validity of this artist or that artist. A lot of
this stuff wasnt making any money at the time (Dali being an exception)
but this stuff has endured because it's important in some way. I'm
sorry, but" being able to draw" is only half of it... anyone with the
time can develop good drawing skills. Like I stated before, there's
something to be gained from most works of serious art. You cant isolate
them from their antecedents or contemporaries, or their culture or
geography. Abstract expressionism, for instance, came out of a group of
people who were celebrating life and art and were glad to be alive after
leaving NAzi Germany. I am really starting to think that if you dont
paint its hard to see somehting in a lot of this work and I really wonder
if Mani and freinds paint or just criticize. I find that people who dont
paint and know nothing about art LOVE photorealism. Why?? Because it's
easily understood (on the surface) and doesnt challenge them
intellectually or aesthetically. Surrealism too... I'm not saying its
bad art, it's just a narrow thing to laud at the expense of a lot of
other good art that has challenged the way we perceive and make things...
--Madame M
Twinkletoes
Ignoring you should be the official policy in r.a.f.--you never
say anything new or constructive--trying to debate with you
is a total waste of time.
>-Ross
Okay Ross. Who said that first? You or me?
Twinky.
William DeRaymond
> People like r.a.f.'s Mani Deli, who are obsessed with making
> pseudo-debates out of pseudo-issues, such as 'Duchamp vs. Dali,'
> are just being stupid ... Duchamp and Dali admired and respected
very important argument. It is ultimately a very subtle and complicated
affair, that involves us all at deep psychological levels. I seem to agree
with Mani Deli as Much and maybe even more than with you. I see you as being
enamored with much of what you were taught or are learning in the modern
Academy and most of what is being taught IS crap as far as I am concerned.
Picasso is no hero of mine. I feel sorry for him. Duchamp was just as
pitiful. They both sold out their vision and ability for Fame and Market
recognition. Mondrian was just as foolish. These men are not in truth
Modern however, but neo-modern. They become victims of the need to be
different, not realizing that originality is self inherent. At worst they
were hustlers all! The true moderns are a generation earlier. The so called
impressionists and post-impressionists. They broke free of the neo-classical
aesthetic, and looked at the world and painting with their own eyes and minds
and hearts. It became a matter of direct experience rather than conceptual
speculation.
>
> For many years, Dali was a great admirer of Picasso. When he
> first met Picasso (in Paris) he said: "I have come to see you,
> before visiting the Louvre." Picasso answered: "Quite right."
>
their painting of those images. Concept, not the expression of direct
experience. Stylized, not original style. For style quote by the Master I
was fortunate enough to have studied with
-http://www.worldlightproductions.com/retro.html
--
William DeRaymond/Artist
WorldLightProductions
http://www.worldlightproductions.com
'The abstract nature of reality is the source of beauty.'- William
Mani Deli
>> People like r.a.f.'s Mani Deli, who are obsessed with making
>> pseudo-debates out of pseudo-issues, such as 'Duchamp vs. Dali,'
>> are just being stupid ... Duchamp and Dali admired and respected
>> each other, and they were lifelong friends.
Duchamp was monumentally satirized in Dali’s painting “avida Dollars.”
Friendship doesn’t mean that Dali admired Duchamp’s work. I know Dali admired
pure laziness and Duchamp is a good example.
Duchamp did some fine abstract painting but got lazy after his jokes caught
on. He preferred debauchery and chess to doing artwork. I see nothing wrong
with this. However it never allowed him to make the grade of great artist. He
was a clever satirist and learned to make a living by goofing on artzy
fartzies. I admire him as much as Dali did.
William DeRaymond writes
>Picasso is no hero of mine. I feel sorry for him.
Why feel sorry?
> Duchamp was just as
>pitiful. They both sold out their vision and ability for Fame and Market
>recognition.
What's wrong with fame and market reconition?
Mondrian was just as foolish. These men are not in truth
>Modern however, but neo-modern. They become victims of the need to be
>different, not realizing that originality is self inherent. At worst they
>were hustlers all! The true moderns are a generation earlier. The so called
>impressionists and post-impressionists. They broke free of the neo-classical
>aesthetic, and looked at the world and painting with their own eyes and minds
and hearts.
Every artist does that.
It became a matter of direct experience rather than conceptual
>speculation.
?
>> For many years, Dali was a great admirer of Picasso. When he
>> first met Picasso (in Paris) he said: "I have come to see you,
>> before visiting the Louvre." Picasso answered: "Quite right."
>>
I think you fail to sense Dali’s brilliant ability at satire. Dali saw
through Picasso the minute he visited his studio for the first time. (read on
in his autobiography). Picasso did at first admire Dali and even helped him
out financially. But anyone could see that Dali was pulling Picasso’s leg,
especially Picasso. As I recall and I heard this first hand, no one was
allowed to mention Dali around Picasso. I do know that after Dali painted his
scathing portrait of Picasso, Dali was on the outs.
When Dali was asked, who the greatest painters of the century were. He always
said , “Dali and Picasso. I am the genius of beauty and Picasso is genius of
ugliness .”
I’m sure you heard the quote many times. If that is admiration than so be it.
>> ... Dali and Picasso are two sides of the same coin. Their images dominate
>their painting of those images.
And what is wrong with that ?
Their difference is a matter of technical ability and Ideas. Picasso was an
average cartoonist who painted big. Dali was a master craftsman. Both had
interesting ideas. Picasso in spite of his classical training could never
carry any rendering to a fine finish. He remained a schmierer. He always
preferred to make many sloppy paintings to a few fine ones. Dali worked as
hard on his ideas as he did to attain mastery of craftsmanship. Dali rarely
produced lazy art. He was also the first important artist to criticize the
stupidity of Modern Academic Art; in his painting as well as in words. He
became the nemesis of our holy critics.
Concept, not the expression of direct
>experience. Stylized, not original style.
Would you say Dali had no original style? Even the lighting in his early
paintings is unique. So is his handling of the figure.
Mani DeLi
..no skill no art
Mani Deli
>> People like r.a.f.'s Mani Deli, who are obsessed with making
>> pseudo-debates out of pseudo-issues, such as 'Duchamp vs. Dali,'
>> are just being stupid ... Duchamp and Dali admired and respected
pseudo issues at all.
William DeRaymond answers
> I think it is part of a
>very important argument. It is ultimately a very subtle and complicated
>affair, that involves us all at deep psychological levels.
I would like to commend you on this observation. This forum is precisely for
this sort of argument. After reading forty years worth of little more than
one sided orgasmic praise of modern art I find this is almost the only forum
where one can express a descenting opinion.
Most of the regulars here espouse modernism . However from my first message
they have called me an idiot, told me that I can’t paint and gone into
patronizing lectures saying I’m depressed etc. and asked that I get lost. When
it comes to satire here I’ll gladly take on anybody. However my serious points
are rarely answered and seem to offend others here to the point of arousing
anger. I find this both amusing and informative. It reminds me of my art
school days and of the fact that opinions, attitudes and the slogans have
changed little since then.
Criticizing Modern Academic art is like criticizing religion. Here an opposing
view is seen to offend a dogma. One is trained to ignore serious opposition
and to express anger at its perpetrators.
I can understand this because should the fashion change many will have a lot
to loose. However the day will come when some weary critic, like the little
girl in the “Emperors New Clothes” will say in so many words, “what is all
this crap.” And I’m sure the time will come when people will also listen.
Then we will enter the next phase of fashion.
The only redeeming quality any artwork can have after fickle fashion bypasses
it, is the possession of superior skill. Whether one likes a work or not the
public rarely fails to admire its skill. A skilled work insures that someone
will admire and save it. In time it is only the most skilled work which become
labeled by all as classical.
Mani DeLi
.no skill no art
Ross Green
wrote:
> I don't think these issues are pseudo issues at all. I think it is
> part of a very important argument. It is ultimately a very subtle
> and complicated affair, that involves us all at deep psychological
> levels.
It's not "subtle and complicated" when people ignore history and
historical context, and simply make unsubstantiated assertions:
Delacroix's colors were muddy, and he couldn't draw well;
Picasso/Pollock/de Kooning/etc. couldn't draw; today's art
students and teachers can't draw...These and similar statements
are being made in a historical vacuum, and they are always
presented in an authoritarian mode: no arguments, no
explanations, no examples, no nothing--(which, BTW, is one
reason this often reminds people of authoritarian governments.)
> I see you as being enamored with much of what you were taught
> or are learning in the modern Academy and most of what is
> being taught IS crap as far as I am concerned.
Ah, a syllogism... I am enamored of academic learning, academic
learning is crap, therefore I am enamored of crap. (Not very
subtle, William.)
> Picasso is no hero of mine. I feel sorry for him. Duchamp was
> just as pitiful. They both sold out their vision and ability for
> Fame and Market recognition. Mondrian was just as foolish.
I wonder what Picasso, Duchamp, and Mondrian would think of
William DeRaymond's pity... (And you're not being historically
accurate: Duchamp and Mondrian didn't earn much money from
their advanced work.)
> These men are not in truth Modern however, but neo-modern.
> They become victims of the need to be different, not realizing
> that originality is self inherent. At worst they were hustlers all!
> The true moderns are a generation earlier.
That's not correct. 'Modernism'--as an artistic and literary
movement--lasted from 1890 to 1945. Besides, history is a
continuum; you could just as logically insist that the 'true moderns'
lived during the Renaissance.
> The so called impressionists and post-impressionists. They
> broke free of the neo-classical aesthetic, and looked at the world
> and painting with their own eyes and minds and hearts. It
> became a matter of direct experience rather than conceptual
> speculation.
Wrong again---The impressionists & post-impressionists were
obsessed with theories. Anyway, why are you assuming that
"direct experience" necessarily precludes "conceptual
speculation"?
> Dali and Picasso are two sides of the same coin. Their images
> dominate their painting of those images. Concept, not the
> expression of direct experience. Stylized, not original style.
For much of his career, Picasso was a master of direct expression.
If you and your buddy Mani took the trouble to study art history,
you could avoid making these constant blunders.
That said, however, I enjoyed many of the images at your web site,
especially 'american hungry ghost 1' and several of the sumi-e
paintings.
-Ross
er...@phidias.colorado.edu
> it, is the possession of superior skill. Whether one likes a work or not the
> public rarely fails to admire its skill. A skilled work insures that someone
> will admire and save it. In time it is only the most skilled work which become
> labeled by all as classical.
That is obviously not true. Skill is an important aspect of art, but
only goes so far. I could skillfully render millions of paintings of
perfect spheres. Great. A computer can do the exact same thing far
more skillfully. Neither of us will be remembered in the future.
Subject is as or more important than skill. Clarity of vision can in
some cases overcome skill (though some skill is necessary or one becomes
entirely incapable of conveying their 'vision' in any meaningful way).
Skill is also an overly broad term. Skill can cover a variety of area,
including one's technical skill in handling the media, one's ability to
render form or ideas faithfully, one's ability to work with color, one's
compositional ability, etc... Any given person will have a unique host
of abilities, and likely be quite deficient in other areas. One can
overcome one's weaknesses by exploiting their abilities.
The other factor over whether a given piece/artist will survive the test
of time is timing. This is something that is not in the control of the
artist at all. Be in the right place at the right time with the right
picture and wham, you are now an historical figure. Plain old luck.
btw, I never went to an art acadamy, and couldn't argue the first things
about the pro's and con's of various styles and artists. It seems
rather pointless arguing the definition of narrow labels (modernism,
neo-modernism, post-modernism, etc), which really have little relevance
on the actual work being categorized. You often sound more like an
historian than an artist (which you very well may be).
I studied architecture. And don't enjoy the same sorts of
narrow classificiations in that field either.
.art is in the eye of the beholder
.no skill
.no vision
.no creativity
.no action
.no relevance
.no beholder
.no beauty
no art... but some combination thereof?
-Erik Johnson
er...@phidias.colorado.edu
http://phidias.colorado.edu/vgallery.htm
Peter MacLeod
: Most of the regulars here espouse modernism . However from my first message
: they have called me an idiot, told me that I can’t paint and gone into
: patronizing lectures saying I’m depressed etc. and asked that I get lost. When
: it comes to satire here I’ll gladly take on anybody. However my serious points
: are rarely answered and seem to offend others here to the point of arousing
: anger. I find this both amusing and informative. It reminds me of my art
: school days and of the fact that opinions, attitudes and the slogans have
: changed little since then.
Most have given up--it's tiresome to argue with someone who dismisses
any slightly complicated argument as "artspeak," and bodies of criticism
as "slogans."
The reason you get the patronizing lectures is that it is obvious to the
most casual observer that you are projecting your unhappy experience at art
school onto the entire "establishment"--one which rejected you and which you
now despise. Is that patronizing enough?
--P
IRAJED
of your ideas. For me, Dali lacks the most important ingredient of any
great piece of art-doubt!
The moment of creation is a moment of crisis. Any act will be a near miss
at best. The painter sees much more than he/she can capture, (both
perceptually and conceptually.)
This tension is central to the construction of any work of art and how it
is dealt with often determines the integral soul of the piece.
For me, Dali used technique to pragmatically resolve this problem. Picasso
lived and suffered through this tension: He sacrificed what he knew about
great art for the integrity of the moment- any pioneer must!
Ira Greenberg
Bradarina
writes:
>The moment of creation is a moment of crisis. Any act will be a near miss
>at best. The painter sees much more than he/she can capture, (both
>perceptually and conceptually.)
>
>This tension is central to the construction of any work of art and how it
>is dealt with often determines the integral soul of the piece.
Exactly
This gets right to the heart of what differentiates
between artists
Who are pushing the edge of the unknown in their work and those
who
spend more time refining technique .
Art that explores the boundaries of the creative
process( Such as
Picasso`s) may be harder to assimilate by the average viewer
but is
ultimately more satisfying
While most artists are working towards a more refined
technique
within this quest lies a trap. That is becoming locked into a
more and more
stylized mode of working and losing the element of tension
previously
referred to.
There must be a constant interplay between the work
of art as
finished product and the work of as a means of discovery.
Picasso
kept upthis dialogue longer than most.
B Burkhart
Phil Morse
>I have always had a problem with Dali. Though, I am sympathetic with some
>of your ideas. For me, Dali lacks the most important ingredient of any
>great piece of art-doubt!
>
>at best. The painter sees much more than he/she can capture, (both
>perceptually and conceptually.)
>
>This tension is central to the construction of any work of art and how it
>is dealt with often determines the integral soul of the piece.
>
>lived and suffered through this tension: He sacrificed what he knew about
>great art for the integrity of the moment- any pioneer must!
>
>Ira Greenberg
You nailed it.
You could add Cezanne, Matisse, Pollock, Guston, etc, etc to the list. I
think a fine example of this is the destested flipper feet of Matisse's
Bathers with a Turtle of 1908. To me the whole painting expresses
anxiety, doubt, and the feet, a painful and tenuous connection with the
ground.
Phil
William DeRaymond
>
> William DeRaymond <dray...@worldlightproductions.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I don't think these issues are pseudo issues at all. I think it is
> > part of a very important argument. It is ultimately a very subtle
> > and complicated affair, that involves us all at deep psychological
> > levels.
>
> It's not "subtle and complicated" when people ignore history and
> historical context, and simply make unsubstantiated assertions:
> Delacroix's colors were muddy, and he couldn't draw well;
> Picasso/Pollock/de Kooning/etc. couldn't draw; today's art
> students and teachers can't draw...These and similar statements
> are being made in a historical vacuum, and they are always
> presented in an authoritarian mode: no arguments, no
> explanations, no examples, no nothing--(which, BTW, is one
> reason this often reminds people of authoritarian governments.)
I agree that people should not ignore history. I also try to understand the
viewpoint of the other making an assertion. I find Mani Deli's assertions
based in a particular conceptual framework, as I see yours based in another.
How does one free oneself from concept? Should one try? My own opinion is
that the 'best'art(again my opinion)from any period is only understood
through direct experience not conceptual speculation.
> > I see you as being enamored with much of what you were taught
> > or are learning in the modern Academy and most of what is
> > being taught IS crap as far as I am concerned.
>
> Ah, a syllogism... I am enamored of academic learning, academic
> learning is crap, therefore I am enamored of crap. (Not very
> subtle, William.)
My experience has shown me that art in the university and the world for that
matter is a 'free kill zone'. Anything goes. People can and do justify any
kind of expression as 'art'. Concept is taught. ism's are taught. The 20th
Century is full of ism's and movements and who can come up with the next hook
that will get that person recognition. etc.
When you are brought up in this mileiu, I wonder if it is ever possible
to be deprogrammed, and simply look at the world(by the way what is the world
anyway?)and painting with your own 2 eyes, rather than through the
concveptual filters inherited from the mass culture.
> > Picasso is no hero of mine. I feel sorry for him. Duchamp was
> > just as pitiful. They both sold out their vision and ability for
> > Fame and Market recognition. Mondrian was just as foolish.
>
> I wonder what Picasso, Duchamp, and Mondrian would think of
> William DeRaymond's pity... (And you're not being historically
> accurate: Duchamp and Mondrian didn't earn much money from
> their advanced work.)
Like I said I don't refer to them or emulate them except in the most
marginal ways. I do believe them to be victims of the 20th century.
> > These men are not in truth Modern however, but neo-modern.
> > They become victims of the need to be different, not realizing
> > that originality is self inherent. At worst they were hustlers all!
> > The true moderns are a generation earlier.
>
> That's not correct. 'Modernism'--as an artistic and literary
> movement--lasted from 1890 to 1945. Besides, history is a
> continuum; you could just as logically insist that the 'true moderns'
> lived during the Renaissance.In my study of arthistory,as concerns art historians, modernism does go back
to the 14th century Rennaissance. In truth I believe true modernism to be
classicism. And in fact this is able to be expressed by anyone at anytime,
you simply have to be in the moment and aware of the artform and its eternal
nature.(whew..any ???) I think a lot of the cave paintings are modern.
Modern actually means of the moment, I believe.
> > The so called impressionists and post-impressionists. They
> > broke free of the neo-classical aesthetic, and looked at the world
> > and painting with their own eyes and minds and hearts. It
> > became a matter of direct experience rather than conceptual
> > speculation.
>
> Wrong again---The impressionists & post-impressionists were
> obsessed with theories. Anyway, why are you assuming that
> "direct experience" necessarily precludes "conceptual
> speculation"?I think the critics of the time may have been obsessed with theories to try
to explain the revolution that was going on... anyway all the art theories
that were being expressed dealt with the issues of looking directly at the
world around the artist, going into the heart of nature to discover her
beauties. Here in the 20th century that is considered generally old
fashioned, I mean like we did that, been there.... In the 20th century
academy, before someone has any real 'aesthetic' understanding of drawing
(which I find to be rare in any case) they are pushed into the realms of
conceptualizing abstraction as being this advanced psychological event.
> > Dali and Picasso are two sides of the same coin. Their images
> > dominate their painting of those images. Concept, not the
> > expression of direct experience. Stylized, not original style.
>
> For much of his career, Picasso was a master of direct expression.
> If you and your buddy Mani took the trouble to study art history,
> you could avoid making these constant blunders.
> In a sense you are right, but if you go up and look real close at the rythms of his brush stroke you will see an incredible struggle to express
this kind of child like spontaneity. That struggle is his conceptual need to
be a certain way... to uphold his 'idea' of who he was. And the deliberate
twisting of form etc. again is only an expression of his idea or concept of
what contemporary or modern was. I mean why? do you express hands deformed
when you could express them naturally? Was he insecure in the fact that if
he just painted them directly as he saw them they wouldn't be good enough
,they wouldn't be different enough to set him apart and uphold his
reputation.
The way I see a lot of Picasso is he allowed his subject matter and the idea
of himself as a modern genius to dominate the 'painting'. So what if you can
twist space in painting? I don't see him as some great 'seer', I think he
could have been and was at moments, the rest of the time he was enamoured of
his own idea of what modern meant.
> That said, however, I enjoyed many of the images at your web site,
> especially 'american hungry ghost 1' and several of the sumi-e
> paintings.
>
> -RossThanks Ross, In no way do I take this lightly or without sincerity. Art can
be a tremendous struggle. There are many of us with many ideas. My main
thing is the direct expression of the self (what the hell is a self anyway)
through the direct expression of the medium. I know that sometimes I come
off pompous, but I say what I say to support the child. and the artist who
would mature into adulthood while yet remaining a child.
--
William DeRaymond/Artist
WorldLightProductions
http://www.worldlightproductions.com/~draymond/
Mani Deli
>The reason you get the patronizing lectures is that it is obvious to the
>most casual observer that you are projecting your unhappy experience at art
>school onto the entire "establishment"--one which rejected you and which you
>now despise. Is that patronizing enough?
>
In the first art school, a prestigious Modern Art Academy I learned what to
avoid and was fortunatly expelled. I got good grades the girls were great,
some of the teachers were fun and it was a free ride. Who could complain about
that. Next I attended The Art Students League in NY. Here I actually was able
to lean a lot. The girls were even more fun, I always got tuition scholarships
and finally won a McDowell scholarship for a free year in Europe.
That about sums up my unhappy art school experiences. Perhaps your's were more
enjoyable.
If you want more juicy details read my book, "SPLAT PATSCH AND SCHMIER a
negative view of Modern Art."
Peter MacLeod
: P. writes:
: >The reason you get the patronizing lectures is that it is obvious to the
: >most casual observer that you are projecting your unhappy experience at art
: >school onto the entire "establishment"--one which rejected you and which you
: >now despise. Is that patronizing enough?
: >
: No its just stupid psychobabble.I happened to enjoy art school very much.
Oh, right, I forgot.. if it's not "artspeak", it's "psychobabble."
--P