Willem De Kooning, criminal
Richard
I know he's dead, but if he were still alive, he should be hunted down
like a dog and brought to trial and prosecuted for crimes against
humanity and atrocities against art. Or maybe he should be awarded
some sort of prize for perpetrating a bigger hoax than Andy Warhol and
for being a bigger charlatan? He made the most hideous paintings I've
ever seen. Before I saw his paintings, I didn't know it was possible
to create such ugliness with abstract smears of paint. His paintings
remind me of large quantities of human guts splattered onto a canvas.
I think perhaps the inside of a slaughterhouse would be less
unpleasant to look at than a de kooning atrocity. One thing I know for
sure. This isn't art.
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
Mani Deli
>
>I know he's dead, but if he were still alive, he should be hunted down
>like a dog and brought to trial and prosecuted for crimes against
>humanity and atrocities against art. Or maybe he should be awarded
>some sort of prize for perpetrating a bigger hoax than Andy Warhol and
>for being a bigger charlatan? He made the most hideous paintings I've
>ever seen. Before I saw his paintings, I didn't know it was possible
>to create such ugliness with abstract smears of paint. His paintings
>remind me of large quantities of human guts splattered onto a canvas.
Guts are three dimensional. De Kooning couldn't paint anything round.
I was standing in front of a de Kooning once next to a woman who was
looking at it. I asked what she thought. "Cat vomit," she exclaimed.
Many an artzy fartzy critic would consider this a compliment.
>I think perhaps the inside of a slaughterhouse would be less
>unpleasant to look at than a de kooning atrocity. One thing I know for
>sure. This isn't art.
>
It is art. Crappy art!
...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/
Sharr Truce
says...
> One thing I know for
>sure. This isn't art.
Spoken "like" a true authority.
With that thought in mind, you
should be a whiz when you finally
grow up, since you claim to be
such a whiz KID at the moment!
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
publication (British). The younger the child the stronger the attraction to
realistic detail. The young mind appears to have difficulties with image
generalities that require interpretation eg. impressionism. The conclusion
reached was that because many of the older the older children could
appreciate impressionism, age was considered a major factor in that the
young inexperienced mind had not yet formulated a collection of images which
could be called upon to assist with a more general interpretation of the
world.
They were using classical; figurative and impressionistic paintings in their
study.
I can understand yours and mani's problem - de kooning is too much of a jump
from the psychological security of image certainty. The problem you face is
that your tendency to jump to conclusions and treat those conclusions as
reality may in the end narrow your artistic maturity.
keith
Richard <cool_a...@z.com> wrote in message
news:1ni5tuss2pls4nu5h...@4ax.com...
Richard
On 13 Nov 2002 16:34:34 -0700, sha...@noemailever.com (Sharr Truce)
wrote:
Interesting that all these modern art shitheads say I should grow up
when they make art like KIDS themselves! I want to make art whose
sophistication is worthy of me and my well-above average intelligence,
not suitable for retarded people like you. You're a bunch of fucking
idiots who use modern art as an excuse to make art without any real
talent or skills.
Niall
Have you ever seen "Door in the River"
One of my faves
Can you not accept that some people
find this style painting interesting
I am in awe of fine detailed oil painting but
usually for technique reasons
Surely the guy who uses imagination
to create a visual work should get merit.
The fine artist basically copies something he/she
has seen. Anyone can tell if a sunset is beautiful
and (with good technique) paint it.
The artist who sees deeper into the scene
and represents the view with what appeals to them,
in my opinion, is the real artist
Why dont you try and swap one of your
"vase with flowers" paintings for a de Kooning
and see how you get on.
(Considering you're a genius and de Koonings a hoax)
Why dont you just accept that people have different opinions
and people like what you dont.....Simple
Im off to express myself with a white canvas and some black paint ;)
Enjoy painfully reproducing some leaves or something similar,
or better still, Take a photo and mount that
Ciao
Niall
Thur <a@spamless.z> wrote in message
news:2lLA9.3305$B92.5...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
> As a youngster, I never thought that paintings by impressionists
> were difficult at all. Rather, they gave the mind more freedom
> to interpret than the more realist paintings of earlier centuries.
> I found the cubists interesting, and Kandinsky exciting.
> I wonder to myself how it is that in my more mature years, I have
> turned around on anything abstract, although Impressionism still
> can impress me? This seems to be substantially in opposition
> to your comment on the young mind.
> Thur
>
> "keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com" <scot...@rogers.com> wrote in
message
> news:a5CA9.82397$MGm1....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Mani Deli
>I can understand yours and mani's problem - de kooning is too much of a jump
>from the psychological security of image certainty.
De kooning is a total idiot whose crap can be imitated by anyone with
a little technical knowledge.
> The problem you face is
>that your tendency to jump to conclusions and treat those conclusions as
>reality may in the end narrow your artistic maturity.
>
You can check out Keith's artistic maturity by the drivel on his web
site.
If it looks like its the product of a five year old its the artists
problem not the viewer's.
Neil Maxwell
wrote:
>I want to make art whose
>sophistication is worthy of me and my well-above average intelligence,
>not suitable for retarded people like you.
Sometimes, what I miss most about my youth (besides sharp eyes) is
that I knew everything, and was unsure about nothing. It was so
obvious that people who disagreed with me were just stupid or
ignorant.
On second thought, maybe it's just the eyesight I miss.
I know he's a troll, but what the heck.
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
John Ng
> The younger the child the stronger the attraction to
> realistic detail. The young mind appears to have difficulties with image
> generalities that require interpretation eg. impressionism. The conclusion
> reached was that because many of the older the older children could
> appreciate impressionism, age was considered a major factor in that the
> young inexperienced mind had not yet formulated a collection of images which
> could be called upon to assist with a more general interpretation of the
> world.
You are therefore implying that:
1. Children don't like cartoons, and adults should like only cartoons
and caricature.
2. That people like you genuinely understand art like those and not
putting on an arty-farty facade or peer pressure.
3. That there is something wrong with people who don't understand
funky art and that they are deficient.
4. Children who paints like Koonings (and there are many) just don't
understand their output.
5. That a splat here and there is worth more than months of hard work
and years to training and disappointment.
I remember when I was a child, I could never understand funky pictures
like Kooning but when I went to art school, suddenly I DIG. I dig,
because not to do so would imply stupidity and I wasn't going to show
them how dumb I was. Now that I am over the hill, I saw the folly of
my youth, and I can tell you now that there are rubbish. The only way
to understand art is to be truthful about it and not let someone else
tell you what you should like.
John Ng
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
context - at this point in your life you may need the reassurance that the
sun will rise every morning and set every evening to be followed by the
rising and setting moon. Cubism's multiple facets breaks up the
conventional world and builds another strange possibly unpredictable world.
That once fascinating world appears to have vanished from your horizon.
Do not blame it's demise on age or mature years - for I am 63 and still
find it fascinating. I find some not all modern art interesting. I am a
selective modern art lover just as I am a selective traditional art lover. I
am disliked by both camps because neither can claim my absolute allegiance
(he who is not with me is against me) and I find their war mongering
unilateral declarations of ultimate truth rather stupid.
When we speak of people's taste we speak of trends not absolutes. You may
belong to the proportion that does not follow the general trend. The
exception to the trend (being yourself in this case) does not disprove the
trend .
keith
Thur <a@spamless.z> wrote in message
news:2lLA9.3305$B92.5...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
> As a youngster, I never thought that paintings by impressionists
> were difficult at all. Rather, they gave the mind more freedom
> to interpret than the more realist paintings of earlier centuries.
> I found the cubists interesting, and Kandinsky exciting.
> I wonder to myself how it is that in my more mature years, I have
> turned around on anything abstract, although Impressionism still
> can impress me? This seems to be substantially in opposition
> to your comment on the young mind.
> Thur
>
> "keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com" <scot...@rogers.com> wrote in
message
> news:a5CA9.82397$MGm1....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Andrew D
<aTAKEcaTHIS...@iol.ie> wrote:
>Hi Richard
>
>Have you ever seen "Door in the River"
>One of my faves
>
>Can you not accept that some people
>find this style painting interesting
>
>I am in awe of fine detailed oil painting but
>usually for technique reasons
>
>Surely the guy who uses imagination
>to create a visual work should get merit.
>The fine artist basically copies something he/she
>has seen. Anyone can tell if a sunset is beautiful
>and (with good technique) paint it.
Yep, it's so easy everyone does it everyday and no one appreciates it.
Everyone just walks by realist art and announces "my three year old could
do better".
(sheesh!)
>The artist who sees deeper into the scene
>and represents the view with what appeals to them,
>in my opinion, is the real artist
"Sees deeper into the scene"? Can you explain this process?
>Why dont you just accept that people have different opinions
>and people like what you dont.....Simple
Richard (if he's real) is annoyed by an art industry and education system
that ignores representational art and promotes ONLY the abstract. You ask
Richard if he can understand that "some people
find this style painting interesting". You should be asking the education
system and public galleries if they can understand that some people find
the realistic style of painting interesting. Ask them why they're so
single-minded?
>Enjoy painfully reproducing some leaves or something similar,
>or better still, Take a photo and mount that
Ahh yes, the old "why not just take a photo?" because we all know there's
no freedom or expression in realist art don't we? It's one-dimensional.
It's non-challenging. It's shallow. It has no depth. It's too obvious.
It's a dead end.
Why do abstract artists waste time "looking deeper" into a scene if all
they're going to produce is something that looks like is spilt paint? Why
not just spill paint and mount that?
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Andrew D
>only seems to be in opposition - art is always seen in an emotional
>context - at this point in your life you may need the reassurance that the
>sun will rise every morning and set every evening to be followed by the
>rising and setting moon. Cubism's multiple facets breaks up the
>conventional world and builds another strange possibly unpredictable world.
>That once fascinating world appears to have vanished from your horizon.
And why is that better than a beautiful depiction of some aspect of the
real world? Any mess on any surface could be passed off as "an alternative
world" and there is no way you could possibly dismiss it as anything other
than real art.
Sharr Truce
right@the_end.of.my_tether says...
>Richard (if he's real) is annoyed by an art industry and education system
>that ignores representational art and promotes ONLY the abstract.
Where in the world do you get the notion
that "ONLY the abstract" is taught nowadays?
Get real! If you listen to some twerp's
claim that abstract is all that is taught,
then you deserve any misconceptions you have.
ONE teacher in some "community college" choosing to
teach abstract painting does NOT equate to
"an art industry and education system."
Sharr Truce
>All types of art are still being made, of course, and always will be. As an
>abstract artist, I understand and accept that my work is not in favor in
>top art circles
I have no idea why you think that either.
AE is still a BIG seller in MANY galleries.
I have no idea what constitutes "top art
circles." My current exposure to NYC
and London is through what I read and view
in the art magazines, and although there
is no "dominance" of art by any single
ism today, I still see plenty of interest
in the AE artists, both old and new.
William Palmer
> only seems to be in opposition - art is always seen in an emotional
> context - at this point in your life you may need the reassurance that the
> sun will rise every morning and set every evening to be followed by the
> rising and setting moon. Cubism's multiple facets breaks up the
> conventional world and builds another strange possibly unpredictable world.
> That once fascinating world appears to have vanished from your horizon.
>
> Do not blame it's demise on age or mature years - for I am 63 and still
> find it fascinating. I find some not all modern art interesting. I am a
> selective modern art lover just as I am a selective traditional art lover. I
> am disliked by both camps because neither can claim my absolute allegiance
> (he who is not with me is against me) and I find their war mongering
> unilateral declarations of ultimate truth rather stupid.
In my view, you are fortunate because you are able
to enjoy more art. Some of the posters here, in
my view, deprive themselves of a lot of enjoyment
by totally rejecting artists they see as being in
a school or tradition that they are opposed to.
While I do think that the critical acceptance of
abstract art eventually led to galleries and museums
being dominated by very mediocre imitations and
off-shoots of the pioneering abstract artists,
there are some in that school that I enjoy very
much. One of them is Stuart Davis. While in
general critics have ranked him as not being in the
same league with Pollack, de Kooning, Rothko, and,
others, in my own estimation Davis is a far better
artist than any of them. Some of his work is
definitely cubist, so I guess I am guilty of
appreciating cubism too. Yet, I do find a lot
of cubist work to be boring, almost to the
extent that I can sympathize with some of our
raving anti-cubists. For instance, I think
Davis' "Arboretum by Flashbulb (1942" is an
absolutely stunning work of art, as is the
1943 "Ultramarine." I could list many other
Davis' works that I think are fabulous, too.
As to the reason some of the artists in this
group are so intolerant, it seems to me that
Philip Gilbert Hamerton, the distinguished
British art critic and writer put his finger
on the matter over one-hundred years ago.
He is referring to Ingres, when he observes,
"Like other men who have been obstinately
devoted to a single idea, Ingres was
personally disagreeable." and, "Like most
artists, he not only believed himself to be
in the right, but considered other forms of
art than his own to be wrong, and a sort of
pestilence or scourge." and, "It is extremely
difficult, it would seem, for artists to avoid
these illusions and rise above this bitter
hostility and intolerance."
Maybe it is because I am not a practitioner of
the fine arts but an art lover that I have no
trouble enjoying the work of artists as diverse
as Fernand Khnopff, Gerome, Salvador Dali, Max
Ernst, Mucha, Charles Filiger, Robert Williams,
and Stuart Davis. Yet, I don't take real issue
with our posters who complain about the atocities
of modern art, because I have seen that sort of
thing hogging space in too many fashionable galleries
around L. A. Sort of like, well, it is very easy
to do bad abstract art, and when abstract art is
not original and excellent it is atrociously boring.
> When we speak of people's taste we speak of trends not absolutes. You may
> belong to the proportion that does not follow the general trend. The
> exception to the trend (being yourself in this case) does not disprove the
> trend .
>
> keith
>
>
>
>
> Thur <a@spamless.z> wrote in message
> news:2lLA9.3305$B92.5...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
> > x-no-archive: yes
> > As a youngster, I never thought that paintings by impressionists
> > were difficult at all. Rather, they gave the mind more freedom
> > to interpret than the more realist paintings of earlier centuries.
> > I found the cubists interesting, and Kandinsky exciting.
> > I wonder to myself how it is that in my more mature years, I have
> > turned around on anything abstract, although Impressionism still
> > can impress me?
Monet is one of the greatest artists of all time.
I don't know why there are so many books on his
"Waterlilies," though, because in my view those
were some of his less exciting and successful
efforts. Some other famous Impressionists bore
me, though. Manet does little for me, for instance.
As I argue in my essay "Symbolism: A Century
of Neglect," I think the main reason that
Impressionism triumphed through most of the
20th century, to the extent that many art
historians seemed to forget that Symbolism
even existed, was that dealers were quick to
recognize that Impressionism, being easy to
produce, and often sunny enough to brighten
up anyone's wall, had a huge commercial
potential, while Symbolism, often being
perplexing, dark, and disturbing, did not
have that potential. (I mean, I don't
think too many dentists would want Schwabe's
"Death and the Gravedigger" on the walls of
their office.) Of course, you can argue
that Symbolism is somewhat elitist. Not
elitist in the sense that it was aimed at
attracting people with lots of money, as
Bouguereau's art was, but elitist in
intellectual sense. It was not for
everyone, and most of the great Symbolist
artists did not pretend to be painting
for everyone. Symbolism wasn't art for
the ordinary Joe. Ever read "A Rebours"
or "Against Nature" [really, "Against
NATURALISM]? Author J.-K. Huysman's Des
Esseintes is no Ordinary Joe, but in my view
he is one of the most fascinating characters
in all literature. Anyway, the common herd of
humanity does not like to deal with the sort
of questions and issues that Symbolism deals
with...Impression, for the most part, does
not ask questions and has very wide general
appeal.
a.g.b-p
Goethe Helen Waite
Thur <a@spamless.z> wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>As a youngster, I never thought that paintings by impressionists
>were difficult at all. Rather, they gave the mind more freedom
>"keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com" <scot...@rogers.com> wrote in message
>news:a5CA9.82397$MGm1....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>> publication (British). The younger the child the stronger the attraction
>to
>> realistic detail. The young mind appears to have difficulties with image
[etc]
I'm with "Thur". Your mileage may vary.
I've encountered children (and am a former child, myself!) who love
French impressionist paintings, tribal prints, Japanese woodcuts,
Egyptian monoliths, and Mondrian. And besides, if kids have such a strong
attraction to realism, why are they so into Pokemon, Hello Kitty, and
actors who fly on brooms or turn into cats?
--
"Arguing on the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics - even
if you win you're still retarded."
Kramer Wetzel, home of the Texas Shakespeare Massacre
Mani Deli
Palmer) wrote:
>---there are some in that school that I enjoy very
>much. One of them is Stuart Davis. While in
>general critics have ranked him as not being in the
>same league with Pollack, de Kooning, Rothko, and,
>others, in my own estimation Davis is a far better
>artist than any of them.
I consider Davis who is now avant-gone among the best of the worst. It
is decoration on a better level by someone who at least has color and
compositional sense.
He is avant-gone because his work doesn't conform to the present
fashionably required ugliness, emptiness and downright stupidity, It
doesn't look like a the put-on in the artzy fartzy march of nihilism.
>As to the reason some of the artists in this
>group are so intolerant,
Should we be tolerant of a tidal wave of bullshit?
Andrew D
Truce) wrote:
>In article <right-15110...@i160-070.nv.iinet.net.au>,
>right@the_end.of.my_tether says...
>
>>Richard (if he's real) is annoyed by an art industry and education system
>>that ignores representational art and promotes ONLY the abstract.
>
>Where in the world do you get the notion
>that "ONLY the abstract" is taught nowadays?
Locally mainly. Our major art institution has a reputation for dismissing
any attempts at realism. One lecturer is known to snatch a student's work,
throw it on the floor and stamp on it if it isn't "expressive".
Any exhibition judged by lecturers from this university will almost always
see prizes go to ugly "abstract" pieces and never to any good, solid,
traditional work.
>Get real! If you listen to some twerp's
>claim that abstract is all that is taught,
>then you deserve any misconceptions you have.
>ONE teacher in some "community college" choosing to
>teach abstract painting does NOT equate to
>"an art industry and education system."
It's fairly clear from the number of posts that have appeared here over
the years that it isn't isolated.
Andrew D
>In article <2lLA9.3305$B92.5...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>,
>Thur <a@spamless.z> wrote:
>>x-no-archive: yes
>>As a youngster, I never thought that paintings by impressionists
>>were difficult at all. Rather, they gave the mind more freedom
>[etc]
>>"keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com" <scot...@rogers.com> wrote in message
>>news:a5CA9.82397$MGm1....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>>> Training of Taste in The Art and Crafts: Littlejohns worked on this 1933
>>> publication (British). The younger the child the stronger the attraction
>>to
>>> realistic detail. The young mind appears to have difficulties with image
>
>[etc]
>
>
>I'm with "Thur". Your mileage may vary.
>
>I've encountered children (and am a former child, myself!)
Hey! I used to be child myself. Maybe we know each other?
Andrew D
willia...@prodigy.net (William Palmer) wrote:
>In my view, you are fortunate because you are able
>to enjoy more art. Some of the posters here, in
>my view, deprive themselves of a lot of enjoyment
>by totally rejecting artists they see as being in
>a school or tradition that they are opposed to.
True. If you care about nothing you will have a carefree existence.
Sharr Truce
right@the_end.of.my_tether says...
>>ONE teacher in some "community college" choosing to
>>teach abstract painting does NOT equate to
>>"an art industry and education system."
>It's fairly clear from the number of posts that have appeared here over
>the years that it isn't isolated.
I was exaggerating for emphasis.
I know full well the "cutting edge" demands
of university art colleges that see themselves
as "cutting edge." It didn't stop me
schools that likes to advertise
themselves that way. But "cutting edge" wasn't
about "abstract expressionism" any more than
it was about any other artism. It had more to
do with the mindset that: artists today need
to be "thinking outside the box" in order to
make a splash in the art oceans.
And yes, I suffered through several semesters
with painting teachers who either didn't like
my way of painting or whose teaching methods
I had little liking for. But that was, for
me, why I was in school - to be exposed to as
much difference of opinion as possible. There
is a way to rebel without ruining your GPA,
by using the very system the teacher favors
in such a way that it exaggerates, parodies,
or lampoons their "method." Worked for me.