The french tradition
Richard
I read a book about french draftsmen that said that France is the only
country which has had an unbroken tradition of excellent draftsmen
from the end of the 14th century until today. Other countries only had
periods of greatness. It said that originally the artistic excellence
was supported by the aristocracy, then it was supported by
enthusiastic amateurs. It said France has always had a strong cultural
tradition which fosters excellence in the arts, even before France
became a nation. I've heard elsewhere that the French care about
preserving their culture and don't want to be Americanized. I hope
they don't become americanized. I think france has a great culture,
perhaps the BEST culture. Well this answers the question I asked a
while ago about why French artists are so good. BTW, I love buying &
using french artist materials, like Conte pencils & Canson charcoal
paper. The french make good stuff.
-----= 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! =-----
William Palmer
> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
>
> I read a book about french draftsmen that said that France is the only
> country which has had an unbroken tradition of excellent draftsmen
> from the end of the 14th century until today. Other countries only had
> periods of greatness. It said that originally the artistic excellence
> was supported by the aristocracy, then it was supported by
> enthusiastic amateurs. It said France has always had a strong cultural
> tradition which fosters excellence in the arts, even before France
> became a nation. I've heard elsewhere that the French care about
> preserving their culture and don't want to be Americanized. I hope
> they don't become americanized. I think france has a great culture,
> perhaps the BEST culture. Well this answers the question I asked a
> while ago about why French artists are so good. BTW, I love buying &
> using french artist materials, like Conte pencils & Canson charcoal
> paper. The french make good stuff.
In many ways, I have to agree with you. The last time
this topic came up, an individual (one quite ignorant
regarding the topic of art, I must regretfully add)
posted sentiments that indicated an anti-French bias.
What some people in America don't realize, though, is
that to a certain extent they have inherited an
anti-French bias because of the strong English influence
on the U.S., a bias stemming from the fact that England
and France were enemies for long previous to the 20th
century. Yet, when you go beyond that, and look at
things objectively, sooner or later you have to realize
that France has probably contributed more to both
science and culture than most countries have.
As a result, of course it is silly to blame them
for wanting to protect their language and national
identity. It is worth protecting, representing,
as it does, an amazing tradition of human
accomplishment in both the arts and the sciences.
That having been said, I will also have to admit that
I have not seen so much interesting art from France
after the WW II period. Maybe it is there, but if
it is, it does not seem to receive much notice. The
big exception, though, is in the area of cartooning,
where French artist/illustrators are regarded as
being among the best and most innovative there is.
But as far as the state of fine art in France today,
either it is there and not getting much recognition,
or it is simply lacking in originality so art
lovers in the Englilsh-spaeaking world are not
paying much attention to it. a.g.b-p.
Erik A. Mattila
> Richard <cool_a...@z.com> wrote in message news:<1r41uuke2kc9v1pia...@4ax.com>...
>
>>*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>>
>>
>>I read a book about french draftsmen that said that France is the only
>>country which has had an unbroken tradition of excellent draftsmen
>>from the end of the 14th century until today. Other countries only had
>>periods of greatness. It said that originally the artistic excellence
>>was supported by the aristocracy, then it was supported by
>>enthusiastic amateurs. It said France has always had a strong cultural
>>tradition which fosters excellence in the arts, even before France
>>became a nation. I've heard elsewhere that the French care about
>>preserving their culture and don't want to be Americanized. I hope
>>they don't become americanized. I think france has a great culture,
>>perhaps the BEST culture. Well this answers the question I asked a
>>while ago about why French artists are so good. BTW, I love buying &
>>using french artist materials, like Conte pencils & Canson charcoal
>>paper. The french make good stuff.
>
>
> In many ways, I have to agree with you. The last time
> this topic came up, an individual (one quite ignorant
> regarding the topic of art, I must regretfully add)
> posted sentiments that indicated an anti-French bias.
Bill, you're showing us how parochial your thinking is. Brush aside
your hyperbole, and we see just another reactionary thinker. Our little
debate was whether or not one could claim "kulture kapital" status to a
colonial society that oppressed people world-wide. What you see as
"greatness" of French painting, I see as artefacts of man's inhumanity
to man.
How you could deduce an "anti-french" bias from that is puzzling, unless
it's true that you are a reactionary thinker.
> What some people in America don't realize, though, is
> that to a certain extent they have inherited an
> anti-French bias because of the strong English influence
> on the U.S., a bias stemming from the fact that England
> and France were enemies for long previous to the 20th
> century.
Nonsense. There's no appreciable "anti-french" bias in the US. What
are you talking about? You're just inventing this to support you
specious argument.
Yet, when you go beyond that, and look at
> things objectively, sooner or later you have to realize
> that France has probably contributed more to both
> science and culture than most countries have.
More nonsense. How would you quantify that statement in the first
place? Would you construct a shopping list of "science contributions"
and one of "culture contributions?" How would you define "culture."
Would you devise some sort of a rating system that would award François
Rabalais seven points next to Boccacio's four points on the bawdy scale
of cultural contributions?
> As a result, of course it is silly to blame them
> for wanting to protect their language and national
> identity. It is worth protecting, representing,
> as it does, an amazing tradition of human
> accomplishment in both the arts and the sciences.
But not at the expense of other contributions, William. Margaret Mead
put it best several years ago, when she was asked a question about what
culture was more superior. She said "I find the concept of cultural
superiority childish" (or words to that effect.)
And that's what I want to emphasise here, and why you seem to be so
parochial. A lot of wonderful art has come from France, and science or
whatever else you want to signify as culturally important. But to put
it 'above' similar things in the rest of the world is a fool's errand,
at best. In fact, if you could find an objective way to quantify such
ephemera, you would find France ranks down a bit. For example, the
so-called French "Enlightenment" was a child of Luther's "Reformation"
in Germany. So what had greater "cultural influence?" Luther's ushered
in Modernism itself, while the French made some pretty neat
encyclopedias. I'm exaggerating, of course, but really...
And one other thing I think is worth mentioning to you. As you claim a
positive interest in Surrealism, why not heed the words of Georges
Bataille, who Breton thought was "dirty minded." Bataille and other
surrealists created the magazine "Acephele" because they observed that
modernism failed to shake off the burden of medieval allegory (which
they felt still worked to create such institutions as fascism in
Europe.) So we still have "the head" of state, or family, the 'body'
politic, and the geography of the human body that determines our sense
of hierarchy. Your views reflect this allegorical atavism perfectly -
arguing the 'superiority' of France over others. I'm surprised. You
need to study surrealism some more. Break your chains, boy!
>
> That having been said, I will also have to admit that
> I have not seen so much interesting art from France
> after the WW II period. Maybe it is there, but if
> it is, it does not seem to receive much notice. The
> big exception, though, is in the area of cartooning,
> where French artist/illustrators are regarded as
> being among the best and most innovative there is.
> But as far as the state of fine art in France today,
> either it is there and not getting much recognition,
> or it is simply lacking in originality so art
> lovers in the Englilsh-spaeaking world are not
> paying much attention to it. a.g.b-p.
You mean something like "contemporary salon painting?" I'm sure you can
find it in France.
Erik
William Palmer
> William Palmer wrote:
> > Richard <cool_a...@z.com> wrote in message news:<1r41uuke2kc9v1pia...@4ax.com>...
> >
> >>*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
[...]
> >
> > In many ways, I have to agree with you. The last time
> > this topic came up, an individual (one quite ignorant
> > regarding the topic of art, I must regretfully add)
> > posted sentiments that indicated an anti-French bias.
>
> Bill, you're showing us how parochial your thinking is. Brush aside
> your hyperbole, and we see just another reactionary thinker. Our little
> debate was whether or not one could claim "kulture kapital" status to a
> colonial society that oppressed people world-wide. What you see as
> "greatness" of French painting, I see as artefacts of man's inhumanity
> to man.
Ever hear of what country folk sometimes call
"horse blinkers"? Well, Mr. Mattila, you are
viewing art while wearing the horse blinkers
of worn-out ideology. And I must say you
look rather foolish doing it. Trying to put
your liberal/lefty guilt trip on some of the
world's finest art is pretty foolish. All
great nations of the past that I am aware of
opressed a lot of people in the process of
becoming great. It is a sad reality of human
history, but it does not change the fact that
there is much Roman art, Japanese art, Greek
art, British art, French art, etc. worth
enjoying.
>
> How you could deduce an "anti-french" bias from that is puzzling, unless
> it's true that you are a reactionary thinker.
Take those horse blinkers off, Mr. Mattila. I
don't think it is fair to call me a "reactionary
thinker" at all. I simply consider myself a
"post left/right" thinker. Your own comments
above make YOU sound like a cud-chewer, though.
> > What some people in America don't realize, though, is
> > that to a certain extent they have inherited an
> > anti-French bias because of the strong English influence
> > on the U.S., a bias stemming from the fact that England
> > and France were enemies for long previous to the 20th
> > century.
>
> Nonsense. There's no appreciable "anti-french" bias in the US. What
> are you talking about? You're just inventing this to support you
> specious argument.
No, sir, I am not. I have heard far more anti-French
sentiment in the U. S. (both from the media and from
ordinary people) than I have ever heard anti-German,
anti-Italian, or anti-Spanish talk, for instance.
>
> Yet, when you go beyond that, and look at
> > things objectively, sooner or later you have to realize
> > that France has probably contributed more to both
> > science and culture than most countries have.
>
> More nonsense. How would you quantify that statement in the first
> place? Would you construct a shopping list of "science contributions"
> and one of "culture contributions?" How would you define "culture."
One rather simple way of doing it would
involve going through CHAMBERS BIOGRAPHICAL
DICTIONARY (since it is a respected reference
with international scope) and listing all the
non-English achievers in art, architecture,
photography, science, medicine, engineering
etc., leaving out the politicians, kings
and queens, actors, sports figures, and
politicians. I stipulate "non-English"
because of course CHAMBERS, being
a product of the English speaking world,
has a bias in that direction, just as
LAROUSSE has a pro-French bias. My
feeling is, that if you did that, you
would find more illustrious French
achievers than Russian, German,
Italian, Chinese, etc. Then, to have
a truly creditable survey, you would
have to use a similar biographical
reference from other countries, in each
case leaving out people of the nationality
that produced the book, to avoid skewing
your data with nationally-biased listings.
When you finished, my strong hunch is that
England and France would end up in the
first and second positions, with perhaps
Germany as Number Three.
>
> Would you devise some sort of a rating system that would award François
> Rabalais seven points next to Boccacio's four points on the bawdy scale
> of cultural contributions?
>
> > As a result, of course it is silly to blame them
> > for wanting to protect their language and national
> > identity. It is worth protecting, representing,
> > as it does, an amazing tradition of human
> > accomplishment in both the arts and the sciences.
>
> But not at the expense of other contributions, William. Margaret Mead
> put it best several years ago, when she was asked a question about what
> culture was more superior. She said "I find the concept of cultural
> superiority childish" (or words to that effect.)
You are begging the question. Mead considered
herself a scientist, so she took the approach that
all cultures were of equal importance, just as an
entomologist might consider a midge as worthy of
study as a Monarch butterfly. But you are
scrambling down a slippery slope by implying
that somehow others should see matters the same
way as social scientist Mead. I don't believe
that at all. One culture is not as good as any
other to me, though certainly all human cultures
deserve respect. But if I have a sixth-grader
child who doesn't know Isaac Newton from Wayne
Newton, do you think I want his history teacher
to spend the entire term pothering around with
accounts of some obscure little tribe of
whooping and hollering shanty-dwelling nomads,
in the interests of a politically-correct
multi-culturism? HELL NO, I DON'T.
a.g.b-p
a.g
>
>
William Palmer
> > Richard <cool_a...@z.com> wrote in message news:<1r41uuke2kc9v1pia...@4ax.com>...
>
>
> And one other thing I think is worth mentioning to you. As you claim a
> positive interest in Surrealism, why not heed the words of Georges
> Bataille, who Breton thought was "dirty minded." Bataille and other
> surrealists created the magazine "Acephele" because they observed that
> modernism failed to shake off the burden of medieval allegory (which
> they felt still worked to create such institutions as fascism in
> Europe.) So we still have "the head" of state, or family, the 'body'
> politic, and the geography of the human body that determines our sense
> of hierarchy. Your views reflect this allegorical atavism perfectly -
> arguing the 'superiority' of France over others. I'm surprised. You
> need to study surrealism some more. Break your chains, boy!
There you go again, scrambling around those slippery
slopes. Yes, Bataille is mentioned very briefly in
a couple of good books I've read on Surrealism.
However, I approach Surrealism as an art lover, not
as a reverent scholar ready to be greatly influenced
by every pronouncement by every minor figure on the
vast stage of Surrealist art. I am much more
interested in what the masters had to say, since
they have already convinced me with their art that
they are worth heeding. In other words, I would be
more impressed if you quoted Dali at me instead of
Bataille (although I will give Andre Breton a certain
amount of credence since I am a fan of his poetry).
Erik A. Mattila
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message news:<3DE128D7...@oco.net>...
>
>>William Palmer wrote:
>>
>>>Richard <cool_a...@z.com> wrote in message news:<1r41uuke2kc9v1pia...@4ax.com>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>>>
>
> [...]
>
>>>In many ways, I have to agree with you. The last time
>>>this topic came up, an individual (one quite ignorant
>>>regarding the topic of art, I must regretfully add)
>>>posted sentiments that indicated an anti-French bias.
>>
>>Bill, you're showing us how parochial your thinking is. Brush aside
>>your hyperbole, and we see just another reactionary thinker. Our little
>>debate was whether or not one could claim "kulture kapital" status to a
>>colonial society that oppressed people world-wide. What you see as
>>"greatness" of French painting, I see as artefacts of man's inhumanity
>>to man.
>
>
> Ever hear of what country folk sometimes call
> "horse blinkers"? Well, Mr. Mattila, you are
> viewing art while wearing the horse blinkers
> of worn-out ideology.
Which "worn-out ideology" would that be, Bill? I did my graduate studies
in the history of art, so there are many at my disposal to use as
methodological tools. Could you be specific? But maybe you didn't
grasp what I was saying: the issue here is evaluating French culture
'superior' to others. French art, in this context, is one of many
traces of French culture. It's ok with me if you want to evoke the
horse blinker metaphor, since it is really not relevant. In fact, it
only shows that I am focusing on a specific issue, and attempting to
control your wandering about aimlessly.
And I must say you
> look rather foolish doing it. Trying to put
> your liberal/lefty guilt trip on some of the
> world's finest art is pretty foolish.
Well, if that's the best you can do, evoking trite political
stereotypes, it just underscores my assessment of your intellectual
achievement - parochial.
All
> great nations of the past that I am aware of
> opressed a lot of people in the process of
> becoming great.
Which is an equally obtuse argument, given that the issue is creating a
hierachy of culture merit badges and holding one country above the rest
in achievment.
It is a sad reality of human
> history, but it does not change the fact that
> there is much Roman art, Japanese art, Greek
> art, British art, French art, etc. worth
> enjoying.
I don't know why anyone would deny this. You are simply inventing
things again, for example, your suggestion that I don't, or can't, enjoy
French art by virtue of my reluctance to hold French art above the rest.
You made your bed, so sleep in it.
>>How you could deduce an "anti-french" bias from that is puzzling, unless
>>it's true that you are a reactionary thinker.
>
> Take those horse blinkers off, Mr. Mattila. I
> don't think it is fair to call me a "reactionary
> thinker" at all.
What does fairness have to do with it? It's just my assessment based on
what you have written. I think it's fair for you to say "Mr. Mattila
doesn't know anything about art." I just don't think it's true.
I simply consider myself a
> "post left/right" thinker. Your own comments
> above make YOU sound like a cud-chewer, though.
"Cud-chewer." As in "bovine?" Interesting...
>>>What some people in America don't realize, though, is
>>>that to a certain extent they have inherited an
>>>anti-French bias because of the strong English influence
>>>on the U.S., a bias stemming from the fact that England
>>>and France were enemies for long previous to the 20th
>>>century.
>>
>>Nonsense. There's no appreciable "anti-french" bias in the US. What
>>are you talking about? You're just inventing this to support you
>>specious argument.
>
>
> No, sir, I am not. I have heard far more anti-French
> sentiment in the U. S. (both from the media and from
> ordinary people) than I have ever heard anti-German,
> anti-Italian, or anti-Spanish talk, for instance.
For example? Only recently since France has challenged Bush's war on
Iraq. But you're not talking about that, are you? How many US people
dream of going to Paris in April, or even French Disneyland.
Rightwingers disparage "continental philosophers" as much as they can,
but they don't mean that French fascists aren't ok in their book.
So you are saying that it is the product of arithmatic. Come on, even
you must realize that that's not a particularly good methodology to
assess cultural superiority. By that measure you would have to give
India the culture king award, as there have always been more artists
there than in France.
>>Would you devise some sort of a rating system that would award François
>>Rabalais seven points next to Boccacio's four points on the bawdy scale
>>of cultural contributions?
You didn't respond to that one - I guess because you are content with a
head count to make the determination.
>>>As a result, of course it is silly to blame them
>>>for wanting to protect their language and national
>>>identity. It is worth protecting, representing,
>>>as it does, an amazing tradition of human
>>>accomplishment in both the arts and the sciences.
>>
>>But not at the expense of other contributions, William. Margaret Mead
>>put it best several years ago, when she was asked a question about what
>>culture was more superior. She said "I find the concept of cultural
>>superiority childish" (or words to that effect.)
>
> You are begging the question. Mead considered
> herself a scientist, so she took the approach that
> all cultures were of equal importance, just as an
> entomologist might consider a midge as worthy of
> study as a Monarch butterfly.
But you're just inventing that, Bill. Meade was speaking directly to
the parochial thinking that you are championing - the idea of claiming
one culture superior to another. It doesn't follow that Meade would
hold all cultures equal. What she's saying that it's a fool's errand,
because there is no real way to quantify culture that way. In fact, I
think I'm misquoting her a bit: I beleive that she said she found the
concept "boring" - not "childish."
But you are
> scrambling down a slippery slope by implying
> that somehow others should see matters the same
> way as social scientist Mead.
But I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that the concept of claiming
French culture superior to others is a fool's errand. Meade agrees with
me - in fact I might have got the idea for this from reading Meade.
I don't believe
> that at all. One culture is not as good as any
> other to me, though certainly all human cultures
> deserve respect.
Of course I know this - this is what I challenged in the first place. I
have said that such a concept as yours is parochial and reactionary. One
its face, the only way you could defend such a claim is be selecting
certain things to valorize and deselecting certain things that undermine
your claim. You're jumping through hoops now because I said that 19th
French culture isn't so superior because it oppressed it's imperial
subjects. In other words, on the virtue side of cultural evaluation,
politics should be considered, and if it is not, you have a distorted
view.
But if I have a sixth-grader
> child who doesn't know Isaac Newton from Wayne
> Newton, do you think I want his history teacher
> to spend the entire term pothering around with
> accounts of some obscure little tribe of
> whooping and hollering shanty-dwelling nomads,
> in the interests of a politically-correct
> multi-culturism? HELL NO, I DON'T.
Yes, I do. If you are at all interested in the growth and refinement of
your intellect (or that of your child), you should consider everything
that is at your disposal. If you simply ignore that which displeases
you, or that which challenges your idealism, you achieve nothing more
that parochial and reactionary thought.
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
> There you go again, scrambling around those slippery
> slopes. Yes, Bataille is mentioned very briefly in
> a couple of good books I've read on Surrealism.
> However, I approach Surrealism as an art lover, not
> as a reverent scholar ready to be greatly influenced
> by every pronouncement by every minor figure on the
> vast stage of Surrealist art.
But you see, William, if you pass-off Bataille as a "minor figure" of
surrealism, you only betray your superficial knowledge of the topic.
Groking pictures is not actually an "approach" to Surrealism.
Surrealism is a major discourse of Modernism, and at best if you only
know how to name pictures you can't claim any real understanding of this
discourse.
I am much more
> interested in what the masters had to say, since
> they have already convinced me with their art that
> they are worth heeding.
Oh, I see. Like reading a Reader's Digest condensed novel.
Erik
William Palmer
Funny. You are simply begging the question
and showing you are one of thise boring elitist
types who obnoxiously huff, in so many snotty words,
"You don't REALLY enjoy that artist. You merely
THINK you enjoy him. Go home, read this list
of eight books and then you will REALLY know
how to appreciate this artist." In other words,
your READERS DIGEST slur gives you away for a
twit. I have enjoyed Surrealist art, I have
read books on Surrealism, but I certainly have
not tried to pass myself off as a Surrealist
scholar of the sort who is qualified to write
a new book on the history of Surrealism, or
anything like that. The informal essays I
have written on the topic are written from
the standpoint of a writer and art lover, not
someone who flatters himself he is adding
to the serious scholarship on the subject.
a.g.b-p
>
> Erik
Erik A. Mattila
But I didn't say that, did I? I said you have a superficial knowledge
of surrealism. I've known people who enjoy Max Ernst because his works
reminds them of their acid trips. If you look at Surrealism in its
historical context, you could say that this is superficial. But that
doesn't mean they don't enjoy Max Ernst, does it.
Besides, I just brought up Bataille's concern with medieval allegory to
demonstrate to you the limitations of creating hierarchies of cultural
superiority.
Go home, read this list
> of eight books and then you will REALLY know
> how to appreciate this artist."
As art appreciation goes, this is good advice (although I didn't make
it, you did).
In other words,
> your READERS DIGEST slur gives you away for a
> twit.
But you already think I'm a twit, Bill. I have nothing to lose. LOL
I have enjoyed Surrealist art, I have
> read books on Surrealism, but I certainly have
> not tried to pass myself off as a Surrealist
> scholar of the sort who is qualified to write
> a new book on the history of Surrealism, or
> anything like that.
I just said "since you're interested in surrealism..." or words to that
effect. Why are you making a mountain out of a molehill? Relax - kick
back - smoke a joint. Learn to laugh at yourself.
The informal essays I
> have written on the topic are written from
> the standpoint of a writer and art lover, not
> someone who flatters himself he is adding
> to the serious scholarship on the subject.
I just mentioned one of Bataille's surrealist projects, Bill. If you're
not familiar with his work, so be it. Personally, I think you should
consider what he is saying in regard to allegory, for your own
enrichment. But we can always go back to the Margaret Meade example
which may be easier for you to understand.
Erik
William Palmer
> William Palmer wrote:
> > "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message news:<3DE1B9F...@oco.net>...
> >
> >>William Palmer wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>There you go again, scrambling around those slippery
> >>>slopes. Yes, Bataille is mentioned very briefly in
> >>>a couple of good books I've read on Surrealism.
> >>>However, I approach Surrealism as an art lover, not
> >>>as a reverent scholar ready to be greatly influenced
> >>>by every pronouncement by every minor figure on the
> >>>vast stage of Surrealist art.
> >>
> >>But you see, William, if you pass-off Bataille as a "minor figure" of
> >>surrealism, you only betray your superficial knowledge of the topic.
Nonsense. If you would stop whinnying in your
rather sophomoric and politically-correct fashion,
you might actually learn something. In the first
place, Marcel Jean, is his highly-authoritative
THE HISTORY OF SURREALIST PAINTING only mentions
Bataille twice in 380 pages. Once he points out
that Bataille was co-suggester of the name
MINOTAUR (for the publication). Later, Jean
quotes from an essay by Bataille. That's it.
Well, at least he is more influential in
Surrealism than Rube Goldberg, whom Jean only
mentions once! Further, Bataille is mentioned
a few times in Gaetan Picon's SURREALISTS AND
SURREALISM, but at least fifty other Surrealists
are mentioned far more frequently. I think you
are confused. You personally have a great interest
in the person and his pronouncements, so now you
have foolishly concluded that no one can appreciate
Surrealist art (or dare to comment on it) without
becoming a Bataille-scholar. You're just acting
silly to get attention. a.g.b-p
[...]
William Palmer
> William Palmer wrote:
> > "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message news:<3DE1B9F...@oco.net>...
> >
> >>William Palmer wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>There you go again, scrambling around those slippery
> >>>slopes. Yes, Bataille is mentioned very briefly in
> >>>a couple of good books I've read on Surrealism.
> >>>However, I approach Surrealism as an art lover, not
> >>>as a reverent scholar ready to be greatly influenced
> >>>by every pronouncement by every minor figure on the
> >>>vast stage of Surrealist art.
> >>
> >>But you see, William, if you pass-off Bataille as a "minor figure" of
> >>surrealism, you only betray your superficial knowledge of the topic.
> >>Groking pictures is not actually an "approach" to Surrealism.
> >>Surrealism is a major discourse of Modernism, and at best if you only
> >>know how to name pictures you can't claim any real understanding of this
> >>discourse.
> >>
>
> of surrealism. I've known people who enjoy Max Ernst because his works
> reminds them of their acid trips. If you look at Surrealism in its
> historical context, you could say that this is superficial. But that
> doesn't mean they don't enjoy Max Ernst, does it.
No, it doesn't. And, who knows, without Max Ernst,
they might be using heroin instead.
> I just said "since you're interested in surrealism..." or words to that
> effect. Why are you making a mountain out of a molehill? Relax - kick
> back - smoke a joint.
I don't use any drugs or alcohol. There's no drug
that could get me higher than life in the Usenet
thoughtstream does. Drugs would only separate me
from my readers and fans.
> Learn to laugh at yourself.
I'm too busy howling with laughter at you.
>
> The informal essays I
> > have written on the topic are written from
> > the standpoint of a writer and art lover, not
> > someone who flatters himself he is adding
> > to the serious scholarship on the subject.
>
> I just mentioned one of Bataille's surrealist projects, Bill. If you're
> not familiar with his work, so be it.
What, I'm supposed to be humiliated? I have two
great books on Surrealism right in front of me
(in total, almost 600 pages) and they make scant
mention of the gentleman.
Personally, I think you should
> consider what he is saying in regard to allegory, for your own
> enrichment. But we can always go back to the Margaret Meade example
> which may be easier for you to understand.
I'm surprised you brought the name up again
after I remarked on your fallacious argument
in which you sommersaulted down a slippery
slope while glibly implying that readers were
somehow obliglated to view the planet as if
they were social scientists postulating that
one society is as important and deserving of
study than another. Fine, you can argue that
the art of the Trobriand Islanders, not being
"colonialist art," is as worthy of lengthy
contemplation than the contents of the Louvre,
but I don't think many people outside the
Trobriand Islands are going to agree with you.
Maybe you should move to the Trobriand Islands
for a few years. When you finished surveying
the works of art there, be they approximations
of hen-scratchings on a tree-trunk or whatever,
maybe you would appreciate the Louvre for a
change. Perhaps you would learn to be thankful.
a.g.b-p
> Erik
Erik A. Mattila
>>>>But you see, William, if you pass-off Bataille as a "minor figure" of
>>>>surrealism, you only betray your superficial knowledge of the topic.
>>>
>
> Nonsense. If you would stop whinnying in your
> rather sophomoric and politically-correct fashion,
> you might actually learn something.
Ohmygosh, Bill, you keep digging your hole deeper and deeper. Look, you
can read Bataille's "Story of the Eye" online here:
http://www.softatomic.com/retort/special/storyofeye.htm
Read it, or at least as much of it as you can handle, and get back to
me. Then tell me how one could credibly be pigeonholed as "politically
correct" by prozlytizing Georges Bataille.
Now if you had anything more that a superficial understanding of
Surrealism, you could have attacked me on much better footings. Now it
is too late, because if you attack me on the grounds of what Bataille
really repesents, everyone will know that I am just manipulating you.
In the first
> place, Marcel Jean, is his highly-authoritative
> THE HISTORY OF SURREALIST PAINTING only mentions
> Bataille twice in 380 pages. Once he points out
> that Bataille was co-suggester of the name
> MINOTAUR (for the publication).
I wouldn't expect Bataille to be featured in a book about paintings,
Bill. He wasn't a painter, after all.
Later, Jean
> quotes from an essay by Bataille.
Which essay? It may be important.
That's it.
> Well, at least he is more influential in
> Surrealism than Rube Goldberg, whom Jean only
> mentions once! Further, Bataille is mentioned
> a few times in Gaetan Picon's SURREALISTS AND
> SURREALISM, but at least fifty other Surrealists
> are mentioned far more frequently.
Which prove what? I already told you that Breton disliked Bataille
because he thought Bataille had a dirty mind.
I think you
> are confused. You personally have a great interest
> in the person and his pronouncements, so now you
> have foolishly concluded that no one can appreciate
> Surrealist art (or dare to comment on it) without
> becoming a Bataille-scholar. You're just acting
> silly to get attention.
Well, yes. I like attention. Don't you? But I'm making a valid point
about superficiality and it is not confused at all. For example, the
Tate Modern recently mounted (2001) "Desire Unbound" which, if you
regard Surrealism as a spectacular collection of art objects, was an
important show - given the artists and numbers of arts represented. But
the Tate also completely de-politized Surrealism. I don't imagine you
would find that strange, but it is strange given the history of
Surrealism since 1924. Even its ancestor, DaDA, was a political
movemnet, first comprised of WWI draft dodgers in Zurich, and later
comprised of politically subversive Germans in Berlin. The Tate
completely white-washed Surrealism, in fact.
Breton organized the Surrealists in 1924 in response to the French
Government's assault on Rif tribesmen in Morocco, and the Surrealists
published their first collective tracts then. It was followed with
Surrealist engagement with every political issue throughout twenties and
the thirties.
The Surrealists were Marxists. Breton modeled the Surrealist Manifesto
on the Communist Manifesto. After Lenin died, and the rift began
between Stalin and Trotsky, the Surrealists split, like so many
communist parties in Europe and the Americas. Breton followed Trotsky,
while Paul Eluard led his camp to the Stalin side of the equation. And
there were outright defections, such as Dali, who earned the title among
his former comrades "Avida Dollars" (Greedy for Cash). Bataille stayed
solidly in the Trotskyite camp, in spite of his long standing animosity
with Breton.
But you can't really understand a painting like Dali's "Soft Stuff and
Boiled Bleans: Premonitions of a Civil War" without understanding the
political underpinnings of Surrealism. Of course you can "appreciate"
the painting by virtue of it's technique, colors or whatever, but since
it is a political painting disregarding Surrealist politics is, by
definition, superficial.
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
>>I just said "since you're interested in surrealism..." or words to that
>>effect. Why are you making a mountain out of a molehill? Relax - kick
>>back - smoke a joint.
>
>
> I don't use any drugs or alcohol. There's no drug
> that could get me higher than life in the Usenet
> thoughtstream does. Drugs would only separate me
> from my readers and fans.
Tsk, tsk. No wonder you're such a tight-ass. You need to spend some
time in the lower astral plane.
>>Learn to laugh at yourself.
> I'm too busy howling with laughter at you.
Well, good. That's the next-best thing.
>
>>The informal essays I
>>
>>>have written on the topic are written from
>>>the standpoint of a writer and art lover, not
>>>someone who flatters himself he is adding
>>>to the serious scholarship on the subject.
>>
>>I just mentioned one of Bataille's surrealist projects, Bill. If you're
>>not familiar with his work, so be it.
>
>
> What, I'm supposed to be humiliated? I have two
> great books on Surrealism right in front of me
> (in total, almost 600 pages) and they make scant
> mention of the gentleman.
Yes, if the Tate Modern can mount a superficial exhibition of
surrealism, there's not reason to expect coffee-table books to do the same.
> I'm surprised you brought the name up again
> after I remarked on your fallacious argument
> in which you sommersaulted down a slippery
> slope while glibly implying that readers were
> somehow obliglated to view the planet as if
> they were social scientists postulating that
> one society is as important and deserving of
> study than another.
You don't read well, do you. Meade said the superiority argument is
boring. Meaning it really doesn't get you anywere, intellectually.
That's not at all the same as saying "one society is as important and
deserving as another." Why do you keep bringing this up. You create a
strawman, and then argue against it. You can do that in front of a mirror.
Fine, you can argue that
> the art of the Trobriand Islanders, not being
> "colonialist art," is as worthy of lengthy
> contemplation than the contents of the Louvre,
> but I don't think many people outside the
> Trobriand Islands are going to agree with you.
Why not? Oh, I forgot, you think French Art is "superior." In my
estimation, the Teotihuacan Coatlicue is more interesting than ladies in
wigs and 800 petticoats on a swing in the Tuilleries. But that doesn't
mean I don't like Fragonard.
> Maybe you should move to the Trobriand Islands
> for a few years. When you finished surveying
> the works of art there, be they approximations
> of hen-scratchings on a tree-trunk or whatever,
> maybe you would appreciate the Louvre for a
> change. Perhaps you would learn to be thankful.
Not a chance, chump. Been there, done that (well, not specifically).
Give me a Congo Nail Fetish anyday over the Winged Victory of Samothrace.
Regards, Alley Oop.
Oh, yes ... just for your edification, here's Dürer's assessment of
Aztec art:
"Und ich hab aber all mien Lebtag nichts geschen ,das mien Herz also
erfruet hat als diese Dinge.Den ich hab dabei geschen wunderbare
kunstvolle Dinge und hab mich verwundert der subtilen ingenia der
Menschen in fremden Landen."
"All the days of my life I have seen nothing that rejoiced my heart so
much as these things,as I saw amongst them wonderful works of art,and I
marvelled at the subtle 'Ingenia' of men in foriegn lands."
"Indeed I cannot express all that I thought there."
You should consider the same broadmindedness as this great German artist.
William Palmer
[...]
> Why not? Oh, I forgot, you think French Art is "superior." In my
> estimation, the Teotihuacan Coatlicue is more interesting than ladies in
> wigs and 800 petticoats on a swing in the Tuilleries. But that doesn't
> mean I don't like Fragonard.
He's interesting, but in general I don't like
French 18th Century art nearly as well as their
19th Century art. If I ticked off the names of my
two-dozen favorite French artists, you would see
they were all of the 19th century.
>
> > Maybe you should move to the Trobriand Islands
> > for a few years. When you finished surveying
> > the works of art there, be they approximations
> > of hen-scratchings on a tree-trunk or whatever,
> > maybe you would appreciate the Louvre for a
> > change. Perhaps you would learn to be thankful.
>
> Not a chance, chump. Been there, done that (well, not specifically).
> Give me a Congo Nail Fetish anyday over the Winged Victory of Samothrace.
>
> Regards, Alley Oop.
>
> Oh, yes ... just for your edification, here's Dürer's assessment of
> Aztec art:
Hold it. Now you are trying to get me in trouble
with my neighbors. I never once have cast any
aspersions on Aztec art. In fact, I don't think
it should even be called primitive. Many aspects
of it are far to complex and generally advanced
for such a label to be correct.
>
> "Und ich hab aber all mien Lebtag nichts geschen ,das mien Herz also
> erfruet hat als diese Dinge.Den ich hab dabei geschen wunderbare
> kunstvolle Dinge und hab mich verwundert der subtilen ingenia der
> Menschen in fremden Landen."
>
> "All the days of my life I have seen nothing that rejoiced my heart so
> much as these things,as I saw amongst them wonderful works of art,and I
> marvelled at the subtle 'Ingenia' of men in foriegn lands."
>
> "Indeed I cannot express all that I thought there."
>
> You should consider the same broadmindedness as this great German artist.
Stop slurring me as a cretin. Any idiot knows that
Aztec art is downright awe-inspiring. Of course,
from the standpoint of rhetoric, all you are doing
now is cobbling together a stawman and calling
it "Bill Palmer" and proceeding to flog it to tatters,
making yourself look utterly foolish in the process.
a.g.b-p.
Mani Deli
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>But you can't really understand a painting like Dali's "Soft Stuff and
>Boiled Bleans: Premonitions of a Civil War" without understanding the
>political underpinnings of Surrealism. Of course you can "appreciate"
>the painting by virtue of it's technique, colors or whatever, but since
>it is a political painting disregarding Surrealist politics is, by
>definition, superficial.
>
I don't mean to make a big case out of this as it is only amenable to
subjective opinion.
Dali saw the situation in Spain deteriorating into civil war. The
paintings "boiled Beans" (anatomy turning to shit) and Autumn
Cannibalism seem to reflect a view of a nation destroying itself. The
take no political side.
I see in these works and those containing Hitler and Lenin along with
his parodies on bread as satires on the behavior of humanity rather
than any political statement.
I see Dali's 1930's works, (his finest in my opinion) as making
philosophical statements about the human state and ideas.
However as much as I enjoy what I think Dali's statements are, the
real merit of these works leis elsewhere. The are among the best
examples of complete 20th C. paintings. They represent, technique,
color, drawing, composition, at its inimitability at its best. Then
there are the unique ideas, lighting, subject matter and handling of
complexity. Dali did this without returning to former subject matter.
Instead, he took the classical elements he liked and reformulated them
to modern ideas and taste.
The future always judges paintings technically long after any messages
are forgotten.
...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/
William Palmer
[...]
> The future always judges paintings technically long after any messages
> are forgotten.
[...]
Excellent point. For instance, of the percentage
of people to go to (now the "old") Getty to view
the antiquities, what percentage of that audience
will know anything at all about the politics that
might have helped inspire those classical artists?
Less than one-percent, no doubt, yet that fact
does little or nothing to detract from people's
enjoyment or keep them from flocking to the
museum.
I think it would behoove Mr. Mattila to
remember the thoughts of no less a poet
than Wallace Stevens, who said, regarding
Crispin:
[...]
He first, as realist, admitted that
Whoever hunts a matinal continent
May, after all, stop short before a plum
And be content and still be realist.
The words of things entangle and confuse.
The plum survives its poems. It may hang
In the sunshine placidly, colored by ground
Obliquities of those who pass beneath,
Harliquined and mazily dewed and mauved
In bloom. Yet it survives in its own form,
Beyond these changes, good, fat, guzzly fruit.
[...] from "The Comedian as the Letter C" by Wallace Stevens
copyright Holly Stevens, 1971
I think Mr. Mattila should consider those words
of wisdom.
Erik A. Mattila
This is hilarious, Bill. I already warned you about digging yourself
deeper into your hole of superficiality (is that an oxymoron?)
"Crispin" is Stevens himself, and the lines you have decontextualized
from a very long poem - a "comic" poem, at that, is nothing more than a
consideration of the "thing" as phenomena and ideas about it. In other
words, for the text of experience rather than the gloss. If this was
the import of this remarkable work of art, Stevens would have stopped
writing poetry...and he didn't.
But what is the "plum" in your snippet? It is all that it is, except
for the 'gloss.' So your attempt at erudition has backfired, my friend.
The political context of "Soft Stuff and Boiled Beans" is part of "all
that it is" and to ignore this is to construct a "gloss" that is
primarily idelolgical, rather than sensory. Politics are real, you might
want to consider.
Erik