Picasso
tutt...@bvu.edu
After doing even more research on the subject of my paper that is
Les Demoiselles d'Avignon. I can finally finish this posting on
this..
When I said that this painting was one of the most influential
paintings in the vast collection that Picasso has done, I was trying
to say that this is one of the first major cubist works that he has
done. One person asked me on which grounds I found my accurate finish
date of this painting that is 1907. In all the books that I have
looked at and read told me just that.
Now to conclude this I must say that the only way to know the
true implications of this work and many other works it to have been
there. Books are not always accurate!! I am not saying that they are
all wrong but I am saying that they are not all write!!
=============================================================
Jamie Tuttle
tutt...@bvu.edu
"KING TUTT"
Question the Obvious!!??
=============================================================
Mdeli
tutt...@bvu.edu wrote:
> After doing even more research on the subject of my paper that is
>Les Demoiselles d'Avignon. I can finally finish this posting on
>this..
> When I said that this painting was one of the most influential
>paintings in the vast collection that Picasso has done,
etc
From My book No Skill No Art:
Picasso cleverly inverted all the classical academic
aims. For example, where a figure was formerly painted
in fine youthful proportions, with clean subtle curves
and in lifelike color, Picasso simply did the opposite,
retaining only a semblance of the composition. For
svelte proportions he substituted a form of
elephantiasis, for subtle flesh he concocted a mixture
which looked like crudely painted orange cement, and
for subtle outlines he substituted a series of
careless, scratchy, straightish itchy lines.
For the careful, clean look of classic work, Picasso
substituted a wild schmutz effect which his fondest
critics attributed to a knack for expressing pure
emotion. For Picasso there was a double advantage here.
Not only would this type of work sell to rich
avant-garde patrons, but he didn't have to make the
effort to improve on what would have formally been
considered nothing less than idiotic errors. After all,
the very aim of this and almost all his following work
was anti-technique.
and
--Claiming to take his cues from African and New
Guinean sculpture, Picasso extracted and caricatured
their most horrible elements and combined these with
carefully contrived putrescent colors. For this
"African Period," Picasso took the forms of wedge-like
noses from primitive masks and combined them with the
decal eyes of his "Gertrude Stein." Then he carelessly
plopped these on a flattened but still somewhat solid
oval which represented the mass of the face.
In order to be extra ugly, Picasso often painted a
series of scars from the base of the nose going around
the cheeks. [ILLUSTRATION] Overwhelmed by the
possibilities of the slab-like, wedge-shaped nose,
Picasso eventually transformed it into a simple
outlined triangular prism covered with a set of thickly
schmiered impasto stripes. The schmiery stripes and
wedge shapes now for the moment became a Picasso
signature mannerism which continued to appear in many
guises from still-lives to his horribly proportioned
figures.
The ultimate result of this first excruciating period
culminates in the famous Les Damoiselles d' Avignon, a
huge 8 foot by 8 foot canvas. In this overly-praised
familiar masterpiece Picasso carefully balanced the
contrasting schmiery schmutz passages of some of the
faces and appendages with the somewhat more cleanly
rendered parts of the figures. However, the figures
have the familiar fashionably gross misproportions,
large areas of which are painted in flat disturbing
flesh colors and delineated by even more disturbing
straightish lines. These look like they had been
modeled by a careless ten-year-old.
What a stir these cartoon parodies of Academic
paintings caused! When the public responded by actually
purchasing these works, sometimes for tidy sums, and
young critics praised them to the sky, it must have
galled Academic buffs to a fury. But the fashionable
intellectual, who by now hated conventional academic
fare, well understood the meaning of these pictures.
Clever dealers also saw their powerful sales potential.
These painting were salvos in the beginning of the
final battle against the Academy.---
---It is because Les Damoiselles is a magnet for
excessive hype and reams of flatulant
pseudo-intellectual analysis that I consider it to be
among one of the ten most idiotic paintings of the 20th
Century.
Mani DeLi
Winner of the Charles Eicher dissaproval award.
koos
According to recent debates the Demoiselles never was a cubist work.
It owes more to African influences than anything else. As a matter of
fact, at the time when the Desmoiselles was painted, Picasso was yet
to learn about cubist principles. And while Picasso surely knew about
Cezanne at that stage, he lacked the degree of interest in Cezanne and
his work that was required to move towards cubism. The man who really
is the father of cubism, is Braque, although later on Picasso and
Braque made an equally important contribution to the development of
cubism.
I hope this doesnt screw up your paper, as I can prove it.
Greetings
Koos Kakkies
On 29 Nov 96 16:07:07 CDT, tutt...@bvu.edu wrote:
>
> After doing even more research on the subject of my paper that is
>Les Demoiselles d'Avignon. I can finally finish this posting on
>this..
>
> When I said that this painting was one of the most influential
Brother Alphabet
On 29 Nov 1996 tutt...@bvu.edu wrote:
> Now to conclude this I must say that the only way to know the
> true implications of this work and many other works it to have been
> there. Books are not always accurate!! I am not saying that they are
> all wrong but I am saying that they are not all write!!
Er...I hope you wrote your paper anyway.
It should be obvious to you that the overall impacts of the work were far
more potent than to have affected only Picasso's world and his
contemporaries. If this statement was true, why would you be writing a
paper on it nearly 100 years later?
Hutto
Brother Alphabet
Ahh and where Picasso did the opposite of tradition, so does now Mani Deli
in his taking cornerstones and saying the opposite to get attention like a
spoiled child.
It's so sad that Mani can only talk about art and pretend to write about
it while having no real artistic talent to speak of. So typical of a
bitter hack historian, no?
Hutto
Brother Alphabet
On Tue, 3 Dec 1996, koos wrote:
> The man who really
> is the father of cubism, is Braque, although later on Picasso and
> Braque made an equally important contribution to the development of
> cubism.
Ack BSBSBS!
Braque rode Picasso's coat tails.
Damoiselles was the first cubist work.
Cubist was developed from the african origins you mention. Picasso's
fascination with the object (the african mask given him by Matisse) led to
the style of figure depicted in Damoiselles, which led to more developed
cubist works which Braque also created along with others, but he surely
did not create the style/school.
I also do not believe in the influence of Cezanne as much as others try to
state as fact. Picasso was influenced by many other artists also, but the
spatial relationships in Cezannes works would not have been a factor in
the development of the Cubist style. These comparisons were made by more
modern historians who had both Cezannes work and cubism to compare. In
analyzing Picassos apparent mentality and imaginary process, I believe
that any influence directly taken from the work of another artist would
have to be subliminal remnants at best and not a formal investigation and
continuance as the historians imply.
Hutto
koos
In 1907 Braque, by then already influenced by Cezanne, visited
L'Estaque and painted a series of landscapes which showed elements of
early cubism.
One of them was ''Terrace of Hotel Mistral'' (autumn 1097). There was
also ''Viaduct at L'Estaque'' which was started in 1907 but was
finished in a studio in Paris in 1908.
Braque painted his series of landscapes at L'Estaque before he saw the
Desmoiselles. In any case, he was disgusted by it, although he later
painted ''Grand Nude'' which was clearly influenced by the
Demoiselles.
But Braque went back to painting landscapes. One of these works,
''Houses at L'Estaque'' (1908), was the first to be described as being
constructed by geometrical forms such as cubes. This statement was
made by the art critic Louis Vauxcelles and led to the term cubism .
Picasso only really became involved in cubism when he started to paint
landscapes in a similar way than those of Braque.
This is not to say that Braque was a better artist than Picasso. With
regard to cubism they were equals. At some stage of analytical cubism
the two artists worked so closely together that some of their
paintings were indistinguisable.
But Braque was less emotional than Picasso. This sometimes helped
Braque to take the lead in the further development of cubism, which
was really a cerebral art form. Braque, for instance was the first to
introduce lettering into later cubist paintings.
To come back to the beginning. Picasso painted the Desmoiselles not
because simplification of form or a closer study of nature was his
main aim.
He wanted to make a painting that showed influence from other
cultures. Most African art (actually all ''primitive'' art forms) show
a degree of simplification of form, but that is only because African
Art is conceptual.
It must be remembered that Western art at that stage had a long
history of representative art. There is nothing abstract about cubism.
It never aimed to move towards abstraction, but always to analyze and
represent reality in the most simple way. Braque was the first to see
the danger of cubism losing touch with reality. This was one of the
reasons why he later introduced lettering into his work, as well as
realistic painted objects like nails with shadows. The aim was to show
the onlooker that the painting still had something to do with reality.
If the Desmoiselles was the first cubist painting, I find it strange
to see that African influences are totally absent in fully cubist
works. Why did it dissapear if cubism actually developed from African
influences, as you state? If an influence of any kind are to be seen
in cubist works, it can only be that of Cezanne.
The whole problem in the debate about the origins of cubism is that
the real importance of Braque is neglected. It is a popular
misconception that if Picasso was involved in something, then he must
also have been the founder of it, because he was ''such a genius''!
That Picasso made masterpieces and that he was immensely versatile is
certain. He also made a lot of poor paintings. But nobody dare to say
this, because he was ''such a genius''.
Brother Alphabet
On Wed, 4 Dec 1996, koos wrote:
> Braque, for instance was the first to
> introduce lettering into later cubist paintings.
Hmm...Didn't the lettering develop from collage elements introduced
earlier by Picasso?
> To come back to the beginning. Picasso painted the Desmoiselles not
> because simplification of form or a closer study of nature was his
> main aim. He wanted to make a painting that showed influence from other
> cultures.
I don't recall reading anything from Picasso that would reflect his
concern with the actual culture. He was fascinated by the form. Don't let
his many nonexistent trips to africa and the huge collection of african
art he didn't own fool you.
> There is nothing abstract about cubism.
Man, I'd love to move to where you live.
> It never aimed to move towards abstraction, but always to analyze and
> represent reality in the most simple way.
Why then was it not all stick-objects?
Two dots and a line beneath then will be seen as a face to most people.
Why not just go minimal?
Cubism in concept is defined more by the historians than the artists.
If you can't see that a cubist composition is abstract, you need some
help. The image is the concern far more than the idea behind it. Arguing
that way, Nothing is abstract.
> If the Desmoiselles was the first cubist painting, I find it strange
> to see that African influences are totally absent in fully cubist
> works.
That work was the starting point. Obviously it is not as developed as the
later cubist works, but the exploration apparent in the work's development
led to the cubist style. As to the african content, this proves that the
influence was shape and style oriented and not cultural in nature. Picasso
was fascinated by the representation of the mask, and he was also shaken
by the idea of the purpose of the mask, which led to the dimmensional
quality of cubism, or the multiple views of reality apparent in the
earlier cubist works, especially the portraits. In his portaits of women
he would 'expose' what was underneath their masks, showing a hag-like
beast rather than a likeness of the subject.
> Why did it dissapear if cubism actually developed from African
> influences, as you state?
It did not disappear because African Content was never there, on stylistic
influence.
> If an influence of any kind are to be seen
> in cubist works, it can only be that of Cezanne.
How, when the only link to Cezanne is a theoretical one?
Picasso was an artist influenced greatly by style and form and would most
likely not have looked for some sort of spatial theory in Cezannes work.
> The whole problem in the debate about the origins of cubism is that
> the real importance of Braque is neglected.
I would say that Gris is the neglected one (Hehe). I think Braque deserves
as much credit as Picasso in the developments of the school, but as to its
foundations I still must point to Picasso.
> It is a popular
> misconception that if Picasso was involved in something, then he must
> also have been the founder of it, because he was ''such a genius''!
Well, not really. He was involved in surrealism, but could never be
considered its founder. In fact I have only ever heard him given credit
for cubism and nothing else in terms of such developments.
> He also made a lot of poor paintings. But nobody dare to say
> this, because he was ''such a genius''.
I agree! He made some real losers, as do we all.
Namely some of the surrealist things he did....He was just participating
in someone elses idea and the works often reek of fraud. Also some of his
later seemingly frantic line drawings lack consideration for composition
and nearly miss image entirely. His popularity assured him that he could
virtually sneeze onto a napkin and sell it, and I wonder if he lost his
edge somewhere...A great deal of his late-life work was hideous, not in
subject matter but in technique. I would say that he was a genius for
sure, but he was tainted by his own submission to animal desire and he was
negatively influenced by his shrew-wife jacqueline. His so-called friends
were no help either - they used him like a token and for some reason he
allowed this to happen...Joining the communist party etc and being paraded
around by eluard et al...after cubism faded away he never really made any
serious progress toward newness...even the later scribbles reeflect
decades old icons from his cubist works. I dont think he was infallible at
all.
Hutto
koos
>Hmm...Didn't the lettering develop from collage elements introduced
>earlier by Picasso?
No. The first letters that appeared in cubist works were painted
letters. By Braque. The collage elements came soon afterwards in
synthetic cubism
>
>> There is nothing abstract about cubism.
>
>Man, I'd love to move to where you live.
>
>> It never aimed to move towards abstraction, but always to analyze and
>> represent reality in the most simple way.
>
>Why then was it not all stick-objects?
>Two dots and a line beneath then will be seen as a face to most people.
>Why not just go minimal?
>Cubism in concept is defined more by the historians than the artists.
>If you can't see that a cubist composition is abstract, you need some
>help. The image is the concern far more than the idea behind it. Arguing
>that way, Nothing is abstract.
>
simplification of form does not imply moving towards stick figures.
the cubists wanted to simplify form in terms of cylinders, cones and
oither basic forms. to reduce something to a stick figure, has nothing
to do with an investigation into form. it has more to do with taking
away form. Two dots and a line beneath have no form. some cubist
paintings may look abstract and there actually was a danger that forms
would become so simplified that any reference to nature would be
impossible to see. Braque realised this and made efforts to include
clues to reality in his work. Picasso also. I any case, Braque and
Picasso were not stupid. they surely knew the meaning of the term
abstract. if they ever intended to become abstract painters, they
would have skipped the whole cubist effort and gone straight to
painting meaningless forms arraged in visually pleasing compositions.
you must remember that a abstract work means that there is no
reference to reality or an intention to refer to anything concrete.
There is no cubist work that does not in some or other way refer to
reality or pretends to be moving away from reality. Although it is not
needed as proof for this fact, I have never come across any serious
art literature that proclaimed cubism to be abstract. Instead, they do
the opposite.
By the way, what do you mean by "the image is the concern far more
than the idea behind it"? There actually was a movement called
"conceptual art", you know. Although there currently is a sort of
revival of figurative art, nearly all contemporary art of note is
about meaning and ideas. All works of art are actually only the
documentation of ideas.
If you mean by "the image is the concern" that the cubists also looked
at the painting as an outonomous object that is real and concrete, you
are right. But I was referring to the contenct of the works.
>> If an influence of any kind are to be seen
>> in cubist works, it can only be that of Cezanne.
>
>How, when the only link to Cezanne is a theoretical one?
>Picasso was an artist influenced greatly by style and form and would most
>likely not have looked for some sort of spatial theory in Cezannes work.
>
On many accasions Braque admitted the influence Cezanne had on him and
his work. Eventually Picasso also studied Cezanne's work closely.
>> The whole problem in the debate about the origins of cubism is that
>> the real importance of Braque is neglected.
>
>I would say that Gris is the neglected one (Hehe). I think Braque deserves
>as much credit as Picasso in the developments of the school, but as to its
>foundations I still must point to Picasso.
>
Gris was never really involved in the origins of cubism. he only
appeared on the scene when cubism was well established and was already
moving away from ''analytical cubism'' to ''synthetic cubism''. I
agree that he is neglected, only because all the attention was on
Picasso.
To decide whether Picasso or Braque was the father of cubism, one must
decide whether the Desmoiselles was a proto-cubist work or not. I do
not think so, partly because Braque started his pioneering paintings
at L'Estaque shortly before the Desmoiselles was painted and partly
because I think that Picasso painted Desmoiselles in reaction to the
art traditions of the time and because he was more impressed by the
"raw" and "primitive" styles of non-Western art than simplification of
form.
This is a debate that can go on forever, as neither Picasso, Braque or
Gris are here to explain fully what they intended.
>I agree! He made some real losers, as do we all.
>Namely some of the surrealist things he did....He was just participating
>in someone elses idea and the works often reek of fraud. Also some of his
>later seemingly frantic line drawings lack consideration for composition
>and nearly miss image entirely. His popularity assured him that he could
>virtually sneeze onto a napkin and sell it, and I wonder if he lost his
>edge somewhere...A great deal of his late-life work was hideous, not in
>subject matter but in technique. I would say that he was a genius for
>sure, but he was tainted by his own submission to animal desire and he was
>negatively influenced by his shrew-wife jacqueline. His so-called friends
>were no help either - they used him like a token and for some reason he
>allowed this to happen...Joining the communist party etc and being paraded
>around by eluard et al...after cubism faded away he never really made any
>serious progress toward newness...even the later scribbles reeflect
>decades old icons from his cubist works. I dont think he was infallible at
>all.
>
>Hutto
>
You are right. Picasso in general is very overrated. Perhaps the
single most important artist of the 20th century was Marcel Duchamp,
but that is another story.
Koos Kakkies
Mdeli
Brother Alphabet wrote:
>Ahh and where Picasso did the opposite of tradition, so does now Mani Deli
>in his taking cornerstones and saying the opposite to get attention like a
>spoiled child.
>It’s so sad that Mani can only talk about art and pretend to write about
>bitter hack historian, no?
>Hutto
Another statement that says I’m bitter and have no
talent etc. from a guy who knows nothing about me and
can’t answer criticism. So typical of the modern artzy
fartzy jerk, no?
Ask yourself if the faces which I criticized in
Picasso’s Damoiselles were actually painted by Joe
Schmo would anyone consider them important,
influential, beautiful or valuable?
Although Picasso painted considerably better than most
of what followed as supposedly great art, he just
doesn’t rank as the great artist critics make him out
to be. At his best his draftsmanship is ordinary. It
is his most realistic work which fetches the highest
prices. I believe this occurs because those richies
enamored with Picasso have gotten so used to Picasso’s
brand of incompetent ugliness that when they sense even
a touch of beauty from their idol the richest of the
lot shells out the cash. The ordinary every day mass
produced common Picasso trash feeds the slum dweller
class of the poorer rich.
Picasso’s great influence mainly inspired later
generations of art hacks to ever increasing degrees of
incompetence. Even Picasso was wary of Abstract
Expressionism. The present results are twits the likes
of Twombly, Rothko and de Kooning.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
kajoj...@aol.com
In article <58a087$8...@news.interlog.com>, hu...@interlog.com (Mdeli)
writes:
> The present results are twits the likes
>of Twombly, Rothko and de Kooning.
>
>Mani DeLi
>...no skill no art
Ah, but how empty our world would be without these four magnificent twits.
.............Karen Jacobs.................................
http://members.aol.com/kajojacobs/index.htm
Brother Alphabet
On Fri, 6 Dec 1996, koos wrote:
> simplification of form does not imply moving towards stick figures.
Would you disagree that ':)' is a simplified human face?
This is about as simple as it can get and still be representative of a
face at all. If the cubists' main concern was to simplify forms, why would
they do so with 3 dimensional objects such as cyllinders etc? It would be
much simpler and more related to the simplification ideal to move to
strictly basic linear objects.
> to reduce something to a stick figure, has nothing
> to do with an investigation into form.
OK, lets move away from the mere stick figure and consider something like
zen drawing...The best zen artists learn to represent form with the fewest
lines possible...This is, to them, the essence of that form. The onlooker
will see a horse when really there are but only 4 or five intuitive
brushstrokes.
> Two dots and a line beneath have no form.
No 2 dimensional representation has form, there is only the implication or
illusion of form. A smilie face is a symbolic representation of a form,
which is form in terms of the 2d plane.
As stated by Magritte, 'This is not a pipe'...but a painting of a pipe.
> some cubist
> paintings may look abstract and there actually was a danger that forms
> would become so simplified that any reference to nature would be
> impossible to see.
All images refer in some way to nature because human beings are natural.
> Braque realised this and made efforts to include
> clues to reality in his work. Picasso also. I any case, Braque and
> Picasso were not stupid. they surely knew the meaning of the term
> abstract. if they ever intended to become abstract painters, they
> would have skipped the whole cubist effort and gone straight to
> painting meaningless forms arraged in visually pleasing compositions.
You are confusing abstraction with nonobjectivity.
An object depicted in any style other than phoyorealism is either badly
rendered or it is an abstraction.
Nonobjectivity, such as in minimalist or abstract expressionist (pollock
and the like) works are completely different animals than anything
Picasso was concerned with. Almost all artforms have been in some way
abstract as opposed to realistic. Most of the great masters painted on the
verge of the supernatural or fantastic. While the imagery might represent
realistic human forms etc, the content/theme could hardly be considered
such in the 'big picture'
> you must remember that a abstract work means that there is no
> reference to reality or an intention to refer to anything concrete.
You must remember to check your definitions of various terms.
> There is no cubist work that does not in some or other way refer to
> reality or pretends to be moving away from reality.
Reference to reality does not prevent an image or an idea from being
abstract. If I scribbled all over a page and pasted the words
'cherry pie' onto that work, would I have created a representation of
reality by those words alone? The words refer to cherry pie...On theory
alone the image, or lack of same, would have to be defined as at least an
allusion to something to do with cherry pie, but this, obviously, would
have nothing at all to do with the actual item...
> Although it is not
> needed as proof for this fact, I have never come across any serious
> art literature that proclaimed cubism to be abstract. Instead, they do
> the opposite.
Tell me, then, where these cubistic people live so that i may plan my next
vacation.
> By the way, what do you mean by "the image is the concern far more
> than the idea behind it"? There actually was a movement called
> "conceptual art", you know.
So, you're going to make artistic theory retroactive?
I do believe that cubism preceded conceptual art, which, by the way, is a
load of horse manure just like earth art and performance art. Pick another
idea out of your hat please.
For Picasso, the image was more important than any sort of concrete idea.
> Although there currently is a sort of
> revival of figurative art, nearly all contemporary art of note is
> about meaning and ideas. All works of art are actually only the
> documentation of ideas.
What does this have to do with the origins of cubism?
> If you mean by "the image is the concern" that the cubists also looked
> at the painting as an outonomous object that is real and concrete, you
> are right. But I was referring to the contenct of the works.
So was I. Picasso created based upon pure form, color, texture...the
overall image, not some idea about reality. Modern day historians and even
physicists have put that burden on his work. Find me some quotes from
Picasso about this, not some textbook author.
> On many accasions Braque admitted the influence Cezanne had on him and
> his work. Eventually Picasso also studied Cezanne's work closely.
^^^^^^^^^^
Eventually....
And, Picasso being the father of cubism the conclusion t make would be
that Cezanne's work had nada to do with cubism's origins.
Picasso also studied imagery from countless other artists, so did/do most
artists. Nothing is specifically new, only the way things are done in
most cases. Because Picasso or Braque studied something doesn't mean
that their work was spawned from that study. I would claim Picasso to be
one of my personal influences, but none of my work is at all like anything
he did. He isn't a stylistic influence.
> To decide whether Picasso or Braque was the father of cubism, one must
> decide whether the Desmoiselles was a proto-cubist work or not.
Do you recall where the name for 'Cubism' came from?
Matisse made a comment intended to ridicule Picasso's work to a
journalist. It was Picasso's work which crowned the school, and Picasso's
power which allowed Braque to even have a career.
> This is a debate that can go on forever, as neither Picasso, Braque or
> Gris are here to explain fully what they intended.
Read Picasso's letters...
Look at Picasso's sketchbooks...
Read Gertrude Stein's letters...
I haven't done as much research into Braque as I need to, so i don't know
too many sources for his own writings/correspondence, but there are bits
and pieces included in the various Picasso materials, most of which are
translated letters/scribblings with little or no editorialism.
> You are right. Picasso in general is very overrated.
I wouldn't go that far, but not all Picassos are good Picassos.
> Perhaps the
> single most important artist of the 20th century was Marcel Duchamp,
> but that is another story.
That's more than a story, that's a whole other argument.
I see Dada as one of the avenues of the ruin of the world of art...
Postmodernism has Dada B.S. at its heart and both should be negated.
Surrealism, even with its roots in the Dada mindset, became a much more
valid movement and has still-relevant philosophies. But what in the world
are we going to learn from a urinal? Nada.
I nearly vomit when I hear the loonies start wailing about how Duchamp is
the most significant artist of the NEXT century. I have yet to discover
what he actually did. All the 'important' works he did could be credited
to schools other than dada, and in the midst of Dada he sat around playing
chess for 12 years or so. What has Duchamp done?
Hutto
koos
>You are confusing abstraction with nonobjectivity.
>An object depicted in any style other than phoyorealism is either badly
>rendered or it is an abstraction.
I quote from the Concise Oxford Dictionary: abstract : 1. to do with
or existing in thought rather than matter...; not tangible or
concrete; 2. achieving its effect by grouping shapes and colours in
satifying patterns rather than by the recognizable representation of
physical reality.
Show me a cubist word that does not in some or other way refer to
something concrete. Although the driving force behind cubism is
theory, it is a theory of how reality can be observed in a
non-traditional way, for instance as opposed to traditional
illusionism.
>Reference to reality does not prevent an image or an idea from being
>abstract.
It does, per definition
If I scribbled all over a page and pasted the words
>'cherry pie' onto that work, would I have created a representation of
>reality by those words alone?
No, you would have created pretentious nonsense.
>Tell me, then, where these cubistic people live so that i may plan my next
>vacation.
W.S. Rubin, Pablo and Georges and Leo and Bill. Art in
America, 67 (2).
W.S. Rubin, Picasso and Braque: pioneering Cubism. New York: MOMA
J. Golding, 1968 Cubism: A history and an analysis. 3rd rev.
ed. London: Faber & Faber.
Fry, E. 1966. Cubism. London: Thames & Hudson
need any more?
>So, you're going to make artistic theory retroactive?
>I do believe that cubism preceded conceptual art, which, by the way, is a
>load of horse manure just like earth art and performance art. Pick another
>idea out of your hat please.
If you believe conceptual art, land art and performance art are horse
manure, you need to study it more closely and stop listening to people
who say: I dont know what art is, but I know what I like, as it appear
you do.
Your grandfather probably also said that impressionism is a load of
horse manure.
>> Although there currently is a sort of
>> revival of figurative art, nearly all contemporary art of note is
>> about meaning and ideas. All works of art are actually only the
>> documentation of ideas.
>
>What does this have to do with the origins of cubism?
nothing and everything
>
>Do you recall where the name for 'Cubism' came from?
Yes, after an art critic called Vauxcelles commented on an exhibition
by Braque.
>
>That's more than a story, that's a whole other argument.
>I see Dada as one of the avenues of the ruin of the world of art...
>Postmodernism has Dada B.S. at its heart and both should be negated.
>
You have a very limited vision of what can be included in art.
>Surrealism, even with its roots in the Dada mindset, became a much more
>valid movement and has still-relevant philosophies. But what in the world
>are we going to learn from a urinal? Nada.
>
The urinal means that you are free to make art out of anything. The
main purpose of the urinal was that our definition of what what art is
or not needs to be reconsidered. The urinal was more of a statement
than an intended work of art. Duchamp chose that object at random,
which also is a comment on the traditional notion that all art must
per definition be aesthetically pleasing, be the product of effort and
be the product of creativity (whatever that means). Duchamps
contribution was not a lot of artworks that can be sold, but the
infinitively liberating message that all artworks are merely the
documentation of ideas. Today, the notion of art for arts sake (being
an independent object in its own right) is losing credibility. Today,
most people who insist that an artwork needs to be an object, are art
dealers, because you cannot sell an idea.
>I nearly vomit when I hear the loonies start wailing about how Duchamp is
>the most significant artist of the NEXT century. I have yet to discover
>what he actually did. All the 'important' works he did could be credited
>to schools other than dada, and in the midst of Dada he sat around playing
>chess for 12 years or so. What has Duchamp done?
see above comment.
Greetings
Koos kakkies