Who is Mani Deli??
Thomas C. Waters
mp...@best.com (Michael Paul) writes:
> So Mani, describe what you do and get to work doing it. Don't ramble so
> much on the Net. What would Harold Speed think of all this time spent typing???
Actually Mani is a performance artist. He wanted to be a comedian, but
his form of humor just didn't gop over well in the comedy clubs. So
now he rants.
--
Thomas C. Waters
twa...@pitt.edu
I always assume someone is gay unless they tell me otherwise. Straight
society has been doing the same in reverse forever, and I'm tired of
it.
"When evil men plot, good men must plan. When evil men burn and bomb,
good men must build and bind. When evil men shout ugly words of
hatred, good men must commit themselves to the glories of love."
Martin Luther King Jr.
Mary Happy
> So Mani, describe what you do and get to work doing it. Don't ramble so
>much on the Net. What would Harold Speed think of all this time spent typing???
Actually, Mani is the brother of ARTISTpres. They are both ghosts who
haunt R.A.F., endlessly repeating "BOO !" until they have become like
the boy who cried "WOLF." I quit listening long ago. If others would too,
maybe they would go haunt elsewhere--like AOL's forum moderated by
the late, great Roberts Howard.
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mary Happy <A seasonal good-timer.>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
James Rowell
> The party line of "everything created is good and art and valid and
> don't crush my flowering blossom of creativity with your fascist demands
> for draughtsmanship and technique" wears thin and is boring.
I don't know who this "party line" is supposed to be coming from
(art schools?) or who it's supposed to be aimed at (nazi sympathizers?)
but to all those disgruntled artists who hold this view, I say, go for it,
show us what you can do. Generate a ground swell of support and
create history, take things into your own hands.
I have to admit, as much as I think that 99.9% of Mani's opinions are
narrow and not that interesting, I have found myself mulling over his
general sentiments while looking at some art lately. It's kind
of like when you see a bad movie, but can't help thinking about it
days afterward as you walk down the street. Maybe there was something
compelling there after all.
I have seen some work lately where I've asked myself, "I wonder if
that person didn't draw that hand better, or turned the face away
from me, because they don't know HOW to draw it, or because they
didn't want to draw it?" It's just one possible question to be asked,
but I think it's been drilled into my head by Mani. I believe it is
a good question to ask IF a piece seems to be falling short on some level...
...but the depth of the sentiment stops there, as it's only
something to consider IF the piece isn't working on some level.
At any rate, I have to thank Mani for pounding on this point over
and over and over and over a... OK, you can stop now Mani.
> The artist is supposedly born with apriori skills and needs only
> a brush and a canvas to create a masterpiece.
I don't think anyone has ever claimed this...
James.
Mary Happy
> P.S. Is bullfighting art?
If it isn't, then there sure are a lot deceived lovers of the art
out there. But in order to see the beauty in bullfighting, you
must be born with Spanish blood in your veins--or have read
Hemingway's BRAVE BULLS no less than thirty-six times.
Reading Michener's IBERIA is optional.
Thomas C. Waters
jam...@autodesk.com (James Rowell) writes:
> I have seen some work lately where I've asked myself, "I wonder if
> that person didn't draw that hand better, or turned the face away
> from me, because they don't know HOW to draw it, or because they
> didn't want to draw it?" It's just one possible question to be asked,
> but I think it's been drilled into my head by Mani. I believe it is
> a good question to ask IF a piece seems to be falling short on some level...
IMHO it is not really all that good of a question. What it does is
take you away from dealing with the work itself. If I get caught up
wondering why the artist didn't do something different, I forget to
wonder why they did WHAT THEY DID. IN THIS PROCESS, I TRY TO GET INTO
THE HEAD OF THE ARTIST AND SECOND GUESS THE ARETIST, NOT TO MENTION, I
Act as if I know how it should be. All are futile and worthless
mis-adventures IMHO. But, if I put my time and energy into looking atr
what the artist really does, what I think it means, how I like what IS
(as opposed to considering what isn't) I can have a fruitful experience
of the artwork. Plus, I am alway free to say "they did a poor job
rendering the hand" That is an observation I can really make, but to
say "they didn't draw a better hand because they couldn't, they lacked
the training. etc" is an assumption based in nothing but fallicy.
I recently saw an exhibit of work by Odd Nerndrum at the Pittsburgh
Center for the Arts. It is a wonderful exhibition, IMHO, haunting,
beautiful paintings of a very large scale. On one the feet are painted
much better than on another IMHO. That observation I can make. As to
why... that is futile and silly to consider. AND, to get caught up in
that mind game pulls me away from seeing the whole painting which is
amazing!!!!! On another, the heads look small compared to the rest of
the bodies (there are two figures) Rather than get hung up in judging
trhe artists work as a mistake or failure, I would rather ask what
impact does it have that the head appears small, what does it invoke
and how does it add to the eirree feeling of the painting.
To judge a painting as falling short on some level (your words) one has
to approach the painting superior to it. You have to see it as an
expert, instead of viewing it as an art viewer. You ned to be a
critic. Now there are lousy critics out there, but to really be a good
critic, you need to research the work, the artist, and have some idea
what he/she is trying to do with the work and understand how it fits
into Art historically as well as regionally. That is fine if you are
superior to the artist or you are the critic. But if you are just an
individual who is looking at art, this critical stature robs you of the
real task at hand, which ought to be to SEE the artwork.
I'm not a painter. I can easily look at a painting and decide if I
like it or not. But I have no real ability to look at a painting and
judge it as falling short on some technical level simply because I
don't know enough about painting. Knowing what I like/dislike; knowing
what impacts me as a viewer vs doesn't impact me; knowing what I can
and can not relate to... all these things I as viewer can decide. But
unless I'm the expert, I have little place and no worthwile reason to
judge what is lacking in a medium I do not do or know well enough.
This is what makes Mani the ass that he is, and his posts the bull shit
that they are.
Mani Deli
>for the first time on a friend's computer. Very entertaining. Mani Deli, what
>type of art do you do? How would you describe your style? What medium? When
do
>you find time to create? It looks like you're spending much too much time
>shovelling opinions and staring at a CRT.
>
A few people have asked me this. Before I answer let me say that my painting
good or bad is not relevant to the ideas I express here. I am here to
criticize. We are engaged in the use of the word to express our opinions and
I expect to be judged on that basis here.
My subject matter is surreal (realism in an unreal context). I paint in a
classical technique. I used to paint in mixed media but have invented methods
of using acrylics to get the same effects and now use acrylics exclusively. My
paint works nothing like acrylics out of the tube and can be tempered to
extend the full range from water color to oil. My hobby is an interest in
discovering how to achieve the technical effects of the artists I like. In
art I’m mainly interested in technique. My painted work is small and very
detailed. I’m also very interested in the use of computers as a medium and as
an aid. I’m a restorer, part time inventor, taught painting technique, done
commercial work and am presently enjoying a stint of laziness which has led me
to writing on art. I studied chemistry and philosophy of science which I feel
has allowed me to see through irrationality, and the mystical romantic
nonsense so prevelent in the fine arts,
I consider myself a mediocre artist even though I have made a good living at
it for a good time. As to spending time on opinions expressed here, I do it in
sperts. I’m have completed a Book, “Splat patch and schmier” “a negative view
on Modern Art.” I’m going through a final edit and sheer laziness has delayed.
this. I might advertise it on the net.
I am an oil painter. Velasquez is god. To paraphrase Sargent's
>instructor, "the three things to remember for good painting are: Velasquez,
>Velasquez, Velasquez."
Each to taste I much prefer Vermeer and Flemish painting. So would anyone who
likes detail. Don’t get me wrong I like all art that exhibits of skill and
craft and ideas, great and not great.
> So Mani, describe what you do and get to work doing it. Don't ramble
so
>much on the Net. What would Harold Speed think of all this time spent
typing???
>
>H. Speed?
>
> P.S. Is bullfighting art?
>Bullshit has been raised to an art by our major artists and art critics. That
and not merit seems decide who will inhabit the modern sections of our
museums.
Mani DeLi
..no skill no art
sl...@cc.usu.edu
> mp...@best.com (Michael Paul) writes:
>
>> The party line of "everything created is good and art and valid and
>> don't crush my flowering blossom of creativity with your fascist demands
>> for draughtsmanship and technique" wears thin and is boring.
bbbbbbbrrrrrpppppllllbbbbb! actually i kinda agree. the other side
of the equation (that there is bad art) is I think equally as silly
but that's just because I been entertaining the idea that art is
neither valid nor not, good nor bad.
> I have seen some work lately where I've asked myself, "I wonder if
> that person didn't draw that hand better, or turned the face away
> from me, because they don't know HOW to draw it, or because they
> didn't want to draw it?" It's just one possible question to be asked,
> but I think it's been drilled into my head by Mani. I believe it is
> a good question to ask IF a piece seems to be falling short on some level...
too bad for you to get the old head drilled.
can I suggest some less fascist questions?
how about "why did such-n-such artist draw the hand in this way and not
another? What are the advantages of drawing the hand this way?"
how about "if the artist was either incapable of drawing it another way
or did not want to draw it another, does that invalidate the expression
that currently exists?"
how about "does knowledge precede the making of an artwork?"
how about "does practice make perfect, or action make expression?"
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Charles Eicher
<md...@frontier.canrem.com> wrote:
> My subject matter is surreal (realism in an unreal context). I paint in a
> classical technique. I used to paint in mixed media but have invented
methods
> of using acrylics to get the same effects and now use acrylics
exclusively. My
> paint works nothing like acrylics out of the tube and can be tempered to
> extend the full range from water color to oil. My hobby is an interest in
> discovering how to achieve the technical effects of the artists I like. In
> art I’m mainly interested in technique. My painted work is small and very
> detailed. I’m also very interested in the use of computers as a medium and as
> an aid. I’m a restorer, part time inventor, taught painting
technique, done
> commercial work and am presently enjoying a stint of laziness which has
led me
> to writing on art.
You left out the bit about your work as an art forger.. Don't you remember
writing about how you created unsigned 'old master drawings' that you
clearly understood that antique dealers were selling as authentic? And how
you called them 'blind forgeries'..?
----------------
Charles Eicher
cei...@inav.net
----------------
er...@phidias.colorado.edu
> classical technique. I used to paint in mixed media but have invented methods
> of using acrylics to get the same effects and now use acrylics exclusively. My
<SNIP>
You work sounds interesting. Considering your ability to sit in front
of the CRT, and your interest in computers as an aid, I am surprised you
haven't made it available for viewing on the web (perhaps you have?).
If you like high detail and 'surreal' (by your definition), then you
might enjoy my work (pen & ink, some computer) available for extensive
viewing online at http://phidias.colorado.edu/vgallery.htm. Hopefully I
can weather any criticisms you may have;)
-Erik Johnson
er...@phidias.colorado.edu
http://phidias.colorado.edu/vgallery.htm
Michael Paul
md...@frontier.canrem.com says...
>
>>My name is Charles Muench and I am an artist flopping around the Net
>>for the first time on a friend's computer. Very entertaining. Mani Deli, what
>
>>type of art do you do? How would you describe your style? What medium? When
>do
>>you find time to create? It looks like you're spending much too much time
>>shovelling opinions and staring at a CRT.
>>
>A few people have asked me this. Before I answer let me say that my painting
>good or bad is not relevant to the ideas I express here. I am here to
>criticize. We are engaged in the use of the word to express our opinions and
>I expect to be judged on that basis here.
>
>classical technique. I used to paint in mixed media but have invented methods
>of using acrylics to get the same effects and now use acrylics exclusively. My
>extend the full range from water color to oil. My hobby is an interest in
>discovering how to achieve the technical effects of the artists I like. In
>art I’m mainly interested in technique. My painted work is small and very
>detailed. I’m also very interested in the use of computers as a medium and as
>an aid. I’m a restorer, part time inventor, taught painting technique, done
>commercial work and am presently enjoying a stint of laziness which has led me
>has allowed me to see through irrationality, and the mystical romantic
>nonsense so prevelent in the fine arts,
A restorer? That requires a lot of knowledge. Have you copied any
paintings from the original? I've copied Rembrandt and Van Dyck in the Met, and
Rubens in Del Prado, and I just barely am beginning to understand their
techniques. Be careful with that restoring!
>
>I consider myself a mediocre artist even though I have made a good living at
>it for a good time. As to spending time on opinions expressed here, I do it in
>sperts. I’m have completed a Book, “Splat patch and schmier” “a negative view
>on Modern Art.” I’m going through a final edit and sheer laziness has delayed.
>this. I might advertise it on the net.
>
> I am an oil painter. Velasquez is god. To paraphrase Sargent's
>>instructor, "the three things to remember for good painting are: Velasquez,
>>Velasquez, Velasquez."
>
>Each to taste I much prefer Vermeer and Flemish painting. So would anyone who
>likes detail. Don’t get me wrong I like all art that exhibits of skill and
>craft and ideas, great and not great.
>
>> So Mani, describe what you do and get to work doing it. Don't ramble
>so
>>much on the Net. What would Harold Speed think of all this time spent
>typing???
>>
>>H. Speed?
>> Harold Speed was an American art instructor at the turn of the century
He wrote two excellent books on art theory and technique. "The Science and
Practice of Drawing," and "Painting: Methods and Materials." Both are packed
with practical information on drawing, painting, and composition. His opinions
on Modern Art, and it really was "modern" when the books were written, are
strong and still valid today. Find them in college libraries or through Dover
books. You'd like him.
Michael Paul
>
>In article <4a13o5$k...@shellx.best.com>, mp...@best.com says...
>
>> P.S. Is bullfighting art?
>
>If it isn't, then there sure are a lot deceived lovers of the art
>out there. But in order to see the beauty in bullfighting, you
>must be born with Spanish blood in your veins--or have read
>Hemingway's BRAVE BULLS no less than thirty-six times.
>Reading Michener's IBERIA is optional.
>--
year and miss La Fiesta Brava immensely. Know of any rec.bullfighting or
something like that. This Internet business is fun.
-Charles Muench
James Rowell
>jam...@autodesk.com (James Rowell) writes:
>
>[The notion] (that there is bad art) is I think equally as silly
>but that's just because I been entertaining the idea that art is
>neither valid nor not, good nor bad.
This is a lovely zen-like sentiment. I think that it's good to
try to adopt your attitude on some level as it keeps you open
to new things. It also keeps you humble (in that you aren't running
around judging everything).
However, I've seen some art (including my own) that I think is
simply BAD (or poor, or ineffective, or ugly, or shallow, or
"so-what" or...). When I look at some art I can't help this
feeling (or reaction, or thought process, or judgement,...)
from happing. Not denying your true self is also a lovely zen-like
sentiment. You feel positively moved by some work, so why
shouldn't you allow yourself a negative reaction?
>> I have seen some work lately where I've asked myself, "I wonder if
>> that person didn't draw that hand better, or turned the face away
>> from me, because they don't know HOW to draw it, or because they
>> didn't want to draw it?" I believe it is a good question to ask
>> IF a piece seems to be falling short on some level...
>
>can I suggest some less fascist questions?
Please do, but could you ask them in a less fascist manner?
(Whatever that means!)
>how about "why did such-n-such artist draw the hand in this way and not
>another? What are the advantages of drawing the hand this way?"
Nicely put.
IF what you mean by "fascist" (BTW the term fascist doesn't apply in
these circumstances) as being judgemental, and (I assume you mean)
that this is a BAD thing, then how are you supposed to answer
your own questions?
I claim that you have to make a judgement call in order to answer
your own questions. (Are you then being fascist?) What if you think
of another way that the artist could have drawn the hand, and then
think to yourself that it might have been more effective to do it
the way you thought up? Either way you decide, you've made a
judgement call!
...I know you say you are only "entertaining" the idea that there
is no such thing as good or bad art, so perhaps I'm just reflecting
your reservations about the idea.
>how about "if the artist was either incapable of drawing it another way
>or did not want to draw it another, does that invalidate the expression
>that currently exists?"
The vagaries of email come in here,... I didn't mean to imply
that because a work doesn't appeal to me, or that I feel that
it falls short on some level, that the work is invalid OR
even BAD for that matter. I said nothing more than that
in my previous posting.
>how about "does knowledge precede the making of an artwork?"
I'm afraid you've lost me here.
>how about "does practice make perfect, or action make expression?"
How about, "Not necessarily" and "It might".
Thanks for the thoughts!
James.
Michael Paul
>
>In article <4a2p8s$l...@autodesk.autodesk.com>, jam...@autodesk.com (James
Rowell
>) writes:
>> mp...@best.com (Michael Paul) writes:
>>
>>> The party line of "everything created is good and art and valid and
>>> don't crush my flowering blossom of creativity with your fascist demands
>>> for draughtsmanship and technique" wears thin and is boring.
>
>bbbbbbbrrrrrpppppllllbbbbb! actually i kinda agree. the other side
>but that's just because I been entertaining the idea that art is
>neither valid nor not, good nor bad.
Well, stop entertaining such a flaccid, not committal idea!! That's the
rationale of most art schools and it's useless. To believe that there is no
qualitative value in art is just damn weak. Is Thunderbird as good as a fine
Napa Cabernet? If it's all equal, how does the artist make compositional,
tonal, or any decision for that matter? If the sky can be painted blue or red
or green and it just doesn't matter because art is equal and wonderful and
gives us that warm fuzzy feeling because we're "creating" and anyways, it's all
the same, no matter what we do- why do anything at all?! Artists create the
work they do with strong opinions as to what is good and what is bad. And as an
artist, if there's one thing I hate to hear it's a non-committed Wonderbread
statement like "art is neither valid nor invalid, good or bad!!!" Show some
passion and backbone for what you like and dislike. If you want to like and
dislike everything equally, become a politician!!!
>
>> I have seen some work lately where I've asked myself, "I wonder if
>> that person didn't draw that hand better, or turned the face away
>> from me, because they don't know HOW to draw it, or because they
>> didn't want to draw it?" It's just one possible question to be asked,
>> but I think it's been drilled into my head by Mani. I believe it is
>> a good question to ask IF a piece seems to be falling short on some level...
>
>too bad for you to get the old head drilled.
>can I suggest some less fascist questions?
>
>how about "why did such-n-such artist draw the hand in this way and not
>another? What are the advantages of drawing the hand this way?"
>
>how about "if the artist was either incapable of drawing it another way
>or did not want to draw it another, does that invalidate the expression
>that currently exists?"
>
>how about "does knowledge precede the making of an artwork?"
>
>how about "does practice make perfect, or action make expression?"
>
>Greg Scheckler
>SL...@cc.usu.edu
>
er...@phidias.colorado.edu
> rationale of most art schools and it's useless. To believe that there is no
> qualitative value in art is just damn weak.
I think however it is safe to say that art is in the eye of the beholder. If that weren't the
case then there wouldn't be such a variety of art. What is art to you, I may consider absurd
or unaesthetic, where you may find my idea of art foolish or uneducated. There is no absolute
definition by which all art may be judged on an objective scale. That doesn't deny that there
isn't a loose consensus consensus about what constitutues a better or higher quality piece. I
have very strong opinions about what is and isn't art, and *I* think that much so called art
isn't in any way. But my 'formula' for determine the artistic merit of something is probably
unique. I believe that the artists who excel do what they personally perceive to be art, and
not try to pander any preconceived definition. Not all may agree that it is art, but if it is
art in the eye of the artist, then who can really argue differently?
> artist, if there's one thing I hate to hear it's a non-committed Wonderbread
> statement like "art is neither valid nor invalid, good or bad!!!" Show some
> passion and backbone for what you like and dislike. If you want to like and
> dislike everything equally, become a politician!!!
I think that you are correct on a SUBJECTIVE level. Either something is art to you or isn't,
and that one should not to distinguish. BUT, on an OBJECTIVE level I think that it is
impossible to judge whether art is valid or invalid, good or bad, except in the crudest of
ways (popular, profitable, timeless).
> >how about "does knowledge precede the making of an artwork?"
Does it matter?
> >how about "does practice make perfect, or action make expression?"
Is safe to say that artistic expression requires action. Not many people consider a blank
canvas and unopened bottles of paint to be art.
-Erik Johnson
er...@phidias.colorado.edu
http://phidias.colorado.edu/vgallery.html
Richard Larson
: In article <4a2p8s$l...@autodesk.autodesk.com>, jam...@autodesk.com (James Rowell) writes:
: > mp...@best.com (Michael Paul) writes:
[snip]
: how about "does knowledge precede the making of an artwork?"
: how about "does practice make perfect, or action make expression?"
Actually perfect practice makes perfect as my old martial arts instructer said.
: Greg Scheckler
: SL...@cc.usu.edu
Rich
Mani Deli
>> I have seen some work lately where I've asked myself, "I wonder if
>> that person didn't draw that hand better, or turned the face away
>> from me, because they don't know HOW to draw it, or because they
>> didn't want to draw it?" It's just one possible question to be asked,
>> but I think it's been drilled into my head by Mani. I believe it is
>> a good question to ask IF a piece seems to be falling short on some
level...
>
spoken opinion.
Twatter the Meek of Artspeakenstein ends this epistle saying
>This is what makes Mani the ass that he is, and his posts the bull shit that
they are.
This is 10th century flame. Boring. Get creative Twatter.
In a more serious vane Twatter says
>IMHO it is not really all that good of a question. What it does is
>take you away from dealing with the work itself. If I get caught up
>wondering why the artist didn't do something different, I forget to
>wonder why they did WHAT THEY DID. IN THIS PROCESS, I TRY TO GET INTO
>THE HEAD OF THE ARTIST AND SECOND GUESS THE ARETIST, NOT TO MENTION, I
>Act as if I know how it should be. All are futile and worthless
>mis-adventures IMHO.
Twatter by which orifice do you enter in order to "GET INTO THE HEAD?"
> But, if I put my time and energy into looking atr
>what the artist really does, what I think it means, how I like what IS
>(as opposed to considering what isn't) I can have a fruitful experience
>of the artwork. Plus, I am alway free to say "they did a poor job
>rendering the hand" That is an observation I can really make, but to
say "they didn't draw a better hand be>cause they couldn't, they lacked
>the training. etc" is an assumption based in nothing but fallicy.
>
Sure, its just a fallacy to accuse an incompetent of incompetence.
>... Rather than get hung up in judging
>trhe artists work as a mistake or failure, I would rather ask what
>impact does it have that the head appears small, what does it invoke
>and how does it add to the eirree feeling of the painting.
>
Heavy impacts are getting the better of you.
>To judge a painting as falling short on some level (your words) one has
>to approach the painting superior to it. You have to see it as an
>expert, instead of viewing it as an art viewer. You ned to be a
>critic. Now there are lousy critics out there, but to really be a good
>critic, you need to research the work, the artist, and have some idea
>what he/she is trying to do with the work and understand how it fits
>into Art historically as well as regionally. That is fine if you are
>superior to the artist or you are the critic. But if you are just an
>individual who is looking at art, this critical stature robs you of the
>real task at hand, which ought to be to SEE the artwork.
>
So if you are not a critic you can’t judge anything. What nonsense. No, any
idiot can judge a Mondrian. Imagine if one had to research every artwork in
order to judge it. I guess Twatter has never visited a furniture store.
>I'm not a painter. I can easily look at a painting and decide if I
>like it or not. But I have no real ability to look at a painting and
>judge it as falling short on some technical level simply because I
>don't know enough about painting.
Its as easy to spot bad painting as it is to spot a sour note in music. Any
one can see an error in a portrait or when de Kooning’s bug eyes are schmiery
bug eyes.
Knowing what I like/dislike; knowing
>what impacts me as a viewer vs doesn't impact me; knowing what I can
>and can not relate to... all these things I as viewer can decide. But
unless I'm the expert, I have little place and no worthwile reason to>
>judge what is lacking in a medium I do not do or know well enough.
>
>I other words you are a more complete idiot than other idiots.
Mark Perry
this is all very nice to know......ssay mani....have you ever posted your resume'?
I , for one, would love to read it.
ma...@L5.com
y
Thomas C. Waters
Mani Deli <md...@frontier.canrem.com> writes:
> >To judge a painting as falling short on some level (your words) one has
> >to approach the painting superior to it. You have to see it as an
> >expert, instead of viewing it as an art viewer. You ned to be a
> >critic. Now there are lousy critics out there, but to really be a good
> >critic, you need to research the work, the artist, and have some idea
> >what he/she is trying to do with the work and understand how it fits
> >into Art historically as well as regionally. That is fine if you are
> >superior to the artist or you are the critic. But if you are just an
> >individual who is looking at art, this critical stature robs you of the
> >real task at hand, which ought to be to SEE the artwork.
> >
> So if you are not a critic you can’t judge anything. What nonsense. No, any
> idiot can judge a Mondrian.
Possibly any idiot can.. you certianly have Mani and you are the
biggest idiot of them all!!!
But when I or any other non-critic approaches a painting or other work
of art from a purely critical superior position, we possibly miss just
seeing the work. Sure anyone can decide if they like or dislike a
work, that is no big deal and something we need all do. None of us
human beings should just like something because it is supposedly a fine
art work, nor should we like (or dislike ) it merely because someone
else does.
But to act as god and know what the artist intended, and judge his her
ability removes one from the active role of art viewer, and IMHO that
is a real mistake.
Enough of this Mani. You are an ass and an idiot. I'll not post
again, you do not deserve the bandwidth.
R. Alzofon
> My name is Charles Muench and I am an artist flopping around the Net
> for the first time on a friend's computer. Very entertaining. Mani Deli, what
> type of art do you do? How would you describe your style? What medium?
When do
> you find time to create? It looks like you're spending much too much time
> shovelling opinions and staring at a CRT.
>
> -Charles Muench
>
Hello Charles,
Yes. Well I suppose this person, Mani Deli has found some satisfaction
having a long thread develop over him. Charles, did he send you samples of
his work? Anyone, is there a way we might see samples of this painter's
work?
R. Alzofon
--
R. Alzofon
Mani Deli
Artspeakenstein complains:
>writing about how you created unsigned 'old master drawings' that you
>clearly understood that antique dealers were selling as authentic? And how
>you called them 'blind forgeries'..?
>
moralist. However dealers were not selling my work as authentic. So before you
sic the Artspeakenstein police on me read on carefully, especially the last
paragraph.
I provide the article in which I wrote about it below. Thanks for reminding
me.
Former article on forgery:
I used to do what I call phantom forgeries of old master drawings when I was
a student. I sold them to an antique dealer. This is not illegal.
Art auctions and museums often have phantom forgeries.
My dealer would hang up the drawing in a battered frame and say
nothing more about it. A buyer thinking its an original so-and-so
would purchase it believing that he had made a brilliant discovery and
purchased it at bargain price. Its an old story. Michelangelo did it.
If you have the skill to imitate Bosch or Leonardo etc. you can
sell your work. You don't need to forge. But imitate Pollock,
Picasso, Chagall, Rothko, or de Kooning and hardly anyone will
look at your work. So some artists get into forgery.
Most forgery today is of modern art because its easy and requires
little skill. The difficulty is to fake Documentation that
prove originality. It is usually on the basis of documentation that forgery is
detected. I know this on the basis of confidential
admissions of people in the art business and from many press
exposures over the years.
My feeling about this is that forgery is often a good thing. What
counts is quality and not a signature. The art market will be
full of forgeries as long as people with no eye for quality buy
art solely as an investment. They often get what they deserve. I
once heard the owner of a very valuable very horrible looking
piece of modern art say, "I don't understand it or even like it.
I bought it as an investment."
There are two kinds of forgery. The mass of run-of-the-mill
modern crap and really fine work. I remember the Etruscan Horse
in the Metropolitan Museum. It stood there for years. It was
finer and more interesting than any real Etruscan work.
Then there was the German artist who showed
how he forged a famous Grunewald on TV. His work had hung in a
major museum for years. His is a really fine artist and craftsman. He
originally sold his works as phantom forgeries and they found their way into
the museum. Good for him. At the end of a program some art critic
protecting his brethren, suggested he be prosecuted. Perhaps he should have
added that the museum curator should be fired.
The best forgeries hang in museums as originals. Some are great
works of art because what counts is quality not signatures and
pedigrees.
The really worthless forgeries today or should I say fakes, are
the critics. The best criticism of modern art is forgery. It deserves the
rampant forgery it gets.
Mani DeLi
.. If it needs a long sermon to claim its art its probably bullshit.
Mani Deli
>too bad for you to get the old head drilled.
>can I suggest some less fascist questions?
>
>how about "why did such-n-such artist draw the hand in this way and not
>another? What are the advantages of drawing the hand this way?"
>
If a hand is poorly drawn the reason the artist drew it that way is because
its the best he could do. The only time its an advantage is if you can entice
a critic to write a long drawn out excuse. The hands in Matisse’s "Dance." Are
a good example. Best do like Mondrian. Don’t bother with what you can’t do.
Thats why so few artists even try to draw.
>how about "if the artist was either incapable of drawing it another way
>or did not want to draw it another, does that invalidate the expression
>that currently exists?"
It invalidates merit. Expression without merit interests no one.
>
>how about "does knowledge precede the making of an artwork?"
>
What about it?
how about "does practice make perfect, or action make ex>pression?"
>
Practice doesn’t make perfect unless you know how to practice. Look at the
work of any artschool inmate, mostly the professors.
Mani DeLi
…no skill no art
Mani Deli
>> So Mani, describe what you do and get to work doing it. Don't
ramble so
>> much on the Net. What would Harold Speed think of all this time spent
typing???
>
>Actually Mani is a performance artist. He wanted to be a comedian, but
>his form of humor just didn't gop over well in the comedy clubs. So
>now he rants.
>--
humor in my posts. Speaking in the same vane I gather from Twater’s epistles
that he is a frustrated conceptual window dresser who never tried for a job.
He now speaks convolutedly.
Mani Deli
…no skill no art
William Smith
--
Sent from Designlink, San Francisco. Design, Graphics, Photo, Portfolios Online.
Modem: (510) 933-9676; (510) 845-4187; (415) 241-9927. Voice: 930-6746
Internet Access: Via TCP/IP PORT: 3000; IP: designlink.com or 206.14.15.3
WEB: http://www.designlink.com
Mani Deli
>> So if you are not a critic you can’t judge anything. What nonsense. No,
any
>> idiot can judge a Mondrian.
>Possibly any idiot can.. you certianly have Mani and you are the
>biggest idiot of them all!!!
Twater, why don't you curl up with a 5 pound Mondrian book and read it cover
to cover. It will do wonders for you blood pressure.
>
>But when I or any other non-critic approaches a painting or other work
>of art from a purely critical superior position, we possibly miss just
>seeing the work.
"seeing the work?" Twater do you also have eye problems?
> Sure anyone can decide if they like or dislike a
>work, that is no big deal and something we need all do. None of us
>human beings should just like something because it is supposedly a fine
art work, nor should we like (or dislike ) it merely because someone
>else does.
>
You're being rational Twater, this is unlike you.
>But to act as god and know what the artist intended, and judge his her
>ability removes one from the active role of art viewer, and IMHO that
>is a real mistake.
Judging work means you acting god like I see. No one here should judge work
right?
As to what the artist intended that depends. If he started out trying to draw
a hand and ends up with a flipper. I might just "act like a god" and say he
couldn't achieve his intention. What would you say Twater?
I presume you would say your usual which is:
>Enough of this Mani. You are an ass and an idiot. I'll not post
>again, you do not deserve the bandwidth.
James Rowell
twa...@pitt.edu (Thomas C. Waters) writes:
> In article <4a2p8s$l...@autodesk.autodesk.com>
> jam...@autodesk.com (James Rowell) writes:
>
>> I have seen some work lately where I've asked myself, "I wonder if
>> that person didn't draw that hand better, or turned the face away
>> from me, because they don't know HOW to draw it, or because they
>> didn't want to draw it?" It's just one possible question to be asked,
>> but I think it's been drilled into my head by Mani. I believe it is
>> a good question to ask IF a piece seems to be falling short on some level...
>
> take you away from dealing with the work itself. If I get caught up
> wondering why the artist didn't do something different, I forget to
> wonder why they did WHAT THEY DID. IN THIS PROCESS, I TRY TO GET INTO
> Act as if I know how it should be. All are futile and worthless
> mis-adventures IMHO.
Before I continue too far into the discussion, I'd like to say that
I'm going to retract my original claim, and that I basically agree
with you. The specific question "did the artist do such and such
because they didn't know HOW or chose NOT to?" isn't TOO useful. I'm
not going to attempt to defend that point, because in the grand scheme
of things it's a pretty trivial question. (And I'll bet that the majority
of times the answer to the question will be "I dunno".)
However, I don't agree with you that dealing with questions such as
this will prevent you from dealing with the work itself. It is
possible to do both; to ask yourself questions like this (and
thousands of others) as well as enjoy the work for it's own sake.
(BTW, you don't always have to answer the questions you ask yourself.)
I'm going to take another step back and make another claim. Probably
pretty obvious, but here goes: When you look at a work of art you
have many possible responses to it. You might like it, you might not,
...who knows, but IF you are interested in trying to understand WHY
you had the response, THEN you may start to ask yourself questions
about the artists technique etc. Some of your lines of inquiry might
even cause you to change your mind about the work, or on the
other hand strengthen you feelings about it.
Anyway, if you agree with the above, then you might be able to see
why I disagree with your views about not being able to effectively
deal with the work itself when you start picking it apart.
> I recently saw an exhibit of work by Odd Nerndrum at the Pittsburgh
> Center for the Arts. It is a wonderful exhibition, IMHO, haunting,
> beautiful paintings on a very large scale. On one the feet are painted
> much better than on another IMHO. As to why... that is futile and silly
> to consider. AND, to get caught up in that mind game pulls me away
> from seeing the whole painting which is amazing!!!!! [...] Rather
> than get hung up in judging the artists work as a mistake or failure,
> I would rather ask what impact does it have that the head appears
> small, what does it invoke and how does it add to the eirree
> feeling of the painting.
Just for the record, you DID judge the work to be a success. Therefor
the question that I posed doesn't even apply here, since I said I was
only asking it when I felt that the painting was NOT successful. anyway...
Naturally you are free to spend your mental energies where you see fit.
You made an observation that YOU felt that the feet were painted
much BETTER in one that the other. A judgement call that you determined
did not matter for the work as a whole. Cool.
> To judge a painting as falling short on some level (your words) one has
> to approach the painting superior to it. [...continued below...]
I don't agree that you have to feel (or be) superior at all. It's quite
possible that you are the one who has fallen short. I for one, am
certainly prepared to admit that possibility. On the other hand,
I'm ALSO prepared to state that I feel that a work is poor, and defend
my position. I may be proven wrong, or retract my views, but I'm
not adverse to making value judgements based on my own level of
understanding (which is always changing).
> [...] You have to see it as an expert, instead of viewing it
> as an art viewer. [...continued below...]
You can exchange wearing your "expert critic" hat, and your "art viewer"
hat at any time.
> [...] You need to be a critic. Now there are lousy critics out there, but
> to really be a good critic, you need to research the work, the artist,
> and have some idea what he/she is trying to do with the work and
> understand how it fits into Art historically as well as regionally.
> [...continued below...]
These all seem like very good criteria for the art critic. I feel
kind of good about you saying this stuff, because I've officially given a
stab at being an "art critic" only twice. I reviewed Mattison Fitzgerald's
shows and I think I posted them here (at least I did the first one)
and I tried to consider the above points when writing up my views.
(...regardless of whatever you think about the net personae of
Mattison, IMHO she is a great painter. End plug :-)
> [...] That is fine if you are superior to the artist or you are the critic.
> But if you are just an individual who is looking at art, this critical
> stature robs you of the real task at hand, which ought to be to SEE
> the artwork.
I don't think we need to consider things like so-and-so is superior
to so-and-so. I wouldn't say that a teacher is superior to a student
for example. They just might have more experience and have good advice
to offer. In terms of being a critic, it can be fun. It's just one
more level you can experience art on.
Hey, art critics have to start somewhere right?
> I'm not a painter. I can easily look at a painting and decide if I
> like it or not. But I have no real ability to look at a painting and
> judge it as falling short on some technical level simply because I
> don't know enough about painting. Knowing what I like/dislike; knowing
> what impacts me as a viewer vs doesn't impact me; knowing what I can
> and can not relate to... all these things I as viewer can decide. But
> unless I'm the expert, I have little place and no worthwhile reason to
> judge what is lacking in a medium I do not do or know well enough.
...you can always give it a try. Think about the converse. Technically
what is it about the paintings you really LIKE that works? Start to
ask yourself this, and then you can also start to ask yourself
why something appears to LACK in paintings you don't like. Perhaps
you might find that the painting doesn't lack, it was you, and you
can change your mind about the work...
> This is what makes Mani the ass that he is, and his posts the bull shit
> that they are.
Agreed, Mani is an Ass, but for a multitude of reasons, not just that one!
Thanks, Thomas, for the thoughtful response.
James.
sl...@cc.usu.edu
> Schreckler writes
>>too bad for you to get the old head drilled.
>>can I suggest some less fascist questions?
>>
> A Fascist question is one that stumps Schreckler.
the question that whoever I was responding to had asked was, when looking an
at artwork, when you think that a hand was drawn poorly, or when it
seems something is lacking, do you think it's because the artist
couldn't draw? The question answers itself by its form and
negative tone from the beginning. It is not a question of open-mindedness.
It doesn't stump me. But it rules out all sorts of options that
the poseur-critic could otherwise entertain himself by.
>
>>how about "why did such-n-such artist draw the hand in this way and not
>>another? What are the advantages of drawing the hand this way?"
>>
> If a hand is poorly drawn the reason the artist drew it that way is because
> its the best he could do. The only time its an advantage is if you can entice
> a critic to write a long drawn out excuse. The hands in Matisse’s "Dance." Are
> a good example. Best do like Mondrian. Don’t bother with what you can’t do.
> Thats why so few artists even try to draw.
always bother with what you can't do! that's how you "improve"
your "skills" isn't it, strive against inability towards some
more sophisticated process, eh? How do you know what you can't
do without having a model for a goal that you seek? That's the
real problem, the model/goal that is sought after... is it
necessary, will it help you make art?
>>
>>how about "does knowledge precede the making of an artwork?"
>>
> What about it?
if specific knowledge precedes the making of an artwork, then the task of
creation gets very boring... one knows how and why the art's to be
made, and then it's just a matter of following recipes or formulas.
if general knowledge precedes the making of an artwork, then the artist
has a sort of fluid ship to steer by, and need not rely on further
models to guide the making of an artwork.
what makes a skill go? is it the motivation of the human mind/body
in concert with its environment? if skill is driven by the motivation of the
human mind/body, then skill is a byproduct of conception. therefore your
statement "no skill, no art" fails to account for the underlying motivations or
conceptions that drive a particular skill (hence art) forward.
changing these underlying conceptions requires massive flexibility and
often great effort, thus the massive writings by critics and artists
alike, failed or not, the effort to change the mind when deemed
necessary or useful. Great success, therefore, lies in clarity and
the strategies used for conception during the act of making art, not
necessarily in the outward appearance of skill as measured against
other artists. Skill in art = critical thinking ability applied
towards artmaking. Just as thinking may occur outside the range of
visual stimulus, then skill in art may be nonvisual, not apparent
upon looking.
If we say that what drives a skill is something else, then our
conclusions may differ from the above.
> how about "does practice make perfect, or action make expression?"
>>
> Practice doesn’t make perfect unless you know how to practice. Look at the
> work of any artschool inmate, mostly professors.
there are antiartschool inmates outside of academe too. Like those
people, who, having been kicked out of academe, must consistly
remind themselves of the drawbacks of schooling. Yet most art departments
make you make art history, not art. There are drawbacks,
yes, but there are drawbacks everywhere. (A "drawback" by the way,
is a person who relies on history to make judgements about the making
of art as it occurs onwards from the present into the future.)
anyway it was a trick question: the more time you practice the less
time you make art. practice never makes perfect. make art right now,
from the start, at the first touch of mind to media.
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Andy Pearlman
> Schreckler writes
>>another? What are the advantages of drawing the hand this way?"
>>
>If a hand is poorly drawn the reason the artist drew it that way is because
>its the best he could do. The only time its an advantage is if you can entice
>a critic to write a long drawn out excuse. The hands in Matisse's "Dance."Are
>a good example. Best do like Mondrian. Don't bother with what you can't do.
>Thats why so few artists even try to draw.
I find myself totally in agreement with Mani Deli here. Look at that guy
Salvador Dali's Persistence of Memory. Obviously, Dali couldn't draw clocks.
Just look at the things, as if they were pancakes or something like that. And
those critics going on and on about Surrealism is just a long drawn out excuse
for Dali's inability to draw a simple clock. After all, to quote Mani Deli,
"if a hand is poorly drawn, the reason the artist drew it that way is because
its the best he can do."
And man are the hands on that clock poorly drawn...
Andy
--
Andy Pearlman - artwork at http://tsb.weschke.com/iiw/gallery/pearlman_a.html
apea...@panix.com
"I think I'm going ... to regret this ... in the morning...."
Thomas C. Waters
Mani Deli <md...@frontier.canrem.com> writes:
> Twater, why don't you curl up with a 5 pound Mondrian book and read it cover
> to cover. It will do wonders for you blood pressure.
There is no problem with my blood pressure Mani. I work out regularly
to keep my heart in shape. From the zeal with which you seem to
condemn all modern art, I would be worried about YOUR blood pressure if
I were you.
As for Mondrian.... I don't personally care for his work. Does nothing
for me, doesn't inspire me at all. But I have ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFICULTY
GRASPING THE SIGNIFICANCE HIS WORK HAD IN THE TIME IT WAS PRODUCED,
and in the continuing evolution of art. In otherwords, I can like or
dislike something without needing to bash the artist with unjustifiable
bull shit.
Mani, you are such an ass! I have to admit, that after reading your
dribble, I always feel afirmed that what I do as an artist has real
merit. If there is a day where I feel discouraged, reading your
blathering hostile idiocy reminds me of how lucky I am to be a creative
person.
> >But when I or any other non-critic approaches a painting or other work
> >of art from a purely critical superior position, we possibly miss just
> >seeing the work.
>
> "seeing the work?" Twater do you also have eye problems?
No Mani, you do. You bash artists like Pollack and Rothko and you
never stop to SEE their work, you are too busy judging it, feeling
superior to it, too busy being sure you know more, could do better et
al.
Now, while I don't care for Mondrian, I LOVE Rothko!!!! In the United
Methodist newspaper there was a little story about Art and Christian
faith that ments the Rothko sactuary. I didn't understand his work at
all from only seeing pictures of them, but when I saw one in a museum,
it was so beautiful. I find his work very moving, evocative. Mani,
you OTOH are too busy discrediting the work as a blob of paint or
something, that you never stop long enough to see what is there. And
now, having watched you rant for oh.. a year or so, maybe longer, I
have a feeling you are without hope. You may be too stupid or too pig
headed, or too close minded to consider that Art can be more than
merely a documentation of reality. You are past hope IMHO. But I do
pray for you, pray tht you too can see.
I don't know what I think about Pollack. I have spent some time
sitting and looking at them and will do more of that. An ide that you
will not find productive I'm sure.
> > Sure anyone can decide if they like or dislike a
> >work, that is no big deal and something we need all do. None of us
> >human beings should just like something because it is supposedly a fine
> art work, nor should we like (or dislike ) it merely because someone
> >else does.
> >
> You're being rational Twater, this is unlike you.
No Mani, I am USUALLY rational, although I admit there are a few
occasions when I become possesed by some demon of irrationality. You
OTOH are NEVER rational. In addition, you think you know what I or any
other person thinks about things, and you categorize people into nice
little groups. Fortunately for the rest of us, life isn't like that,
nor is art, nor are artists.
> Judging work means you acting god like I see. No one here should judge work
> right?
Are these the only two options as you see it: Everyone jhudges art or
no one???? My, you are even more stupid than I thought.
If I'm a critic or am asked to "judge an art exhibition, I act as a
judge. If I want to really learn about an artwork or artist I become
judge. But if I want to confront the artwork as a viewer, I think the
"judge" hat gets in the way. I am suggesting, have suggested before
and probably will again, that value is lost for the person who is
unable to be just viewer, to look at a work and see it for what it is.
> As to what the artist intended that depends. If he started out trying to draw
> a hand and ends up with a flipper. I might just "act like a god" and say he
> couldn't achieve his intention. What would you say Twater?
Please point out one painting where the painter started out trying to
draw a hand but ended up with a flipper. I can think of none. If you
want a purely theoretical discussion, then by all means castigate the
theoretical artist that does not exist. I have better things to do
with my time that watch as you chase windmills. You are such a clown
Mani!!!! A real fool.
> I presume you would say your usual which is:
> >Enough of this Mani. You are an ass and an idiot. I'll not post
> >again, you do not deserve the bandwidth.
No, I'd say your example has absolutely nothing to do with the
discussion. But for you, that is nothing new. As I mentioned earlier.
I love Rothko. I can;t think of one of his works where he started out
to draw a hand and ended up with a flipper!!!!! Please Mani, enlighten
us as to who this artist is....
> Mani DeLi
> ..no skill no art
Skill without brains isn't worth much either. If the skill you have at
discussion is any example of your artistic skill, you are really in
trouble!!!!!
--
Thomas C. Waters
twa...@pitt.edu
I always assume someone is gay unless they tell me otherwise.
"When evil men plot, good men must plan. When evil men burn and bomb,
good men must build and bind. When evil men shout ugly words of
hatred,
good men must commit themselves to the glories of love."
Martin Luther King Jr.
******************************************************************
Thomas C. Waters
jam...@autodesk.com (James Rowell) writes:
> The specific question "did the artist do such and such
> because they didn't know HOW or chose NOT to?" isn't TOO useful. I'm
> not going to attempt to defend that point, because in the grand scheme
> of things it's a pretty trivial question. (And I'll bet that the majority
> of times the answer to the question will be "I dunno".)
>
> However, I don't agree with you that dealing with questions such as
> this will prevent you from dealing with the work itself. It is
> possible to do both; to ask yourself questions like this (and
> thousands of others) as well as enjoy the work for it's own sake.
> (BTW, you don't always have to answer the questions you ask yourself.)
Actually, in theory I agree with you James. A viewer can do both ask
critical questions AND deal directly with the work. But I made a
distinction for two reasons that I will elaborate since my comments
have some bearing on your other comments below.
1. Remember that my comments were in reply to a comment about asking
critical questions about technique as posed originally by Mani Deli.
For Mani, technique is all that exists. He NEVER gets past it to look
at or deal with the work. So, while a viewer can both "see" the work
AND ask the critical technique questions, far too often because it is
too easy, the viewer only asks the critical questions and stops, OR,
gets so hung up in them that they forget to just see the artwork.
2. And this comment I'll keep short for now... but is the more
important of the two IMHO. THIS is a major interest of mine and
something I have been really working on. Especially with troubling or
difficult subject matter, a viewer often moves to a place of
intellectual critiqye (which includes critique of technique) as a way
of avoiding the subject matter. Art dealing with issues of
homosexuality, the homeless, power and the the elite... many subjects
are a confrontation to what the viewer wants to see, and therefore, the
viewer frequently uses the intellectual arguments as a way of avioiding
relating to the work. I say intellectual in the sense that all the
work hapopens in the brain, not that the questions are philosophical in
nature. Far too often the viewer wants to "figure it out" and once
that is accomplished, they move on and forget the artwork. That way
they don't have to deal with what the artwork evokes.
Now one of Mani's favorites is Norman Rockwell. His work evokes very
pleasant feelings thoughts and memories, but consider the work of Duane
Michaels, Witkin, Maplethorpe, or Cindy Sherman, or Andre Serrano, or
David Wajnarowicz or any number of artists whose work deals with
difficult "unnerving" subject matter. In those cases the viewer often
wants to avoid trheir feelings, avoid what the work evokes and so they
deal with it on an intellectual level only.
> Anyway, if you agree with the above, then you might be able to see
> why I disagree with your views about not being able to effectively
> deal with the work itself when you start picking it apart.
Oh, but this scenario you paint is not what Mani is talking about at
all!!!! If I am so busy ctiticising an artist because he/she hasn't
drawn the fingers right, I never get to ther actual work because I have
already (or actually Mani has already)deemed the artist as unworthy of
such a title.
BTW, for me, I rarely spend a whole lot of time critiquing the
technique of an artist when trying to understand a work, unless I am
looking at what I think stops the work from really achieving it's
purpose. I do wholeheartedly agree that both go hand in hand, but only
if you as viewer agree to participate with the artwork and think about
it.
> Just for the record, you DID judge the work to be a success. Therefor
> the question that I posed doesn't even apply here, since I said I was
> only asking it when I felt that the painting was NOT successful. anyway...
No, I didn't really judge the work to be a success, I said I found it
haunting and eerie. But that isn't the point. The success we WERE
talking about judging was the success or failure of the artist to
correctly render body parts. I personally would call the painting as
well as the artist successful, but that value judgement is really
meaningless and does little in the discussion of how the work impacts
me. I have seen art where I think the artist has not been very
successful at making a strong work but I have still enjoyed the work or
been moved by it.
But this discussion was focused on something more important than the
labeling of the artist as successful per se, it was about deeming the
artist as a failure or the artwork as failing if the artists rendering
of body parts isn't perfect enough. IMHO this discounting of the
art/artist is not just the reverse of labeling him/her a success. The
overall discounting and trashing of an artist based upon rendering
skill is rediculous and far too simplistic IMHO.
> > To judge a painting as falling short on some level (your words) one has
> > to approach the painting superior to it. [...continued below...]
>
> I don't agree that you have to feel (or be) superior at all. It's quite
> possible that you are the one who has fallen short.
Ah, but if you are the one who has fallen short, then that is a
different issue than the blatent discounting of an artwork because it
lacked perfect body rendering, or by determining that the painting has
fallen short.
>I for one, am
> certainly prepared to admit that possibility. On the other hand,
> I'm ALSO prepared to state that I feel that a work is poor, and defend
> my position. I may be proven wrong, or retract my views, but I'm
> not adverse to making value judgements based on my own level of
> understanding (which is always changing).
I'd completely agree with you, but my earlier comments were in regards
to why I disagreed with Mani Deli's approach which your approach is not
similar to at all.
> You can exchange wearing your "expert critic" hat, and your "art viewer"
> hat at any time.
As long as you do wear both hats and don't glue the critic hat on
permanently.
> > [...] You need to be a critic. Now there are lousy critics out there, but
> > to really be a good critic, you need to research the work, the artist,
> > and have some idea what he/she is trying to do with the work and
> > understand how it fits into Art historically as well as regionally.
> > [...continued below...]
>
> These all seem like very good criteria for the art critic. I feel
<snip>
> (...regardless of whatever you think about the net personae of
> Mattison, IMHO she is a great painter. End plug :-)
As per Mattison, I am really glad she is a part of the net.art
community. She isn't that much different from the rest of us, we have
good days and bad days and we all end up feeling frustrated at the
system from time to time. I have no real opinion of her work, I only
looked at it briefly on the web and I think it really unfair to try and
evaluate anybody's work from a video representation of it. I am glad
she makes the work she makes and I hope she finds great success.
> I don't think we need to consider things like so-and-so is superior
> to so-and-so. I wouldn't say that a teacher is superior to a student
> for example.
I would agree entirely, but this is really a different topic. Remember
we started this based upon Mani Deli's comments. In regards to that
perspective the idea of superiority weighs heavily in his thinking.
> ...you can always give it a try. Think about the converse. Technically
> what is it about the paintings you really LIKE that works? Start to
> ask yourself this, and then you can also start to ask yourself
> why something appears to LACK in paintings you don't like. Perhaps
> you might find that the painting doesn't lack, it was you, and you
> can change your mind about the work...
I can't argue with this much. But remember the context of the thread
it started in. Mani is not interested or advocating that we judge what
a painting lacks. He is suggesting (over and over and over again) that
unless an artist can perfectly render body parts then the artist isn't
really an artist at all. He is suggesting that Rothko, Pollack etc
were shams and worthless because they couldn't render the body.
Now, I might decide what is lacking in a painting from my perspective,
but to jump to the conclusion that the artist can't do something or
that theyt don't really deserve to be seen as a Fine Artist is pure
lunacy IMHO.
>
> > This is what makes Mani the ass that he is, and his posts the bull shit
> > that they are.
>
> Agreed, Mani is an Ass, but for a multitude of reasons, not just that one!
If Mani had new things to say, clearer ways of arguing his points, he
wouldn't be so bad. But he just says the same thing over and over and
over. Notice he only talks about painting and drawing... as if these
are the only two art mediums....
--
Thomas C. Waters
twa...@pitt.edu
I always assume someone is gay unless they tell me otherwise. Straight
society has been doing the same in reverse forever, and I'm tired of
it.
"When evil men plot, good men must plan. When evil men burn and bomb,
Mani Deli
>> Schreckler writes
>if specific knowledge precedes the making of an artwork, then the task of
>creation gets very boring... one knows how and why the art's to be
>made, and then it's just a matter of following recipes or formulas.
In other words its best to know nothing before you start. Thus Michaelangelo
shouldn't have studied anatomy or Leonardo, perspective.
I hope you teach you students nothing in order to aid their advancment lest,
"they get bored.".
>if general knowledge precedes the making of an artwork, then the artist
>has a sort of fluid ship to steer by, and need not rely on further
>models to guide the making of an artwork.
>what makes a skill go?
Knowledge.
>...is it the motivation of the human mind/body
>in concert with its environment? if skill is driven by the motivation of the
>human mind/body, then skill is a byproduct of conception. therefore your
>statement "no skill, no art" fails to account for the underlying motivations
or
>conceptions that drive a particular skill (hence art) forward.
>changing these underlying conceptions requires massive flexibility and
>often great effort, thus the massive writings by critics and artists
>alike, failed or not, the effort to change the mind when deemed
>necessary or useful. Great success, therefore, lies in clarity and
>the strategies used for conception during the act of making art, not
>necessarily in the outward appearance of skill as measured against
>other artists. Skill in art = critical thinking ability applied
>towards artmaking. Just as thinking may occur outside the range of
>visual stimulus, then skill in art may be nonvisual, not apparent
>upon looking.
>
Tell all that to you students Greg.
>If we say that what drives a skill is something else, then our
>conclusions may differ from the above.
>
>> how about "does practice make perfect, or action make expression?"
Thats all very nice and somewhat criptic. However when one looks at a painting
and senses no skill I and most others cease to be interested.
I never claimed skill was everything. I only said, no skill no art. Its like
a car Greg, no gas no ride. Gas isn't everything but without it you get no
further.
>> Practice doesn’t make perfect unless you know how to practice. Look at the
>> work of any artschool inmate, mostly professors.
>
>there are antiartschool inmates outside of academe too. Like those
>people, who, having been kicked out of academe, must consistly
>remind themselves of the drawbacks of schooling.
Schooling is only worthwhile if it teaches you something. If most artshcool
graduates have not learned enough to practice the profession I would regard
their schooling a failure.
Yet most art departments
>make you make art h>istory, not art. There are drawbacks,
>yes, but there are drawbacks everywhere.
Yes, I'm convinced that you're making history. Where do you keep it Greg under
you bed.
>... (A "drawback" by the way,
>is a person who relies on history to make judgements about the making
>of art as it occurs onwards from the present into the future.)
That's one thing critics do, even the ones you like.
>anyway it was a trick question: the more time you practice the less
>time you make art. practice never makes perfect. make art right now,
>from the start, at the first touch of mind to media.
Nice pep talk tell it to your students. I like the last sentence.
nim
>In article <101295.052...@frontier.canrem.com> Mani Deli <md...@frontier.canrem.com> writes:
>> Schreckler writes
>>>how about "why did such-n-such artist draw the hand in this way and not
>>>another? What are the advantages of drawing the hand this way?"
>>>
>>If a hand is poorly drawn the reason the artist drew it that way is because
>>its the best he could do. The only time its an advantage is if you can entice
>>a critic to write a long drawn out excuse. The hands in Matisse's "Dance."Are
>>a good example. Best do like Mondrian. Don't bother with what you can't do.
>>Thats why so few artists even try to draw.
>I find myself totally in agreement with Mani Deli here. Look at that guy
>Salvador Dali's Persistence of Memory. Obviously, Dali couldn't draw clocks.
>Just look at the things, as if they were pancakes or something like that. And
>those critics going on and on about Surrealism is just a long drawn out excuse
>for Dali's inability to draw a simple clock. After all, to quote Mani Deli,
>"if a hand is poorly drawn, the reason the artist drew it that way is because
>its the best he can do."
I disagree.....when i paint i paint what i want to see and what i want
others to see, sure how good i can paint it comes into play but that
doesn't mean i paint it purely based on talent........n
Steve Browne
>that person didn't draw that hand better, or turned the face away
>from me, because they don't know HOW to draw it, or because they
>didn't want to draw it?" It's just one possible question to be asked,
>but I think it's been drilled into my head by Mani. I believe it is
>a good question to ask IF a piece seems to be falling short on some level...
>
believe that an artist's obligation to him/herself is to master that
drawing of a hand or face to be utterly realistic, and in being
utterly realistic to impart the gesture or expression the artist
desires. THEN one can unravel and simplify.
I always remember a drawing by Rembrandt of the baby Moses in the
basket being rescued from the river - done in one line without lifting
the pen from the paper! That's what a mastery of drawing can enable
you to do. As an art dealer I have thought about this for many years.
As an artist I regrettably gave up when I shouldn't have.
Steve Browne
sbr...@ix.netcom.com
Steve Browne
Steve Browne
sbr...@ix.netcom.com
Javier Lopez
: In article <101295.052...@frontier.canrem.com> Mani Deli <md...@frontier.canrem.com> writes:
: > Schreckler writes
: I find myself totally in agreement with Mani Deli here. Look at that guy
: Salvador Dali's Persistence of Memory. Obviously, Dali couldn't draw clocks.
: Just look at the things, as if they were pancakes or something like that. And
: those critics going on and on about Surrealism is just a long drawn out excuse
: for Dali's inability to draw a simple clock. After all, to quote Mani Deli,
: "if a hand is poorly drawn, the reason the artist drew it that way is because
: its the best he can do."
: And man are the hands on that clock poorly drawn...
: Andy
That's really funny, since rendering is the only thing that Dali had
going for him. He was no intellect, a clown that Andre Breton and the
other Surrealists had no time for. I always thought that was why Dali
and that "Aliens" guy had such a following among beginning students and
illustrators, because they proved that you could make it on style, a good
hand and nothing else.
Javier--No skill....nonexistant
Conrad Graeber
and 20th century prints. Among the artists included are Leonard Baskin,
Felix Buhot, Seymour Haden, Rockwell Kent, Armin Landeck, Edouard Manet,
Jean-Francois Millet, Otto Mueller and Felicien Rops. If you would like
to receive a complimentary copy please send your name and street
address.
Thanks,
Conrad R. Graeber Fine Art (cgra...@abs.net)
Javier Lopez
: >If we say that what drives a skill is something else, then our
: >conclusions may differ from the above.
: >
: >> how about "does practice make perfect, or action make expression?"
: Thats all very nice and somewhat criptic. However when one looks at a painting
: and senses no skill I and most others cease to be interested.
Actually, you are doing what the conservatives do so well,
theoretically universalizing so that one will not see the obvoius
inherent flaws and instead think, yeah everyone else does it. But,
truthfully, very few artists and art viewers who have been educated past
the first year, hold this point of view. You are making the point of the
uneducated, yes, there are more of them, but I wonder if that group
actually brings you that much solace, since many in the group hate art
: I never claimed skill was everything. I only said, no skill no art. Its like
: a car Greg, no gas no ride. Gas isn't everything but without it you get no
: further.
: >> Practice doesn’t make perfect unless you know how to practice. Look at the
: >> work of any artschool inmate, mostly professors.
: >
: >there are antiartschool inmates outside of academe too. Like those
: >people, who, having been kicked out of academe, must consistly
: >remind themselves of the drawbacks of schooling.
: Schooling is only worthwhile if it teaches you something. If most artshcool
: graduates have not learned enough to practice the profession I would regard
: their schooling a failure.
: Yet most art departments
: >make you make art h>istory, not art. There are drawbacks,
: >yes, but there are drawbacks everywhere.
Actually, Mani, you are a drawback,(as you incorrectly use the term) many
of your ideas are obsolete, I believe that your definition of skill is an
obsolete one, full of modernist conviction, but none of the knowledge
that much of the technology of today actually can surpass human skills,
and therefore make them less important.
: >... (A "drawback" by the way,
cr...@fishnet.net
> Schreckler writes
>>too bad for you to get the old head drilled.
>>can I suggest some less fascist questions?
>>
>A Fascist question is one that stumps Schreckler.
>>how about "why did such-n-such artist draw the hand in this way and not
>>another? What are the advantages of drawing the hand this way?"
>>
>If a hand is poorly drawn the reason the artist drew it that way is because
>its the best he could do. The only time its an advantage is if you can entice
>a critic to write a long drawn out excuse. The hands in Matisse’s "Dance." Are
>a good example. Best do like Mondrian. Don’t bother with what you can’t do.
>Thats why so few artists even try to draw.
The mechanics of drawing can be learned. This does not mean one is an
artist. If one can not draw does this mean one is not an artist?
>>how about "if the artist was either incapable of drawing it another way
>>or did not want to draw it another, does that invalidate the expression
>>that currently exists?"
Being able or not to create a work of art my have nothing to do with
art proper.
>It invalidates merit. Expression without merit interests no one.
To interest or not to interest this is in short pure ego.
>>
>>how about "does knowledge precede the making of an artwork?"
>>
>What about it?
>how about "does practice make perfect, or action make ex>pression?"
>>
>Practice doesn’t make perfect unless you know how to practice. Look at the
>work of any artschool inmate, mostly the professors.
>Mani DeLi
>…no skill no art
What does skill have to do with art?
It sounds like you are talking about craft.
Bruce Attah
comment:
> Being able or not to create a work of art my have nothing to do with
> art proper.
Is this person saying that if no-one were able to create works of art, things
would (certeris paribus) be no different from their present state, where works
of art exist?
> To interest or not to interest this is in short pure ego.
Is there an implied criticism of any attempt to make a work of art interesting
here? Is there a suggestion, perhaps, such an attempt would be "egoistic" and
therefore not good? Should art be dull, then? If so, of what value is art to
anyone?
> What does skill have to do with art?
> It sounds like you are talking about craft.
Is the intention here to suggest that, if something requires skill, it is a
craft and, in turn, not an art? Does it follow, then, that playwriting, novel
writing, poetry, musical composition and performance, dance, acting and film
directing are not arts, but merely crafts?
-------------------
Am I being cruel if I suggest that it is only people whose thinking is as
startlingly woolly as that of cr...@fishnet.com who cannot understand the
fundamental flaws in the ideas of Expressionism and Conceptualism that
dominate in todays art world?
Thomas C. Waters
Bruce Attah <Bruce...@insignia.co.uk> writes:
> Am I being cruel if I suggest that it is only people whose thinking is as
> startlingly woolly as that of cr...@fishnet.com who cannot understand the
> fundamental flaws in the ideas of Expressionism and Conceptualism that
> dominate in todays art world?
I don't know if you would be cruel..
But I wonder, would you please articulate the fundemental flaws in the
ideas of Expressionism and Conceptualism.
I have heard folks rant on and on about flaws, but never seen anyone
here actually articulate what the flaws were. If you could number them
and state them in a short concise one-line as well as elaborate on them
would be really nice.
Bruce Attah
>
> But I wonder, would you please articulate the fundemental flaws in the
> ideas of Expressionism and Conceptualism.
>
> I have heard folks rant on and on about flaws, but never seen anyone
> here actually articulate what the flaws were. If you could number them
> and state them in a short concise one-line as well as elaborate on them
> would be really nice.
One line on expressionism: A work of art is not typically (if ever) an expression of an artists emotional
state, nor does its value come from expressiveness in this sense.
Elaboration: If art is expression, everything people do is art, as everything people do is expressive.
One line on conceptualism: If I really want concepts, I'll pick up a philosophical tract, rather than play at
unravelling the trivial puzzles of half-educated would-be Sybils.
Elaboration: The essential thing in art is form, not concepts. The concepts are there just for entertainment
(to enrich the form).
Greg Scheckler
jav...@scs.unr.edu (Javier Lopez) wrote:
whoops.. i was gone long enough to have missed Mani Deli's
response to my response to his. If anybody happened to save
it, could you email me a copy? thanks
>Mani Deli (md...@frontier.canrem.com) wrote:
[clipped out what Javier L. wrote, b/c having missed Mani's
response I lacked context to reply to JL too]
>: I never claimed skill was everything. I only said, no skill
>: no art. Its like a car Greg, no gas no ride. Gas isn't
>: everything but without it you get no further.
I usually take an antacid when I have gas.
I always wonder, when you talk about skill, do you mean
hand-eye skills, or internal nearly ineffable skills like
critical thinking or the ability to imagine new possibilities,
or both?
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
who btw will be moving to minnesota in late June