Postmodernism
zi...@interport.net
I have not been involved in this argument. Does the original author
of this paragraph claim that the postmodern artists he is aware of
know that they are doing this. Or, rather, knew it before some critic
wrote it all down for them. Someone like Arthur Danto, for example,
who is a major apologist for the establishment.
I know quite a few of them. I was forced to meet them. Working in art
schools or sitting on juries. I have met one or two who could make up
a phrase, but most are not up to that kind of thinking. Their thinking
is about the art world as an oyster. They are masters at operating
socially and politically in the art world. They are not people of
vision. Even, with all their faults, the AE who were the tail end[of
modernism] had much more pure intelligence and a sort of honesty [some
of them] that I don;t see around, now. The thing which was most off
putting about most of the AE people was their self aggrandizement. I
see that in the POMOs, but I don;t see serious thought. I see
calculation. A very different thing. Just right for a careerist.
Gabriel
Another quote:
>"postmodernism, on the contrary, is committed to
>modes of thinking and representation which emphasize fragmentations,
>discontinuities and incommensurable aspects of a given object, from
>intellectual systems to architecture. "
-N.
> I have not been involved in this argument. Does the original author
> of this paragraph claim that the postmodern artists he is aware of
> know that they are doing this. Or, rather, knew it before some critic
> wrote it all down for them. Someone like Arthur Danto, for example,
> who is a major apologist for the establishment.
>
> I know quite a few of them. I was forced to meet them. Working in art
> schools or sitting on juries. I have met one or two who could make up
> a phrase, but most are not up to that kind of thinking. Their thinking
> is about the art world as an oyster. They are masters at operating
> socially and politically in the art world. They are not people of
> vision. Even, with all their faults, the AE who were the tail end[of
> modernism] had much more pure intelligence and a sort of honesty [some
> of them] that I don;t see around, now. The thing which was most off
> putting about most of the AE people was their self aggrandizement. I
> see that in the POMOs, but I don;t see serious thought. I see
> calculation. A very different thing. Just right for a careerist.
I recall a certain letter by DaVinci to a certain powerful political
figure offering himself for hire, and willing to produce whatever was
demanded from him amongst a wide spectrum of possibilities.
Ingres was rather well connected in the political/economic construction of
the artworld he participated in, and he pleased the wealthy patrons and
collectors...you can go to each and every age and you will find this.
Artists serve a market if they wish to eat from the sales of their works.
Your tendancy to single out the current generation, exhibits a desire to
bias them in relation to an idealised concept of the past, which you are
able to buy into due to awholesale repression of the facts.
-N.
--
N
To reach me, remove _xxx from my address.
zi...@interport.net
when they have nothing else handy.
When Leonardo DaVinci presented himself he was a very famous artist
and his style and abilities were well known. He did not say, tell me
what kind of style to work in and I will do it for you. He said I am
able to design floats for parades, make costumres, sculpt paint and
design architecturally. But the style of a "renaiisance man" of hwich
he was one of thge pinnacles was rto say that and beablke to do it.
Just as Michelangelo. So the groveling compromise you infer did not
exist. [By the way the Renaissance festivalxwas something very
speciall and is finally getting the attention it deserves].
It did not exist in the modernist art world and the non revived but
constantly respected [since their time] artists of the nineteenth
century like Gericault, Baron Gros, Delacrfoix, Ingres, Corot,
Courbet, Millet did not do it either. In the nineteenth century a good
case can be made only for the pompier painters doing it. The ones
whose sales have been reviving, lately.
Have you ever seen a really big show of Boucher's work? He was an
artist of major talent. But he became the court painter to the louis
of that generation. The work looks like that of a man pandering to a
king. Ass up paintings of Miss O'Morphi and the other residents of
his house in the Deer Park sometiumes as Diana and her court Etc. But
Chardin, when the jury for the academy first saw his paintings, they
said "These Dutch masters are fine, but where is your work." Indeed-it
was his work. There is one Stil Galant painter who was a great
master, Watteau[ in fact he invented the style]. By and large, I find
his paintings harmless fantasies and not the work of a professional
panderer to rich and powerful men. The Shop signe of Gersaint is not
even that -arguably his best painting- and the embarkation for
Cythera, especially the one in Charlottenberg is a wonderful dream
rather than a specifically erotic painting. His Gilles -was meant a a
sign for his friend, who acted the role ofPantalon. Arguably his best
single fiugre, and eretainly his largest.
I think that when you talk about working for the buyers at the same
time that the worker [the artist] is all caught up in the romantic
image of the artist -he who brings forth new ideas from unlooked for
places you are dealing with an absolute contradiction in terms. The
POMOs want to be both things at the same time. They are in fact
accepted by the establishment as both things at the same time. The
amazing barefaced lying and posing involved is dumbfounding. If you
really believe in that stuff, you have better work out a better
argument for it . If it was there like the Rock of Gibraltar when you
arrived on the scene, maybe you should reexamine it a bit in cold
daylight.
Gabriel
Frederic Goudal
My question is not here do debate the pro and cons of
PostModernism. My questions is why this debate is so active here ?
f.g.
--
FiLH photography. A taste of freedom in a conventional world.
New web site address http://www.i-france.com/filh
e-mail gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr
FAQ frp : http://www.enserb.u-bordeaux.fr/~goudal/frp/faq.html
Marilyn
My guess is that many people try to simply bypass it. They harken
back to the past, to convention, to main stream and refuse to live
in their own historical context. Continuing to paint landscapes
- still life - nudes and protecting their convention from anything
that might threaten it.
M.
Frederic Goudal
> Frederic Goudal wrote:
> >
> > My question is not here do debate the pro and cons of
> > PostModernism. My questions is why this debate is so active here ?
> >
>
> My guess is that many people try to simply bypass it. They harken
> back to the past, to convention, to main stream and refuse to live
> in their own historical context. Continuing to paint landscapes
> - still life - nudes and protecting their convention from anything
> that might threaten it.
>
IMHO this is not very intersting : for me the big interest in making
art today is that we have the largest set of elements to use ever known.
I'm making mainly nude photography, and even if it's not a direct
relation, I think that without Rembrandt or without Bonnard, or
without Malevitch, or without Wharol, or without Pollock (hey I know
it's a nice trigger), my photo won't be what they are.
We have never been so free to produce what we want.
Marilyn
Yes artists are free today and there are no rules.
Looking into the face of this responsibility is daunting to many.
They cry out for rules, and make up their own set which they
they then try to impose on everyone else in the field of art.
Frederic Goudal
> Frederic Goudal wrote:
> > I'm making mainly nude photography, and even if it's not a direct
> > relation, I think that without Rembrandt or without Bonnard, or
> > without Malevitch, or without Wharol, or without Pollock (hey I know
> > it's a nice trigger), my photo won't be what they are.
> >
> > We have never been so free to produce what we want.
>
> Looking into the face of this responsibility is daunting to many.
> They cry out for rules, and make up their own set which they
> they then try to impose on everyone else in the field of art.
And here they should be aware that if making their own rules is often
the best way to be productive (althought in my own case, the hardest is to
express what are my rules, applying them is not a problem :)), the only
problem they have is to impose them.
In a way I have been gifted, because I'm totaly unable to feel
empathie (I cannot imagine what somedy else feel or thing). So I have
to consider the others mind as an unknown territory. But it has
learned me to accept others people ideas (provided they meet some
basic requierement, one of them beeing precisely they don't try to
impose their own view..).
Marilyn
>
> Marilyn <m...@britishcolumbia.ca> writes:
> > Frederic Goudal wrote:
> > > I'm making mainly nude photography, and even if it's not a direct
> > > relation, I think that without Rembrandt or without Bonnard, or
> > > without Malevitch, or without Wharol, or without Pollock (hey I know
> > > it's a nice trigger), my photo won't be what they are.
> > >
> > > We have never been so free to produce what we want.
> >
> > Yes artists are free today and there are no rules.
> > Looking into the face of this responsibility is daunting to many.
> > They cry out for rules, and make up their own set which they
> > they then try to impose on everyone else in the field of art.
>
> And here they should be aware that if making their own rules is often
> the best way to be productive (althought in my own case, the hardest is to
> express what are my rules, applying them is not a problem :)), the only
> problem they have is to impose them.
>
> In a way I have been gifted, because I'm totaly unable to feel
> empathie (I cannot imagine what somedy else feel or thing). So I have
> to consider the others mind as an unknown territory. But it has
> learned me to accept others people ideas (provided they meet some
> basic requierement, one of them beeing precisely they don't try to
> impose their own view..).
>
> f.g.
>
> --
>
You cannot feel empathy? You mean if you saw someone being killed,
it wouldn't move you in some way? Or if someone told you a tale of
torture and starvation, you wouldn't find your eyes getting a little
teary? And yet you are in a caring relationship with your family.
Marilyn
zi...@interport.net
Unconventional Realists. At that time I and a lot of other people knew
the difference between academic and conventional painting being done
by left overs from the academic past, and modernist figuration and
what we were doing. All of us had been abstract painters who became
figurative because we found it had more freedom than the increasingly
narrow formulaized world of abstraction, not excluding AE which had
almost no one of any interest after the first generation. And in 1960
and the mid 1950s when I turned my back on them they ruled the roost.
And it was ugly there, too.
If you and/or Mr.Goudal agree that all figuration is conventional and
that there is some unconventional abstraction out there, do please
show it to me.
I have a short list of people I believe to be serious abstract artists
now at work. I don;t think that you have heard of any of the younger
ones and I think you will find almost all of theolder ones hors combat
[Like Louise Bourgeouis]. But the establishment has not suceeded in
producing one to my satisfaction since the days of AE. Late, after his
death, they discovered Burgoyne Diller, whose style and direction
preceded AE by some 15 years. They have also revived some of the
better painters in the American Abstract Artists Movement, like
Giorgio Cavallon, or Albert Swinden. But among living abstract
artists, I challenge you to name one who is not going around in a
circle bounded by the establishment's fears. Pollock as an influences
is OK, there but not many other people .
I find it curious that while decrying figuration you mention Bonnard.
The general agreement at the panel near the end of the Bonnard show at
MUMOA was that the critics on the panel had never taken him seriously
and had managed to teach their whole courses [Jack Flam] on modern art
without him [and without Odilon Redon]. The organizer of the show
proudly stated that he wanted to write positively about Bonnard in a
way that Bonnard would have hated, and he thought he had.
More absolutely perverse stuff. Another art historiam, a nineteenth
century specialist from Columbia no less, connected Bonnard with an
absurd deity in contemporary art Ryman! Anyone who can see that might
as well give up. Ryman supported Bonnards claim to being worthwhile.
Well it doesn't work the other way. Nothing in Bonnard supports Ryman.
If either of you think figuration is conventional show me the
unconventional artists around us! I challenge you. POMOS Where are
they???
Gabriel
Frederic Goudal
> Some time in the 1960s I published an article in Art Forum Called
> Unconventional Realists. At that time I and a lot of other people knew
> the difference between academic and conventional painting being done
> by left overs from the academic past, and modernist figuration and
> what we were doing. All of us had been abstract painters who became
> figurative because we found it had more freedom than the increasingly
> narrow formulaized world of abstraction, not excluding AE which had
> almost no one of any interest after the first generation. And in 1960
> and the mid 1950s when I turned my back on them they ruled the roost.
> And it was ugly there, too.
Academic painting is for me very simple : you take the rules of the
painting academy from the 19ht century. Theese rules are very precies..
>
> If you and/or Mr.Goudal agree that all figuration is conventional and
> that there is some unconventional abstraction out there, do please
> show it to me.
I can't care less about that. What interst me is art. I can't care
less about such things. Theese discussion are completly stupid and
usually hide the non production of the speakers. To be clear my
positions are the following :
- I can't care less if the artists is adademic, post modernist,
abstract, impressionist or what ever. Even if Mdeli was a good
painter I would like his work despite all the stupidities he said
- I can't care less about figuration, non figuration. Yesterday
evening I saw a TV program on a persian manuscript who shows that in
the 17th century their iconography included near every level from
pure abstract, to realism in the same picture. Who cares about that
? The result is good !
- What interest me is the artwork. Not the so called "trend" it belongs.
- if you want a definition of good art, I would say it's like
"intelligence". I know some very stupid intelligent people : I mean
they know to use their brain, but don't know how to use it. And I
know some people who are near stupid but behave in and admirable
way.
- good art is honnest. good art is fun. good art gives you emotion. good art is open.
- the best definition I know is from a french artist who's name is
bobig (http://perso.infonie.fr/bobig/) : art is anything and it's better.
A problem with all theese unsatisfied artists, the one who claim
that pollock is shit, is that they are totally unable to make the
difference between all the talk around art, and art itself.
It's a bit like people who would judge a film, by discuting about
the critics on this film instead of the film itself !!
All theese stupid classification, all theese references to the art
market just shows one thing : the one who need that to make their own
opinion are just followers. I don't need that somebody tells me
"that's good, that's bad". I'm maybe presomptuous but I think I'm
able to decide by myself what I like and what I dislike.
And the worst is that all the talk which takes place here, is a talk
that took place hundred years ago, and not a lot of people seems to be
able to talk about today.
> I have a short list of people I believe to be serious abstract artists
> now at work. I don;t think that you have heard of any of the younger
> ones and I think you will find almost all of theolder ones hors combat
> [Like Louise Bourgeouis].
I don't consider Louise as "hors combat" she still works, she does intersting.
>But the establishment has not suceeded in
Who cares about establishment. Establishment is just what it is. Not
everybody can be trendy at the same times. Establishement is like
everybody, sometimes right, sometimes wrong.
>
> I find it curious that while decrying figuration you mention Bonnard.
I HAVE NEVER DECRIED FIGURATION !!
Don't put your thought in my mouse.
I LIKE FIGURATION !!! I lIKE ABSTRACT !!! I like Ingres, Delacroix, I like Soulages.
Why do we have to choose ?? I don't want to choose !!!
> If either of you think figuration is conventional show me the
> unconventional artists around us! I challenge you. POMOS Where are
> they???
I can't care less about such chalenge !!! I can't care less about
that. It's stupid, it has no interest. I have better things to do.
I don't even know if my work is conventional or not, and I don't worry
about that !!! (If you want to judge the url is in my sig).
What I can sho you is artists I like, and I can't go further than that
point !!!
Frederic Goudal
Marilyn, I tryed to answer to you but my mailer does not seems to know
britishcomlumbia as an adress, could you please mail me so I get a
working address ?
Kay Kane
zi...@interport.net wrote in message
<36bc0054...@news.interport.net>...
>Some time in the 1960s I published an article in Art Forum Called
>Unconventional Realists. At that time I and a lot of other people knew
>the difference between academic and conventional painting being done
>by left overs from the academic past, and modernist figuration and
>what we were doing. All of us had been abstract painters who became
>figurative because we found it had more freedom than the increasingly
>narrow formulaized world of abstraction, not excluding AE which had
>almost no one of any interest after the first generation. And in 1960
>and the mid 1950s when I turned my back on them they ruled the roost.
>And it was ugly there, too.
>
>that there is some unconventional abstraction out there, do please
>show it to me.
>now at work. I don;t think that you have heard of any of the younger
>ones and I think you will find almost all of theolder ones hors combat
>producing one to my satisfaction since the days of AE. Late, after his
>death, they discovered Burgoyne Diller, whose style and direction
>preceded AE by some 15 years. They have also revived some of the
>better painters in the American Abstract Artists Movement, like
>Giorgio Cavallon, or Albert Swinden. But among living abstract
>artists, I challenge you to name one who is not going around in a
>circle bounded by the establishment's fears. Pollock as an influences
>is OK, there but not many other people .
>
>MUMOA was that the critics on the panel had never taken him seriously
>and had managed to teach their whole courses [Jack Flam] on modern art
>without him [and without Odilon Redon]. The organizer of the show
>proudly stated that he wanted to write positively about Bonnard in a
>way that Bonnard would have hated, and he thought he had.
>More absolutely perverse stuff. Another art historiam, a nineteenth
>century specialist from Columbia no less, connected Bonnard with an
>absurd deity in contemporary art Ryman! Anyone who can see that might
>as well give up. Ryman supported Bonnards claim to being worthwhile.
>Well it doesn't work the other way. Nothing in Bonnard supports Ryman.
>
>unconventional artists around us! I challenge you. POMOS Where are
>they???
I think when people in this n.g. talk about figuration being conventional
they aren't talking about figuration in the postmodern sense, but are
thinking of classical figuration. I agree, please, please, please people -
lets have some excitement talking about the artists of our time!!!
Kay Kane
emat...@tomatoweb.com
zi...@interport.net wrote:.
>
> If either of you think figuration is conventional show me the
> unconventional artists around us! I challenge you. POMOS Where are
> they???
> Gabriel
>
don't seem to be using the term 'figurative' quite the same as you are. Maybe
I'm wrong, but it may be interesting to compare 'meanings.'
By the way, here's something I'm interested in, and you may have something to
say. The lost AE painter Sharpenski? Ring a bell? I read a wonderful story
about him in the New Yorker about 1986, and how this school teacher from
India promoted him successfully. The story mentioned that Sharpenski was on
active duty in the Army Reserves for a month, away from NY, when his AE
colleagues were 'discovered' and he was left out--but he kept on painting
anyway.
Erik Mattila
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Frederic Goudal
> In article <36bc0054...@news.interport.net>,
> zi...@interport.net wrote:.
> >
> > If either of you think figuration is conventional show me the
> > unconventional artists around us! I challenge you. POMOS Where are
> > they???
> > Gabriel
> >
> I'm thinking there's a schism in the word here, Gabriel. Frederic & Marilyn
> don't seem to be using the term 'figurative' quite the same as you are. Maybe
> I'm wrong, but it may be interesting to compare 'meanings.'
Figurative for me is a picture that represent something that exists in
the material world, with the intent to represent it.
Maybe some people do not make the difference between academic and figurative. I don't know.
But.. but... but...
If you consider be example photographying a detail of an object, you
get very fast something abstract..
but.. but.. but..
If I consider my work, which is figurative (nude photo mostly), I see too a very
abstract basis as I concentrate a lot on the geometric aspect of the picture.
but.. but.. but...
As I said earlier, I saw a study on a persian manuscript where you
could find near all the level between precise figuration and abstraction..
So..
emat...@tomatoweb.com
Frederic Goudal <gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr> wrote:
> Figurative for me is a picture that represent something that exists in
> the material world, with the intent to represent it.
Yes, I think many people use this term to mean what you say above. I've heard
the term used to describe David Park's work, which, if I'm correct, refers to
using the human figure as a subject, even though Parks's works were very
abstract. In this sense we could say De Kooning's work if 'figurative.' As
far as I know there isn't any 'correct' use of the term -- it seems to be a
matter of the context you are using it in.
Marilyn
>
> emat...@tomatoweb.com writes:
>
> > In article <36bc0054...@news.interport.net>,
> > zi...@interport.net wrote:.
> > >
> > > If either of you think figuration is conventional show me the
> > > unconventional artists around us! I challenge you. POMOS Where are
> > > they???
> > > Gabriel
> > >
> > I'm thinking there's a schism in the word here, Gabriel. Frederic & Marilyn
> > don't seem to be using the term 'figurative' quite the same as you are. Maybe
> > I'm wrong, but it may be interesting to compare 'meanings.'
>
> the material world, with the intent to represent it.
>
>
> But.. but... but...
>
> If you consider be example photographying a detail of an object, you
> get very fast something abstract..
>
> but.. but.. but..
>
> If I consider my work, which is figurative (nude photo mostly), I see too a very
> abstract basis as I concentrate a lot on the geometric aspect of the picture.
>
> but.. but.. but...
>
> As I said earlier, I saw a study on a persian manuscript where you
> could find near all the level between precise figuration and abstraction..
>
> So..
>
> f.g.
>
In language - not literal, metaphorical
both meanings could apply to works of Hopper, Fairfield Porter.
zi...@interport.net
This is not a coherent statement of anything. It is not even a
coherent disagreement with me.
If your point is that there are a lot of buts somewhere, well go and
smoke them. If you disagree, show that you do by making a statement.
If you agree say so.
By the way you have not mentioned any names of any artists whose work
is unconventional. If I am pushed I can mention many who are
considered pomo who, in fact are inside of closer, tighter conventions
than anyone who keeps clear of their world.
As it stands there is not only no sense but no rejoinder toyour
statement.
Gabriel
On 08 Feb 1999 14:02:54 +0100, Frederic Goudal
<gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr> wrote:
-N.
> In article <uxr9s1v...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr>,
> Frederic Goudal <gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr> wrote:
>
> > Figurative for me is a picture that represent something that exists in
> > the material world, with the intent to represent it.
>
> Yes, I think many people use this term to mean what you say above. I've heard
> the term used to describe David Park's work, which, if I'm correct, refers to
> using the human figure as a subject, even though Parks's works were very
> abstract. In this sense we could say De Kooning's work if 'figurative.' As
> far as I know there isn't any 'correct' use of the term -- it seems to be a
> matter of the context you are using it in.
Agreed: DeKooning's 'Woman' series are figurative works.
-N.
redi...@earthlink.net_xxx (-N.) wrote:
Whatever manner and however else anyone would wish to classify DeKoonings
'Woman' series (and there are many ways of classification that could be
applied), the term figurative is correct and apt.
zi...@interport.net
Mr. Mattila,
You could not say deKooning's work was figurative unless you were
talking about the women. And then there is an extra problem, since
they were painted by cutting up drawings and substituting legs for
arms, a vagina for thehead, Etc. They neither describe not abstract
the figure, they make an image which is recognizable as a figure but
which has no specific figural quality. In fact they are anti figure
figures. His remaining paintings may refer to a figural concerns,
like giving non-faces teeth to bite on the next shape but that does
not make them figurative. It makes them paintings which have a
reference to figures, but are essentially abstract.
I would not call David Park's work abstracted. I take that word quite
seriously. I can see abstracted figures in some of the synthetic
realist paintings of Braque, Gris and Picasso.
Parks figures are simplified and painted on the brush, but not
abstracted in any significant way. Abstraction from a natural form
implies analysis, which he did not do.
Gabriel
On Mon, 08 Feb 1999 23:12:41 GMT, emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
>In article <uxr9s1v...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr>,
> Frederic Goudal <gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr> wrote:
>
>> Figurative for me is a picture that represent something that exists in
>> the material world, with the intent to represent it.
>
>Yes, I think many people use this term to mean what you say above. I've heard
>the term used to describe David Park's work, which, if I'm correct, refers to
>using the human figure as a subject, even though Parks's works were very
>abstract. In this sense we could say De Kooning's work if 'figurative.' As
>far as I know there isn't any 'correct' use of the term -- it seems to be a
>matter of the context you are using it in.
>
zi...@interport.net
discernable. Otherwise they are anti figurative as well as anti woman.
Read my post on this elsewhere. I didn;t go into the anti-women part
of this. But since I was there, and in his studio and saw how he made
the first one, and knew how he was not getting along with Elaine and
couldn't do with out her...That part of it was all too obvious. But
the anti figure part of it seems not to be obvious to any one but
people who paint and draw the figure as a part of their daily
practice.
Gabriel
On Mon, 08 Feb 1999 19:10:39 -0500, redi...@earthlink.net_xxx (-N.)
wrote:
>In article <79nr11$q9k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
>
>> In article <uxr9s1v...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr>,
>> Frederic Goudal <gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr> wrote:
>>
>> > Figurative for me is a picture that represent something that exists in
>> > the material world, with the intent to represent it.
>>
>> Yes, I think many people use this term to mean what you say above. I've heard
>> the term used to describe David Park's work, which, if I'm correct, refers to
>> using the human figure as a subject, even though Parks's works were very
>> abstract. In this sense we could say De Kooning's work if 'figurative.' As
>> far as I know there isn't any 'correct' use of the term -- it seems to be a
>> matter of the context you are using it in.
>
>Agreed: DeKooning's 'Woman' series are figurative works.
>
emat...@tomatoweb.com
zi...@interport.net wrote:
<snipped>
> Parks figures are simplified and painted on the brush, but not
> abstracted in any significant way. Abstraction from a natural form
> implies analysis, which he did not do.
> Gabriel
>
But I'm merely suggestion that these are somewhat confusing terms, Gabriele.
I'm not trying to argue a point. I have no problem how you use the word
'abstract,' but I use it somewhat differently. I don't think we have a
legitimate argument here. (and yes, I was refering to DeKooning's women).
Erik
Frederic Goudal
> In article <uxr9s1v...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr>,
> Frederic Goudal <gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr> wrote:
>
> > Figurative for me is a picture that represent something that exists in
> > the material world, with the intent to represent it.
>
> Yes, I think many people use this term to mean what you say above. I've heard
> the term used to describe David Park's work, which, if I'm correct, refers to
> using the human figure as a subject, even though Parks's works were very
> abstract. In this sense we could say De Kooning's work if 'figurative.' As
> far as I know there isn't any 'correct' use of the term -- it seems to be a
> matter of the context you are using it in.
You may extend the figuration exactly where you want : an abstract painting is
after all the figuration of an "unreal" thing (mood, idea, movement...)
That's why I added "material" and "intent" to keep this definition in the usual limits.
Frederic Goudal
> Dear Mr. Goudal,
>
> This is not a coherent statement of anything.
Which statement, which coherence ?
>It is not even a coherent disagreement with me.
I can't care less about a disagrement with you.
> If your point is that there are a lot of buts somewhere, well go and
> smoke them. If you disagree, show that you do by making a statement.
I don't play your rules.
>
> If you agree say so.
>
> By the way you have not mentioned any names of any artists whose work
> is unconventional.
Hey, I'm not at your orders !!! Who are you to give me orders ?? And to be
particulary precise I've given you one case to examine. Did you do it ?
>If I am pushed I can mention many who are considered pomo who, in
>fact are inside of closer, tighter conventions than anyone who keeps
>clear of their world.
Hum, pomo obsessed. I prefer to be obsessed by art.
f.g.
>
> On 08 Feb 1999 14:02:54 +0100, Frederic Goudal
> <gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr> wrote:
>
> >emat...@tomatoweb.com writes:
> >
> >> In article <36bc0054...@news.interport.net>,
> >> zi...@interport.net wrote:.
> >> >
> >> > If either of you think figuration is conventional show me the
> >> > unconventional artists around us! I challenge you. POMOS Where are
> >> > they???
> >> > Gabriel
> >> >
> >> I'm thinking there's a schism in the word here, Gabriel. Frederic & Marilyn
> >> don't seem to be using the term 'figurative' quite the same as you are. Maybe
> >> I'm wrong, but it may be interesting to compare 'meanings.'
> >
> >Figurative for me is a picture that represent something that exists in
> >the material world, with the intent to represent it.
> >
> >Maybe some people do not make the difference between academic and figurative. I don't know.
> >
> >But.. but... but...
> >
> >If you consider be example photographying a detail of an object, you
> >get very fast something abstract..
> >
> >but.. but.. but..
> >
> >If I consider my work, which is figurative (nude photo mostly), I see too a very
> >abstract basis as I concentrate a lot on the geometric aspect of the picture.
> >
> >but.. but.. but...
> >
> >As I said earlier, I saw a study on a persian manuscript where you
> >could find near all the level between precise figuration and abstraction..
> >
> >So..
> >
mdeli
>I'm making mainly nude photography, and even if it's not a direct
>relation, I think that without Rembrandt or without Bonnard, or
>without Malevitch, or without Wharol, or without Pollock (hey I know
>it's a nice trigger), my photo won't be what they are.
Perhaps that's why they are so dull, repetitive, uninspired and need
volumes of babble to accompany them.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
Note: There was an address error in former messages
The above address is correct. Please try again.
emat...@tomatoweb.com
> > Frederic Goudal <gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr> wrote:
> >
> > > the material world, with the intent to represent it.
> >
> > the term used to describe David Park's work, which, if I'm correct, refers to
> > using the human figure as a subject, even though Parks's works were very
> > abstract. In this sense we could say De Kooning's work if 'figurative.' As
> > far as I know there isn't any 'correct' use of the term -- it seems to be a
> > matter of the context you are using it in.
>
> You may extend the figuration exactly where you want : an abstract painting is
> after all the figuration of an "unreal" thing (mood, idea, movement...)
>
> That's why I added "material" and "intent" to keep this definition in the usual limits.
>
You're speaking figuratively, I assume.
Frederic Goudal
> On 05 Feb 1999 09:43:41 +0100, Frederic Goudal <
> >I'm making mainly nude photography, and even if it's not a direct
> >relation, I think that without Rembrandt or without Bonnard, or
> >without Malevitch, or without Wharol, or without Pollock (hey I know
> >it's a nice trigger), my photo won't be what they are.
>
> Perhaps that's why they are so dull, repetitive, uninspired and need
> volumes of babble to accompany them.
I'm very happy that a guy like you dislike my work. I would have been affraid
by the contrary !!!
It's a "proof" that I don't go in the wrong direction.
f.g.
P.S. btw the texts that are on my site, are not to here to explain my
work. It's just that I can do 2 things : my photo, and some reflexion
about art in my work in art. But for several years there was no
texts.
>
>
> Mani DeLi
> ...no skill no art
Effectivelly you have no skill..