Behind formal criteria
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com
I visited your page. I am glad Chris and you
provided the opportunity. I hope to get my portfolio in the web soon.
I loved the athmosphere, the mood in your paintings.
What you had painted, however, was only
shapes and colours, lights and shadows. These aspects are easy to
judge with formal criteria. But the mood has neither shape nor colour.
You did not paint it. Still it is essential part of your work.
How could I see it? What happened to me, is a kind of resonance.
While you were painting, and later when I was looking
we experienced something roughly similar.
You associated the mood you wanted with certain colours and shapes.
Not spontaneously, you put a lot of effort and experience
to find out the matching elements you needed.
For me it was a reverse process. I was looking at forms and colours,
getting first an overall perception of the figures, actions and milieu.
Then the selected tones and lines tuned my interpretation in a certain
way.
At some points I was distracted by formal thoughts, certain
brushstrokes, the movement of the posture, effect of light
on different surfaces.
Then again I associated in features of my own experience that resonate when
looking at those colours and shapes.
We can argue if your mood was transmitted partly or not at all.
I believe that it was not included in the message, but transmitted
anyway, outside of the painting.
As much as we have similar backgroud, I believe I can resonate. When
looking Islamic, calligraphic art, I cannot respond to the shape of letters
correctly. I react only to the rhytm of curly lines, in a western way.
Even tend to see them backwards, from left to right.
I assume that a chinese peasant may not reckognize blue jeans in your
painting, maybe it refers to "Mao-look" to him.
Most of us have very much common experience. Seen from a distance
life looks pretty much the same everywhere. This common background
means we are looking at same things in a same way. Therefore we can make very
general statements about art. In strict sense, however,
we cannot have a common criteria for art, but we do have
very similar individual criteria.
So the Kantian concept of universal criteria is not
void, nor is it complete, only a good approximation.
My theory of art is about communication, that there is a message,
something to say. We can not, however, write a formal grammar, to
analyse the message, as the message is not there, it is transmitted outside.
Have you ever tried to *explain* to someone the difference between
good art and skillfull kitch. The difference exists, but it is not
there.
- lauri
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
mark webber
On Fri, 9 Oct 1998 lauri....@nmp.nokia.com wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> I visited your page. I am glad Chris and you
> provided the opportunity. I hope to get my portfolio in the web soon.
Hi Lauri, thanks for taking a look. Look forward to seeing yours, too.
I will say that while other people who know the paintings think the
reproduction is pretty good, I'm uncomfortable with the fact that the
brushwork isn't evident.
>
> I loved the athmosphere, the mood in your paintings.
> What you had painted, however, was only
> shapes and colours, lights and shadows. These aspects are easy to
> judge with formal criteria. But the mood has neither shape nor colour.
> You did not paint it. Still it is essential part of your work.
I don't think I agree. I distinctly remember being there when those
paintings were made, and I'm pretty sure that it was my decisions that
yielded any mood present.
>
> How could I see it? What happened to me, is a kind of resonance.
> While you were painting, and later when I was looking
> we experienced something roughly similar.
> You associated the mood you wanted with certain colours and shapes.
> Not spontaneously, you put a lot of effort and experience
> to find out the matching elements you needed.
>
Ok, what a relief! I was there!
> For me it was a reverse process. I was looking at forms and colours,
> getting first an overall perception of the figures, actions and milieu.
> Then the selected tones and lines tuned my interpretation in a certain
> way.
> At some points I was distracted by formal thoughts, certain
> brushstrokes, the movement of the posture, effect of light
> on different surfaces.
> Then again I associated in features of my own experience that resonate when
> looking at those colours and shapes.
>
> We can argue if your mood was transmitted partly or not at all.
> I believe that it was not included in the message, but transmitted
> anyway, outside of the painting.
I have to say that I don't understand how that would take place.
> As much as we have similar backgroud, I believe I can resonate. When
> looking Islamic, calligraphic art, I cannot respond to the shape of letters
> correctly. I react only to the rhytm of curly lines, in a western way.
> Even tend to see them backwards, from left to right.
Same here.
>
> I assume that a chinese peasant may not reckognize blue jeans in your
> painting, maybe it refers to "Mao-look" to him.
>
> Most of us have very much common experience. Seen from a distance
> life looks pretty much the same everywhere. This common background
> means we are looking at same things in a same way. Therefore we can make very
> general statements about art. In strict sense, however,
> we cannot have a common criteria for art, but we do have
> very similar individual criteria.
Agreed on all counts.
>
> So the Kantian concept of universal criteria is not
> void, nor is it complete, only a good approximation.
>
> My theory of art is about communication, that there is a message,
> something to say. We can not, however, write a formal grammar, to
> analyse the message, as the message is not there, it is transmitted outside.
> Have you ever tried to *explain* to someone the difference between
> good art and skillfull kitch. The difference exists, but it is not
> there.
Yes, that's a good one. It is hard if the person (student) has very little
experience with art. And by the time they have the experience, of course,
it's unecessary. But in between... well one has to try, doesn't one?
Thanks for looking!
Mark
Iian Neill
> > I believe that it was not included in the message, but transmitted
> > anyway, outside of the painting.
>
> I have to say that I don't understand how that would take place.
It sounds like he's saying that the mood was transmitted extra-artistically - which
is to say, not through the art work, but how you spoke about what moved you to do
it, what it means, and how you work.
> > So the Kantian concept of universal criteria is not
> > void, nor is it complete, only a good approximation.
> >
> > My theory of art is about communication, that there is a message,
> > something to say. We can not, however, write a formal grammar, to
> > analyse the message, as the message is not there, it is transmitted outside.
That's interesting ... transmitted outside of what? The art work? Can art transmit
that which is outside of the art which is used to transmit it?
> > Have you ever tried to *explain* to someone the difference between
> > good art and skillfull kitsch. The difference exists, but it is not
> > there.
>
> Yes, that's a good one. It is hard if the person (student) has very little
> experience with art. And by the time they have the experience, of course,
> it's unecessary. But in between... well one has to try, doesn't one?
That's a nice issue to raise ... the difference between good art and kitsch. Who
cares to give it a go?
Is kitsch that which is merely sentimental or affectatious? Or is it something
which tries to appeal to what is thought to be the common taste, yet is
outrageously obvious in its sycophantic intentions?
Who's up for a debate here?
> Thanks for looking!
Drawing reminiscent of Cezanne, colouring of Leon L’hermitte, and subject matter of
the Classical Realists. You might want to consider using a Hewlett Packard scanner
(or better) to improve the image quality of the JPEGs.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
________________________________________________________________________
If you are interested in the Old Masters, and 19th century art
in particular, feel free to visit my new archive, THE RENAISSANCE CAFÉ:
http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/galliano/293/index.html
My personal home-page (with my own art work) can be found here:
http://student.uq.edu.au/~s367558/index.html
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com
I still have problems with my newsserver, it keeps
about 50 per cent cencorship, especially on weekends,
and the only way to answer is via DejaNews.
That is slow, and Monday is a busy day in the office.
lauri
> > > We can argue if your mood was transmitted partly or not at all.
> > > I believe that it was not included in the message, but transmitted
> > > anyway, outside of the painting.
mark
> > I have to say that I don't understand how that would take place.
Iian
> It sounds like he's saying that the mood was transmitted extra-artistically -
which
> is to say, not through the art work, but how you spoke about what moved you to
do
> it, what it means, and how you work.
(snip)
lauri
> > > My theory of art is about communication, that there is a message,
> > > something to say. We can not, however, write a formal grammar, to
> > > analyse the message, as the message is not there, it is transmitted
outside.
Iian
> That's interesting ... transmitted outside of what? The art work? Can art
transmit
> that which is outside of the art which is used to transmit it?
* * *
Yes, it does, Iian. I have not seen Mark explain his works. This is a tricky
part of
information theory. The classical example is the Poor Student Problem.
This guy went to university, anf his folks were worried about how he'll manage
it there far away. As the long distance calls cost money,
they decided that the son
shall call every Sunday at 12 o'clock and tell the news. The lad soon realized
that the student life provides much more fascinating uses of money than
calling to mom. He proposed a new arrangement: He will call on Sunday at 12
o'clock * only if* there was something trouble. If he *does not call* it means
all is well.
So every Sunday at noon, the worried parents were sitting at telephone.
If it did not ring they felt a great relief.
So *a message was transmitted*, without any phone costs. This was possible
only because of the agreement. Both parties knew something in advance,
and only a single bit of information was needed, either ringing or not ringing
of
the phone.
All this boils down to the basic principle of information theory,
you can choose your media and code, without affecting the content.
I like to tell a further example, the African Drum language. The drummer has
two drums, low and high pitch. The drumming is not encoded like morse, it is
spoken language where wowels and consonants are stripped of, only the beat is
left. Just like you cannot hear Silent nigth, holy night, without recalling
the words. Even if it played on a saxophone.
The same way, anyone who knows the african language, suddenly catches the
rhytm of discussion in the drum beats and can follow it. True, the system has
only high and low note, there must be too many words with the same rhytm. A
longer sequencee is needed. Instead of "lion" the drummer uses a predefined
phrase "a lion that roars on the savannah". The funny thing is that when you
are in in the system, you can express even new concepts, like "the boss that
roars in the office". The listener cann fill in the balanks from the context.
I believe this is very much the case in art. With some common background,
very subtle cues can transmit a wealth of meaning. The message is not there
in the painting, it is in an unspoken agreement! Much of conceptual art is
meaningless, unless you know certain art theories. Much of Raushenberg's
influence is due to the fact that at that time, he was *not painting*
abstract expressionism. This is why I believe that formal criteria are not
enough. It ignores something I called resonance. It cannot be part of the
work, as it is dependent of the viewer, too. It is upright unfair to judge
only the piece of art.
- lauri
The other issues I have to leave for better time.
mark webber
On Mon, 12 Oct 1998 lauri....@nmp.nokia.com wrote:
> Yes, it does, Iian. I have not seen Mark explain his works. This is a tricky
> part of
> information theory. The classical example is the Poor Student Problem.
I snip up to this point, because I think it is valuable further down this
reply.
(snip "poor student")
> So *a message was transmitted*, without any phone costs. This was possible
> only because of the agreement. Both parties knew something in advance,
> and only a single bit of information was needed, either ringing or not ringing
> of
> the phone.
Right, but as you have pointed out (just above,) you and I haven't any
such agreement about mood or whatever in my paintings.
>
> I believe this is very much the case in art. With some common background,
> very subtle cues can transmit a wealth of meaning. The message is not there
> in the painting, it is in an unspoken agreement!
Again, I really don't understand how (especially without some prior
agreement, like "blue = sad") there can be anything communicated in a
painting that can't be seen in the painting.
Can you see it? If the answer is yes, then it was painted. Perhaps the
artist didn't intend to paint it, but its all there, on the canvas. To my
mind there isn't anything else, whether you are speaking of some sort of
spiritual experience or anything else. It is what the painter did with
that colored grease.
> Much of conceptual art is
> meaningless, unless you know certain art theories. Much of Raushenberg's
> influence is due to the fact that at that time, he was *not painting*
> abstract expressionism. This is why I believe that formal criteria are not
> enough.
I agree with this.
> It ignores something I called resonance. It cannot be part of the
> work, as it is dependent of the viewer, too. It is upright unfair to judge
> only the piece of art.
I think your idea of resonance is not excluded from formalism; in fact, a
formalist's work is ususally only appreciated by someone who recognizes
that they should be looking to the form rather than the subject.
And yes, that's an interesting point. Judging the viewer's ability to
judge is relevant too.
Mark
TJLitt
Iian:
Sorry to bother you again....saw this after
prior post which I responded to.
...now I see it, there are rules to making
art...and Iian makes them.
Wake up, art and life doesn't work that way!
Tom Littleton
Iian Neill
I am happy to contribute in this area, Lauri. Thank you for providing the
opportunity.
> Lauri:
> > > > My theory of art is about communication, that there is a message,
> > > > something to say. We can not, however, write a formal grammar, to
> > > > analyse the message, as the message is not there, it is transmitted
> > > >outside.
> Iian:
> > That's interesting ... transmitted outside of what? The art work? Can art
> > transmit that which is outside of the art which is used to transmit it?
> * * *
> Yes, it does, Iian. I have not seen Mark explain his works. This is a tricky
> part of information theory. The classical example is the Poor Student Problem.
[.. snip the example ..]
You make an interesting point, Lauri. It seems to me, though, that the student's
concept is not truly being transmitted ex nihilo - the fact that his parents knew
not to worry when he didn't call on Sundays was due to a pre-arranged agreement
between all parties concerned. It is assumed that both parties have knowledge of the
student's intended actions, and it is because they have this prior knowledge that
neither feels guilty nor worried for the other. If the student had moved away and
*never called* his parents, and gave no explanation, then it seems to me that short
of telepathy his parents are not going to know what is going on over there, and will
naturally begin to worry about his safety. In this case there are no concepts being
transmitted independent of communication - the Poor Student Problem works because
the two parties agreed to follow a set of actions whose implications were understood
from the beginning.
Now, one might say that this is present in art as well. Certainly, part of what
makes art very powerful is its ability to transcend language and through a symbol,
image, et cetera, depict on canvas something which has conceptual meaning to us. For
example, if one executes a drawing of the White House and then puts the American
flag against it, you won't provoke a very confrontational response. If, however, you
draw that same House and place the *Nazi* flag in front of it, the meaning of the
picture changes drastically. What makes this emotional reaction possible is our
*preconceptions*. The artist who paints non-representational work, work which
doesn't even offer to us images, signs, etc., can not be shown to be a good artist
in the critical sense as his work can not be objectively judged according to its
success in conforming to the artist's intentions. My brief example of the White
House and the two flags illustrates briefly how powerful one symbol can be when
placed in an unexpeced context. Such a concept would have had no power whatsoever if
instead of representing the White House the artist had just scraped paint across the
canvas to express *his* feeling of what the White House stands for. Such a work
would have no power - or critical merit - because the symbols involved (if any) are
so outrageously subjective that no one else could be expected to understand - and if
they said they did, one would have no way of telling whether what they THOUGHT they
understood was really what the artist intended.
> So *a message was transmitted*, without any phone costs. This was possible
> only because of the agreement. Both parties knew something in advance,
> and only a single bit of information was needed, either ringing or not ringing
> of the phone.
That's right. Preconception and context are very important.
> I believe this is very much the case in art. With some common background,
> very subtle cues can transmit a wealth of meaning.
I won't deny that such cues can have meaning to some.
> The message is not there
> in the painting, it is in an unspoken agreement! Much of conceptual art is
> meaningless, unless you know certain art theories.
One is reminded of an inbred intellectual game more concerned with titillating the
upper echelons of its elite than in truly "expressing the self". Self-expression
isn't an ad hoc affair that just happens to erupt spontaneously, fully formed like
Athena from the head of Zeus. True artistic skill lies in taking the subjective and
making it the objective. It lies in formulating a concept - an intention - and then
discovering the means by which this concept will become clear to other people. The
artist expresses himself so as to give form to what he values in the universe - if
he values beauty over decay, then he will paint works exemplifying beauty; if he
values physical strength over feebleness, then he will carve Apollonian statues. If,
on the other hand, the artist values chaos, ugliness, irrationality and obscurity,
then his work will reflect these concepts also. Whatever he happens to express, one
thing is for certain: -- the more a critic has to turn to extra-artistic material
to judge a work of art, the less meritorious the art-work is. The point of art is to
express something *completely*, in its strongest, fittest form - even if one wishes
to suggest an atmosphere of mystery and obscurity, this also must be handled with
the greatest of skill. If, to appreciate an art-work adequately one must be
encumbered with numerous artistic doctrines and theories, then the work itself
suffers. This is because it isn't *doing any of the work* - it is not an art-work in
the sense that it isn't performing its task, it isn't *working* - the theories and
the doctrines are doing the work for it.
> Much of Raushenberg's
> influence is due to the fact that at that time, he was *not painting*
> abstract expressionism. This is why I believe that formal criteria are not
> enough. It ignores something I called resonance. It cannot be part of the
> work, as it is dependent of the viewer, too. It is upright unfair to judge
> only the piece of art.
It can certainly be useful to figure extra-artistic knowledge when we consider the
merits of a work of art - but the more we need to patch up the work with
extra-artistic scraps of knowledge, the less healthy the work of art remains. This
underlies the fatal flaw in such movements as Symbolism: -- those paintings which
rely on extra-artistic knowledge disproportionately suffer from being misunderstood,
or apprehended only by a small elite with specialized knowledge. This is fine if the
work *is intended* for that elite and only that elite - in this case the work is
serving its purpose within a set context. But when the artist tries to claim that
this work - which only functions successfully in a restricted context - actually
deserves to be treated on equal terms with others paintings which are not so elitist
in their symbology, then we have a problem - or, to be more precise, the artist and
his critics have a problem. If they have an honest bone in their body they will be
forced to admit that while the painting might be exemplary within its limited
context, it is severely stunted when considered in a more broad sense. Here is a
non-Modernist example. If a religious painter of the 14th century creates a heavily
symbolic work that serves its function within the context of a particular church and
within a particular era (the Gothic, for example) then this is well and good -
within that contex. But if we are to *judge that same painting as a work of art*,
separate from its purely sacred origins and environment; if we are to judge it upon
composition, drawing, colouring, form, emotional potency and so forth, then we must
*judge the work itself* and not the work as propped up by the crutches of some
elitist (or perhaps just forgotten and archaic) symbology.
The Modernists and Post-Modernists, alas, are in a far worse position. Whereas the
14th century painter took craftsmanship and skill seriously - even as he considered
himself, perhaps, as an artisan - the "artists" of our time feel quite comfortable
in confining themselves within the limits of technical incompetence and intellectual
tomfoolery. The artist who can't draw properly isn't free at all - he is imprisoned
by his own incompetence, he is utterly impotent to express any intention in concrete
and capable terms. Instead, he settles for crude, ugly work and attempts to form a
theory around it that will justify the very absence of the art it is supposed to
have. Such a pseudo-artist forgets, however, the art is to be judged by how
successfully it expresses the intentions of the artist - or, closer to the truth, he
forgets that *these intentions MUST BE MANIFESTED within the art-work itself*. He
can, of course, gives us clues as to its interpretation, but whatever extra-artistic
commentary he or any critic happens to make is only of importance when the work of
art can stand on its own. In this case, whatever he might have to say about it
potentially becomes a bonus. Even so, the fact that they feel compelled to express
in words what should have been evident for all to see in paint tells us that the
painting is being propped up on something which should have nothing to do with it at
all, something outside of its realm. And the more the art-work needs theories and
commentary to justify it, the less successful this art work is.
Judging by those criteria, one becomes aware of the serious problems which
plague a lot of 20th and late 19th century art.
> The other issues I have to leave for better time.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts on them.
CROCUSDES
Iian writes:
<(big snip)But if we are to *judge that same painting as a work of art*,
<separate from its purely sacred origins and environment; if we are to judge it
<upon composition, drawing, colouring, form, emotional potency and so forth,
<then we must *judge the work itself* and not the work as propped up by the
<crutches of some elitist (or perhaps just forgotten and archaic) symbology.
I agree wholeheartedly on this point Iian,
<The Modernists and Post-Modernists, alas, are in a far worse position.
<Whereas the 14th century painter took craftsmanship and skill seriously - even
<as he considered himself, perhaps, as an artisan -(continued below)
The statement stands fair enough on it's own I think although my differences
are minor and not worth mentioning. However.............
<(continued from the above) the "artists" of our time feel quite comfortable
<in confining themselves within the limits of technical incompetence and
<intellectual tomfoolery. The artist who can't draw properly isn't free at all
- he is <imprisoned by his own incompetence, he is utterly impotent to express
any <intention in concrete and capable terms.
I might qualify your premise by revising it to... ""some" artists of our time
feel...etc etc".... but I don't think that's universally true at all with
respect to artists in general. It's a very short sighted view of what is
actually going on. If you want to say that artists today don't work like they
did yesterday, then okay, but you haven't said that. To claim incompentence
etc. as characteristic of the general population of working artists is an
unfair assumption. I don't see things that way and have no reason to. What
you might be suggesting is that the work is different, which it is, but where
has it ever been written that the way we work should follow some predetermined
path? As a matter of fact there are multitudes of artists who continue to work
in a representational manner today, as there have been for a long time before.
If we are to make a distinction with regard to the popular artists of the day
then that too should be noted.
There is a whole other genre of artists which many of us may not be thinking of
and those are the artists who are creating works within the realm of the Craft
Arts. This is a whole different arena and movement than what "fine artists"
are willing to accept these days and it's unfortunate. Artists who emerge from
the craft traditions are producing works that are physically as competent if
not more so than artists in the past. Most of these works are dimensional
works and a good many of the pieces are as truly sculptural as any produced by
so called fine artist. Same intent, same motivation, same expressive purpose
of concept. These artists simply show their works in a different venue than
fine art galleries but they are no different than any other gallery artists
with the exception that they may be far more skilled, if not masterful, in
their production efforts.
I have a lot of respect for your point of view Iian and you obviously give it
much consideration which is why it surprises me that you feel the way you do.
However you're certainly entitled to. Another sticky point is the weight you
give to what I am interpreting as a conventional idea of what drawing is. That
is to have the abilitiy to convey through line some sense of propriety although
you aren't saying that exactly but the implication seems to be there.
Drawing can mean two things and this isn't verbal play but simply how an artist
might convey an idea or impression. The normal way that we might understand
drawing is using line and in such a way as to be a fairly accurate rendering of
an idea, representational or otherwise. That is a skill and a worthy one at
that and by having that skill, an artist certainly can enjoy some advantages,
no question. However there is another aspect of drawing which is the "drawing
out" a concept or idea through other means such as color or shape or any other
device. It isn't necessary to be a skilled draughtsman to be an artist and
it's not really essential for all types of artmaking.
For example consider Giacometti. I personally think that he could never draw
worth a damn and to view his drawings as such is for me, a painful experience.
But he was capable of "drawing out" his idea or concept using his particular
manner of drawing and perhaps his pieces worked not as drawings but something
else instead. It's a matter of opinion here, of course.
There is another aspect of drawing though that I do consider more important and
that is the quality of a drawing. A lot of folks can render well, commercial
artists may be the best of the lot for all I know but I rarely consider their
things as "good drawing". Why? Because drawing is a very special manner of
expressing an idea. It isn't accuracy so much that has value but the quality
of the line and the expressiveness of the drawing itself that matters. It is a
thing complete in itself, that is what matters when considering drawing. To
convey an idea as something little more than a gesture can be good drawing
(consider the drawings of Rodin), so I think we have to open up our idea of
what drawing skill really means.
If it is rendering that you really mean then we are talking about something
else entirely and I still don't think that lack of rendering skill inhibits an
artist from fulfilling his/her fullest potential. It has long been assumed
that drawing is the backbone of any kind of work and I'm going to be the last
to argue against that but at the same time I don't for a minute believe that
it's essential.
Whenever it might be mentioned that an artist can't draw I always assume this
to be in the context of rendering. But rendering is rendering, not necessarily
drawing. It just usually means that an artist can put on paper something that
looks like the thing being drawn or imagined. Not a small matter but not the
biggest either, it's just another tool to get us where we want to go. If we
don't have it then we find other means. It's as simple as that.
Chris Ray - sculptor
http://members.aol.com/crocusdes
CROCUSDES
>what else
>you might have to say on matters artistic in the future.
>
Well damn Iian, after clarifying the post then I can't find enough difference
between us to argue about, same with Mark in a general way too. That puts me
in a bind because I know that we all are personally stressing different things
when we express our particular emphasis on what constitutes a masterful work.
There's something else here at play that each of us is relying on which
supports our view or particular feeling. I can't put my finger on it, yet we
agree in principle and at the same time might not agree on specifics. That's
the interesting thing about it all. Aesthetics is a dynamic kind of thing that
isn't entirely based on objective findings.
Well, maybe over time we'll find just what it is that verifies legitimacy, if I
can use that word, but at the same time is appropriately correct under
different circumstances based on individual sensibilities. There is something
that connects our differences but I don't have any idea yet what it is. We may
agree in general yet we may also consider one form or another to work or not
be working, depending on our individual point of view.
If the "rightness" of our individual observations have a universal pointer
somewhere then maybe, just maybe, it lies beyond the physical aspect of the
work itself. We respond to the expression of any work through a different
doorway than the eyes alone but I don't know if we'll be able to lucidly
describe what it is. Well, it certainly is interesting to continue trying.
CROCUSDES
>> To claim incompentence
>> etc. as characteristic of the general population of working artists is an
>> unfair assumption.
Iian replys:
>It is the chief characteristic of the university-level art-educational
structure -
>at least when it comes to such things as painting, drawing and sculpture.
(snip)
Yeah, well that is an unfortunate direction that seems to be the trend these
days and it doesn't help to have the concept of "well done work" being
disparaged by some of the advocates of the art world establishment either. On
the brighter side, there continues to be some folks here and there, the likes
of Mark and others, who are seriously trying to up the standards of students.
The other thing which always sustains my optimism though is that in spite of
current conditions during any period of time, there seems to be the unique
individual who will rise above the others regardless of his/her background or
training. 'Tis the nature of the true artist within. Still, I do wonder about
lost opportunities of other potential artists who may not have the internal
wherewithall to overcome the inevetible assaults on the ego, if marching to the
tune of a different drummer.
<(Snip) But what they perhaps refuse to acknowledge is that while such men as
<Bouguereau could have easily achieved Impressionistic effects, he wasn't
<particularly interested in doing so. His conception of form and harmony was
<more disciplined - he could probably have easily exhibited many of his oil
<sketches in such forums as the "Salon Refuses" if he had wished to - but he
<was more concerned with bringing his ideas to perfection, in refining and
<nurturing the images, to coax the highest beauty possible from them. (snip)
Boy, this brings up an interesting problem (not related to the topic though)
that I try to deal with and perhaps other folks too. Maybe even Bouguereau
might have encountered it if he was interested in working in a looser manner.
The problem is this: When you have acquired over the years, a certain degree
of skill and you rely on that skill, which serves you so well in conveying your
ideas it seems then, nearly impossible to break away from that discipline when
trying to explore another.
In other words if you want to deliberatly introduce in your work a technique
that is less than your capabilities, it just seems so hard to let go of what
you know and be engaged in a process that comes more easily to the less
experienced. In fact, it seems to me that a skilled artisan who attempts to
utilize a process or approach that is less challenging than one more so, that
it's almost like learning to develop a whole new skill all over again. That's
not very clear so let me give you an example.
I find myself increasingly interested in incorporating found objects into my
work. Now creating assemblages out of found objects is one thing and a
technique that pretty much stands on its own but calls for a different kind of
skill than making those objects to be used. One usually selects whatever seems
appropriate and uses that object like a material, similar to lumps of clay for
instance. Okay, that's a skill but lacks the depth of one that enables one to
first create the object that will be used.
The problem I face is that I tend to feel very guilty about doing this when I
know that I can produce a substitute piece that may be different but serves the
same purpose that the found object does. Yet it is the quirkiness or specific
character of that particular found object that I find important and that I
can't reproduce with authenticity.
The guilty part of me rejects this process as an easy out for a solution, yet
in my head I understand the real reason for doing so. It's a constant conflict
that I'm trying to overcome and as a result, I feel that I'm not very sucessful
in pulling this off. There is too much knowledge that's getting in the way
here. Is this making any sense to you? It has absolutely nothing to do with
the integrity of the work, it's simply a mindset because I know what my
abilities are yet feel that I'm not utilizing them to its fullest extent when I
incorporate found objects in the work. No one says that in fact I actually
have to feel this way, only that stern part of my disciplined mind that's doing
it.
So the irony of this is, that when I employ a skill that is less than I am
capable of I feel that the work isn't working as well as some pieces done by
others for whom this is a normal process. Very strange. So skill and
competence is a relative thing it seems and sometimes too much of a good thing
is a bad thing afterall. Of course this isn't an insurmountable problem and
will be resolved but it's the letting go of the mindset that keeps getting in
the way.
I just wonder if others who have been working for a long period of time and who
have attempted to shift directions or to incorporate something else has the
same stuggle or conflicts that I do? Just curious.
Iian Neill
> <separate from its purely sacred origins and environment; if we are to judge it
> <upon composition, drawing, colouring, form, emotional potency and so forth,
> <then we must *judge the work itself* and not the work as propped up by the
> <crutches of some elitist (or perhaps just forgotten and archaic) symbology.
>
Before I proceed into the reply-proper, I'd like to say that I found myself in
agreement with many of the things you wrote, Chris. Of course, there will be minor
particulars in which we will probably continue to disagree, but from what I
gathered of your response, we do not seem to have an entirely dissimilar outlook. I
will demonstrate this by replying to your comments ...
> <(continued from the above) the "artists" of our time feel quite comfortable
> <in confining themselves within the limits of technical incompetence and
> <intellectual tomfoolery. The artist who can't draw properly isn't free at all
> - he is <imprisoned by his own incompetence, he is utterly impotent to express
> any <intention in concrete and capable terms.
>
> I might qualify your premise by revising it to... ""some" artists of our time
> feel...etc etc".... but I don't think that's universally true at all with
> respect to artists in general. It's a very short sighted view of what is
> actually going on.
I have never considered that *all* artists working today are incompetent, although
this should have been made a little clearer in my initial comments on this
particular topic. On other areas I have made public my admiration for such painters
as Nelson Shanks, Pietro Annigoni, Ben Long, Ives Gammel - I even admire some of
the works of Salvador Dali, M.C. Escher and Rene Magritte. As for sculptors, I have
nothing but respect for the works of Frederick Hart, Jeffrey Jones, Michael
Wilkinson, and Bruno Lucchesi.
> If you want to say that artists today don't work like they
> did yesterday, then okay, but you haven't said that.
It is true that they do not - and I am glad that the competent artists of today do
not blindly imitate the past, as a rule.
> To claim incompentence
> etc. as characteristic of the general population of working artists is an
> unfair assumption.
It is the chief characteristic of the university-level art-educational structure -
at least when it comes to such things as painting, drawing and sculpture. I have
heard that photography, ceramics and computer graphics courses do quite well in
terms of technical skill.
> I don't see things that way and have no reason to. What
> you might be suggesting is that the work is different, which it is, but where
> has it ever been written that the way we work should follow some predetermined
> path? As a matter of fact there are multitudes of artists who continue to work
> in a representational manner today, as there have been for a long time before.
> If we are to make a distinction with regard to the popular artists of the day
> then that too should be noted.
I had noted in other posts that such artists as you have mentioned above existed. I
have to admit that I had assumed others knew my stance on that - the error was in
the assumption.
> There is a whole other genre of artists which many of us may not be thinking of
> and those are the artists who are creating works within the realm of the Craft
> Arts. This is a whole different arena and movement than what "fine artists"
> are willing to accept these days and it's unfortunate. Artists who emerge from
> the craft traditions are producing works that are physically as competent if
> not more so than artists in the past.
Good point, Chris.
> Most of these works are dimensional
> works and a good many of the pieces are as truly sculptural as any produced by
> so called fine artist.
I have often found a lot of contemporary craft work to be aesthetically superior to
that which is touted as "fine art" today.
> Same intent, same motivation, same expressive purpose
> of concept. These artists simply show their works in a different venue than
> fine art galleries but they are no different than any other gallery artists
> with the exception that they may be far more skilled, if not masterful, in
> their production efforts.
I won't disagree with that.
> I have a lot of respect for your point of view Iian and you obviously give it
> much consideration which is why it surprises me that you feel the way you do.
> However you're certainly entitled to.
It may be that you misunderstood exactly where I was coming from, since I had
neglected to include certain information which would put my statements regarding
contemporary art practise into context.
> Another sticky point is the weight you
> give to what I am interpreting as a conventional idea of what drawing is. That
> is to have the abilitiy to convey through line some sense of propriety although
> you aren't saying that exactly but the implication seems to be there.
I have to admit that it is difficult for me - at present - to focus on PRECISELY
why we might consider a certain drawing superior to another that it is objectively
equal to. (I mean this in the sense that both are realistically produced and
comprehensible, and clearly attain their goals, etc.) What elevates Raphael above
someone like the German Overbeck, or Raphael's other countless imitators? Many of
these painters would have been skilled enough in the ordinary way, and a few would
have certainly had a poetic sensibility - yet Raphael is something special.
> Drawing can mean two things and this isn't verbal play but simply how an artist
> might convey an idea or impression. The normal way that we might understand
> drawing is using line and in such a way as to be a fairly accurate rendering of
> an idea, representational or otherwise. That is a skill and a worthy one at
> that and by having that skill, an artist certainly can enjoy some advantages,
> no question. However there is another aspect of drawing which is the "drawing
> out" a concept or idea through other means such as color or shape or any other
> device. It isn't necessary to be a skilled draughtsman to be an artist and
> it's not really essential for all types of artmaking.
I agree. I still think that "drawing is the probity of art", but this isn't to say
that if you aren't a superlative draughstman you are a terrible artist. There are
painters today with immense skill at rendering and whom often - in my view - fall
short of rivalling the Old Masters. May of these can found in the ranks of the
Photo-Realists.
> For example consider Giacometti. I personally think that he could never draw
> worth a damn and to view his drawings as such is for me, a painful experience.
> But he was capable of "drawing out" his idea or concept using his particular
> manner of drawing and perhaps his pieces worked not as drawings but something
> else instead. It's a matter of opinion here, of course.
I certainly did not intend to suggest that pure rendering is the only quality in
art - a good all-round artist needs to be able to infuse his works with life and
vitality. Personally, I don't see rendering as being incompatible with that notion
- I find that the harder I work to draw from life, the more expressive my drawings
become. Granted, this observation is based on purely personal experience, but I
would hazard to say that those who naively believed (or who perhaps still do) that
the so-called "academic" painters of the 19th century were only interested in
drawing a circle where a circle was to be found are in for a pleasant surprise if
they take the time to investigate their works. One hears about such teachers as
Jean-Leon Gerome emphasizing the importance of what Mark might call "symphonic
resonance" or "harmony". I would also direct the critics of "academic" painting to
look at the studies produced by such men as Leighton, Bouguereau and others - one
will notice a very 'loose' technique, a bold application of colour, etc., etc., the
very things that they adore so much in the works of the Impressionists and their
kin. But what they perhaps refuse to acknowledge is that while such men as
Bouguereau could have easily achieved Impressionistic effects, he wasn't
particularly interested in doing so. His conception of form and harmony was more
disciplined - he could probably have easily exhibited many of his oil sketches in
such forums as the "Salon Refuses" if he had wished to - but he was more concerned
with bringing his ideas to perfection, in refining and nurturing the images, to
coax the highest beauty possible from them. Bouguereau is merely ONE example.
There are many others.
> There is another aspect of drawing though that I do consider more important and
> that is the quality of a drawing. A lot of folks can render well, commercial
> artists may be the best of the lot for all I know but I rarely consider their
> things as "good drawing". Why? Because drawing is a very special manner of
> expressing an idea.
The idea must always come first in good drawing - but the idea can not even move
forward at all if the technical ability isn't there. Those artists who place
precision and a certain 'finickiness' above the aesthetic ideal are as much guilty
of an error as those who think they can express something with a crude, inadequate
technique. Yet, even so, I would judge the former artist to be the greater, for at
least such work has craft-value, and can be appreciated and admired for whatever
aesthetic qualities it may possess; work which is crude, however, more often than
not displeases than it does please.
> It isn't accuracy so much that has value but the quality
> of the line and the expressiveness of the drawing itself that matters. It is a
> thing complete in itself, that is what matters when considering drawing. To
> convey an idea as something little more than a gesture can be good drawing
> (consider the drawings of Rodin), so I think we have to open up our idea of
> what drawing skill really means.
I am certainly not indifferent to the qualities a Rodin - or a Goya, or a Bernini -
drawing might express. The fact is, though, that they couldn't have achieved that
level of quality if they hadn't a certain technical ability there to realize the
idea.
Technique - in Fine Art - should never be considered an end in itself. The
artist's intention - his idea, or his 'ideal' - should always proceed the work, so
that the technique has something to aim towards. Conversely, a person who considers
technique irrelevant or - worse - *confining* is one who doesn't understand the
nature of art as it has been for the past 2,000 years (at least).
Yet in considering the question of whether it is better to have a superlative
technique and facile invention, or a vigorous 'expression' and inconsequential
technique, I would have to nominate the former as superior. For, despite the
obvious flaws in a *superficially* technical work such productions can at least
qualify as superlative works of craftsmanship. The painting which is supposedly
'expressive' - because it is raucous - and 'conceptual' - because no-one can
objectively analyze it - is in a much lower state. Such objects cannot even qualify
as craft, as the makers of them have renounced technical skill as the foundation
upon which aesthetic skill is built.
> If it is rendering that you really mean then we are talking about something
> else entirely and I still don't think that lack of rendering skill inhibits an
> artist from fulfilling his/her fullest potential. It has long been assumed
> that drawing is the backbone of any kind of work and I'm going to be the last
> to argue against that but at the same time I don't for a minute believe that
> it's essential.
It seems to me that the confusion here has arisen from the different conceptions
about drawing. I am entirely comfortable with admiring the drawings of Rembrandt,
Goya and much of Rodin. I do not go to those works with the expectation of seeing
superb rendering (in the strict sense of the term) - I might enjoy, for example,
the wonderful rhythms, washes of colour, expressive hatching and jagged lines, or
the distribution of dark and light masses. I am not expecting to behold
photo-realistic works of minute precision, yet this doesn't alter my admiration for
them one jot. I have never, though, for one moment considered that for a drawing
to be a good one the artist must renounce technical ability as some kind of
dictatorial ogre who sits on one's shoulder, holding the arm firmly so that it
doesn't "let go" and "express" itself.
> Whenever it might be mentioned that an artist can't draw I always assume this
> to be in the context of rendering. But rendering is rendering, not necessarily
> drawing. It just usually means that an artist can put on paper something that
> looks like the thing being drawn or imagined. Not a small matter but not the
> biggest either, it's just another tool to get us where we want to go. If we
> don't have it then we find other means. It's as simple as that.
You have made some excellent points, Chris, and I look forward to reading what else
you might have to say on matters artistic in the future.
Warmest regards,
CROCUSDES
I decided to reread one of Iian's posts which are usually very interesting
since he puts so much into them. As an antidote to some of the relentless
flame chatter we've been having today I just thought I would take something
that Iian said and consider something that he refers to. Not in an
argumentitive way but rather as one thought leading to another.
Iian writes:
<(snip)The idea must always come first in good drawing - but the idea can not
<even move forward at all if the technical ability isn't there. (snip)
This statement reminded me of a couple of drawings I saw sometime in the past
year or so in a show featuring Primative Artists at the Philadelphia Museum Of
Art. It was a wonderful show but one of the artists, who's name I cannot
remember now (Tanner?), was an artist from the southern US, who is no longer
living. He had some really wonderful drawings of folks just doing stuff drawn
on some yellowed cheap paper that was in my opinion, outstanding. Now the
works might not have rivaled the technical skills of a conventional master,
whatever that is, but the life that was inherent in the line and the manner of
expression couldn't be denied.
Now the range of possibilites for expressing a figure for instance, is
limitless. It may be a fairly accurate facisimile of what we see or a
distortion, but if it's meant to be a recognizable pointer to the idea of
"figure" then it's generally understood to mean what it represents. Identity
of a drawings reference then, isn't all that important it seems to me, but
rather the content or the meaning conveyed instead. This is achieved by
intonation, sort of like the way we stress our words to modulate meaning. A
well "intoned" drawing will convey more than just the physical aspect of an
idea but will impart a sense of meaning and magnitude to the concept without
the overlay of color or light.
What's then required is a healthy sense of the essentials since in a linear
drawing for instance, we have only one device to rely on. Line itself. That
line has to carry the weight of substance, of mass, of light, of distance, of
attitude, of emotion and more. Just imagine if you will how difficult it is to
accomodate all that with the luxury of color and shade let alone the definition
of outline. It can boggle the mind when you think of it. It's best not to
actually, when engaged in doing a drawing I suppose, otherwise we'd collapse
with the impossibility of achieving our goals. But this doesn't normally
happen though, thank goodness, because we don't really have to think about
that. We just do our drawings and that's it.
Getting back to that primative artist I referred to, the reason I feel that his
work was successful is because that person was able to transmit onto paper what
he felt in a way that was uninhibited, yet at the same time, faithful to the
limitations of a pencil. It was obviously understood by the artist that the
quality of the line. the weight and direction was determined by intent and
that's all that mattered. Of course it was also obvious that a fair
representation of the subject was also intended as well. This is where our
concept of skill comes into play.
If the work wasn't as accurate as the artist might have meant it to be, is that
work not as skilled as one who has more experience with practice? Perhaps not
by comparison, but comparison to what? Intent or rendering? I think that the
skill that really matters is the success of the conveyance of intent rather
than accuracy of translation.
More importantly though is the "wording of the idea" through line if it's a
linear drawing and in a sense, it's the difference between poetry and prosaic
writing that reigns in this case. So what exactly is a beautiful drawing?
After all this I still can't say what it is but only sense it when I see it.
And I see it in the damnedest places, even on grafittied walls sometimes.
S. W. Paul Wyszkowski
> That's a nice issue to raise ... the difference between good art and kitsch. Who
> cares to give it a go?
>
> Is kitsch that which is merely sentimental or affectatious? Or is it something
> which tries to appeal to what is thought to be the common taste, yet is
> outrageously obvious in its sycophantic intentions?
>
> Who's up for a debate here?
>
I think defining the difference between kitsch and "good" art is as
difficult as defining art itself. It may be possible to distinguish
between kitsch and "good" art by critical consensus, i.e. if a majority
of critics say it's kitsch, it's kitsch. I don't think I dare address
the question of criteria for "good" art, but perhaps I will take a stab
at a tentative definition of kitsch. Incidentally I don't think kitsch
needs to be consciously created as such. Much of it is created in good
faith by people (not to honor them with the title of "artist") who
sincerely think they are creating objects of art. Perhaps sincerity is
even a hallmark of kitsch because without sincerity there can be no
sentimentality.
Kitsch: an object which evokes a simple, unthinking, emotional reaction
based on a trite social convention, and has no other artistic function.
Paul Wyszkowski
swp...@earthlink.net
S. W. Paul Wyszkowski
> > Much of conceptual art is
> > meaningless, unless you know certain art theories.
It would seem then that the art theories needed to understand the work
are a necessary adjunct to the work, indeed a part of it, though a
missing part which the viewer must supply.
> True artistic skill lies in taking the subjective and
> making it the objective. It lies in formulating a concept - an intention - and then
> discovering the means by which this concept will become clear to other people.
In other words, art is a social phenomenon - it involves others, besides
the artist. Hence, it must be intelligible, at least to some people
other than the artist.
> The
> artist expresses himself so as to give form to what he values in the universe - if
> he values beauty over decay, then he will paint works exemplifying beauty; if he
> values physical strength over feebleness, then he will carve Apollonian statues. If,
> on the other hand, the artist values chaos, ugliness, irrationality and obscurity,
> then his work will reflect these concepts also.
I don't know whether it is possible to talk of "valuing" ugliness. Isn't
ugliness by definition a negative "value" in the eye of the beholder?.
An artist may want or need to express ugliness but this does not mean he
values it.
> Whatever he happens to express, one
> thing is for certain: -- the more a critic has to turn to extra-artistic material
> to judge a work of art, the less meritorious the art-work is.
Or at least, less accessible and inaccessibility IMO is not a virtue.
> The point of art is to
> express something *completely*, in its strongest, fittest form - even if one wishes
> to suggest an atmosphere of mystery and obscurity, this also must be handled with
> the greatest of skill. If, to appreciate an art-work adequately one must be
> encumbered with numerous artistic doctrines and theories, then the work itself
> suffers. This is because it isn't *doing any of the work* - it is not an art-work in
> the sense that it isn't performing its task, it isn't *working* - the theories and
> the doctrines are doing the work for it.
I couldn't agree more.
> It can certainly be useful to figure extra-artistic knowledge when we consider the
> merits of a work of art - but the more we need to patch up the work with
> extra-artistic scraps of knowledge, the less healthy the work of art remains. This
> underlies the fatal flaw in such movements as Symbolism: -- those paintings which
> rely on extra-artistic knowledge disproportionately suffer from being misunderstood,
> or apprehended only by a small elite with specialized knowledge. This is fine if the
> work *is intended* for that elite and only that elite - in this case the work is
> serving its purpose within a set context. But when the artist tries to claim that
> this work - which only functions successfully in a restricted context - actually
> deserves to be treated on equal terms with others paintings which are not so elitist
> in their symbology, then we have a problem - or, to be more precise, the artist and
> his critics have a problem. If they have an honest bone in their body they will be
> forced to admit that while the painting might be exemplary within its limited
> context, it is severely stunted when considered in a more broad sense.
The question is, does a work of art need to be widely understood as long
as somebody other than the artist understands and appreciates it. Does
an artist have an obligation to be understood/appreciated as widely as
possible?
> Whereas the
> 14th century painter took craftsmanship and skill seriously - even as he considered
> himself, perhaps, as an artisan - the "artists" of our time feel quite comfortable
> in confining themselves within the limits of technical incompetence and intellectual
> tomfoolery. The artist who can't draw properly isn't free at all - he is imprisoned
> by his own incompetence, he is utterly impotent to express any intention in concrete
> and capable terms. Instead, he settles for crude, ugly work and attempts to form a
> theory around it that will justify the very absence of the art it is supposed to
> have. Such a pseudo-artist forgets, however, the art is to be judged by how
> successfully it expresses the intentions of the artist - or, closer to the truth, he
> forgets that *these intentions MUST BE MANIFESTED within the art-work itself*. He
> can, of course, gives us clues as to its interpretation, but whatever extra-artistic
> commentary he or any critic happens to make is only of importance when the work of
> art can stand on its own. In this case, whatever he might have to say about it
> potentially becomes a bonus. Even so, the fact that they feel compelled to express
> in words what should have been evident for all to see in paint tells us that the
> painting is being propped up on something which should have nothing to do with it at
> all, something outside of its realm. And the more the art-work needs theories and
> commentary to justify it, the less successful this art work is.
See my comments under Democracy and Art thread. Do people in general
require the mediation of a specially gifted and educated priesthood
(critics) to benefit (indirectly) from contemporary fine art which seems
more alienated than ever before from the common life?
> Judging by those criteria, one becomes aware of the serious problems which
> plague a lot of 20th and late 19th century art.
The art theories are flourishing, and art itself is bacoming more and
more esoteric and inaccessible to the people.
mark webber
I'm just back from a few days in New York (taking down the show) and am
pleased and surprised to see all this serious, thoughtful criticism of my
work, here in R.A.F.
Read in one sitting, they are very entertaining, in much the same way
that Beavis and Butthead are.(I particularly enjoyed the image of Philip
treating Russ to a pistol "wipe" of his ass.) Thanks for all the amusing
attention, boys!
On Thu, 15 Oct 1998, S. W. Paul Wyszkowski wrote:
> Iian Neill wrote:
>
> > > Much of conceptual art is
> > > meaningless, unless you know certain art theories.
>
> It would seem then that the art theories needed to understand the work
> are a necessary adjunct to the work, indeed a part of it, though a
> missing part which the viewer must supply.
This is another one of those areas, Iian, where I'm in agreement with you.
It does seem that a great deal of the approved art of the last 3 decades
or so relies on theory in a manner that might remind one of illustration.
I doubt that many adherents would enjoy that comparison though.
However, as uninteresting as any of these types of work may be to you or
me, what skin is it off of our backs if some folks prefer it to something
more traditional?
If it is a question of competition for monetary reward, surely "realist"
painting has more fans than, for example, minimalist sculpture.
And if it is not a question of competition, is there anything really wrong
with different types of experiences?
Suppose we could treat the difficulty this way: Everything that is not
representational in nature is not called art. (Now this is not a solution
to judging how good various types of representational art are. Only a
separation, a re-labeling of different types of experience.)
Suppose all the work that is theory-dependent is called
something else, not even considered to be art. It has it's own schools
where it is taught (and art school only deals with representation.)
Suppose this other sort of experience is marketed separately, has its own
journals, and is exhibited in other sorts of museums (much the same way
that museums of natural history or science usually don't exhibit fine
art.)
If that were the situation, would you be offended at the existence of
these types of experiences? If some folks wanted to study some theory and
then see an illustration of it, but would never think of calling it art,
how would you respond to it?
(I'm not trying to be snide - I'm asking this in the friendly spirit in
which we usually correspond.)
saluts,
Mark
CROCUSDES
>
> > > Much of conceptual art is
> > > meaningless, unless you know certain art theories.
>
> It would seem then that the art theories needed to understand the work
> are a necessary adjunct to the work, indeed a part of it, though a
> missing part which the viewer must supply.
<This is another one of those areas, Iian, where I'm in agreement with you.
<It does seem that a great deal of the approved art of the last 3 decades
<or so relies on theory in a manner that might remind one of illustration.
<I doubt that many adherents would enjoy that comparison though.
Well, I guess I'm simply going to have to be disagreeable again Mark and Iian.
I don't buy into what you are saying at all simply because as we've all stated
in one form or another, the proof of lthe pudding is in the eating (did we
really say that?).
The success or failure of any work of art is based on the end result alone so
it makes no difference how many theories are applied nor how extensive they
are. Theories are initially a doorway into defining a particular process and
little more than that. The usefulness of this kind of excercise is to map out
a pathway into a venture that might have been unexplored before. If there are
no recognizable handrails to hold onto initially, then defining a concept with
words alone is a beginning. I think of theories as something like a flashlight
held in the dark, much better than groping blindly.
I understand what the premise is that you're stating, which is that works that
don't hold their own on merit alone but depend on supporting material isn't as
valid as works needing no explaination at all. Fair enough but that's an
incomplete representation of some forms that require time to become absorbed
into the mainstream of art traditions. After that, if the works are in fact
legitimate extensions of what is considered "art form" then these pieces will
dispense with the prerequisite explainations to be experienced as what they are
in relation to other art forms.
Let's use Surrealism as an example. When first considered at the time, this
particular form was being developed along certain guidelines and declared valid
by its practicioners. Well, the new works may have needed a lot of explaining
at the time in order to get past the current conventions of art thinking in
order to be openly looked at. By now, we have simply accepted that form
without the need for supporting material and it's simply considered one other
form among the many. Surrealism as theory then as practice, has been
eventually understood and accepted as the norm today. Of course, some
theoretical practices didn't hold up (Futurism, Constructivism, perhaps) but
these may have opened doors for others to reach a different level.
I can understand why you might point to conceptualism as a prime example of the
failure of art making in "the past 3 decades or so" but that's a very limited
view of what the reality is. The fact is that artists are pursuing directions
in art making in a variety of ways and doing so in the spirit of adventure and
discovery. We don't know today what "bizzare" form that's unfamiliar or out of
alignment with accepted principles will eventually become accepted as the
natural norm of tomorrow. More importantly, it is the efforts of the
adventuresome that continually revitalizes the definition of "art", allowing us
opportunities to delve further into the realm of aesthetic experience.
Artmaking is definitely not about recapitulation, no matter how broadly you
define the term Mark, it's very much about aesthetic experience.
I see one large problem when we are discussing "art" and that is that we narrow
the definition which applies to one thing to all else that surrounds it.
Visual or Fine Art is a three ring circus and painting, for instance, is only
one ring. When we apply principles applicable to another form but mean that
it's not working for a different one then I think we should be a little more
thoughtful about which is what. If, when referring to paintings, we use an
example of conceptual art, then we are comparing cookies to crackers, they can
both crumble but don't taste the same.
Now if you want to talk about the limitations of painters efforts today and
compare that to painters of yesteryear then I don't see where theorectical
principles are dominent. Some painting forms may rely more on idea than
content but I don't think that applies in general. You seem to be saying
instead, that what you see being done currently, fails to satisfy the richness
that you expect. This may be because you favor the success of a particular
form or approach. That's okay, but it's a personal preference and we all have
different expectations to satisfy that need.
The hidden message unintentionally expressed sometimes is, that my expectations
are better than yours. Of course we each will deny that but it remains
underneath the surface anyhow. Well, it doesn't really matter, we are
certainly entitled to our own preferences. In fact if a strong opinion isn't
held, then what's the worth of a preference anyway? We should just understand
what our stance is, that's all.
It's difficult to assess the "artness" of any of the artforms that we encounter
but I think it's a mistake to use only a visual approach to all visual forms.
We can see that there is an auxillary component that also constitutes a work of
art and that pertains to expression or conveyance of idea. The form that
carries the idea is the vehicle and may be the most important carrier of the
idea perhaps, but it's not complete in itself. This is because we mingle the
idea of art and aesthetics into a single concept and if we fail to make a
distinction between the two and use the terms interchangably, then this is
where confusion arises. I would describe the difference essentially this way:
Art is the how, Aesthetics is the why.
Mark, I hope I'm not confusing you again with my wild disregard for
terminology. A "great masterpiece" may be a thing of beauty but so are works
deemed less important. However, not all things beautiful are works of art,
great or minor. To acknowlege a work to be "art" we have to go beyond the
physical appearance and consider why the relationship of components within a
work transmits that thing we call an aesthetic experience.
In either case, the how or the why, we'll simply plod on like so many before us
to try and grasp what it is that eludes all of us. The real value of the
excercise is the journey with its discoveries and enlightenment that enriches
our engagement in whatever it is that we do. The actual destination point
seems to me to be nothing more than a distant mirage dancing over waves of hot
air. Well, I for one am glad of that since I enjoy truckin' on endlessly, on a
highway that has more exit ramps than the most convoluted planner could ever
think of.
Philip Ayers
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
I'm glad to see you didn't kill yourself..as Marlyn seems to think
everyone is soooo sensitive except afew of us who have been kicked around
the block a few times and have a thick skin..i think?
: > I'm just back from a few days in New York (taking down the show) and am
: > pleased and surprised to see all this serious, thoughtful criticism of my
: > work, here in R.A.F.
: >
: > Read in one sitting, they are very entertaining, in much the same way
: > that Beavis and Butthead are.(I particularly enjoyed the image of Philip
: > treating Russ to a pistol "wipe" of his ass.) Thanks for all the amusing
: > attention, boys!
: >
: >
: >
: >
: > On Thu, 15 Oct 1998, S. W. Paul Wyszkowski wrote:
: >
: > > Iian Neill wrote:
: > >
: > > > > Much of conceptual art is
: > > > > meaningless, unless you know certain art theories.
: > >
: > > It would seem then that the art theories needed to understand the work
: > > are a necessary adjunct to the work, indeed a part of it, though a
: > > missing part which the viewer must supply.
: >
: >
: > This is another one of those areas, Iian, where I'm in agreement with you.
: >
: > It does seem that a great deal of the approved art of the last 3 decades
: > or so relies on theory in a manner that might remind one of illustration.
: > I doubt that many adherents would enjoy that comparison though.
: >
: > However, as uninteresting as any of these types of work may be to you or
Philip (never Phil) Ayers
http://www.mindspring.com/~p.ayers/
p.a...@mindspring.com.
mark webber
On 15 Oct 1998, CROCUSDES wrote:
> > Iian Neill wrote:
> >
> > > > Much of conceptual art is
> > > > meaningless, unless you know certain art theories.
> >
> > It would seem then that the art theories needed to understand the work
> > are a necessary adjunct to the work, indeed a part of it, though a
> > missing part which the viewer must supply.
> >
> <
> Mark writes:
> <This is another one of those areas, Iian, where I'm in agreement with you.
> <
> <It does seem that a great deal of the approved art of the last 3 decades
> <or so relies on theory in a manner that might remind one of illustration.
> <I doubt that many adherents would enjoy that comparison though.
>
> Well, I guess I'm simply going to have to be disagreeable again Mark and Iian.
> I don't buy into what you are saying at all simply because as we've all stated
> in one form or another, the proof of lthe pudding is in the eating (did we
> really say that?).
All I'm saying in the above paragraph is that much art, like conceptual
art, minimalist art and pomo are theory-bound - I'm not making a
judgement, only an observation. Do you really disagree that much art is
reliant on theory?
>
> The success or failure of any work of art is based on the end result alone so
> it makes no difference how many theories are applied nor how extensive they
> are.
Ahhhhh - you're talking success or failure! That's different!
But I thought we were just told (I forget by who - who was it that was
just sciolding me last week? Was it Spot?) that there are no relative
successes or failures in this sort of work.
>
> I understand what the premise is that you're stating, which is that works that
> don't hold their own on merit alone but depend on supporting material isn't as
> valid as works needing no explaination at all.
Did I say that? Where did I say that?
> Let's use Surrealism as an example. When first considered at the time, this
> particular form was being developed along certain guidelines and declared valid
> by its practicioners. Well, the new works may have needed a lot of explaining
> at the time in order to get past the current conventions of art thinking in
> order to be openly looked at. By now, we have simply accepted that form
> without the need for supporting material and it's simply considered one other
> form among the many. Surrealism as theory then as practice, has been
> eventually understood and accepted as the norm today. Of course, some
> theoretical practices didn't hold up (Futurism, Constructivism, perhaps) but
> these may have opened doors for others to reach a different level.
A difference between Surrealism and Minimalism is that no one needs to
know any theories behind Dali's work to enjoy it. (Look at all the morons
who love Dali but hate other modern art.) And if you want to talk about
good painters who were Surrealists, DeChirico, for example, can be enjoyed
without the aid of a text.
(Yes, I know, this is a blatant bait - but I just got back from NYC and
I've got that aggression thing happening. It'll pass in a couple of days,
or after I pistol "wipe" someone.)
>
> I can understand why you might point to conceptualism as a prime example of the
> failure of art making in "the past 3 decades or so" but that's a very limited
> view of what the reality is.
Chris, my dear, generous friend, did you *read* what I wrote? I didn't say
that, and more to the point, that wasn't even part of my thinking in that
post.
> The fact is that artists are pursuing directions
> in art making in a variety of ways and doing so in the spirit of adventure and
> discovery. We don't know today what "bizzare" form that's unfamiliar or out of
> alignment with accepted principles will eventually become accepted as the
> natural norm of tomorrow.
But the best thing about it will be that it pushes out of the way the
present baloney, and dismisses it as out-moded. I'm just kidding around,
really - as I said in my post, what skin is it off my back?
> More importantly, it is the efforts of the
> adventuresome that continually revitalizes the definition of "art", allowing us
> opportunities to delve further into the realm of aesthetic experience.
> Artmaking is definitely not about recapitulation, no matter how broadly you
> define the term Mark, it's very much about aesthetic experience.
>
I'm a little surprised to see this come up here - recapitulation, that is.
I mean, step back and look at what you've said here. For some people,
esthetic experience is very much rooted in a variety of recapitulations.
And you are going to tell them they aren't making art?
I thought we agreed that, since Duchamp, it's art if anybody says its art.
> Now if you want to talk about the limitations of painters efforts today and
> compare that to painters of yesteryear then I don't see where theorectical
> principles are dominent.
I'm not talking about limitations - I'm not being judgemental, remember?
But I am making the observation that plenty of painting happening right
now is theory-bound. BT cited Gerhard Richter as a stillife painter who
deals with (and I'm paraphrasing as best I can) the difficulties
confronting a contemporary artist, such as photography, etc. His
(Richter's) jumping from style to style is understood best through a
series of ideas related to pomo theories.
But his paintings don't necessarily work on their own. Nor do those of
David Salle, Jeff Koons and many others.
> Some painting forms may rely more on idea than
> content but I don't think that applies in general.
Howdo you distinguish between idea and content, in that particular
sentence?
> You seem to be saying
> instead, that what you see being done currently, fails to satisfy the richness
> that you expect.
Where do I appear to say that?
> Mark, I hope I'm not confusing you again with my wild disregard for
> terminology. A "great masterpiece" may be a thing of beauty but so are works
> deemed less important.
That is really an excellent point. (It might have been lost in all the
other gibberish, but I'm a loyal Crocus reader, and if there is anything
at all worthwhile, I'll fish it out of your highly unedited, rambling
pond.)
> However, not all things beautiful are works of art,
> great or minor.
There you go again, telling us what is and isn't art, when that is a
flagrant violation of the Duchamp Act.
> To acknowlege a work to be "art" we have to go beyond the
> physical appearance and consider why the relationship of components within a
> work transmits that thing we call an aesthetic experience.
As in Duchamp's Fountain? Just what are the those transmitted components,
within that urinal, which relate and resonate an esthetic experience?
>
> In either case, the how or the why, we'll simply plod on like so many before us
> to try and grasp what it is that eludes all of us. The real value of the
> excercise is the journey with its discoveries and enlightenment that enriches
> our engagement in whatever it is that we do. The actual destination point
> seems to me to be nothing more than a distant mirage dancing over waves of hot
> air. Well, I for one am glad of that since I enjoy truckin' on endlessly, on a
> highway that has more exit ramps than the most convoluted planner could ever
> think of.
>
Block that metaphor!
Anyway, back to my reply to Iian - did you read the whole thing, and do
you understand what I was asking him?
Or are you just looking to tussle some?
Have you gotten onto that list? Also, I think that email problem of mine
is solved.
Saluts,
Mark
Philip Ayers
(Philip Ayers) wrote:
: > : > I'm just back from a few days in New York (taking down the show) and am
: > : > pleased and surprised to see all this serious, thoughtful
criticism of my
: > : > work, here in R.A.F.
: > : >
: > : > Read in one sitting, they are very entertaining, in much the same way
: > : > that Beavis and Butthead are.(I particularly enjoyed the image of
Philip
: > : > treating Russ to a pistol "wipe" of his ass.) Thanks for all the amusing
: > : > attention, boys!
Please don't poke fun of the spelling...my 8 year old son is a better
speller..and I'm even better than G Laderman who is pretty smart! "I'll
pistol whip your ass",...not "wipe".....although it does sound pretty
painful as well! It's the right side-left side thing..I stay on the visual
side most of the time.
setai
CROCUSDES wrote in message <19981015221031...@ng25.aol.com>...
>If you want a summation it would be this: In terms of my work then for me
it's
>today that matters and tomorrow I look forward to. I can appreciate and
learn
>from my predecessors but they are not my priests and I do not revere them.
>Great art when it happens is a great event, however that isn't what I
strive to
>create or necessarily appreciate. It's the experience that counts the
most,
>whatever happens after that, happens. I don't think we can consciously
create
>great art no matter how much we study the past. We all can create art,
>however, but the degree of it's success depends soley upon the innate
ability
>of the artist. If you got it, use it, if you don't, then use it anyway.
this is the wisest, clearest and purest vision of an artist that has ever
been posed in this news group. if we could follow this path and hold "great
art" from reality or better yet your own inner, unattainable vision of art
as our beacon, then as artists we have reached our potential and the best
product ("great art" or not) will follow.
tracy
CROCUSDES
<All I'm saying in the above paragraph is that much art, like conceptual
<art, minimalist art and pomo are theory-bound - I'm not making a
<judgement, only an observation. Do you really disagree that much art is
<reliant on theory?
Yes I do. Theory as I see it in relation to the arts is a directional map and
yes some folks follow that map religeously, but I don't think that the art
stems from theory. Theory is a method to generate ideas and
direction....sometimes it's even supposed to change the meaning of art but it's
usually a guideline and sometimes just hot air. By the way, it's really okay
to make a judgement one way or the other if you like, if you don't then that's
okay too.
<Ahhhhh - you're talking success or failure! That's different!
I don't mind being different. Don't even mind sticking my foot in my mouth
once in a while either.
<But I thought we were just told (I forget by who - who was it that was
<just sciolding me last week? Was it Spot?) that there are no relative
<successes or failures in this sort of work.
That's his point of view not mine.
I write:
> I understand what the premise is that you're stating, which is that works
that
> don't hold their own on merit alone but depend on supporting material isn't
as
> valid as works needing no explaination at all.
Mark replies:
<Did I say that? Where did I say that?
I don't know if you actually did in those words or not but this is what I
understand from the implication of your writings. If I'm wrong about your
point of view then accept my appologies, I'll take credit for the statement
instead. Sounds good enough to me to stick in my pocket.
<A difference between Surrealism and Minimalism is that no one needs to
<know any theories behind Dali's work to enjoy it.
Oh now I think you're really trying to pull my leg Mark. If you're serious
about the remark then I'll begin to worry about you. I don't mean about Dali
but not being able to enjoy the other as well without the theory.
<And if you want to talk about good painters who were Surrealists, DeChirico,
<for example, can be enjoyed without the aid of a text.
I didn't want to talk about good painters. In context, I was referring to the
movement.
<(Yes, I know, this is a blatant bait - but I just got back from NYC and
<I've got that aggression thing happening. It'll pass in a couple of days,
<or after I pistol "wipe" someone.)
I hope that aggressive feeling isn't because Marilyn didn't buy one of your
paintings as someone suggested she do. Hell, I didn't buy one either...oh oh,
Mark's going to get real testy now.
<Chris, my dear, generous friend, did you *read* what I wrote? I didn't say
<that, and more to the point, that wasn't even part of my thinking in that
<post.
I don't know how else to interpret your statement. Well, you did say
"theories" not conceptual, so maybe I was off base but theoretical art in my
mind is close enough. I need to learn how to be more precise in my thinking
and interpretation. I'm a loose cannon when I get my hands on a keyboard so I
don't mind at all being reprimanded. In fact if you take half of what I say
seriously I'd be disappointed.
<I'm a little surprised to see this come up here - recapitulation, that is.
<I mean, step back and look at what you've said here. For some people,
<esthetic experience is very much rooted in a variety of recapitulations.
<And you are going to tell them they aren't making art?
Recapitulation....I just can't let go of that word of yours Mark. No I'm not
going to tell anyone recapitulating that they're not making art but I will tell
them that they aren't recapitulating anything. Just making art. You'll just
have to make good use of that New York aggression before it slips away to make
your point that the aesthetic experience is rooted in recapitulation. Keep
trying. That idea implies that one should have familiarity with an artist's
predecessors. I'm still very much unconvinced that this has the importance you
assign it.
<I thought we agreed that, since Duchamp, it's art if anybody says its art.
Whoa.......not all of us agreed to that. I might suggest that anything can be
art but that wholly depends on the ability of an artist. Words alone?
Pshaww!!!
<I'm not talking about limitations - I'm not being judgemental, remember?
<But I am making the observation that plenty of painting happening right
<now is theory-bound. (cut)
Agreed but so what? That's some but not all or maybe even most artists. As a
working artist, my observation is that when working, one is focusing on the
work for its own sake. Afterwards or perhaps before hand we do all the talking
but that is something that goes well with a single malt scotch and a fine
cigar. If one is in fact bound by a theory and singlemindedly proceeds to
paint or work around that theory.....well good luck. Some folks may have been
successful doing that but I'm not sure just how faithful the actual success is
related to strict theory. Is it plausible that sometimes a theory is bent just
a little bit to conform to the success of a particular work? It's an easy
thing to fake you know.
<(continued) BT cited Gerhard Richter as a stillife painter who
<deals with (and I'm paraphrasing as best I can) the difficulties
<confronting a contemporary artist, such as photography, etc. His
<(Richter's) jumping from style to style is understood best through a
<series of ideas related to pomo theories.
This isn't artmaking by theory Mark. Sure one might experiment with different
ideas but that's all it is, not being bound by a theory. If one holds fast to
a theoretical approach then I might agree with you. But ideas, directions,
experimentation, these are the normal and natural ways an artist might approach
his work. If you base your opinion or understanding of Richter's work on post
modernist theories then I really think you are making too much of the program.
Of course I'm talking through my hat again because I'm not familiar with the
range of Richter's work so this is another one of those uneducated guesses that
I usually toss out. Feel free to criticize.
<But his paintings don't necessarily work on their own. Nor do those of
<David Salle, Jeff Koons and many others.
This has more to do with the shortcomings of the artists not the form itself.
If you ain't got it, then you ain't got it.
I write:
>>Some painting forms may rely more on idea than
>> content but I don't think that applies in general.
Mark replies:
>How do you distinguish between idea and content, in that particular
>sentence?
In context I meant conceptual work versus formal. Some day I'll have to take a
course in writing but for now this will have to do.
<Where do I appear to say that?
Numerous times by implication. I picked up on it with your agreement with Iian
about your preference for traditional based works. Am I wrong about that
assumption? The paintings you seem to favor are the old masters and what can
be richer than those in terms of complexity?
<That is really an excellent point. (It might have been lost in all the
<other gibberish, but I'm a loyal Crocus reader, and if there is anything
<at all worthwhile, I'll fish it out of your highly unedited, rambling
<pond.)
Thanks, that makes me feel like I have purpose. I need to feed the fish once
in a while.
I write:
>> However, not all things beautiful are works of art,
>> great or minor.
Mark replies:
>There you go again, telling us what is and isn't art, when that is a
>flagrant violation of the Duchamp Act.
Oh oh, I see you're doing what I do. Careful now or you'll start slipping in
the mud and slide periously close to the edge to give me company. I'm not a
follower nor am I an advocate of Duchamp. I admire his efforts and respect
what he's done but I do not believe him. I think I'm being assigned a position
that I haven't earned yet.
<As in Duchamp's Fountain? Just what are the those transmitted components,
<within that urinal, which relate and resonate an esthetic experience?
I have no idea. However I'm real glad he gave up his urinal, it offered us the
art pause that refreshes. I guess he had to go outside to pee after that.
<Block that metaphor!
No can do.
<Anyway, back to my reply to Iian - did you read the whole thing, and do
<you understand what I was asking him?
Yes I did read through everything and the second answer is probably not since I
read in the same manner that I write. Once over, no editing nor extensive
review. I guess what keeps me needling you with my distorted replies is that
there seems to be an undertone of preference in your writing, overlaid with a
respectable shawl of objectivity which doesn't convince me. Of course this is
a very deniable accusation but what the hell. Me, I'm an outright art bigot
and I don't mind saying so.
If you want a summation it would be this: In terms of my work then for me it's
today that matters and tomorrow I look forward to. I can appreciate and learn
from my predecessors but they are not my priests and I do not revere them.
Great art when it happens is a great event, however that isn't what I strive to
create or necessarily appreciate. It's the experience that counts the most,
whatever happens after that, happens. I don't think we can consciously create
great art no matter how much we study the past. We all can create art,
however, but the degree of it's success depends soley upon the innate ability
of the artist. If you got it, use it, if you don't, then use it anyway.
<Or are you just looking to tussle some?
Yup, you got it.
Iian Neill
> pleased and surprised to see all this serious, thoughtful criticism of my
> work, here in R.A.F.
Welcome back again, Mark.
> > > > Much of conceptual art is
> > > > meaningless, unless you know certain art theories.
> >
> > It would seem then that the art theories needed to understand the work
> > are a necessary adjunct to the work, indeed a part of it, though a
> > missing part which the viewer must supply.
>
> This is another one of those areas, Iian, where I'm in agreement with you.
>
> It does seem that a great deal of the approved art of the last 3 decades
> or so relies on theory in a manner that might remind one of illustration.
> I doubt that many adherents would enjoy that comparison though.
You have hit upon an apt analogy.
> However, as uninteresting as any of these types of work may be to you or
> me, what skin is it off of our backs if some folks prefer it to something
> more traditional?
I do not mind what people prefer - it is when they begin to claim that
un-artistic objects are art that I take exception - this is due to the fact that
such claims go beyond merely, "I like it", and to, "I think it's good", with all
of its implications of objective value.
> If it is a question of competition for monetary reward, surely "realist"
> painting has more fans than, for example, minimalist sculpture.
That seems to be true.
> And if it is not a question of competition, is there anything really wrong
> with different types of experiences?
One might argue that the experiences themselves are not particularly rewarding -
but then, I have no real way of telling that. What a critic *feels* standing in
front of a Jackson Pollock is a subjective affair - I may not think that
Pollock's work is Art, but I can not say that people CAN NOT feel whatever they
happen to from phenomena. Now, if they begin to enshrine these feelings - this
intuition - as "truth", then one can politely step in and raise a dissenting
voice.
> Suppose we could treat the difficulty this way: Everything that is not
> representational in nature is not called art. (Now this is not a solution
> to judging how good various types of representational art are. Only a
> separation, a re-labeling of different types of experience.)
I am not certain what you mean by the phrase "everything that is not
representational in nature" - all things in nature are representative of
themselves. Representational art - which I have hoped to show is the only kind
amenable to *objective* analysis - works *from* nature - a human mind, in other
words, is behind the activity.
> Suppose all the work that is theory-dependent is called
> something else, not even considered to be art. It has it's own schools
> where it is taught (and art school only deals with representation.)
>
> Suppose this other sort of experience is marketed separately, has its own
> journals, and is exhibited in other sorts of museums (much the same way
> that museums of natural history or science usually don't exhibit fine
> art.)
>
> If that were the situation, would you be offended at the existence of
> these types of experiences? If some folks wanted to study some theory and
> then see an illustration of it, but would never think of calling it art,
> how would you respond to it?
Although I might call into question the value of the theory underlying the
illustration, I would not protest against the concept behind what you have
outlined above. If such activities were not labelled as Art, then I would have
no grounds for a serious objection to them.
My recent posts have been concerned with delineating Art from non-Art, or even
anti-Art (that which works against the principles underlying Art). I haven't yet
touched upon the much more difficult issue of "great art" versus merely
"adequate art"; this requires a greater analytical finesse than I have used
previously and, consequently, demands a more rigorous and thoughtful approach.
If you break down what I have been saying in the past week to its essentials, I
think you will find it to be very simple, very clear and wholly rational. The
arguments I have used would have been redundant one hundred and fifty years ago
as most practising artists accepted the basics of my argument; it has only been
with the onset of the twenieth century and the invasion of nihilism into
aesthetics that there has arisen a need to define the very structure of a
rational art-criticism. Looking over what I have written, I have almost been
tempted to laugh at the obvious points expressed therein - but then I stop and
remember that these 'obvious' points are the very kind which have been
consciously or unconsciously evaded since the birth of Modernism. I have
proceeded slowly and methodically, often repeating a point rather than risk
having its import lost or misinterpreted ... but all of this is just the
beginning. What is required next is something far more challenging, and I call
upon all of you to contribute your intellect to its solution: Having now some
basic conception of what Art is, how do we begin to discern good, bad and
mediocre art? What qualities make a painting (or other work) good?
What is of utmost importance here is that we try as much as possible to devise
a *rational* system - I think it is fairly obvious that any so-called Aesthetics
which merely asserts that something is "great" because someone feels it is, is
in dire peril of defaulting to aesthetic relativism, and then nihilism. This
stated, I ought to make explicit the underlying premise here: That the "artist"
who thinks Art has no value is probably not an artist at all. We ought to keep
in mind, though, that there may be the rare case of an artist who publically
asserts there to be no (objective) value in art, but who at the same time
produces work which refutes his own claims. Such a person would be living in a
contradiction -- which is to say, he would be producing work against his own
principles, which is to suggest that these principles are only held on the
conscious, and not the subconscious level.
It is this subconscious level which gives art its sincerity - you can PROFESS to
be a Christian, but if deep down you do not subscribe to that faith then you are
hardly likely to paint truly Christian art. All I am stating here is something
obvious which most of us perceive, and call under a different name: SINCERITY.
Sincerity in art is when the subject of the picture is in harmony with its
means of expression and the (profoun) effect it causes on its audience. I am
sure that we can all think of examples of Art which is insincere - it may be
beautifully rendered and authentic in every way but the one which matters. It is
not enough to be able to paint thirteen people around a table for it to be a
"Last Supper" - if there is a contradiction between the artist's subconscious
beliefs and his conscious ones, then we bear witness to a *counterfeit work of
art* - it is one which has the *appearance* of a particular subject, lacks the
emotional/philosophical conviction necessary to do that subject justice. In any
case, the result is clear: The artist's conscious intention has not been
objectively satisfied. (It is his conscious intention which we ought to
consider, as any subconscious intention is almost entirely beyond independent
analysis - if we were to accept it uncritically, we would be in the same boat as
before; having to declare that Art is merely what someone "feels" it to be, and
that "intuition" and "emotion" - in short, IRRATIONALITY - should be our only
guides in this most demanding area.)
Dissecting carefully what I have said above, you may see a similarity between it
and what I have been saying for the past week. Namely, for an object to be
considered Art it must be sufficiently realistic so that anyone - through the
use of his own eyes and reason - can objectively ascertain the artist's
intention, *manifested within the work itself*, and not merely supported upon
extra-artistic commentary and dogma.
Note: the arts of Music and Architecture do not so easily conform to the
rational principles I have proposed for the Visual Arts and Literature. This is
due to the fact that subject matter is harder to identify in Music and
Architecture; hence, musicologists are generally forced to rely on purely formal
principles such as harmony, form, etc. - the risk in this is that any pseudo- or
anti-composer can justify their works merely by declaring the old harmonies and
forms to be inapplicable in his case. Nevertheless, Music and Architecture *can*
be judged according to conscious intention - it is just that the principles
underlying these fields are subtly different from the ones objectively apparent
in the visual arts. Therefore, at the present time I will make no attempt to
embark upon any analysis of Music and Architecture.
> (I'm not trying to be snide - I'm asking this in the friendly spirit in
> which we usually correspond.)
I hadn't thought for a second that you were being snide; you have generally
shown yourself to be above such pettiness. I was glad to read your comments, and
even happier to attempt a reply to them. I look forward to whatever you might
have to say on the points you have brought up, in forthcoming posts.
Regards,
Iian
mark webber
On Thu, 15 Oct 1998, Philip Ayers wrote:
(in reply to me when I wrote:)
: > I'm just back from a few days in New York (taking down the show) and am
: > pleased and surprised to see all this serious, thoughtful
: > criticism of my
: > work, here in R.A.F.
: >
: > Read in one sitting, they are very entertaining, in much the same way
: > that Beavis and Butthead are.(I particularly enjoyed the image of
: > Philip
: > treating Russ to a pistol "wipe" of his ass.) Thanks for all the amusing
: > attention, boys!
>
> Please don't poke fun of the spelling...my 8 year old son is a better
> speller..and I'm even better than G Laderman who is pretty smart! "I'll
> pistol whip your ass",...not "wipe".....although it does sound pretty
> painful as well! It's the right side-left side thing..I stay on the visual
> side most of the time.
Fair Enough!
Mark
mark webber
On 16 Oct 1998, CROCUSDES wrote:
> Mark writes:
> <Do you really disagree that much art is
> <reliant on theory?
>
> Yes I do.
Strange, just below you agree. I'll quote us:
(Mark) "...I am making the observation that plenty of painting happening
right now is theory-bound."
(Chris) " Agreed but so what? That's some but not all or maybe even most
artists."
>
> I don't know if you actually did in those words or not but this is what I
> understand from the implication of your writings.
From my other writings, I can see how that could be. But in this
particular post I was actually pointing out that I am in favor of these
experiences.
Obviously I take a different stance with you than I do with Iian - but
both are in good faith and in the spirit of honest inquiry. Really.
>
> <A difference between Surrealism and Minimalism is that no one needs to
> <know any theories behind Dali's work to enjoy it.
>
> Oh now I think you're really trying to pull my leg Mark. If you're serious
> about the remark then I'll begin to worry about you. I don't mean about Dali
> but not being able to enjoy the other as well without the theory.
You're right. I take it back.
>
> <And if you want to talk about good painters who were Surrealists, DeChirico,
> <for example, can be enjoyed without the aid of a text.
>
> I didn't want to talk about good painters. In context, I was referring to the
> movement.
That is problem number one with art history - I think, anyway. We log
movements and theories without testing the actual experience sometimes. So
much that I've seen written about Cubism, Surrealism, Futurism, Dada, etc.
simply doesn't hold up when faced with the actual examples.
> <I'm a little surprised to see this come up here - recapitulation, that is.
> <I mean, step back and look at what you've said here. For some people,
> <esthetic experience is very much rooted in a variety of recapitulations.
> <And you are going to tell them they aren't making art?
>
> Recapitulation....I just can't let go of that word of yours Mark. No I'm not
> going to tell anyone recapitulating that they're not making art but I will tell
> them that they aren't recapitulating anything. Just making art.
Beg pardon? You'll tell anyone who is recapitulating that they aren't
recapitulating? This doesn't make as much sense as your best writing,
buddy.
> You'll just
> have to make good use of that New York aggression before it slips away
Ok, uh, you're full of shit up there in that statement, and elsewhere, for
that matter, but that's what we come to expect from you pathetic
Philadelphians! (You know I'm kidding around, right?)
> ...to make
> your point that the aesthetic experience is rooted in recapitulation.
That was never my point. Never. Come on, this is more fun if it's good
faith, responsible debate, isn't it?
> That idea implies that one should have familiarity with an artist's
> predecessors. I'm still very much unconvinced that this has the importance you
> assign it.
Nope. That's never been my argument either. But I would argue that if you
are going to look at the art of the past, it is more useful to look for
common threads than to look only at the differences from movement to
movement.
>
> <I thought we agreed that, since Duchamp, it's art if anybody says its art.
>
> Whoa.......not all of us agreed to that. I might suggest that anything can be
> art but that wholly depends on the ability of an artist. Words alone?
> Pshaww!!!
So it sounds like *you* are the one rejecting theory, now!
>
> <I'm not talking about limitations - I'm not being judgemental, remember?
> <But I am making the observation that plenty of painting happening right
> <now is theory-bound. (cut)
>
> Agreed but so what? That's some but not all or maybe even most artists. As a
> working artist, my observation is that when working, one is focusing on the
> work for its own sake.
Are you speaking for all artists, here? I mean when you say "one"?
You shift with such oily fluency from "I, personally speaking, me, that
is..." to "one, we all...."
> Afterwards or perhaps before hand we do all the talking
> but that is something that goes well with a single malt scotch and a fine
> cigar.
See?
> If one is in fact bound by a theory and singlemindedly proceeds to
> paint or work around that theory.....well good luck. Some folks may have been
> successful doing that but I'm not sure just how faithful the actual success is
> related to strict theory. Is it plausible that sometimes a theory is bent just
> a little bit to conform to the success of a particular work? It's an easy
> thing to fake you know.
At this point I would like to see you stand on one side of the argument or
the other! You don't need me - you're both sides, now!
>
> <Where do I appear to say that?
>
> Numerous times by implication. I picked up on it with your agreement with Iian
> about your preference for traditional based works.
I wasn't agreeing to that. I was only agreeing with Iian that much art of
the last three decades appears reliant on theory. That doesn't even begin
to sound like a preference for earlier art. And I was setting up a
hypothetiacl situation that I thought might open him up to some more
experimental experiences.
And I don't have a preference for traditional works, either.
> Am I wrong about that
> assumption?
Yup.
> The paintings you seem to favor are the old masters and what can
> be richer than those in terms of complexity?
I don't prefer them to some twentieth century folks, like Matisse, Derain,
Bonnard, Dekooning, Gorky, Soutine, Giacometti, Kline, and, as Philip has
pointed out, Balthus. And those are just a few.
> I write:
> >> However, not all things beautiful are works of art,
> >> great or minor.
>
> Mark replies:
> >There you go again, telling us what is and isn't art, when that is a
> >flagrant violation of the Duchamp Act.
>
> Oh oh, I see you're doing what I do. Careful now or you'll start slipping in
> the mud and slide periously close to the edge to give me company. I'm not a
> follower nor am I an advocate of Duchamp. I admire his efforts and respect
> what he's done but I do not believe him. I think I'm being assigned a position
> that I haven't earned yet.
Fair enough, sorry. I thought, however, that a great deal of what you are
saying is predicated on Duchamp's work.
> I guess what keeps me needling you with my distorted replies is that
> there seems to be an undertone of preference in your writing, overlaid with a
> respectable shawl of objectivity which doesn't convince me.
And this makes my writing different from everyone or anyone else's how?
> If you want a summation it would be this: In terms of my work then for me it's
> today that matters and tomorrow I look forward to. I can appreciate and learn
> from my predecessors but they are not my priests and I do not revere them.
> Great art when it happens is a great event, however that isn't what I strive to
> create or necessarily appreciate. It's the experience that counts the most,
> whatever happens after that, happens.
I respect your approach.
> I don't think we can consciously create
> great art no matter how much we study the past. We all can create art,
> however, but the degree of it's success depends soley upon the innate ability
> of the artist. If you got it, use it, if you don't, then use it anyway.
And here, once again, I'm in complete agreement.
>
> <Or are you just looking to tussle some?
>
> Yup, you got it.
Great!
Mark
mark webber
On Thu, 15 Oct 1998, setai wrote:
>
> CROCUSDES wrote in message <19981015221031...@ng25.aol.com>...
>
> >If you want a summation it would be this: In terms of my work then for me
> it's
> >today that matters and tomorrow I look forward to. I can appreciate and
> learn
> >from my predecessors but they are not my priests and I do not revere them.
> >Great art when it happens is a great event, however that isn't what I
> strive to
> >create or necessarily appreciate. It's the experience that counts the
> most,
> >whatever happens after that, happens. I don't think we can consciously
> create
> >great art no matter how much we study the past. We all can create art,
> >however, but the degree of it's success depends soley upon the innate
> ability
> >of the artist. If you got it, use it, if you don't, then use it anyway.
>
>
> this is the wisest, clearest and purest vision of an artist that has ever
> been posed in this news group. if we could follow this path and hold "great
> art" from reality or better yet your own inner, unattainable vision of art
> as our beacon, then as artists we have reached our potential and the best
> product ("great art" or not) will follow.
>
> tracy
Yes, I'll second that.
Mark
CROCUSDES
>
>Mark
Jeez, don't do that Mark, it unnerves me.
CROCUSDES
>been posed in this news group. if we could follow this path and hold "great
>art" from reality or better yet your own inner, unattainable vision of art
>as our beacon, then as artists we have reached our potential and the best
>product ("great art" or not) will follow.
>
>tracy
>
Tracy, I had to look around behind my shoulder to see who you were talking
about. Wise? No, never but I appreciate your remarks. Maybe because we're
sculptors is the reason we think the way we do, I don't know. Could be what's
in the water we drink instead though, could it be that?
CROCUSDES
>>>Do you really disagree that much art is reliant on theory?
> >>
>>> Yes I do.
>Strange, just below you agree. I'll quote us:
>(Mark) "...I am making the observation that plenty of painting happening
> right now is theory-bound."
>(Chris) " Agreed but so what? That's some but not all or maybe even most
> artists."
The question posed is "Do you really disagree that much art is reliant on
theory?" and I continue to disagree on that point because I still don't accept
the idea of art being reliant on theory. The agreement that you want to assign
to me is this: "...I am making the observation that plenty of painting
happening right now is theory-bound."
Hmm....the difference between "plenty" and "some" doesn't seem very important
to me but who knows, maybe it does matter. I agree to an extent on the
numerical value here not the premise.
<Obviously I take a different stance with you than I do with Iian - but
<both are in good faith and in the spirit of honest inquiry. Really.
I know that Mark but that still doesn't stop me from pulling on your pant leg
now and then. The more I tug the more you'll offer up so our differences and
similarities become more apparent.
>Beg pardon? You'll tell anyone who is recapitulating that they aren't
>recapitulating? This doesn't make as much sense as your best writing,
>buddy.
You make the act of recapitulation sound like it's an end in itself. Really
now, why does that seem so important? Sorry I'm not making sense but when
someone is trying to create a work of art, that is what they are doing. No
change of opinion here. If someone wants to make a recapitulation....well
maybe that's what they're doing but it sounds more like a calculated excercise
to me. Now, when someone wants to push the limits of what has gone before,
then I see it as something more in order of development. Recapitulation is
definitely not what I would call that because the emphasis of the act is
different. Recapitulation is a restatement or a varient, development is a
progressive act.
<Ok, uh, you're full of shit up there in that statement, and elsewhere, for
<that matter, but that's what we come to expect from you pathetic
<Philadelphians! (You know I'm kidding around, right?)
Yes, I know you're kidding. However we Philadelphians are an unruly bunch and
are not to be trusted. If I am full of shit as you suggest then maybe it's
because I can't find the hopper that Duchamp meant to donate to the musuem.
>> ...to make
>> your point that the aesthetic experience is rooted in recapitulation.
>That was never my point. Never. Come on, this is more fun if it's good
>faith, responsible debate, isn't it?
No, I need to belch now and then. Outgassing is a definite relief from the
confining restriction of meticulous meandering over minutiae. Your phrase "For
some people, esthetic experience is very much rooted in a variety of
recapitulations". Now that's very much out of context and I see now that you
assigned this idea to others not yourself. Okay, this is my contribution to
responsibility.
>>>I thought we agreed that, since Duchamp, it's art if anybody says its art.
>
>> Whoa.......not all of us agreed to that. I might suggest that anything can
be
>> art but that wholly depends on the ability of an artist. Words alone?
>> Pshaww!!!
>So it sounds like *you* are the one rejecting theory, now!
I didn't know I accepted anybody's theory other than my own. I can acknowledge
and accept the merits of another's point of view based on their perspective but
that doesn't mean I embrace the ideas. I have a lot of respect for Duchamp and
can see merit in what he was attempting to do. I even learn something from
him. I see merit in the efforts of Cezanne based on his particular theory and
can learn from him also. However I don't have to embrace anyones ideas even
though I may respect them.
>Are you speaking for all artists, here? I mean when you say "one"?
>You shift with such oily fluency from "I, personally speaking, me, that
>is..." to "one, we all...."
I must own one of those fancy James Bond cars that spew oil slicks over the
road to foil my pursuers. Sorry but I don't have the post you refer to so I'm
uncertain of what I meant exactly. I see skid marks behind me....sorry if you
ran off the road.
>> If one is in fact bound by a theory and singlemindedly proceeds to
>> paint or work around that theory.....well good luck. Some folks may have
been
>> successful doing that but I'm not sure just how faithful the actual success
is
>> related to strict theory. Is it plausible that sometimes a theory is bent
just
>> a little bit to conform to the success of a particular work? It's an easy
>> thing to fake you know.
>At this point I would like to see you stand on one side of the argument or
>the other! You don't need me - you're both sides, now!
I'm sorry to hear that, I much prefer being opinionated. It does appear to me
though that my statement above is more in the form of an observation rather
than a stance. If you want to see me clearly on one side of the fence then
here it is: Theories slavishly followed by anyone, sucks. A teenage type of
response but the message is clear. Theories are guidelines at best but not
doctrine if they are to be useful.
>> The paintings you seem to favor are the old masters and what can
>> be richer than those in terms of complexity?
<I don't prefer them to some twentieth century folks, like Matisse, Derain,
<Bonnard, Dekooning, Gorky, Soutine, Giacometti, Kline, and, as Philip has
<pointed out, Balthus. And those are just a few.
Okay but it's curious nevertheless that you seem to wax more elequently when
describing the old masters. The more current (but not too current) folks that
you seem to admire, get a drier treatment in your writings. It must be my
imagination.
>>(snip)I admire his efforts and respect what he's done but I do not believe
him. >>I think I'm being assigned a position that I haven't earned yet.
>Fair enough, sorry. I thought, however, that a great deal of what you are
>saying is predicated on Duchamp's work.
It may be but that's because I like to use him as an example that is a little
more extreme than the path that I follow. His ideas are valid in my opinion,
just as those of others are although a little more exaggerated in some ways.
Besides I find him to be a bit more colorful than someone like Theodore Rozak
who is one of my all time favorite mid century sculptors. Can't use Rozak as
my surrigate, he was as boring as hell.
>> I guess what keeps me needling you with my distorted replies is that
>> there seems to be an undertone of preference in your writing, overlaid with
a
>> respectable shawl of objectivity which doesn't convince me.
>And this makes my writing different from everyone or anyone else's how?
It's the same actually. Cool objectivity doesn't seem to really work when
discussing the subject of art. There's too much passion, beliefs and opinions
about it that we all hold dear. Try as we might to distance ourselves for an
overview, it is still an act of folly. So why not hang out the linen as
washed, we don't need to bleach it.
The most interesting thing about how we each express our particular viewpoint
is that underneath the total dialog is where we'll find our answer. The answer
is an ambiguous truth that defies clear definition. This is what I believe to
be the case.
TJLitt
Here I go again.....
> The
>arguments I have used would have been redundant one hundred and fifty years
>ago
>as most practising artists accepted the basics of my argument
One hundred-fifty years ago, leeches were
still in use by physicians...should art thinking
stand still as everything else evolves?
>I think it is fairly obvious that any so-called Aesthetics
>which merely asserts that something is "great" because someone feels it is....
Isn't this essentially the nature of aesthetic
pronouncements since Ancient times? This
kind of thing cannot,as I keep asserting, ever
be defined systematically like some sort of
field identification guide for Art. Art is seldom
created under rigid definition beforehand, and
I would venture the opinion that little of what
is truly "great"art is ever plotted out to be such.
This is the most glaring shortcoming of 90% of
the heavily hyped art of the late 20th century,
but rigid rules of any sort of formulae do not
produce great art.
>aesthetic relativism
great term...redundant,eh?
>It is this subconscious level which gives art its sincerity
Attaboy,Iian, I'm starting to agree with you
sometimes...however, this very essence of
true Art makes critical judgements via rigid
rules seem like a silly exercise. Sort of like
judging a livestock show with the Rule Book
from the Miss America pageant(which might
be rather entertaining ,now that I think of it
but...)
> Note: the arts of Music and Architecture do not so easily conform to the
>rational principles I have proposed for the Visual Arts and Literature. This
>is
>due to the fact that subject matter is harder to identify in Music and
>Architecture
...but, if you can't figure out the subject matter
a painter,sculptor or performance artist has
in mind, it doesn't count as visual art. Once
again, Iian makes the rules....sorry, you don't!
Regards,
Tom Littleton
mark webber
On 16 Oct 1998, CROCUSDES wrote:
> > >>Mark writes:
> >>>Do you really disagree that much art is reliant on theory?
> > >>
> >>> Yes I do.
>
> >Strange, just below you agree. I'll quote us:
>
> >(Mark) "...I am making the observation that plenty of painting happening
> > right now is theory-bound."
> >(Chris) " Agreed but so what? That's some but not all or maybe even most
> > artists."
>
> The question posed is "Do you really disagree that much art is reliant on
> theory?" and I continue to disagree on that point because I still don't accept
> the idea of art being reliant on theory. The agreement that you want to assign
> to me is this: "...I am making the observation that plenty of painting
> happening right now is theory-bound."
> Hmm....the difference between "plenty" and "some" doesn't seem very important
> to me but who knows, maybe it does matter. I agree to an extent on the
> numerical value here not the premise.
Ok, I just want to make sure I understand: You agree to an extant that
"some" art is theory-bound, but you don't agree to the premise that art
can be theory-bound.
Ok. Just wanted to make sure that that sounded logical to you.
>
> >Beg pardon? You'll tell anyone who is recapitulating that they aren't
> >recapitulating? This doesn't make as much sense as your best writing,
> >buddy.
>
> You make the act of recapitulation sound like it's an end in itself.
I'm sorry to have given that impression. I was pretty sure I've been
saying the end result was the end, and that process was a means. Not very
radical, but somehow I have felt a need to make that idea of mine clear.
> Really
> now, why does that seem so important? Sorry I'm not making sense but when
> someone is trying to create a work of art, that is what they are doing. No
> change of opinion here. If someone wants to make a recapitulation....well
> maybe that's what they're doing but it sounds more like a calculated excercise
> to me.
In the abstract, I suppose it can, but, as I'm sure you'll agree, artists
are individuals and will make things the way they want. (I'm really
treading on thin ice with this one too. If anyone wants to come forward
and accuse me of heresy, I'll have your posts to blame, Chris.)
(Is there an emoticon for sarcasm? Can one put a tongue in the cheek of a
happy face?)
> Now, when someone wants to push the limits of what has gone before,
> then I see it as something more in order of development. Recapitulation is
> definitely not what I would call that because the emphasis of the act is
> different. Recapitulation is a restatement or a varient, development is a
> progressive act.
>
And some people are happy with variants. So they don't make art?
>
> Yes, I know you're kidding. However we Philadelphians are an unruly bunch and
> are not to be trusted. If I am full of shit as you suggest then maybe it's
> because I can't find the hopper that Duchamp meant to donate to the musuem.
I don't see a Duchamp wing at the Met. Chuck the stuff out if you want!
(For readers unfamiliar with the Philadelphia Museum of Art, it maight be
of interest to know that this museum dedicates a large gallery to what
amounts to nearly the whole oeuvre of the Dadaist Master. And, I have to
say, it's one of the more enjoyable parts of the museum.)
> I'm sorry to hear that, I much prefer being opinionated. It does appear to me
> though that my statement above is more in the form of an observation rather
> than a stance. If you want to see me clearly on one side of the fence then
> here it is: Theories slavishly followed by anyone, sucks. A teenage type of
> response but the message is clear. Theories are guidelines at best but not
> doctrine if they are to be useful.
I agree with you, but I don't think a lot of others do.
>
> >> The paintings you seem to favor are the old masters and what can
> >> be richer than those in terms of complexity?
>
> <I don't prefer them to some twentieth century folks, like Matisse, Derain,
> <Bonnard, Dekooning, Gorky, Soutine, Giacometti, Kline, and, as Philip has
> <pointed out, Balthus. And those are just a few.
>
> Okay but it's curious nevertheless that you seem to wax more elequently when
> describing the old masters. The more current (but not too current) folks that
> you seem to admire, get a drier treatment in your writings. It must be my
> imagination.
Perhaps. Perhaps I haven't been waxing the more recent guys lately. I'm
sure no one wants me to wax, on a rgular basis, about everything I like.
But to be honest, new or old, the good stuff is all the same to me.
>
> >>(snip)I admire his efforts and respect what he's done but I do not believe
> him. >>I think I'm being assigned a position that I haven't earned yet.
>
> >Fair enough, sorry. I thought, however, that a great deal of what you are
> >saying is predicated on Duchamp's work.
>
> It may be but that's because I like to use him as an example that is a little
> more extreme than the path that I follow. His ideas are valid in my opinion,
> just as those of others are although a little more exaggerated in some ways.
I would say that means you don't reject the notions of Duchamp, which it
appeared to me you were rejecting above. This is what I mean by hopping
the fence. I wish you'd be one character for a week at a time. It isn't
fair to change personalities within the same post.
> Besides I find him to be a bit more colorful than someone like Theodore Rozak
> who is one of my all time favorite mid century sculptors. Can't use Rozak as
> my surrigate, he was as boring as hell.
>
Try this New Years's Eve Resolution: I will no longer call boring-as-hell
sculptors my favorites.
> >> I guess what keeps me needling you with my distorted replies is that
> >> there seems to be an undertone of preference in your writing, overlaid with
> a
> >> respectable shawl of objectivity which doesn't convince me.
>
> >And this makes my writing different from everyone or anyone else's how?
>
> It's the same actually. Cool objectivity doesn't seem to really work when
> discussing the subject of art. There's too much passion, beliefs and opinions
> about it that we all hold dear. Try as we might to distance ourselves for an
> overview, it is still an act of folly. So why not hang out the linen as
> washed, we don't need to bleach it.
So, you'll allow me my point of view?
>
> The most interesting thing about how we each express our particular viewpoint
> is that underneath the total dialog is where we'll find our answer. The answer
> is an ambiguous truth that defies clear definition. This is what I believe to
> be the case.
Horse hockey. I'm right, you're confused.
with warmth,
Mark
setai
CROCUSDES wrote in message <19981016121638...@ng09.aol.com>...
>Tracy, I had to look around behind my shoulder to see who you were talking
>about. Wise? No, never but I appreciate your remarks. Maybe because
we're
>sculptors is the reason we think the way we do, I don't know. Could be
what's
>in the water we drink instead though, could it be that?
wise, yes. since when did you have a under-deflated ego? don't worry my
humble friend, there were plenty of qualifiers and it wasn't anything i had
not said before, that's why it was soooo brilliant. mark agreed with me, so
it isn't just sculptors, though i do believe we must have radically
different mindsets. unfortunately it is not the water, i am on the other
coast, so i can't get an inperson look at your sculptures. the back of the
birdman turtle dance is magnificent.
tracy
CROCUSDES
<Ok, I just want to make sure I understand:Yo u agree to an extant that
<"some" art is theory-bound, but you don't agree to the premise that art
<can be theory-bound.
<Ok. Just wanted to make sure that that sounded logical to you.
Damn, did you just sneak into my garage and borrow my James Bond car? I tried
to follow but kept slipping on the oil slick you shot out onto the highway.
Now here again I'll insert what you originally said and I grudingly agreed
to...."(Mark)...I am making the observation that plenty of painting happening
right now is theory-bound."
Here is the oil you're now pumping out to foil my attempts to follow...."(Mark
again) You agree to an extant that "some" art is theory-bound, but you don't
agree to the premise that art
can be theory-bound."
Now let's put out the kitty litter to sop up the excess oil that's sloshing
around here. I agree to "painting", you replace that with "art". I mean
painting, you assign to me art instead. Are the two automatically synonomous?
Never mind, I'll answer that.....no.
Finally, you're now just beginning to be fun to play with. I thought I was
guilty of being the only one to slip and slide around with my words but
....duh....I've really met the master. No wonder you're always getting on my
case about not understanding what you're writing. Now I can cancell the
evening class I signed up for reading comprehension.
>I said: (snip) If someone wants to make a recapitulation....well
> maybe that's what they're doing but it sounds more like a calculated
excercise
> to me.
>Mark replies: In the abstract, I suppose it can, but, as I'm sure you'll
agree, >artists are individuals and will make things the way they want. (I'm
really
>treading on thin ice with this one too. If anyone wants to come forward
>and accuse me of heresy, I'll have your posts to blame, Chris.)
Why do you think you're treading on thin ice here Mark? Looks thick to me. If
you're accused of heresy then send the accuser to my house, but I don't think
anyone is going to try and torch you at the stake for this. Hey wait a minute!
Did I just agree with something you said? Well, surprise surprise. I think
I'm being tricked here but can't find the clue.
>>I said: (snip) Recapitulation is a restatement or a varient, development is a
progressive act.
>Mark replies: And some people are happy with variants. So they don't make art?
Is that what I'm implying? I think I see a trick question here. I'm on to you
now Mark so it should please you that I'm making the effort to understand what
you're writing. You want a serious answer...then yes those happy folks can
indeed make art if they have the capability.
>Mark says: (snip previous) Perhaps. Perhaps I haven't been waxing the more
>recent guys lately. I'm sure no one wants me to wax, on a rgular basis, about
>everything I like.
Wax away Mark, a little polish, a little shine a little glow, hell why not.
More than likely the folks you favor and the ones I do as well, deserve a pat
on the back for their efforts, nothing wrong with that.
>>I said: It may be but that's because I like to use him as an example that is
a >>little more extreme than the path that I follow. His ideas are valid in my
>>opinion, just as those of others are although a little more exaggerated in
some >>ways.
>Mark replies: I would say that means you don't reject the notions of Duchamp,
>which it appeared to me you were rejecting above. This is what I mean by
>hopping the fence. I wish you'd be one character for a week at a time. It
isn't
>fair to change personalities within the same post.
Jekyell and Hyde were the same person between them. Now if I can just tame
Marlin the Magician of words for a minute. I'll do a little of my magic first
and insert what I said before and put it here instead....> >>(snip) I admire
his efforts and respect what he's done but I do not believe him. >> This
means I do not embrace Duchamp's ideas and you are correct, although it's
unfortunate that I have taken too rigid a stance on this (will explain in a
second). Then I do a flip flop according to you by saying...... >>(serious
snip but it doesn't matter) His ideas are valid in my opinion, (more big
snip)>>
Here I acknowledge the validity of his ideas. Now I can acknowledge just about
anything and not embrace it don't you think? The Pope reigns in Rome and I
acknowldege his role and leadership for a particular religious sect but I
neither believe the Pope nor do I embrace what he says. I will however,
acknowledge his validity as a leader and as a teacher. I can respect him and
maybe even consider him a holy man if that were part of the equation, but I
still wouldn't embrace either the man nor what he stands for. Flip flop?
Now at this point I would like to say something else about Duchamp and the
oeuvre that he initiated. I am in a grey area position right now about the
idea, not so much of DaDa but conceptual work in general. It's a transitional
time because I am going through a reevaluation of it's merits and more
importantly it's value as an aspect of artmaking that has begun to interest me.
Value as art or no value, I don't really give a damn about that, I'm just
simply interested in the possibilities for expression. No, I'm not giving up
making the hard stuff (sculpture) but that doesn't mean I'm forbidden the fruit
of another appletree as well. The stance I take in these posts actually
represents what I had felt so strongly about before but since I can't fully
authenticate this form in my own mind right now I assume my former position for
the sake of dialog. If we're unable to yield and flex with our particular
needs of the time then I'm afraid we'll simply end up as brittle and rigid old
artists. I'm not interested in that just for the sake of appearances so it
matters not a whit what anyone thinks of this. Okay, I'm done.
>>I said: Besides I find him to be a bit more colorful than someone like
Theodore >>Rozak who is one of my all time favorite mid century sculptors.
Can't use >>Rozak as my surrigate, he was as boring as hell.
>Mark replies: Try this New Years's Eve Resolution: I will no longer call
boring->as-hell sculptors my favorites.
Sorry, can't do that Mark. The work that Rozak did during the fifties is way
too meaningful to me to ever ignore or dismiss. The man himself wasn't
particularly interesting to me, that's all. No witty words like Duchamp or
wild or outrageous ideas that would be fun to play around with. He was a
sculptor without too much to say about his work and plodded on endlessly with
each individual piece that he created. Yet the vitality, energy, dynamic
verve, presence, strength, real honest to goodness balls (excuse that
description please), and much more is what he produced for a period of time.
That is what I see in his work. A rival of Michelangelo? Who cares but what
matters to me is that he was a towering artist of strength and creativity. I
admired his work for years and then finally spent an afternoon with him at his
home. What a disappointment at the time but in retrospect I can now recall a
man with dignity and intellect who was a quietly reserved individual. I felt
a little sad too because near the end of his life when I met him, he was
slipping away into obscurity and by now one hardly ever hears of him. Of
course his works are in the major museums so he continues to live on, thank
goodness.
>>So why not hang out the linen as washed, we don't need to bleach it.
>So, you'll allow me my point of view?
Oh yes please, Mark. We might even get more out of the dialog if we allow the
real coloration of our individual viewpoints to be expressed.
>Horse hockey. I'm right, you're confused.>
I think you got that horse hockey thing wrong, it doesn't sound right but I
don't know what the correct phrasing is. So you're right I am confused.
CROCUSDES
Oh, ten maybe twenty minutes ago.
>(snip) it wasn't anything i had
>not said before, that's why it was soooo brilliant. mark agreed with me
He did? I don't know what to make of that. I think my ego just reinflated
itself then if by inference Mark agreed with you and that spilled over onto me.
> though i do believe we must have radically
>different mindsets. unfortunately it is not the >water
Well, radically different is great and actually gives you the edge I would
think. We're not going to tell that to Mark though because I'm afraid he'll
try and bend you out of shape with his brilliant word play. I'm already wasted
and it didn't take him long to accomplish that.
mark webber
On 17 Oct 1998, CROCUSDES wrote:
(snip)
> Now let's put out the kitty litter to sop up the excess oil that's sloshing
> around here. I agree to "painting", you replace that with "art". I mean
> painting, you assign to me art instead. Are the two automatically synonomous?
> Never mind, I'll answer that.....no.
Sorry, I really wasn't trying to be tricky - only trying to understand the
two ideas and how they relate. They appeared in conflict to me, but if
they aren't for you, I'll back off.
> >Mark replies: In the abstract, I suppose it can, but, as I'm sure you'll
> agree, >artists are individuals and will make things the way they want. (I'm
> really
> >treading on thin ice with this one too. If anyone wants to come forward
> >and accuse me of heresy, I'll have your posts to blame, Chris.)
>
> Why do you think you're treading on thin ice here Mark?
I was really kind of kidding around. It appears a rather banal statement
to me.
> Here I acknowledge the validity of his ideas. Now I can acknowledge just about
> anything and not embrace it don't you think?
Fair enough. I back away.
> Now at this point I would like to say something else about Duchamp and the
> oeuvre that he initiated. I am in a grey area position right now about the
> idea, not so much of DaDa but conceptual work in general. It's a transitional
> time because I am going through a reevaluation of it's merits and more
> importantly it's value as an aspect of artmaking that has begun to interest me.
Since you mention it, I always thought the Dadaists were saying they were
anti-art, and were not making art. To me it's intriguing that somewhere
along the line, people decided they were wrong, and that in fact they
*were* making art.
>
> >Mark replies: Try this New Years's Eve Resolution: I will no longer call
> boring->as-hell sculptors my favorites.
>
> Sorry, can't do that Mark. The work that Rozak did during the fifties is way
> too meaningful to me to ever ignore or dismiss. The man himself wasn't
> particularly interesting to me, that's all.
That's different then. I thought you meant the work was boring. I
apologize.
> No witty words like Duchamp or
> wild or outrageous ideas that would be fun to play around with. He was a
> sculptor without too much to say about his work and plodded on endlessly with
> each individual piece that he created. Yet the vitality, energy, dynamic
> verve, presence, strength, real honest to goodness balls (excuse that
> description please), and much more is what he produced for a period of time.
> That is what I see in his work. A rival of Michelangelo? Who cares but what
> matters to me is that he was a towering artist of strength and creativity. I
> admired his work for years and then finally spent an afternoon with him at his
> home. What a disappointment at the time but in retrospect I can now recall a
> man with dignity and intellect who was a quietly reserved individual. I felt
> a little sad too because near the end of his life when I met him, he was
> slipping away into obscurity and by now one hardly ever hears of him. Of
> course his works are in the major museums so he continues to live on, thank
> goodness.
>
Well, now I'm doubly sorry. Sounds like a wonderful sculptor.
I have to say, that as enjoyable as this is, I have no idea where we are
now. I'm not sure what your position is, and I was originally offering a
hpyothetical situation for Iian, from whom we never heard a word on the
matter. And Lauri, who I believe began the post, is absent. So, why don't
we start a new thread, and you can pick a topic and title, and I'll do my
best to reply in good faith.
sincerely,
Mark
CROCUSDES
<now. I'm not sure what your position is, and I was originally offering a
<hpyothetical situation for Iian, from whom we never heard a word on the
<matter. And Lauri, who I believe began the post, is absent. So, why don't
<we start a new thread, and you can pick a topic and title, and I'll do my
<best to reply in good faith.
<sincerely,
<Mark
Okay, it sounds like I pushed a bit too hard with yesterdays post and Mark I
apologize for overstepping the limits. I was feeling playful but that sort of
thing is really out of place considering the seriousness of the topics you are
interested in exploring.
I'll try to be better behaved after this.
regards
Chris
mark webber
On 17 Oct 1998, CROCUSDES wrote:
> Okay, it sounds like I pushed a bit too hard with yesterdays post and Mark I
> apologize for overstepping the limits.
No need to apologize, really. I just got lost, and that's all.
> I was feeling playful but that sort of
> thing is really out of place considering the seriousness of the topics you are
> interested in exploring.
I've been kidding around, too - it doesn't bother me at all. It was
looking like you meant what you were saying, and so I couldn't quite
follow. But not a problem at all. There is such weird stuff happening
in this newsgroup these days, that the things you are writing seem very
logical in comparison.
(I mean, I'm flattered that some people are so enamored of my work that
they want to write endlessly about it, but its a little hard to take some
of these folks seriously - I mean those who keep going on and on. They
really seem obsessed with my work, but actually, when you think about it,
it isn't my work at all that they are obsessed with - it's their own
bitterness and insecurity and failure. Comic but kind of pathetic, too.
I'm sorry they have nothing more going for them. After all, what's the big
deal? They don't like Cezanne's work, they don't like mine. It says so
much more about themselves than my work, especially if they haven't seen
it anywhere but in the little world of their computer.
And maybe that's the problem. The computer becomes a whole little world
for some people, and they're threatened when something they don't
understand comes along and they have to make a big noise. But I know most
people here are finding it pretty amusing (in that Beavis and Butthead
sort of way) so there's no harm in it, and you know what they say - any
publicity is good publicity. Especially if someone's whole record consists
of trashing great art.)
>
> I'll try to be better behaved after this.
Nonsense!
We'll have none of it!
as usual,
Mark
CROCUSDES
<There is such weird stuff happening in this newsgroup these days, that the
<things you are writing seem very logical in comparison.
Oh Jeez, please don't hand out too many compliments like that to me.
<(snip)The computer becomes a whole little world
<for some people, and they're threatened when something they don't
<understand comes along and they have to make a big noise. But I know most
<people here are finding it pretty amusing (in that Beavis and Butthead
<sort of way) so there's no harm in it, ...(snip)
Well, it's not funny at all Mark and I doubt if sensible folks are amused one
bit. There is harm as a consquence of these senseless acts. For one thing it
squelches openess which limits the usefullness of a forum such as this. The
fringe element wins if they are allowed dominance of the medium and it's not
much different than street hustlers and muggers overtaking the city streets.
<and you know what they say - any publicity is good publicity. (snip)
Yeah, well it can also turn around and bite you in the behind so I wouldn't put
too much faith in that idea.
mdeli
>Kitsch: an object which evokes a simple, unthinking, emotional reaction
>based on a trite social convention, and has no other artistic function.
Sounds like all great classical religious art fits this definition.
Kitsch today is seen as anything that isn't politically correct in the
Modern Academic sense. The label is especially assigned to artwork
exhibiting a high degree of skill and craft which most people like
without the benifit of an Artspeak indoctrination. Kitsch threatens
the illusions of the vain elitist who sets himself apart.
The theoretical result is "Kitschophobia" as inspired by the fuhrer of
flatness Clement Greenberg in the 1940's. This view of kitsch and of
course illustration, helps Artzy Fartzies unquestioningly concentrate
on artistic incompetence; in their own artwork and in that of others.
As an imperative, the term kitsch really means ignore anything that
shows exceptional superior skill and craft. It affects artzy fartzies
much like religious fundamentalists who fear any mention of realities
that might upset their cherished beliefs. In this sense Kitsch is
equivalent to blasphemy. Once this tabu label is attached to any
artwork by the modern academic theologian one can expect no further
discussion on the matter. All artwork so labeled is then
excommunicated from any holy place showing Modern Academic Art.
A few results of the dreaded kitsch label are books on Surrealism with
no mention of Dali and slanted Modern Academic Art history which
totally ignores the work of 19th century academic masters.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage (updated Sept.13 - new pictures) to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
mdeli
There are several snips.
>All I'm saying in the above paragraph is that much art, like conceptual
>art, minimalist art and pomo are theory-bound - I'm not making a
>judgement, only an observation. Do you really disagree that much art is
>reliant on theory?
No art is reliant on theory. Art theories are mostly babble about the
latest fashion. Art theories have a half-life of about twenty years.
Art is totally dependent on superior skill craftsmanship and
creativity. Those whose judgment on this is valid are viewers not
charlatans spouting bullshit.
If it needs a long sermon to proclaim its art its probably bullshit.
>A difference between Surrealism and Minimalism is that no one needs to
>know any theories behind Dali's work to enjoy it. (Look at all the morons
>who love Dali but hate other modern art.)
And look at the work of morons like Weber who hate Dali and love
Modern Academic Art.
>And if you want to talk about
>good painters who were Surrealists, DeChirico, for example, can be enjoyed
>without the aid of a text.
DeChirico is an example of interesting ideas and lousy technique. That
is why he faded from the scene.
>I thought we agreed that, since Duchamp, it's art if anybody says its art.
Is that all it takes to be art? Gee, all these paintings of stripes
and large red canvases are now art. And the closet full of stuff you
took home from your show is also art. Or didn't anyone say it was art?
>I'm not talking about limitations - I'm not being judgemental, remember?
>But I am making the observation that plenty of painting happening right
>now is theory-bound. BT cited Gerhard Richter as a stillife painter who
>deals with (and I'm paraphrasing as best I can) the difficulties
>confronting a contemporary artist, such as photography, etc. His
>(Richter's) jumping from style to style is understood best through a
>series of ideas related to pomo theories.
Here's a POMO theory. He jumps from style to style because all his
styles lack skill.
>How do you distinguish between idea and content, in that particular
>sentence?
Iian said:
>> However, not all things beautiful are works of art,
>> great or minor.
>
>There you go again, telling us what is and isn't art, when that is a
>flagrant violation of the Duchamp Act.
Impeach Iian for this flagrant violation.
>> To acknowlege a work to be "art" we have to go beyond the
>> physical appearance and consider why the relationship of components within a
>> work transmits that thing we call an aesthetic experience.
>
>As in Duchamp's Fountain? Just what are the those transmitted components,
>within that urinal, which relate and resonate an esthetic experience?
Duchamp's "Grand Pisspot" always tells me that a good piss is better
than lousy sex. However I also had similar experiences with other
receptacles. Does this mean they are also art Webber?
Please give us your learned opinion on this important matter.
setai
i am relieved you finally addressed the merciless ranters that have been
using your work to further their own cause. i admire the dignity you've
shown, but to be completely honest it frustrated the hell out of me. i
would have cracked long before. i refused to post on that thread, it did not
deserve any one's attention, look at the berating marilyn received.
mark, i like your work. i found the impact subtle, but deep. personally, i
think the technique is perfect for the content, it enhances it, reflects it.
i am not a painter, but as i remember to paint like this you must know how
to paint. despite what anyone says, it takes skill to know how to break the
rules and make it work, and yours works. my taste leans toward less subtle
art, but i admire good art when i see it. your a good painter, but more
importantly(to me at least), you are an honest painter.
tracy
mark webber wrote in message ...
mark webber
On Sun, 18 Oct 1998, setai wrote:
> mark,
>
> i am relieved you finally addressed the merciless ranters that have been
> using your work to further their own cause. i admire the dignity you've
> shown, but to be completely honest it frustrated the hell out of me. i
> would have cracked long before. i refused to post on that thread, it did not
> deserve any one's attention, look at the berating marilyn received.
And Chris' point about that kind of conduct inhibiting the valid discourse
here is really the only important issue.
(I was seeing it as laughable, but it's true that the treatment of Marilyn
was really absurdly rude and clearly just for the sake of aggression.)
And thank you, too, for your remarks. I'm glad the work seems honest to
you, and appreciate the compliment.
Mark
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com
croc...@aol.com (CROCUSDES) wrote:
Quoting Mark I guess:
> <I have to say, that as enjoyable as this is, I have no idea where we are
> <now. I'm not sure what your position is, and I was originally offering a
> <hpyothetical situation for Iian, from whom we never heard a word on the
> <matter. And Lauri, who I believe began the post, is absent.
Not at all absent. I have read intensively, commenting into margins.
The problem is that the discussion proceeded so fast, I am a week or so late.
Mark:
> <So, why don't
> <we start a new thread, and you can pick a topic and title, and I'll do my
> <best to reply in good faith.
> <sincerely,
> <Mark
Before that, Mark, I think you owe us a summary of which of your
thoughts were confirmed and which were disputed.
****
From previous postings:
CROCUSDES wrote:
>
> Mark writes:
> <All I'm saying in the above paragraph is that much art, like conceptual
> <art, minimalist art and pomo are theory-bound - I'm not making a
> <judgement, only an observation. Do you really disagree that much art is
> <reliant on theory?
Chris:
> Yes I do. Theory as I see it in relation to the arts is a directional map and
> yes some folks follow that map religeously, but I don't think that the art
> stems from theory.
MArk ( I guess):
> <But I thought we were just told (I forget by who - who was it that was
> <just sciolding me last week? Was it Spot?) that there are no relative
> <successes or failures in this sort of work.
Chris:
> That's his point of view not mine.
>
Chris:
> > I understand what the premise is that you're stating, which is that works
> that
> > don't hold their own on merit alone but depend on supporting material isn't
> as
> > valid as works needing no explaination at all.
lauri:
The statement above was strongest expressed by Iian.
But can you Mark and Chris, look at a piece of art *as such* or does your
prior knowlegge
interfere. This intereference is what I tried to tell with the
unspoken agreement.
I regret I have to refer to a Finnish example, but I try to explain it so
it does not matter that you cannot find the work.
Silja Rantanen got a commission to decorate the newly built Myyrmaki
Church
in Helsinki. She made 14 monochromatic, very minimal paintings. The
number refer to
the 14 stations for praying in Catholic tradition. For the protestant
parish this tradition is mostly unknown. The 14 abstractions work mainly
as decorative elements.
One of the works, named Crusification, is a mushroom shape, that as far
as I know
has no religious connotations, neither to the title nor in general.
Then I found in an art history book that the shape was
a quote from Fra Angelico. The shape of his canvas St Dominicus knealing
at the cross. From now on, I can no longer *see it* as a mere mushroom.
No more than I can listen an instrumental play of Jingle Bells,
*without hearing the words*.
Her artistic solution was a valid one, to connect a modern concrete building
to age-old tradition. On the other hand, it works only to those few, who
get it explainend. She was communicating succesfully (=praised by critics) to
the art word, but not to the parish. According to Iian the artistic value is
thus limited.
Iian called these explanations as extra-artistic cruches.
In this case they were extremely artistic. If one insists that a work
should be seen as such, not only by conosseurs or elite (Iian's term)
but public, the only the most blatant kitch merits the place in art history.
I have doubts about pieces with explanations, too. Then, aren't most of the
rest just pre-explained by our education.
I still insist that what we see is not only what we perceive of the canvas.
With the word resonance, I did not refer to anything spiritual or mind
reading, but due to the similarity of frame of reference, the ability to echo
the intended experience.
Explicitely to Mark:
With formal analysis alone, one cannot judge the validity of the expressive
means in an art work, without some reference to the context.
What is succesfully expressed, must become impressed, too. That again
is either personal or social event separate from the piece of art.
- lauri
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Iian Neill
> > > I understand what the premise is that you're stating, which is that works
> >> that don't hold their own on merit alone but depend on supporting material
> isn't
> lauri:
> The statement above was strongest expressed by Iian.
That is correct.
> Silja Rantanen got a commission to decorate the newly built Myyrmaki
> Church in Helsinki. She made 14 monochromatic, very minimal paintings. The
> number refer to the 14 stations for praying in Catholic tradition. For the
> protestant
> parish this tradition is mostly unknown. The 14 abstractions work mainly
> as decorative elements.
>
> One of the works, named Crusification, is a mushroom shape, that as far
> as I know has no religious connotations, neither to the title nor in general.
> Then I found in an art history book that the shape was
> a quote from Fra Angelico. The shape of his canvas St Dominicus knealing
> at the cross. From now on, I can no longer *see it* as a mere mushroom.
> No more than I can listen an instrumental play of Jingle Bells,
> *without hearing the words*.
>
> Her artistic solution was a valid one, to connect a modern concrete building
> to age-old tradition. On the other hand, it works only to those few, who
> get it explainend. She was communicating succesfully (=praised by critics) to
> the art word, but not to the parish. According to Iian the artistic value is
> thus limited.
You have reasoned correctly - this is probably what I would conclude upon seeing the
work. I ought to point out, however, that I am not denying that certain man- (or
woman-)made objects do not have artistic qualities. You may have indeed found those
works aesthetically pleasing, and there is nothing at all wrong with this. It is
when we come to judge the work of art - an activity distinct from merely our
personal emotional reaction to it - that we must begin to appraise the painting
objectively. What were the artist's aims? Were her aims evident in the work itself?
- For this to be so, one would need independent confirmation - it is easy to 'see'
the intent of an art-work if you already know what the artist had in mind, but if
you had come to it 'cold', would you still be able to discern the artist's
intention? Assuming so, how successfully does the work achieve the intention? If no
intention can be read, then as critics we have no basis to judge the work. We are
permitted - like anyone else - to state our *opinion* or to share with others the
*feelings* it evoked, but we would not be in a position to say that it is good or
bad (which is dependent on how effectively the artist achieves their intention).
> Iian called these explanations as extra-artistic crutches.
> In this case they were extremely artistic.
I do not deny that there are aesthetically pleasing 'symbolist' (I use the term
loosely here) or non-representational works; the means of expression this artist
used may very well have been beautiful, or striking. But if her intention can not be
discerned from *within the work itself*, then we have little basis for an objective
appraisal of the work. We merely have our "feelings" or "intuition" to go on - which
may or may not be more valid than anyone else's.
> If one insists that a work
> should be seen as such, not only by conosseurs or elite (Iian's term)
> but public, the only the most blatant kitch merits the place in art history.
I might replace the word "public" with the phrase "rational observer". The former
term is a loaded gun full of negative connotations of the "vulgar masses" and the
"plebes", whereas the latter denotes any person who has the capacity to use reason -
the ability to analyze. The "plebes" are certainly capable of rational analysis and
it is not my intention to imply that they are not - but the use of the word "public"
often carries with it a perjorative meaning.
> I have doubts about pieces with explanations, too. Then, aren't most of the
> rest just pre-explained by our education.
>
> I still insist that what we see is not only what we perceive of the canvas.
> With the word resonance, I did not refer to anything spiritual or mind
> reading, but due to the similarity of frame of reference, the ability to echo
> the intended experience.
No one would deny the role that culture might play in how we regard the *importance*
of certain works - but any rational person (wherever they come from) can analyze a
painting according to how closely it achieves its aims; these aims are the artist's
intentions, and for the work to be objectively analyzed - for it to be good or bad
as art - then we must be able to discern the aforementioned intentions from the work
itself. Once this has been done, we may certainly want to take what the artist or
other critics have said about it into account - but if the work cannot stand on its
own, so to speak, then no amount of extra-artistic theory or rhetoric will increase
its artistic quality one jot. On the contrary, there is the chance that such
criticism will distract us from the artist's actual intentions, or lead us to read
into the work things which cannot be proven to exist (again we return to personal
feeling and intuition).
Regards,
Iian Neill.
mark webber
On Mon, 19 Oct 1998 lauri....@nmp.nokia.com wrote:
> Before that, Mark, I think you owe us a summary of which of your
> thoughts were confirmed and which were disputed.
I'll try, but as I said, I got a bit turned around by the many
personalities of Dr. Crocus and Mr. Ray.
> ****
> From previous postings:
(major snip)
> > > I understand what the premise is that you're stating, which is that works
> > that
> > > don't hold their own on merit alone but depend on supporting material isn't
> > as
> > > valid as works needing no explaination at all.
> lauri:
> The statement above was strongest expressed by Iian.
> But can you Mark and Chris, look at a piece of art *as such* or does your
> prior knowlegge
> interfere. This intereference is what I tried to tell with the
> unspoken agreement.
>
If I know the theory, whether I find it valid or not, it affects the way I
see the work. If I don't know the theory, it doesn't. Is this different
for any of you?
(another major snip)
> should be seen as such, not only by conosseurs or elite (Iian's term)
> but public, the only the most blatant kitch merits the place in art history.
> I have doubts about pieces with explanations, too. Then, aren't most of the
> rest just pre-explained by our education.
>
Certainly, otherwise our only criteria for art would be technical skill at
rendering and that would be pretty dry. There would be no music or
poetry in visual art, and, not coincidently, form is what visual art
and the other arts have in common.
Most of us have to learn form to appreciate it. (I guess those few who
didn't are geniuses.) Some refuse to learn it, for a variety of reasons.
However, as far as I can see, once someone has really seen form and not
just subject matter, they don't turn their back on it. And that is what
art history reinforces for me.
> I still insist that what we see is not only what we perceive of the canvas.
> With the word resonance, I did not refer to anything spiritual or mind
> reading, but due to the similarity of frame of reference, the ability to echo
> the intended experience.
>
And I'm sure that can be the case, but so is the example of someone
reading into a work something that the artist had no intention of placing
there.
Perhaps the one useful thing about pomo is the resistance to
certainty, and along with that, the need to only work with what we have in
front of us, trying not to let our own interpretations overcome the piece.
Fancy that! I've used pomo to support formalism!
> Explicitely to Mark:
> With formal analysis alone, one cannot judge the validity of the expressive
> means in an art work, without some reference to the context.
I disagree. It is through the form that I see what is being expressed.
The sensibility is what is being expressed in all art, good or bad.
Please tell me your meaning of context. I can think of several; some
useful, some not, to me.
warmly,
Mark
Philip Ayers
(mdeli) wrote:
: > DeChirico is an example of interesting ideas and lousy technique. That
: > is why he faded from the scene.
Wrong.
How can you seperate the two?...I suppose if you saw a photo of his work &
you don't see the brush stokes, this is better for you. Maybe you don't
like DeChirico after all. I love DeChirico's use of liner brushes and the
washes....beautiful work.
Philip (never Phil) Ayers
http://www.mindspring.com/~p.ayers/
p.a...@mindspring.com.
Marilyn
> [2]rec.arts.fine
> Followup to: [3]newsgroup(s)
> References:
> [4]<19981017101009...@ng102.aol.com>
>
Jumping into the men's group in response to Lauri:
snip
>> > valid as works needing no explaination at all.
>lauri:
>The statement above was strongest expressed by Iian.
>But can you Mark and Chris, look at a piece of art *as such* or does your
>prior knowlegge
>interfere. This intereference is what I tried to tell with the
>unspoken agreement.
>
>I regret I have to refer to a Finnish example, but I try to explain it so
>it does not matter that you cannot find the work.
>
>Silja Rantanen got a commission to decorate the newly built Myyrmaki
>Church
>in Helsinki. She made 14 monochromatic, very minimal paintings. The
>number refer to
>the 14 stations for praying in Catholic tradition. For the protestant
>parish this tradition is mostly unknown. The 14 abstractions work mainly
>as decorative elements.
>
The 14 "Stations of the Cross" depict the passion and crucifixion of
Christ for Catholics.
>One of the works, named Crusification, is a mushroom shape, that as far
>as I know
>has no religious connotations, neither to the title nor in general.
>Then I found in an art history book that the shape was
>a quote from Fra Angelico. The shape of his canvas St Dominicus knealing
>at the cross. From now on, I can no longer *see it* as a mere mushroom.
>No more than I can listen an instrumental play of Jingle Bells,
>*without hearing the words*.
To me the same mushroom shape (atomic bomb shape) would also have
historical connotations. The meaning in a work of art can have many
levels, as in poetry. As a former Catholic viewer I would be bringing
that background to the experience. Learning about the art historical
source would enrich that experience but at first,
I would wonder whether the artist was making a parallel between the
crucifixion and the dropping of the first atomic bomb.
>Her artistic solution was a valid one, to connect a modern concrete building
>to age-old tradition. On the other hand, it works only to those few, who
>get it explainend. She was communicating succesfully (=praised by critics) to
>the art word, but not to the parish. According to Iian the artistic value is
>thus limited.
If you were to substitute "philosophy" for "visual art" in this debate,
would one expect the general public (reasonable person)to understand
Sartre, Derrida without any preface, as an example ? I wonder if the stone
masons at Reims understood all the meanings inherent in the rose windows.
The next question, will the people of the parish insist on removing
the work because they don't understand it?
>Iian called these explanations as extra-artistic cruches.
>In this case they were extremely artistic. If one insists that a work
>should be seen as such, not only by conosseurs or elite (Iian's term)
>but public, the only the most blatant kitch merits the place in art history.
>I have doubts about pieces with explanations, too. Then, aren't most of the
>rest just pre-explained by our education.
In the extreme, even a title could be considered a "crutch."
I don't read that much text in an art gallery either, I go to the
library for reading. On the otherhand, I won't dismiss
contemporary visual art without making an attempt to understand it,
to know something of the artist's intent.
>I still insist that what we see is not only what we perceive of the canvas.
>With the word resonance, I did not refer to anything spiritual or mind
>reading, but due to the similarity of frame of reference, the ability to echo
>the intended experience.
The inherent value of the true work of art is its power to evoke
response in the viewer within the triad of viewer-artist-work.
This "resonance" is apart from lists of criteria but could be
defined as a product of criteria (not always).
I would differ on the word
"intended" because "visual art" may be interpreted in ways
beyond the artist's original intent.
Because Vermeer's "Lacemaker" will always be beautiful,
without any explanation, should we stop the clock there ?
>Explicitely to Mark:
>With formal analysis alone, one cannot judge the validity of the expressive
>means in an art work, without some reference to the context.
>What is succesfully expressed, must become impressed, too. That again
>is either personal or social event separate from the piece of art.
>- lauri
>
Marilyn
CROCUSDES
<But can you Mark and Chris, look at a piece of art *as such* or does your
<prior knowlegge interfere. This intereference is what I tried to tell with the
<unspoken agreement.
I think that whether we mean to or not Lauri, we always bring into the
experience something of ourselves. It seems to me that when we are attempting
to be objective when trying to determine the "artness" of a work (sorry to keep
using that word but it suits me better than any other), we first of all tend to
respond more favorably to one type over another. We can't help that, so to
begin with, favoritism plays a role here. That is the same as injecting
something into a work that isn't inherent in the piece, in other words, it's an
attitude. I might not suggest that this is "interference" though because when
something appeals to us initially, then we are more open to receiving more from
that work than one that we are more indifferent about.
Now with that out of the way, the next thing I think we do is visually respond
to the components in a work and to the way they all interrelate as a unified
whole. What we take from that then, is an image that corresponds
intellectually and intuitively to what we think that work is meant to imply. I
actually think we measure the difference between our expectations and the
promise offered by the work we are looking at. I suspect this is part of the
feeling of pleasure we derive from a work. It is the act of filling in the
missing gaps and if the work is mapped out in a way so that what is implied can
be understood indirectly then the degree of our experience relates somewhat to
the degree of the fulfillment of our expectations. Strip away the mystery and
you're basically left with a prosaic example that needs no input from yourself.
This is the purpose of illustration, which is a declarative statement. A work
of art is a suggestion, even those works by Ingres and Cellini are not totally
complete.
When we are judging the success of a work I do think that it's unavoidable to
bring in the outside element of our personal conditioning to evaluate the work.
The only way we can truly judge a piece on it's inherent merits is to look at
it as a decorative work. From that point of view we then weigh in the formal
elements that make up the work itself. No smoke, no mirrors, just flat out
design and composition. After that it ceases to be purely objective reasoning
but a personal one instead.
If a work requires additional "seasoning" such as a conceptual idea that
matches the work or a theory to explain it's reason, then that's not inherent
in the work itself but I wouldn't dismiss it as a meaningless gesture just
because of that. The work gains additional power if one is knowledgable about
it's full intent but that extraneous feature may not be self evident so it's
not an objective part of the work itself. I like to think of the extraneous
features as part of a matching set. We can deeply enjoy a religious work if we
also understand and better yet embrace the ideals portrayed. Yet without
sympathetic understanding, such works can continue to serve a purpose that
satisfies our aesthetic appreciation, only it lacks the extra "kick" that
others might gain from it. The "hard" stuff is unchanged and the "soft" stuff
simply enhances it.
Iian Neill
>
> >ago as most practising artists accepted the basics of my argument
>
> One hundred-fifty years ago, leeches were
> still in use by physicians...should art thinking
> stand still as everything else evolves?
Emmanual Kant wrote his 'Critique of Pure Reason' over two hundred years ago, and
he is taken quite seriously by philosophers even today. The same applies to Hume,
Aristotle, and Plato. Of course, one hopes that the field of aesthetics would grow
over time, but this does not mean that one must discard the principles upon which
it may have been based, just to 'keep up with the times'.
> >I think it is fairly obvious that any so-called Aesthetics
> >which merely asserts that something is "great" because someone feels it is....
>
> Isn't this essentially the nature of aesthetic
> pronouncements since Ancient times? This
> kind of thing cannot,as I keep asserting, ever
> be defined systematically like some sort of
> field identification guide for Art.
I would agree that Beauty is very hard to define or to categorize - but others have
noted that Beauty is not necessarily the definining characteristic of Art. It is
certainly an important part of it, but a beautiful man-made object may not qualify
as an art-work - and vice versa.
> Art is seldom
> created under rigid definition beforehand, and
> I would venture the opinion that little of what
> is truly "great"art is ever plotted out to be such.
Perhaps not explicitly. But the training that professional artists underwent prior
to the 20th century would have instilled in them the theories required to cement
their technical skill. The ability to render is not in itself sufficient to make a
great artist; much of the value of the old teaching was probably intimately
connected to the artist's metaphysical beliefs. In this sense, one might say that
the Old Masters imbibed their "theories" by following the examples and teachings of
their Masters; the very process of drawing selectively, of stylizing reality, of
composing the picture in a certain way to emphasize particular things ... all of
this is part of what makes a detailed analysis of art so difficult.
I am treading on uncertain ground here, but I might go so far as to suggest that
the old methods of learning how to paint, sculpt and so forth were probably much
more effective in acquiring the intended results of a particular art theory - the
students of the past learnt by practice, and followed their teacher's example as
long as they felt was necessary to bring their own individual talents to fruition.
The best instructors allowed their students a certain amount of freedom to develop
their own personality whilst inculcating in them the importance of discipline,
direct observation from life, technical skill, practice, anatomy, balance, and many
other aspects of art.
The relationship between student and Master was a complex one which owed as much
to on-site experience as it did to pedagogic instruction such as one might find in
the textbooks of the time. This, in my view, explains the paucity of great painters
in this century - whilst we have (relatively speaking) a lot of information about
19th century practices, we no longer have access to that pool of practical
experience which underscored everything the Masters taught. Present-day art
teachers do not have that tradition to call upon, no matter how much they might
visit the museums, read the books, or even practice it themselves. Only the giants
of painting and sculpture will have any chance of rediscovering that unconscious
body of knowledge which flowed fast and free in the 19th century ateliers (and
before that in the studios of individual artists). This 'rediscovery' won't be a
return to the past - which is now impossible - so much as it will be a
*rejuvination* of the fundamental principles which shaped the art of the time.
Students need not worry about charges of "retrogressiveness" as the only thing they
cannot escape in this world is their own modernity; anything which they paint, no
matter how much it may (or may not) resemble the style of the Masters, will always
be coloured by their own - and their society's - experiences in general. No artist
can really ever become 'Baroque' unless their entire psychology and philosophical
belief-system is structured around the 17th century norms. They need not concern
themselves, then, with ludicrous charges of "anachronicity".
Those who demand that artists *must* conform to the aesthetic style of our times
- whatever this style may happen to be - risk becoming autocrats of taste and,
eventually, censors. Those who blast realistic painters for striving to regain the
sense of balance, harmony, beauty and coherency exhibited so frequently by pre-20th
century artists are really trying to force their world-view upon them. Anyone who
tells you that you are not being contemporary is either guilty of ignorance or else
they are trying to bully you into following THEIR version of modernity.
Who are we to say what is modern? If the artist is to be valued as the ultimate
expression of the individual, then
*should we not encourage him to follow his own style* regardless of fashion, or
so-called 'cultivate taste'. Those who scorn realists for being out-moded,
out-of-date, or old-fashioned have either been grossly misinformed by their
teachers, or else they are trying to force the next generation of artists into
their OWN mold. They are not interested in true intellectual freedom; despite their
claims of cherishing individuality and free expression, these are the very things
they are terrified of. This is why they expend so much energy in denigrating those
hard-working, serious-minded contemporary artists more interested in creating
enduring art than in pandering to the perverted tastes of some incestuous clique.
This is the great irony of the Post-Modernist art-system -- on appearances it
champions all forms of expression, it encourages individual expression and
experimentation, and it supposedly frees the artist ("democratizing art", they call
it) from the 'ogre' of technique, practice and hard-work. On appearances,
Post-Modernism is libertarian and accepts all movements and all trends with open
arms. But the facts of such a system are easy to discover if you look at the
universities: their means of dissemination. If you look carefully at the
universities, you will find that 99% (if not 100% by now) of courses place no
emphasis on technique, except in the way of paying it lip-service, as one might go
through the motions of an old, old habit that has lost all its meaning and
vitality. Technical skill clings on desperately in some art colleges and schools of
graphic design, but by and large there is no major institution (to my knowledge)
which teaches the fundemental techniques of art in the manner of the Old Masters
and, in particular, the 19th century greats. Students are constantly told to "free
up" their work at precisely the time when they should be buckling down and soaking
in the lessons they will need to put into practice as they years go by. In many
ways, university-level art education is a grotesque parody ('mockery', is a better
term) of the esteemed institution which flourished in the nineteenth century, and
produced so many of the great artists our culture loves to worship: Jean-Leon
David, Delacroix, Gericault, Ingres, Rodin, Courbet, Corot, Degas, Monet, Manet,
and even such delinquents as Gaugin, Matisse and Picasso. I haven't even mentioned
other - less well-known - masters such as Paul Delaroche, Lord Leighton, Jean-Leon
Gerome, Charles Gleyre, Thomas Couture, Ernest Meissonier, Bouguereau, Carpeaux,
Dalou, Alma-Tadema ... the list goes on.
>This is the most glaring shortcoming of 90% of
> the heavily hyped art of the late 20th century,
> but rigid rules of any sort of formulae do not
> produce great art.
Rules only become frigid when they are not joined with a living, vital practice -
20th century art theory will never be able to produce fertile art - you cannot grow
an abundant crop on sterile land.
>aesthetic relativism
> great term...redundant,eh?
The term is redundant? ... Could you explain what you mean?
> >It is this subconscious level which gives art its sincerity
>
> Attaboy,Iian, I'm starting to agree with you
> sometimes...however, this very essence of
> true Art makes critical judgements via rigid
> rules seem like a silly exercise.
It's what makes detailed critical judgements *difficult* - not impossible. The kind
of judgments I have outlined over the past week are nowhere near as detailed as the
ones that you may be hinting at - I haven't even begun to outline a theory of
aesthetics which allows us to say whether Annibale Caracci's Farnese ceiling is
better than Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel. What I have introduced, however, is a
means by which we can objectively separate art from non-art, as well as pointing
the way towards a more elegant theory which may go some way to solving the problem
of judging fine gradations of quality in art. This will all take time, and I look
forward to what others have to say on the matter, particularly what working artists
might contribute.
> Sort of like
> judging a livestock show with the Rule Book
> from the Miss America pageant (which might
> be rather entertaining ,now that I think of it
> but...)
I can see where you are coming from, but a rational foundation for aesthetic
judgment does not necessarily imply that one must give up beauty or the emotional
appeal of a work. I have noted at the very outset that we all respond to what we
perceive as "art" in our own ways, and that, quite rightly, we are all entitled to
these feelings. When it comes to judging a work as 'good' or 'bad' however, we have
to consider more than just our feelings - if you refuse to, whatever you say really
has no more (proveable at least) validity than what the man on the street (those
"plebes" critics love to hate) might think. If you base your entire understanding
of art on intuition and emotion, you have no foundation from which to judge art or
to justify your assertions to other people - in the end, all such discussions will
devolve into, "What I think, or feel, is more important than what you think, or
feel." The reasons why? Well, one can say that one has had a life experience with
art, or taught it, or made it, or collects it - but nonetheless, all of this means
nothing in the realm of pure feeling. What makes your feeling more valid than that
of the next man? *Nothing*, unless you can justify your assertions with rational
argument. Rational argument can only exist when there is an objective reality to
argue from, otherwise one lives in a realm of metaphysical fog and conceptual
disintegration - in short, one regresses to the state of an animal, living in
confusion, fear, never knowing whether anything is certain except for what's in
fron of you. In fact, those philosophers who reject even that (Hume comes to mind,
what with his 'fleeting experience' theory of consciousness) dwell further down the
chain of conceptual complexity than even an animal; whereas an animal acknowledges
the validity of its senses - as well it should, for they are its only means of
interfacing with the world - humans concoct all sorts of mystical nonsense to avoid
facing reality. It may appear that I have digressed here, but it should be clear to
anyone that metaphysics and philosophy in general (which includes religious ethics)
is the guiding force of all art in all ages - no matter whether what we happen to
be call "art" is art at all. If you are one of those who believe that art can never
be objectively defined, then you are a party to the philosophies of nihilism which
assert there to be no objective values at all - only a shifting fog of
incoherencies, a void where there is no such thing as the voice of reason - only
the voice of primal emotion, of instinct, of intuition, or, inevitably, of brute
force - of the caveman's club.
> > Note: the arts of Music and Architecture do not so easily conform to the
> >rational principles I have proposed for the Visual Arts and Literature. This
> >is due to the fact that subject matter is harder to identify in Music and
> >Architecture
>
> ...but, if you can't figure out the subject matter
> a painter,sculptor or performance artist has
> in mind, it doesn't count as visual art.
The function of Music is different from that of painting, or sculpture. Music, for
a start, deals with an entirely different sensory organ and operates on different
formal principles - sound waves instead of lightwaves, harmonies, melodies,
counterpoint ... these are in some sense equivocal with certain effects in the
visual arts, but the two realms are really so different that no direct comparisons
can be made. It is useful now and then - for the purposes of making the spirit of a
point clearer - to refer to some composition as "symphonic" or "lyrical"; but this,
of course, means nothing in aural terms. Paintings and sculpture operate by light -
music operates by sound. Music is the only true "abstract" art as it really has no
visual representation at all - music is for all intents and purposes absolutely
INVISIBLE. There is simply nothing to see. Music has its own laws of consonance,
dissonance, harmony, polyphony, homophony, and so forth - we cannot point to a note
and declare, "This represents a train, or a television set, or a tube of
toothpaste". Music is so vastly different from the visual arts that it really
becomes quite perilous for one to carelessly attempt to join the two in criticism.
One can speak generally, by saying that the intentions of the composer ought to be
manifested within the work, and that we ought to be able to identify the areas
where his aims are evident, and, consequently, we ought to *feel* the
emotional/intellectual impact which the composer has striven for. For example, upon
encountering a work entitled, "Requiem", and having observed the key signature of
the piece and the hearing that the music obviously intends for us to feel sad,
terrified, uplifted, et cetera, we can then begin to question how fully the
composer has achieved his aim of making us feel sad, terrified, uplifted and so on.
The 'problem' with music is that the very nature of the medium makes it difficult
for one to point at a group of notes and declare, "This is definitely sad" -
someone else might quite rationally suggest that those notes may in fact express
something else. The 'problem' is nowhere as bad - ie., as subjectively-orientated -
as I have hinted here - there is a whole science devoted to studying the
qualitative achievements of music, and this is known as musicology. Musicology
works because music functions acccording to certain laws of harmony which allow
critics to analyze works according to their formal principles.
In any case, I do not intend to go into a long speech about music criticism - I
have stated previously that this realm of creative expression is fundamentally
different from that of the visual arts, although we can, and often *do*, draw
comparisons between rhythm, harmony, melody, counterpoint and the compositions
which underlie the visual arts. These comparisons can often prove of great value in
communicating the spirit of our ideas, but it is important not to take these sort
of analogies too literally; in the end, they remain only analogies, no matter how
vivid or evocative they may be.
>Once
> again, Iian makes the rules....sorry, you don't!
I haven't made any rules. I have merely created a rational argument based upon
objectively analyzable facts. I have said nothing outrageous, except for those,
perhaps, who cannot accept the existence of an objective reality. In any case, it
would really be pointless to hold a discussion with such people as they wouldn't
even know for certain whether they themselves exist.
Regards,
Iian Neill
________________________________________________________________________
If you are interested in the Old Masters, and 19th century art
in particular, feel free to visit my new archive, THE RENAISSANCE CAFÉ:
http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/galliano/293/index.html
My personal home-page (with my own art work) can be found here:
http://student.uq.edu.au/~s367558/index.html
CROCUSDES
>> Explicitely to Mark:
>> With formal analysis alone, one cannot judge the validity of the expressive
>> means in an art work, without some reference to the context.
Mark replies:
>I disagree. It is through the form that I see what is being expressed.
>The sensibility is what is being expressed in all art, good or bad.
The difficulty I have with your point of view Mark is that by stripping away
the importance of external references (content, subject, implied meaning etc.)
all you are left with is viewing a work based on it's pictorial qualities only.
That alone isn't enough to explain the artist's intent. How can you judge
whether one successfully transmits through form alone, a concept, impression or
statement if this important aspect of a work is not considered? The
sensibility you speak of is not the quality of line or the nature of color,
it's more about the translation of idea to act and how well one gets that
across in terms of the medium used. I'm not sure if this is what Lauri is
saying but if so, then I have to agree with that.
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com
Iian Neill <s36...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
(big snip here and between the quotes)
Iian:
> It is when we come to judge the work of art - an activity distinct from
> merely our personal emotional reaction to it - that we must begin to appraise
> the painting objectively. What were the artist's aims?
> Were her aims evident in the work itself?
The scope of aesthetics is slippery. A few postings ago you, Iian, wanted
to judge gothic paintings 'as such', explicitely rejecting reference to
the artists intentions about ancient myths.
Iian:
> - For this to be so, one would need independent confirmation - it is easy to
'see'
> the intent of an art-work if you already know what the artist had in mind, but
if
> you had come to it 'cold', would you still be able to discern the artist's
> intention?
lauri:
The 'cold' here, near the polar circle may be more severe :-) If you meet an
art work really 'cold', what you have to base your judgement on, except
your feelings.
The Rational Observer knows petty well what means are traditionally used to
express artistic intentions. I am not asking about Pollock, but can you face
a Rothko with really open mind? The imaginary R.Ob. Server has another
handicap, the faith to objective science.
Science is searching of rules, the scope of science is to study
invariants. It is awkward clumsy tool if one has to deal with uniqueness,
originality, creativity.
Iian:
> If no
> intention can be read, then as critics we have no basis to judge the work.
lauri:
How to read intentions? Do you look for specific markers like symbols,
color harmony, composition or other kind of conventions. Do you compare
the whole to the idea how you had felt, if you had painted it.
> (The rational observer) denotes any person who has the capacity to use
> reason - > the ability to analyze.
Your R.ob.Server restricts the analyse to reasonable. Aristotle was a master
in that. After two thousand years of academic excercise, we still cannot
use his Poetry to discriminate Nobel laureates from
paperback writers. I belive reason falls short in face of art.
Iian:
> No one would deny the role that culture might play in how we regard the
*importance*
> of certain works - but any rational person (wherever they come from) can
analyze a
> painting according to how closely it achieves its aims;
lauri:
until he/she faces islamic or chinese calligraphy, classsical ballet,
Mongolian songs, or any other new experience unsupported by her/his culture.
Iian
> ... lead us to read into the work things which cannot be proven to exist
> (again we return to personal feeling and intuition).
This tiny snip is a good summary of the achievements of
200 years of the western art history.
On the other hand, the Chinese art theory has for centuries relied on 6 rules
of aesthetics. Does anybody here know them?
Marilyn
Goya's 2nd & 3rd of May 1808 (circa)
paintings, one about the insurrection and the
other about the French firing squad shooting Spanish guerillas.
The speed of execution, the passion of the painter overides the
"formal criteria."
M.
mark webber
First, I'd like to mention that after exchanging some email with Iian, I
came to the conclusion that my server is back to it's old tricks again,
and isn't picking up posts that I'm interested in. I checked dejanews and
saw Iian's reply to my conjectural situation as well as another post of
his that I missed.
All I can say is that I'm sorry I didn't see them earlier, Iian - you
replied, as you usually do, very articulately. I'll answer one question
you left for me: Yes, I do see beauty in a great deal of Cezanne's work.
Not more than some of the painters you mentioned. But I do see beauty in
much of the work, and I think the reason that is difficult for you to
understand is that your idea of beauty is very much attached to the
subject matter.
While in dejanews, I also spotted Chris' reply to the thread retitled
"recapitulation", which didn't show up on my server. Sorry that I didn't
reply to you Chris; if I have a chance, I'll try to copy it from dejanews
and write back to you.
Some of the issues, though, look similar to what follows:
On 20 Oct 1998, CROCUSDES wrote:
> Lauri writes:
> >> Explicitely to Mark:
> >> With formal analysis alone, one cannot judge the validity of the expressive
> >> means in an art work, without some reference to the context.
>
> Mark replies:
> >I disagree. It is through the form that I see what is being expressed.
> >The sensibility is what is being expressed in all art, good or bad.
>
> The difficulty I have with your point of view Mark is that by stripping away
> the importance of external references (content, subject, implied meaning etc.)
> all you are left with is viewing a work based on it's pictorial qualities only.
First, I don't wish to strip away the above parenthetic elements, I'm only
saying they aren't vital to good painting. I would suggest that possibly
the term "Form" is receiving too narrow a definition if we can't see it as
the vehicle through which the content is expressed.
Further, I don't know how to evaluate content - is some content better
than other content? It seems to me that evaluation resides in *how well*
the content is expressed, and that is done with form - good form or bad
form.
> That alone isn't enough to explain the artist's intent.
Do we need to know anything of the artist's intent to appreciate art?
> How can you judge whether one successfully transmits through form alone,
> a concept, impression or statement if this important aspect of a work
> is not considered?
To my mind it doesn't matter what the idea is, all that matters is how
well it is expressed.
> The sensibility you speak of is not the quality of line or the nature
> of color, it's more about the translation of idea to act and how well
> one gets that across in terms of the medium used.
The sensibility is the thing expressed through the decisions about line
and shape and color, facture and paint density, and contrast and edge,
etc.
How well one gets that across is dependent on how developed one's
sensibility is.
To my mind anyway.
regards,
Mark
CROCUSDES
<While in dejanews, I also spotted Chris' reply to the thread retitled
<"recapitulation", which didn't show up on my server. Sorry that I didn't
<reply to you Chris; if I have a chance, I'll try to copy it from dejanews
<and write back to you.
I don't think you need to do that Mark. I don't remember what was in the
particular post referred to but I think that by now I have a pretty good idea
how you might be using the term.
<Further, I don't know how to evaluate content - is some content better
<than other content? It seems to me that evaluation resides in *how well*
<the content is expressed, and that is done with form - good form or bad
<form.
No, content or statement is only that, none is better or worse than the other,
the point I was trying to make is what follows in the next line you write. I
don't see any difference in our point of view in that regard. I guess I simply
stressed the idea that the content is part of the work itself through intent
and maybe we differ on that concept.
<Do we need to know anything of the artist's intent to appreciate art?
Not necessarily perhaps but then what we are appreciating may be different than
what was expressed or intended. We reinterpret works all the time and what we
are seeing is very much colored by our own sensibilities and not those of the
artist. When the two do coincide, however, then I think we evaluate the work
closer to what the artist intended and measure the success of the piece based
on the original intent.
<The sensibility is the thing expressed through the decisions about line
<and shape and color, facture and paint density, and contrast and edge,
etc.
<To my mind it doesn't matter what the idea is, all that matters is how
<well it is expressed.
How can you make that determination Mark if you aren't considering what is
originally intended? This is why I thought your approach was based on
pictorial qualities only. In other words, to strip out content leaves you with
little more than a decorative remnant.
That's okay of course, but incomplete in my mind. You see, even when we make a
personal interpretation of a work it's not uncommon to substitute content or
meaning since it's still a keystone reason for a work to exist to begin with.
I wouldn't say that an individual's idea of a meaning is correct in the
strictest sense but I might suggest that it's not all that difficult usually,
to guess what the essense of intent is. I'm not including works that are more
esoteric or that require an understanding of theory because then we are
extending the dialog beyond the obvious.
Iian Neill
> >I disagree. It is through the form that I see what is being expressed.
> >The sensibility is what is being expressed in all art, good or bad.
>
> The difficulty I have with your point of view Mark is that by stripping away
> the importance of external references (content, subject, implied meaning etc.)
> all you are left with is viewing a work based on it's pictorial qualities only.
> whether one successfully transmits through form alone, a concept, impression or
> sensibility you speak of is not the quality of line or the nature of color,
> it's more about the translation of idea to act and how well one gets that
> saying but if so, then I have to agree with that.
You have brought up an excellent point, Chris. Only by referring to the art-work
and the artist's intention can we gain some basic idea of whether the object on
display is really art, craft, or something else entirely. The formal approach
(which includes composition, line, colour, et cetera) is vital when we come to
analyze the *pictorial qualities* of the work in question - just as a musicologist
must keep in mind tone, timbre, precision, and so on when he is appraising the
quality of a musical composition or performance. (The activity of art is in many
ways akin to composition and performance combined - the artist invents the general
idea, placement of dark and light masses, and so forth, but he also *executes* the
painting as well -- in this sense he is both performer and composer. This is
another reason why it is by no means irrelevant to appraise a painting or sculpture
according to its technical mastery - just as one might judge a pianist's
performance according to his skill at playing the piano.)
As far as I can determine, there is nothing at all wrong with applying formal
principles to judge the merit of an art-work -- but it seems self-evident that this
approach in itself is not sufficient to distinguish a work of art from, say, a
brilliantly executed piece of craftsmanship.
mark webber
Hi Marilyn,
I think the difficulty here may just be one of definitions. Because those
very expressive paintings are made with colored shapes, they aren't less
formal than the work of Ingres or Mondrian.
The subject matter was obviously very important to Goya - but it doesn't
seem more so than the brushwork and other formal properties which convey
the message.
I agree that the "passion" is evident, as it is in the work of Fragonard
and Dekooning. But I think both of these painters, as well as Goya and
most of the other big guns, had a fixed attention to the arrangements of
shape and color they were producing.
I don't think speed of execution or passion need to be mutually exclusive
of formal concerns.
But I'm glad you joined us again!
Mark
Iian Neill
> > merely our personal emotional reaction to it - that we must begin to appraise
> > the painting objectively. What were the artist's aims?
> > Were her aims evident in the work itself?
> The scope of aesthetics is slippery. A few postings ago you, Iian, wanted
> to judge gothic paintings 'as such', explicitely rejecting reference to
> the artists intentions about ancient myths.
I did not exclude the aims of the Gothic artists from my analysis. If their aim was
to represent a Nativity scene, a Crucifixion, an Ascension or whatever then we must
take that into account -- that was the artist's intention, and is of the greatest
importance when judging the work. Now, you might (rightly) point out that there
have come down to us works which are untitled -- how are we then to judge these?
Well, I would re-iterate my previous arguments: -- we must go by the intention *as
manifested in the work of art itself*; and the only way a rational observer can
declare truthfully that a painting is about this or that is if the work supports his
claim for other rational observers to confirm or deny. Now, if we find a painting
which seems to represent the Annunciation (we determine this, of course, according
to our prior knowledge of the conventions of the time, etc.) then we ask ourselves
how does each element in the picture work to express this intention?
To be even stricter, let us say that we come across a painting with no name and no
clear subject -- that is to say, no clear subject that we can attribute to some
literary, mythological or religious source. The subject of painting will always be
what is depicted in that painting. Now if the work is non-representational, then we
have no place in declaring whether it successfully realizes some intention because
the intention is not manifested by means which are objectively analyzable (ie.,
objects depicted with a minimum of realism); we are left being able to declare our
*opinion* as to what the work is actually *about*, but we have no means of
objectively confirming it. For what a slash of red may mean to you, might mean
something completely different to another -- it is only when that slash of red
becomes a scarf, a sausage or a trail of blood that we can actually discuss the
painting objectively. We can then begin to say, "That scarf means this in the
picture ..." Being able to say this doesn't mean that we are automatically right --
not at all. Even a rational observer can misinterpret the intention of a painting.
But *only* a rational observer can interpret a painting in objective terms at all -
he is the only type of critic who can look at it, make observations, judgements and
so forth and have them confirmed or denied by others in anything that is more than
just an assertion of feeling, intuition or simply caprice.
> > - For this to be so, one would need independent confirmation - it is easy to
> > 'see' the intent of an art-work if you already know what the artist had in mind,
> but
> > if you had come to it 'cold', would you still be able to discern the artist's
> > intention?
>
> lauri:
> The 'cold' here, near the polar circle may be more severe :-) If you meet an
> art work really 'cold', what you have to base your judgement on, except
> your feelings.
Our feelings to the work constitute our *reaction* to what it expresses -- it
doesn't mean that we cannot make some basic judgement as to whether it (at least on
appearances) achieves its intention.
I have noted before the difference between counterfeit art and true art. Counterfeit
art is generally what we would call 'insincere art' -- it is a work of art whose
conscious intention clashes with its subconscious intention. For example, suppose an
atheist were to paint a Crucifixion -- now, mow matter how skilled this painter is,
he will never be able to paint it in quite the same way as a Christian artist would
-- this is because the Christian not only consciously states that he believes in
Christ, God, and so forth, but he also *believes this subconsciously* -- and when he
paints the Crucifixion, the work will be more or less successfull depending on the
strength of at least two criteria: his skill, and his faith.
This is not to say that an atheist cannot paint a most realistic depiction of the
Crucifixion, with all of its agony, hope of redemption and so on -- but if he truly
does not believe in a God, then there is a disparity between the appearance of the
forms depicted and the more subtle (but profound) effect of his subconscious values,
which we might call 'intentions' in so much as they become manifested in the work.
The Rational Observer knows petty well what means are traditionally used to
> express artistic intentions. I am not asking about Pollock, but can you face
> a Rothko with really open mind? The imaginary R.Ob. Server has another
> handicap, the faith to objective science.
This is like saying that the rational observer's handicap is that he is rational. Is
that what you mean? If not, please clarify.
> Science is searching of rules, the scope of science is to study
> invariants. It is awkward clumsy tool if one has to deal with uniqueness,
> originality, creativity.
This is where we must consider such things as 'formal principles': technical
ability, colours, 'symphonic resonance', chiaroscuro, and many other things that go
to make a work of art.
> > If no
> > intention can be read, then as critics we have no basis to judge the work.
>
> lauri:
> How to read intentions? Do you look for specific markers like symbols,
> color harmony, composition or other kind of conventions.
Well, first and foremost the work must be representional to at least some coherent
degree - the picture must be such that we can objectively discuss it if we are to
make objective judgements!
This does not mean that a non-representational work can not be beautiful, moving, or
even hideous. It does mean that we cannot talk about it in any terms other than how
it affects you emotionally.
> Do you compare
> the whole to the idea how you had felt, if you had painted it.
This is an interesting thought - care to expand upon it a little?
> > (The rational observer) denotes any person who has the capacity to use
> > reason - > the ability to analyze.
>
> Your R.ob.Server restricts the analyse to reasonable. Aristotle was a master
> in that. After two thousand years of academic excercise, we still cannot
> use his Poetry to discriminate Nobel laureates from
> paperback writers. I belive reason falls short in face of art.
We can at least distinguish both Nobel laureates and paperback writers from the
pseudo- or anti-writers. I have not claimed that the aforementioned techniques of
analysis can be used to automatically distinguish a paperback writer from a Nobel
laureate -- but we at least have a foot to stand on now, or, if you like it put
another way, we at least have some common base from which to begin judging the
merits of the Nobel prize-winner and the commonplace hack.
> > No one would deny the role that culture might play in how we regard the
> >*importance* of certain works - but any rational person (wherever they come from)
> can
> > analyze a painting according to how closely it achieves its aims;
>
> until he/she faces islamic or chinese calligraphy, classsical ballet,
> Mongolian songs, or any other new experience unsupported by her/his culture.
All human creative activity is available for rational analysis. Whether it is
Islamic, Chinese or French. In each case we must consider the artist's intentions
and how they are manifested within the work, if we are to claim it as art. Please
note that I do not scorn craft at all -- there are some supreme examples of pure
craftsmanship which in many ways exceed the so-called 'fine arts' of our own present
era. I do value art above pure craftsmanship, though, because most good art
evidences a high level of crafstmanship -- how could it not when the artist's
intentions need to be manifested as clearly as possible in the picture? If he is
incompetent then his intention is obscured by ineptitude -- what is 'expressed' in
this case is the opposite of expression, if such a thing can exist. There is no
'expression' in ineptitude -- ineptitude is the enemy of expression, for it blocks
the artist's realization of his intention in an objective medium. In short,
incompetence serves as a locked door for the artist -- it is a barrier that he will
never pass until he has refined his skills sufficiently to be able to truly express
his intention.
There is something deeply wrong with any age which asserts the enemy of expression
to be the *highest form of expression*. There is a dreadful contradiction here.
> > ... lead us to read into the work things which cannot be proven to exist
> > (again we return to personal feeling and intuition).
>
> This tiny snip is a good summary of the achievements of
> 200 years of the western art history.
>
> On the other hand, the Chinese art theory has for centuries relied on 6 rules
> of aesthetics. Does anybody here know them?
I do not, and am very interested to hear them. Would you please tell us?
Regards,
Iian Neill
--
Iian Neill
> replied, as you usually do, very articulately.
Thank you, Mark.
> I'll answer one question
> you left for me: Yes, I do see beauty in a great deal of Cezanne's work.
> Not more than some of the painters you mentioned. But I do see beauty in
> much of the work, and I think the reason that is difficult for you to
> understand is that your idea of beauty is very much attached to the
> subject matter.
I would have to disagree with you here - subject matter is important in determining
the artist's intention; the intention is important because it comprises the
intellectual substance of the work (what elevates it above mere doodling, no matter
how glorious).
Now, the reason I dislike Cezanne has very little (if anything) to do with the
*subject matter* of his paintings. Many of his works are nudes, landscapes,
portraits, still-lifes and so on -- I do not object to such genres at all! Cezanne
was by no means unique when he decided to paint a self-portrait, or a bowl of fruit.
So it really is inaccurate to declare that I object to him purely on the basis of his
subject matter.
I object to Cezanne because of his technical/aesthetic deficiencies. Nevertheless, I
see Cezanne as an artist - how can he be anything but when his works are at the very
least sufficiently (and this approaches the bare minimum in some cases) realistic
enough that we can at least speak objectively about the content and intention of his
work. Yes, Cezanne is an artist -- but a good artist needs to be more than just
someone who can get the bare minimum of an idea across through aesthetically crude
means. Part and parcel of being a *good* artist are his 'formal qualities'; beauty,
harmony, colour, draugstmanship, et cetera -- this is to refer to the *pure* aspects
of the artist's craft, even if what is being depicted is in itself nonsensical or
trivial.
> First, I don't wish to strip away the above parenthetic elements, I'm only
> saying they aren't vital to good painting. I would suggest that possibly
> the term "Form" is receiving too narrow a definition if we can't see it as
> the vehicle through which the content is expressed.
>
> Further, I don't know how to evaluate content - is some content better
> than other content?
Yes, it is. We evaluate this according to our values of what is best to express, and
so forth. Do these also have their basis in an objective reality? I think that at
least some values do, and that is possible to demonstrate this.
> It seems to me that evaluation resides in *how well*
> the content is expressed, and that is done with form - good form or bad
> form.
Form is very important.
> > That alone isn't enough to explain the artist's intent.
>
> Do we need to know anything of the artist's intent to appreciate art?
The artist's intent needs to be manifested within the painting -- or else it is
merely extra-artistic commentary. Take, for example, T.S. Eliot's notes on his poem,
"The Wasteland". It is a very obscure and ecclectic work and consistently defies
objective analysis *of the whole*; T.S. Eliot used this rampant ambiguity to his
advantage when publishing his own supposed "explanation" of the work. It turned out
later that his "explanation" was an attempt at mis-direction sheerly for the fun of
it - apparently he was tired of critics reading bizarre things into it! (I can check
the specifics with my father later, who has made this poem his particular study.)
Now here is at least one example of an instance where an artist's commentary *can
not* be trusted. I am not saying that all artists are or were like T.S. Eliot -- some
of them may simply be asserting to us what they had *wished* to represent in the
work, but which may have not come across well at all. And then there are those
pseudo/anti-artists who brazenly declare an object to be art, and to be an art work
about some programme or idea -- such work is usually so blantantly unrepresentational
and/or chaotic that one can read anything into it and still be no closer to the
truth. In these cases it is obvious that such works can have no place in any
objective criticism as to whether it is good art - because the intentions of the work
are either not manifested in it, or they are so manifested that no two people can
rationally agree as to what it is about -- which is in some senses paramount to
saying that there is no intention at all.
> > How can you judge whether one successfully transmits through form alone,
> > a concept, impression or statement if this important aspect of a work
> > is not considered?
>
> To my mind it doesn't matter what the idea is, all that matters is how
> well it is expressed.
How can you ignore the idea if what you are doing is trying to find out how well the
idea is being expressed? Is there expression at all if there is no idea? This is what
the pseudo/anti-artist capitalizes on -- our society's conceptual paralysis, its
loathing of making any judgment for fear of being exposed as incorrect, and
'therefore' stupid.
Your above statement is tantamount to claiming that, "To my mind it doesn't matter
what the art-work is about, so long as it expresses this well." How can you tell that
it is expressing it well if you don't know what it is about? And if what an art-work
is about is meaningless or unimportant to you, how can you ever claim to know
anything about it beyond, "I like it," or "I dislike it".
If that is what you are claiming, then I have no quarrel.
> > The sensibility you speak of is not the quality of line or the nature
> > of color, it's more about the translation of idea to act and how well
> > one gets that across in terms of the medium used.
>
> The sensibility is the thing expressed through the decisions about line
> and shape and color, facture and paint density, and contrast and edge,
> etc.
And what are these decisions for, if not to express an idea? Art without ideas is a
contradiction in terms.
> How well one gets that across is dependent on how developed one's
> sensibility is.
Again: what use is sensibility if it expresses nothing? Is what is being "expressed"
sensibility if there is no subject matter, if there is no intellectual content to the
work? Doesn't it become merely a beautiful (or ugly) object?
Regards,
Iian Neill
mark webber
On 20 Oct 1998, CROCUSDES wrote:
(snip)
>
> <Do we need to know anything of the artist's intent to appreciate art?
>
> Not necessarily perhaps but then what we are appreciating may be different than
> what was expressed or intended.
Again I'm not sure what's wrong with that. There is an awful lot of art
not of my own culture, the intent of which I can't possibly fully
understand, but I still love looking at it. I think I'm appreciating it in
the best way that I'm able.
(snip)
>
> <The sensibility is the thing expressed through the decisions about line
> <and shape and color, facture and paint density, and contrast and edge,
> etc.
> <To my mind it doesn't matter what the idea is, all that matters is how
> <well it is expressed.
>
> How can you make that determination Mark if you aren't considering what is
> originally intended?
There is some art in which we can't know what was intended. Further, maybe
the notion that something doesn't matter to me is beyond my control. It is
apparantly beyond the control of many people to appreciate the formal
qualities of a work, or to see this as a valid, if not universal, way to
appreciate it.
> This is why I thought your approach was based on
> pictorial qualities only. In other words, to strip out content leaves you with
> little more than a decorative remnant.
I have no desire to strip art of content. Content, and what it means to
us, seems simply to be a more personal issue. If it is at all possible in
the post-modern age to think of a notion of quality and a seperate notion
of personal taste, then perhaps we have catagories into which I am
comfortable dropping, respectively, notions of form and content.
>
> That's okay of course, but incomplete in my mind. You see, even when we make a
> personal interpretation of a work it's not uncommon to substitute content or
> meaning since it's still a keystone reason for a work to exist to begin with.
Lots of people just like to make good-looking things. Lots of people like
to make things about something, but feel that if the thing they make isn't
good-looking, they have failed.
To be honest with you, and I'm speaking entirely personally here, I have
very little interest in art that is only about content, art that was made
with no concern for Form. It doesn't hold my interest.
> I wouldn't say that an individual's idea of a meaning is correct in the
> strictest sense but I might suggest that it's not all that difficult usually,
> to guess what the essense of intent is. I'm not including works that are more
> esoteric or that require an understanding of theory because then we are
> extending the dialog beyond the obvious.
That looks like a pretty precarious limb to me.
But it's real nice to see you back in top form. Are we Jeckle or Hyde
today?
Mark
mark webber
On Wed, 21 Oct 1998, Iian Neill wrote:
(snip)
> > I'll answer one question
> > you left for me: Yes, I do see beauty in a great deal of Cezanne's work.
> > Not more than some of the painters you mentioned. But I do see beauty in
> > much of the work, and I think the reason that is difficult for you to
> > understand is that your idea of beauty is very much attached to the
> > subject matter.
>
> I would have to disagree with you here - subject matter is important in determining
> the artist's intention; the intention is important because it comprises the
> intellectual substance of the work (what elevates it above mere doodling, no matter
> how glorious).
Subject matter isn't always the way to determine artistic intention.
Unfortunately, we will have some difficulty in this discussion, Iian,
because your idea of what constitutes "art" is a bit different than mine.
>
> Now, the reason I dislike Cezanne has very little (if anything) to do with the
> *subject matter* of his paintings.
I didn't mean to imply that you dislike his subject matter. What I meant
was that the subject matter isn't of primary importance.
> I object to Cezanne because of his technical/aesthetic deficiencies.
And that is the root of our disagreement - you equate technique with
esthetics. I don't.
I'll allow you to continue to feel that representation is the bottom line
if you'll allow me to feel that it isn't.
>
> > First, I don't wish to strip away the above parenthetic elements, I'm only
> > saying they aren't vital to good painting. I would suggest that possibly
> > the term "Form" is receiving too narrow a definition if we can't see it as
> > the vehicle through which the content is expressed.
> >
> > Further, I don't know how to evaluate content - is some content better
> > than other content?
>
> Yes, it is. We evaluate this according to our values of what is best to express, and
> so forth. Do these also have their basis in an objective reality? I think that at
> least some values do, and that is possible to demonstrate this.
That assessment isn't backed up by art history. One makes rather weak
arguments if one only considers the art one likes to be art history.
>
> > It seems to me that evaluation resides in *how well*
> > the content is expressed, and that is done with form - good form or bad
> > form.
>
> Form is very important.
>
Several pretty sharp minds have concluded that it is all that matters.
Others disagree. I guess that is what is being debated.
> > > That alone isn't enough to explain the artist's intent.
> >
> > Do we need to know anything of the artist's intent to appreciate art?
>
> The artist's intent needs to be manifested within the painting -- or else it is
> merely extra-artistic commentary.
(snip)
That doesn't answer my question. Do we need to know anything of the
artist's intent?
> > > How can you judge whether one successfully transmits through form alone,
> > > a concept, impression or statement if this important aspect of a work
> > > is not considered?
> >
> > To my mind it doesn't matter what the idea is, all that matters is how
> > well it is expressed.
>
> How can you ignore the idea if what you are doing is trying to find out how well the
> idea is being expressed?
I didn't say "ignor" the idea. I simply said it doesn't matter what it
is. Any idea will do, if done well. The crucifiction of Christ is no
better subject matter for art than a bowl of strawberries.
>
> Your above statement is tantamount to claiming that, "To my mind it doesn't matter
> what the art-work is about, so long as it expresses this well." How can you tell that
> it is expressing it well if you don't know what it is about?
Again, I see a pretty big difference between knowing and caring.
> And if what an art-work
> is about is meaningless or unimportant to you, how can you ever claim to know
> anything about it beyond, "I like it," or "I dislike it".
The art I love most I love because of its visual meaning.
I notice that you have an interest in genre art - that is, in other posts
you are asking about macabre subject matter, realisticly portrayed, if I
can paraphrase.
This interest is one of content, not form. It is an indication that
perhaps you aren't "with" form yet, and if that's the case, then I
understand much of your writing. I say this not as a judgement but as an
observation.
>
> > > The sensibility you speak of is not the quality of line or the nature
> > > of color, it's more about the translation of idea to act and how well
> > > one gets that across in terms of the medium used.
> >
> > The sensibility is the thing expressed through the decisions about line
> > and shape and color, facture and paint density, and contrast and edge,
> > etc.
>
> And what are these decisions for, if not to express an idea? Art without ideas is a
> contradiction in terms.
I was under the impression you weren't altogether fond of much art that
was idea-oriented.
>
> > How well one gets that across is dependent on how developed one's
> > sensibility is.
>
> Again: what use is sensibility if it expresses nothing?
You are equating expression with subject matter. I do not.
> Is what is being "expressed"
> sensibility if there is no subject matter,
Yes!
> ...if there is no intellectual content to the
> work?
Different question, and one that is actually the opposite of no subject
matter.
> Doesn't it become merely a beautiful (or ugly) object?
Ideally the Beautiful object.
Beautiful object without function, even.
Mark
CROCUSDES
>As far as I can determine, there is nothing at all wrong with applying formal
>principles to judge the merit of an art-work -- but it seems self-evident
>that this
>approach in itself is not sufficient to distinguish a work of art from, say,
>a
>brilliantly executed piece of craftsmanship.
I wasn't arguing against the idea of the formal and hope that was obvious. My
difference was directed towards the idea that content was not a signifcant
factor when trying to be objective. I think it is.
For that matter, even in decorative and functional objects the idea of content
is expressed as form following function. Function is the idea and how well a
piece functions for the purpose of the work in relation to it's design is
important to consider some of the time. Not always, of course, but for works
that might be seriously crafted, or even manufactured, it is if appearance is
important as well as function.
Marilyn
Well, the composition is all wrong the critics say. For example
the Insurrection has no real central focus. Some of Goya's earlier
works were much more "composed." Maybe the force of the passion
of the artist, allows for the breaking of all rules. My idea
is that we should at least know the rules, and then push them,
and break them.
bye for now
M.
mark webber
On 21 Oct 1998, Marilyn wrote:
> Re Goya:
>
> Well, the composition is all wrong the critics say.
Well, the critics need formulas, so they often don't recognize
the value in something different.
> For example
> the Insurrection has no real central focus.
Neither does Titian's "Venus and the Lute Player", but that one works
pretty well, too.
> Some of Goya's earlier
> works were much more "composed." Maybe the force of the passion
> of the artist, allows for the breaking of all rules. My idea
> is that we should at least know the rules, and then push them,
> and break them.
Sounds reasonable to me. I think a good painter can break the rules well.
Mark
Philip Ayers
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
: > Sounds reasonable to me. I think a good painter can break the rules well.
: >
: > Mark
Mark-
The fucking rules? get broken?...if you take a crap and wipe, it usually
goes down the drain! You breath in, you breath out...it's as simple as
that.
There are no rules, just geography!
Philip Ayers
: > Re Goya:
: >
: > Well, the composition is all wrong the critics say.
: > M.
I never meet a critic I'd save from a lynching!
They're all like turds in a gutter, mostly, they stink up tha joint.
mark webber
On Wed, 21 Oct 1998, Philip (neverphil) Ayers wrote:
> In article <Pine.PMDF.3.95.9810211...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>,
> mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
>
> : > Sounds reasonable to me. I think a good painter can break the rules well.
> : >
> : > Mark
>
> Mark-
> The fucking rules? get broken?...if you take a crap and wipe, it usually
> goes down the drain! You breath in, you breath out...it's as simple as
> that.
> There are no rules, just geography!
Philip,
Are going to be alright? Do you want us to call someone for you?
Mark
Philip Ayers
Call some for yourself before you fuck yerself up with words to the point
of insanity.
setai
Iian Neill wrote in message <362B540A...@student.uq.edu.au>...
lian,
i just have a few questions...
>On appearances,
>Post-Modernism is libertarian and accepts all movements and all trends with
open
>arms. But the facts of such a system are easy to discover if you look at
the
>universities: their means of dissemination. If you look carefully at the
>universities, you will find that 99% (if not 100% by now) of courses place
no
>emphasis on technique, except in the way of paying it lip-service, as one
might go
>through the motions of an old, old habit that has lost all its meaning and
>vitality.
i went to school at a very small private institution, so i really don't have
the knowledge of major art schools. i was taught by very "Post Modern"
artists and my drawing instructor was even AB EX, but they always emphasized
rendering and technique, perhaps not in the "Old Master style" but
definitely not lip service. i was taught that to break the rules one must
know the rules. my work was exclusively hand-built ceramics, but i still had
to know how to accurately render, with pencil and somewhat with paint. in
the more advances classes we were allowed to break the rules, however if you
tried to jump the step, you were sent right back to rendering. i had no
talent in 2-d work and had to struggle and practice for the ability to
render with any accuracy, but i did and believe it is vital. i have no
disrespect for representational art, and i honestly believe that your idea
of us, is skewed. because i enjoy de Kooning, does not mean i reject all
that has come before. of course, i did not have the "old master" tutelage,
but that kind of mentoring opportunity really can't exist in the
universities of today, this is a societal issue more that artistic. emphasis
on monetary success instead of true education has drastically effected the
entire institution of education, this is not exclusive to the arts.
you say use the word feeling as if it is a dirty word. is a feeling not an
unanalyzed thought... is there not a reason that a person has a feeling
about a painting? a feeling could be about color, composition, light or not
quite conscious acknowledgement of content. i do not believe that any
critique of art can be entirely objective, we are a product of our
environment. an enlighten mind might be able to separate more of the
subjective from the objective, but i have not seen any being(or think it
would be a wise idea) able to make the separation complete. if art is
subjective(the making of it), why should it's critique be. i know,
especially with non representational art, this makes the process of valuing
art(what is or is not good art) near impossible, but it seems to me that it
should be this way.
tracy
CROCUSDES
>>>(snip) To my mind it doesn't matter what the idea is, all that matters is
how
>>>well it is expressed.
>> How can you make that determination Mark if you aren't considering what is
>> originally intended?
Mark responds:
>There is some art in which we can't know what was intended. (snip...to be
continued below)
This has to be a two part response for you Mark. Referring to the first line I
may agree that intent may not be understood on the surface, in other words the
specific intention that lies behind a work. But the essence of idea still
shines through even in banal works. This hasn't anything to do with the worth
of a concept, only that there is reason to begin with for creating any work of
art. That reason is precisely what it is that motivates one to attempt a work
of any kind. It's step one although it doesn't have to rank in importance as
step two or three or whatever, but it can't be dismissed either. After the
first step the all the following acts reinforce and define the idea, it all
relates back to the beginning.
We each place our own degree of emphasis on importance within a work. You may
stress pictorial qualities, I may stress idea, Iian may stress yet something
else. But it's all there to begin with and consciously or not I think that we
really do consider and weigh the value of all the elements behind the act of
artmaking regardless of our particular bias.
One of the earliest influences that had and still has a profound effect on my
work are some African carvings. Now I always knew at the time I was engaged in
the study of these works that they were reinterpeted through the influence of
cultural differences. Every carving made has strong spiritual connections so
the original meaning and intent of such works were beyond my understanding.
Okay, I would initially view them in what you might describe, a formalist
manner, but it didn't take long once I became more familiar with the form, to
see more than that. The more I understood the meaning of the strong sexual and
maternal metaphors as well as gesture and facial expression, the more I could
relate in a distant way, the intent. The more the essential idea in human
terms were revealed, then the more powerful and meaningful such works became in
relation to the forms devised to express the essential idea. The religious
connection so apparent in these works are not all that different than the
universal human expression that we all experience. Jump that hurdle and it's
not all that difficult to understand things on a basic level.
Does this innate understanding work both ways for folks from different
cultures? Well at the risk of carrying on too long here I'll mention an
experience that I found very enlightening for me. The State Department had
brought over a traditional mask carver (fourth or fifth generation) to this
country one year and asked if they could include a visit to my studio as part
of this artist's tour. After we met I took the carver to the studio where he
saw the series I was working on at the time (the Mansect Series). Now those
works of mine are a little bizarre to say the least but there was an immediate
reaction and connection to those pieces that this carver responded to.
He didn't understand the surface meanings any more than I could understand his
but he "got" it nevertheless as he described his reactions to one piece or
another. When we discussed our view points about our different works, it's
very interesting that although our metaphors are very different, the essential
ideas as expressed through our different forms seemed to be understood by each
of us. The comparisons we were making were based on the images and how they
conveyed through the manner of creation, the essential intent of each of us in
spite of the cultural differences. End of story.
(snip.....continued from above)
>Further, maybe the notion that something doesn't matter to me is beyond my
>control. It is apparantly beyond the control of many people to appreciate the
>formal qualities of a work, or to see this as a valid, if not universal, way
to
>appreciate it.
It doesn't have to matter if you choose to ignore one aspect of a work or
another but that doesn't mean it's going to go away nevertheless. Content and
intent, I'm afraid, is just plain stuck to the work created at the time it was
made. When we translate through interpretation then we may be recreating a
work, but who knows what we are making of it. Maybe it doesn't really matter
but I think it wouldn't hurt to understand that anyway. To me it does matter,
but so what?
Now I don't think it's beyond the control of most or many folks to understand
and appreciate the formal qualities of a work. Not at all, in fact it seems to
me that this is the initial doorway that arouses our interest in the first
place. You make it sound like like this was something difficult to understand
Mark, but it isn't. You really sound more like a formalist taking a stance on
something as mundane as appreciating the line, color, composition etc of a work
and turning it into a kind of exclusive "ism". Well, it ain't that at all. We
all took the same approach as you are now taking when we were first intitiated
into artmaking. It's a very basic approach to creating and to viewing works.
Look at the form. Fine, we can do that.
When you are attempting to define the "quality" of form then so far we haven't
gotten to the point where you are making any distinctions. To say a line is
beautiful, well, sure but so what does that mean? When the color is beautiful,
same thing. Put them altogether into a whole then how does it work to become a
meaningful composition, one that qualifies the piece as better or worse than
another? I don't have any snappy answers for that so don't ask me. I'm
opinionated remember, so I would never qualify as a formalist or even a post
modernist capable of coming up with the desired answer. The best I could hope
for is being a folk artist and I'm comfortable with that tag. I guess maybe
it's because my primary interest is in content or idea, I don't know. Still,
as far as I can figure out, a folksy approach is as good as any other in terms
of artmaking or art appreciation.
Iian Neill
> > the artist's intention; the intention is important because it comprises the
> > intellectual substance of the work (what elevates it above mere doodling, no matter
> > how glorious).
>
> Subject matter isn't always the way to determine artistic intention.
One does not necessarily need a title or even artistic commentary to determine what a
painting is about - what, in short, is its subject matter. The subject matter of a painting
is what is contained within the painting itself. If the subject is objectively unalyzable,
then one can not say whether the artist has achieved their aims, because one has nothing to
compare the effects of the painting against the impulse which motivated its creation.
> Unfortunately, we will have some difficulty in this discussion, Iian,
> because your idea of what constitutes "art" is a bit different than mine.
It appears that this is so.
> > Now, the reason I dislike Cezanne has very little (if anything) to do with the
> > *subject matter* of his paintings.
>
> I didn't mean to imply that you dislike his subject matter. What I meant
> was that the subject matter isn't of primary importance.
You do not consider, then, that *what* Cezanne chose to paint was of primary importance in
determing how well he has achieved his aims? Keep in mind that, I am not at this point
questioning Cezanne's merits or flaws as an artist - it may be that a particular work was
painted with great skill and beauty. We are quite allowed - and even encouraged - to
appreciate any man-made object for those qualities. That which distinguishes fine art from
craft, however, would seem to rest on the intellectual component; and if we only regard the
beauty or skill of the works, then what have we to distinguish it from craft, or even some
fragment of nature that is not man-made at all?
> > I object to Cezanne because of his technical/aesthetic deficiencies.
>
> And that is the root of our disagreement - you equate technique with
> esthetics. I don't.
Technical skill allows beauty and expression to flourish. Technical incompetence stiffles
it.
> I'll allow you to continue to feel that representation is the bottom line
> if you'll allow me to feel that it isn't.
If you wish to feel that representation is not the determining factor in distinguishing art
from non-art, then you are quite free to. I will always continue to politely differ,
however, and attempt to justify my position as clearly and rationally as possible. You, of
course, are welcome to do the same.
> > > Further, I don't know how to evaluate content - is some content better
> > > than other content?
> >
> > Yes, it is. We evaluate this according to our values of what is best to express, and
> > so forth. Do these also have their basis in an objective reality? I think that at
> > least some values do, and that is possible to demonstrate this.
>
> That assessment isn't backed up by art history. One makes rather weak
> arguments if one only considers the art one likes to be art history.
I have not here stated what particular content I prefer - nor have I said that I would call
art that which I merely find unappealing. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of works of
art which do not move me in any way - or which, conversely, I find physically and
psychologically repugnant. I would not declare them to be non/anti-art however unless they
merited this judgement. Hence, I do not call Cezanne a non-artist, even though I find his
work and his aesthetic theory repugnant.
Incidentally, are you claiming that some values do not have a basis in objective reality?
And if so, what precise parts of art history contradict this? Why do they assert this?
> > > > That alone isn't enough to explain the artist's intent.
> > >
> > > Do we need to know anything of the artist's intent to appreciate art?
> >
> > The artist's intent needs to be manifested within the painting -- or else it is
> > merely extra-artistic commentary.
> (snip)
>
> That doesn't answer my question. Do we need to know anything of the
> artist's intent?
The artist's intent should be manifested within the work. If you mean, "Should we have it
from the artist himself -- verbally, or in print -- what he intended for the work?" then I
would have to answer that while this may prove helpful in some cases, it is by no means
necessary -- and never should it supercede our own rational judgements about the work
itself. (Refer to my previous T.S. Eliot example.)
We need to know about the artist's intent if we wish to judge how successful the painting
is. Please remember that I am not saying that even if the painting fails on this account it
cannot be beautiful or inspiring to you in some way -- what I am saying is that if we can
not objectively determine whether the object is even a work of art, then we have no place
in delcaring it to be a good or bad work of art. It becomes something else entirely.
> > > To my mind it doesn't matter what the idea is, all that matters is how
> > > well it is expressed.
> >
> > How can you ignore the idea if what you are doing is trying to find out how well the
> > idea is being expressed?
>
> I didn't say "ignor" the idea. I simply said it doesn't matter what it
> is. Any idea will do, if done well. The crucifiction of Christ is no
> better subject matter for art than a bowl of strawberries.
This is only so if you have no heirarchy of values -- or if you dispute the necessity of
having a scale of values. For example, how would you regard a 'misanthropic' painting in
comparison to a 'philanthropic' painting? Or, if you find paintings to remote from every
day life, how would you regard a racist book in comparison to a humanitarian book which
promotes the rights of Man, etc.? We can certainly say that the racist book has more or
less achieved its intention depending upon how skillfully the work was executed to achieve
that aim -- but having made this analysis, are we obliged to say that the racist book is
worth as much as the humanitarian novel?
If we delcare this to be so -- if we hold that there is "no better subject matter" -- then
are we not tacitly supporting the racist book by not criticising its message? Or do you
consider, perhaps, such values to be out-moded and anachronistic in this modern age?
> I notice that you have an interest in genre art - that is, in other posts
> you are asking about macabre subject matter, realisticly portrayed, if I
> can paraphrase.
>
> This interest is one of content, not form. It is an indication that
> perhaps you aren't "with" form yet, and if that's the case, then I
> understand much of your writing. I say this not as a judgement but as an
> observation.
Your observation that I have enquired about macabre-subject paintings is quite correct --
your intepretation of my intentions in asking this, however, seem to be wrong.
To begin with, when I asked people to write in with examples of macabre art, I stated quite
clearly that I wanted it to *be* art, and that I had set a certain standard of technical
and aesthetic ability; I was not (and am not) interested in feeble works of art, no matter
what subject they may express.
Secondly, my interest in macabre art is perhaps similar to one picking up a science-fiction
book for the first time, and then asking others -- having had one's curiosity piqued by the
genre -- whether there are any other quality works out there in that style. This does not
imply that one will take anything that comes along -- in fact, the very phrasing of the
question makes quite clear that one is after high quality works. Thirdly, at least once I
did state (or should have!) that I was not so much interested in whether the picture
portrayed some supernatural/macabre scene as to whether it achieved this effect, regardless
of the subject matter. For example, there are any number of ways that one may paint a work
based on "Salome" - all representations may not end up being macabre at all.
In conclusion, my interest in macabre painting was kindled by a desire to see a different
side to art which is not normally displayed; I made clear in my request that I valued
artistic and aesthetic skill (and hence, merit) above whatever theme was being treated --
just as I would not be interested in many of the rubbish science-fiction books that are
pumped out today like so much pulp fiction. Would you declare that an interest in
science-fiction -- coupled to a firm resolve to read only the best work -- is in any sense
unusual?
> > And what are these decisions for, if not to express an idea? Art without ideas is a
> > contradiction in terms.
>
> I was under the impression you weren't altogether fond of much art that
> was idea-oriented.
You were under a mistaken impression. I am not interested in a craftsman who merely copies
reality precisely, like a machine -- in general, the Photo-Realist movement springs to
mind, although I do not accuse all of those artists of being derivative, of course.
My interest in representationalism is based upon rational principles related to the very
purpose of art itself. There are any number of terribly ugly realistic paintings, works
which cannot even represent the human body without screaming to the world how much they
despise it -- nevertheless, if these paintings can be objectively analyzed, then one is
obliged to regard them as art. Whether they are good or bad is another matter, one for a
more elegant analysis.
> > > How well one gets that across is dependent on how developed one's
> > > sensibility is.
> >
> > Again: what use is sensibility if it expresses nothing?
>
> You are equating expression with subject matter. I do not.
Then you are in a position of great difficultly -- can you ever declare a work of art to be
good or bad, and can you justify this with more than just your personal intuition?
> > Is what is being "expressed"
> > sensibility if there is no subject matter,
>
> Yes!
Are you equating (or confusing) sensibility with aesthetic skill here?
> > ...if there is no intellectual content to the
> > work?
>
> Different question, and one that is actually the opposite of no subject
> matter.
Intellectual content needs to be manifested in some fashion .. and if we are to talk about
it truthfully and rationally (as opposed to declaring our feelings about it to be true,
without objective confirmation) about art, then we need to be able to point to things in
the painting which objectively support our analysis. Subject matter, which is composed of
that which is actually *in* the painting, therefore becomes essential. The intellectual
content is never missing from a work of art - if it is, then it becomes a work of craft, or
possibly a work of anti-art.
> > Doesn't it become merely a beautiful (or ugly) object?
>
> Ideally the Beautiful object.
>
> Beautiful object without function, even.
You do not see books, art or music as having a 'spiritual' function?
mark webber
On 22 Oct 1998, CROCUSDES wrote:
> Mark writes:
> >>>(snip) To my mind it doesn't matter what the idea is, all that matters is
> >>>how well it is expressed.
(snip)
>
> We each place our own degree of emphasis on importance within a work. You may
> stress pictorial qualities, I may stress idea, Iian may stress yet something
> else.
(snip)
I'm very sure that I'm qualifying all of my remarks here with "to my mind"
and "as I see it." I was asked specifically my take on the issue of form
vs. content. In my view, content is important, but not to the quality of
the piece. For me, that resides in the demonstration of form. This is only
my view. I'm trying to convince no one of this, but it is all that works
for me.
> >Further, maybe the notion that something doesn't matter to me is beyond my
> >control. It is apparantly beyond the control of many people to appreciate the
> >formal qualities of a work, or to see this as a valid, if not universal, way
> to
> >appreciate it.
>
> It doesn't have to matter if you choose to ignore one aspect of a work or
> another but that doesn't mean it's going to go away nevertheless.
I'd like to stress here, and without any tricky wordplay, that I see a
huge difference between ignoring something and seeing it as of primary
importance. You and Iian have a number of times taken a stress on one
thing to mean a complete ignorance of the other, and I don't feel that
represents my point of view very well.
> Content and
> intent, I'm afraid, is just plain stuck to the work created at the time it was
> made.
Just one example to illustrate what I see as a very obvious point. A
Spanish painter began a painting around 1907, the intent of which was to
be a sort of allegory or expose of Venerial Disease. The painting was set
in a brothel, and the canvas was occupied by 5 prostitutes.
By the time Picasso finished the painting we now know as "Les Demoiselles
D'Avignon", he had completely lost interest in the original content and
had become focused on the Formal issues that we now recognize as Cubism.
In short, not only did his intent shift dramaticly, but it shifted from
content to form.
This may or may not seem like a logical reply to what you've been saying
about the importance of intent and content.
> Now I don't think it's beyond the control of most or many folks to understand
> and appreciate the formal qualities of a work. Not at all, in fact it seems to
> me that this is the initial doorway that arouses our interest in the first
> place.
You may be right about this, but it doesn't seem that way to me.
I'm around a lot of students that seem very subject-matter oriented, and
oblivious to form.
(snip)
> ...and turning it into a kind of exclusive "ism".
I really don't intend for it to sound that way.
But as usual, its a pleasure trading with you.
Mark
Iian Neill
> >On appearances,
> >Post-Modernism is libertarian and accepts all movements and all trends with
> > open arms. But the facts of such a system are easy to discover if you look
> at
> >the universities: their means of dissemination. If you look carefully at the
> >universities, you will find that 99% (if not 100% by now) of courses place
> >no emphasis on technique, except in the way of paying it lip-service, as one
> >might go through the motions of an old, old habit that has lost all its
> meaning and
> >vitality.
>
> i went to school at a very small private institution, so i really don't have
> the knowledge of major art schools. i was taught by very "Post Modern"
> artists and my drawing instructor was even AB EX, but they always emphasized
> rendering and technique, perhaps not in the "Old Master style" but
> definitely not lip service.
I understand that most universities would emphasize the importance life-drawing
- this is what I meant when I said that they generally only pay art lip-service.
There is nothing at all wrong with life-drawing, and do not think that I
disapprove of classes being given -- that is if they are given so as to improve
the student's abilities, and not merely to sit there doodling "expressively" for
a few hours, smearing charcoal on the page, taking part in "blind contour
drawing" triviliaties or any number of three or five minute "warm ups" - which
in my experience tended to last for a good hour at least! 99% of these teachers
would have no chance whatsoever in being able to paint as well as even the
average 19th century "academic" -- there would be a few, however, whose work may
stand against the more degenerate Post-Impressionists, but then to achieve such
a level of mastery surely wouldn't require an artist of phenomenal skill or
integrity.
> i was taught that to break the rules one must
> know the rules. my work was exclusively hand-built ceramics, but i still had
> to know how to accurately render, with pencil and somewhat with paint.
I will have to grant that Ceramics courses generally do place more importance on
technique than do Painting and Sculpture ones. Photography also has a strong
basis in the technical aspects of the craft.
> in
> the more advances classes we were allowed to break the rules, however if you
> tried to jump the step, you were sent right back to rendering.
Breaking the rules during university-level study will only send one backwards --
it takes years to achieve even a competent technique, and only a confident
Master can break the rules - and he never does so with impunity or disregard. In
such cases, the rules are not so much broken as they are set aside in favour of
new ones. Those new ones, however, were based on fundamental principles of
aesthetic skill - not on the elevation of incompetence to so-called
"expression".
> i had no
> talent in 2-d work and had to struggle and practice for the ability to
> render with any accuracy, but i did and believe it is vital.
You were quite right.
> i have no
> disrespect for representational art, and i honestly believe that your idea
> of us, is skewed. because i enjoy de Kooning, does not mean i reject all
> that has come before.
It has never been my intention to imply that those who enjoy de Kooning or
Pollock or Cezanne do not like the works of the Old Masters. It has been my
intention, however, to question whether these men were artists, and if so,
whether they were good or bad artists.
> of course, i did not have the "old master" tutelage,
> but that kind of mentoring opportunity really can't exist in the
> universities of today, this is a societal issue more that artistic.
It is more of a philosophical issue, which did influence society in the end.
> emphasis
> on monetary success instead of true education has drastically effected the
> entire institution of education, this is not exclusive to the arts.
Do not forget that there were many academies and ateliers in the 19th century --
they were not created to just further art that existed for its own sake -- to
lie in the basement somewhere, unseen. Artists who enrolled were as interested
as those today in making money, and the best of them were interested in making
art. Fortunately, this often coincided.
> you say use the word feeling as if it is a dirty word.
Only when a feeling about a work is being touted as an objective fact.
Otherwise, I have no dispute with it at all.
> is a feeling not an unanalyzed thought...
Is not thought all about analysis and concept-formation, when one comes down to
it? Animals can feel ... should they make judgements about art? *Can they* make
judgements about art?
> is there not a reason that a person has a feeling about a painting?
I do not deny the importance of feeling - what I am saying is that to declare
that you "feel" an object to be a work of art (let alone a great one) is not
enough - you have to be able to support your statements with objective facts.
For a start, is the work even art at all? Your feeling about it will tell me no
more about that than will anyone else's feeling. Do you see my point here?
> a feeling could be about color, composition, light or not
> quite conscious acknowledgement of content. i do not believe that any
> critique of art can be entirely objective, we are a product of our
> environment.
I agree that it would be very difficult to judge the precise merits of a work of
art entirely by objective standards. At the moment, however, I am arguing that
one can distinguish art from non/anti-art using objective methods.
This is not to imply that once we have determined it to be art, we can then
abandon objective standards and facts. We will need these just as much as
before, but it merely becomes more difficult to make authoritative statements,
depending on how deeply we analyze it. In the end, though, for *any critique to
have any value, what the critic is saying must be able to be confirmed or denied
by a rational observer - otherwise his critique has no critical value*.
> an enlighten mind might be able to separate more of the
> subjective from the objective, but i have not seen any being(or think it
> would be a wise idea) able to make the separation complete. if art is
> subjective(the making of it), why should it's critique be. i know,
> especially with non representational art, this makes the process of valuing
> art(what is or is not good art) near impossible, but it seems to me that it
> should be this way.
It is impossible to objectively value nonrepresentational pictures in any terms
- one resorts to discussions about its formal qualities, its use of colour,
density of paint and what have you. Such discussions do not tell us whether the
object in question is a work of art, a work of craft, or even non/anti-art. This
is not to deny their importance when judging the aesthetic value of the work
itself - but such formal principles are useless unless we are talking about a
work of art in the first place. To put it simply, the valuing of
nonrepresentational pictures is impossible because they cannot be objectively
analyzed. We are entitled to state what we feel about them, but we cannot say
(truthfully) anything about their actual artistic quality - because their status
as art cannot be demonstrated.
CROCUSDES
>I'm very sure that I'm qualifying all of my remarks here with "to my mind"
Yes, that's true for all of us here Mark. It's implied that we are each
expressing a personal point of view. None of us have to be defensive about our
views if questioned, we're just stating our ideas. I don't care if any of us
is right or wrong and you probably don't either. Sooner or later, if not
already, we'll each apply to our own works whatever it is that we think is
important. What's really useful in a practical sense is that whenever we might
be pushed we are challenged in our own minds to better define what we feel.
It's simply an aid that helps us do better whatever it is that each of us does,
that's what I get out of the dialog anyway.
>(snip....continued from above) I was asked specifically my take on the issue
of >form vs. content. In my view, content is important, but not to the quality
of
>the piece. For me, that resides in the demonstration of form. This is only
>my view. I'm trying to convince no one of this, but it is all that works
>for me.
And that's fair enough. I might ask this and it doesn't require an answer. Do
the issues raised in this forum help you to better define your own point of
view and understanding regarding form in your case, idea in mine? I find it
useful to broaden the scope of what I consider important and through something
like this, other questions arise that I realize would be worth exploring
further.
Case in point is Iian's position regarding content and subject matter. His
views on this has given me cause to reconsider the issue in ways I haven't
taken seriously before. That doesn't mean I'll eventually concur with him but
it does mean that I'll be forced to better understand what my own understanding
is. I'm assuming the same is true for you regarding any particular issue that
relates to your particular interest.
setai
Iian Neill wrote in message <362F2CBF...@student.uq.edu.au>...
>One does not necessarily need a title or even artistic commentary to
determine what a
>painting is about - what, in short, is its subject matter. The subject
matter of a painting
>is what is contained within the painting itself. If the subject is
objectively unalyzable,
>then one can not say whether the artist has achieved their aims, because
one has nothing to
>compare the effects of the painting against the impulse which motivated its
creation.
see, this is where i have the problem... it (post modern art) is unalyzable
with your set of criteria which was created for a certain kind of art, so
what is the surprise it doesn't work for a different form. Newtonian
physics worked wonderfully for a world where we could not see beyond the
naked eye, but can not hold up in the world of the sub-atomic and cellular.
this did not make newton less important or Conservation of Mass and Energy
less valid. when a theory reaches a point where all new observations must
be thrown out or the theory falls, it seems logical to me to get a new
theory. Lian, you throw out almost all twentieth century art, actually
unless you have papal dispensation you throw out all primitive art, when
will it be time to consider adjusting the criteria for what makes art. if
scientist can do it, even the Catholic Church has done it, why can't you?
>That which distinguishes fine art from
>craft, however, would seem to rest on the intellectual component; and if we
only regard the
>beauty or skill of the works, then what have we to distinguish it from
craft, or even some
>fragment of nature that is not man-made at all?
i do not agree that the difference between craft and art rests(at least
solely) on the intellectual component. actually i would find the opposite
closer to the truth, it is the non-intellectual(intellectual by your
definition meaning provable by a strict set of physical standards) that
separates art from craft( and i think the line there is very hazy anyway).
maybe i am wrong, i am perfectly aware of my ignorance on the subject of the
Absolute Truth, but i genuinely try to understand to the best of my ability
what is the truth. so tell me why does "art" rest on the intellectual
component?
>
>If you wish to feel that representation is not the determining factor in
distinguishing art
>from non-art, then you are quite free to. I will always continue to
politely differ,
>however, and attempt to justify my position as clearly and rationally as
possible.
lian, be patient because i still do not see it. you prove that
representational art is the determining factor in distinguishing art by
people who thought only representational art could be art. this to me is
circular logic. if it isn't give me the cold hard facts, prove it... you
like proving things with objectiveness then do it with the rulebook that you
use to make these objective criteria. i could create a book that proves
that socks are supreme beings and if you could only use my book to prove
that they were not, then how well would you do? how truly objective would
that be? i think this is fair and if it stands, then it stand and i have
learned a great deal about art, if not then we have some really interesting
discussions ahead of us.
>We need to know about the artist's intent if we wish to judge how
successful the painting
>is. Please remember that I am not saying that even if the painting fails on
this account it
>cannot be beautiful or inspiring to you in some way -- what I am saying is
that if we can
>not objectively determine whether the object is even a work of art, then we
have no place
>in declaring it to be a good or bad work of art. It becomes something else
entirely.
ok... who gets to decide the failure of a individuals intent? now unless
this is technical(which i would love to know how you actually know was his
intent, TS Elliot) there is no way you are every going to completely know
that you are correct on deciphering the intent. this book of yours is
getting bigger and bigger, an index of all artists', who ever did or will
exist, intent... wow how much is the paperback?( a joke, i am sorry, i
couldn't resist)
>This is only so if you have no hierarchy of values -- or if you dispute the
necessity of
>having a scale of values. For example, how would you regard a
'misanthropic' painting in
>comparison to a 'philanthropic' painting? Or, if you find paintings to
remote from every
>day life, how would you regard a racist book in comparison to a
humanitarian book which
>promotes the rights of Man, etc.?
depends, i have found more interesting and valuable lessons in racist
books(considering most of the greats were racists), than most of the
humanitarian books. the rights of man are inherent, only the ignorant or
blindly lead do not automatically acknowledge them, it is part of the "rite
of the intellectual", preaching to the choir, boring for the most part and
rarely of great value to the enlightened. it is more of a "cool, my ideas
are backed up by one of the "greats" activity, it gives you clarity, but
rarely insight.
>We can certainly say that the racist book has more or
>less achieved its intention depending upon how skillfully the work was
executed to achieve
>that aim -- but having made this analysis, are we obliged to say that the
racist book is
>worth as much as the humanitarian novel?
worth, is that in your book too? why do you hold the definition for worth,
who wrote this book?
>If we declare this to be so -- if we hold that there is "no better subject
matter" -- then
>are we not tacitly supporting the racist book by not criticizing its
message? Or do you
>consider, perhaps, such values to be out-moded and anachronistic in this
modern age?
surprised you didn't throw the Nazi argument, your better than this lian.
just because a racist book has more worth(whatever that is suppose to mean
in your objective world) than a "humanitarian" book, does not mean that one
is supporting racism and you know it. no circular logic, no unlinkable
assumptions.
>My interest in representationalism is based upon rational principles
related to the very
>purpose of art itself.
maybe i missed them, so could you please list them and of course justify
them.
>The intellectual
>content is never missing from a work of art - if it is, then it becomes a
work of craft, or
>possibly a work of anti-art.
what if a propose that intellectual is not exclusively objective, how can it
be until we entirely comprehend the human mind?
tracy
setai
Iian Neill wrote in message <362F327B...@student.uq.edu.au>...
>I understand that most universities would emphasize the importance
life-drawing
>- this is what I meant when I said that they generally only pay art
lip-service.
>There is nothing at all wrong with life-drawing, and do not think that I
>disapprove of classes being given -- that is if they are given so as to
improve
>the student's abilities, and not merely to sit there doodling
"expressively" for
>a few hours, smearing charcoal on the page, taking part in "blind contour
>drawing" triviliaties or any number of three or five minute "warm ups" -
which
>in my experience tended to last for a good hour at least!
that is not what i said, implied or meant. life drawing, which was an
aspect but hardly the total of drawing courses, was not 1hr of blind contour
and other triviliaties like 3-5 minutes sketches. in a two hour class with a
model would mean 1/2 hr of trivilaties(not that they really are trival), 1/2
hr of breaks(mainly for the model) and 1hr pose(and in the advanced courses
this naturally would be a continuation of the work from the previous class).
i am not arguing that this is even close to the intensity of 17,18,19
century curricullum, but you are paying lip service to the basis for many
young artist and i find it rather disconcerning.
>
>> i was taught that to break the rules one must
>> know the rules. my work was exclusively hand-built ceramics, but i still
had
>> to know how to accurately render, with pencil and somewhat with paint.
>
>I will have to grant that Ceramics courses generally do place more
importance on
>technique than do Painting and Sculpture ones. Photography also has a
strong
>basis in the technical aspects of the craft.
ok, i am just curious, is that a compliment or one of your lian dignified
put downs? i honestly am not sure.
Are you implying that ceramic and photography craft not art, "strong basis
in the technical aspects of the craft."?
>> in
>> the more advances classes we were allowed to break the rules, however if
you
>> tried to jump the step, you were sent right back to rendering.
>
>Breaking the rules during university-level study will only send one
backwards --
>it takes years to achieve even a competent technique, and only a confident
>Master can break the rules - and he never does so with impunity or
disregard. In
>such cases, the rules are not so much broken as they are set aside in
favour of
>new ones. Those new ones, however, were based on fundamental principles of
>aesthetic skill - not on the elevation of incompetence to so-called
>"expression".
Masters? is that in your book... the exact time when a particular artist
becomes an Master. we do not live in 1708 lian, there are no Masters, that
requires a long dead system of apprenticship and curricullum that does not
exist.
>It has never been my intention to imply that those who enjoy de Kooning or
>Pollock or Cezanne do not like the works of the Old Masters. It has been my
>intention, however, to question whether these men were artists, and if so,
>whether they were good or bad artists.
de Kooning an artist? you don't have have to tell me if he is good or not, i
know that answer.
>> of course, i did not have the "old master" tutelage,
>> but that kind of mentoring opportunity really can't exist in the
>> universities of today, this is a societal issue more that artistic.
>
>It is more of a philosophical issue, which did influence society in the
end.
address the point, not my theory for why. i posed that "old master" tutelage
did not exist.
>Do not forget that there were many academies and ateliers in the 19th
century --
>they were not created to just further art that existed for its own sake --
to
>lie in the basement somewhere, unseen. Artists who enrolled were as
interested
>as those today in making money, and the best of them were interested in
making
>art. Fortunately, this often coincided.
however it was patronage, not salesmanship that made the money...
>> is a feeling not an unanalyzed thought...
>
>Is not thought all about analysis and concept-formation, when one comes
down to
>it? Animals can feel ... should they make judgements about art? *Can they*
make
>judgements about art?
not again with this dirty logic, do you think i am too stupid to see the
problem with this statement.
"animals can feel... should they make judgements", please lian. if
humans(which includes yourself) "feel" in the exact way animals feel then we
aren't humans. emote, is that better lian, or perhaps you are too busy
eating the lice out of you mates hair to "feel" obligated to reply? i
"feel", you owe me an apology!
> Your feeling about it will tell me no
>more about that than will anyone else's feeling. Do you see my point here?
because i would not have those masonic code to prove that i have a copy of
you BOOK OF ABSOLUTE TRUTHS, and allowed to have value in your backwards,
ludite, glorified "old boys club", sticking your fingers in your ears,
derragatory but soooo civilized, hide behind intimadation tactics(not that i
find it intimadating) world. how much for the secret decoder ring?
i see the point, and after the animal feeling comment you deserve you get is
straight. your point is if art(meaning lian's opinion and all the people
lian thinks are worthy) can not be objectively(with your rulebook)
identified as having merit, then god forbid the correct(facist) might be
placed on an equal footing with others(obviously unfit), i shutter to think.
i thought i had an elistist streak, but to create formal rules(not to
mention absolute ones) for entrance to the "intellectual" or your not
allowed to be heard, that is harsh.
>I agree that it would be very difficult to judge the precise merits of a
work of
>art entirely by objective standards. At the moment, however, I am arguing
that
>one can distinguish art from non/anti-art using objective methods.
as long as the ojective methods are yours.
>This is not to imply that once we have determined it to be art, we can then
>abandon objective standards and facts. We will need these just as much as
>before, but it merely becomes more difficult to make authoritative
statements,
>depending on how deeply we analyze it. In the end, though, for *any
critique to
>have any value, what the critic is saying must be able to be confirmed or
denied
>by a rational observer - otherwise his critique has no critical value*.
you know lian why does it matter what i say, i am a stupid animal with
"feelings". i don't create art, i have no morals, no skill, no values... you
win, of course you created the rule book.
LISTEN EVERYONE TO EVERYTHING LIAN HAS TO SAY BECAUSE HE IS THE ONLY LIVING
BEING WHO KNOWS WHAT ART IS AND EVERYTHING ELSE !!!!
i guess this is the only ojective, hence true, statement i have ever
uttered.
>It is impossible to objectively value nonrepresentational pictures in any
terms
>- one resorts to discussions about its formal qualities, its use of colour,
>density of paint and what have you. Such discussions do not tell us whether
the
>object in question is a work of art, a work of craft, or even non/anti-art.
This
>is not to deny their importance when judging the aesthetic value of the
work
>itself - but such formal principles are useless unless we are talking about
a
>work of art in the first place. To put it simply, the valuing of
>nonrepresentational pictures is impossible because they cannot be
objectively
>analyzed. We are entitled to state what we feel about them, but we cannot
say
>(truthfully) anything about their actual artistic quality - because their
status
>as art cannot be demonstrated.
>
> Regards,
>
> Iian Neill
the stupid animal who foolishly calls herself,
tracy
Iian Neill
> >determine what a painting is about - what, in short, is its subject matter.
> The subject
> >matter of a painting is what is contained within the painting itself. If the
> subject is
> >objectively unalyzable, then one can not say whether the artist has achieved
> their aims, because
> >one has nothing to compare the effects of the painting against the impulse
> which motivated its
> >creation.
>
> see, this is where i have the problem... it (post modern art) is unalyzable
> with your set of criteria which was created for a certain kind of art, so
> what is the surprise it doesn't work for a different form.
What is it, precisely, that you find objectionable in the above paragraph? Do
you believe that critics should not compare the work to the artist's intention
in creating? Do you believe that we should only take its beauty or composition
into account, and nothing else? What if the painting was intended to represent
joy, and through its crudity or insincerity it instead represents suffering? I
am not saying that you can't like the work, regardless of what it achieves - but
if we are to measure (in some regard) the achievement of the artist, then how
else can we expect to do this objectively without referrence to facts any
rational person has access to?
> Newtonian
> physics worked wonderfully for a world where we could not see beyond the
> naked eye, but can not hold up in the world of the sub-atomic and cellular.
> this did not make newton less important or Conservation of Mass and Energy
> less valid.
This is correct in regards to those theories, yes.
> when a theory reaches a point where all new observations must
> be thrown out or the theory falls, it seems logical to me to get a new
> theory.
Indeed.
> Lian, you throw out almost all twentieth century art, actually
> unless you have papal dispensation you throw out all primitive art,
I do not need nor desire a "papal dispensation"; such things gain their
authority from supernatural realms (God's Word, etc.) -- "revealed knowledge"
(revelation) is entirely different from observable facts.
> when
> will it be time to consider adjusting the criteria for what makes art. if
> scientist can do it, even the Catholic Church has done it, why can't you?
If everyone in the 20th century agreed to define knives as being spoons, would
you follow along with them as well? The issue here is the nature of the object
or phenomenon in question, which, in this case, is Art. I haven't said that
people can not enjoy the beauty (or whatever other properties it has) of an
object, whether it is Art, craft, non-art or even anti-art. It is when they wish
to say that "This *is* art", that we have to try and go beyond our intuition and
come up with something to serve as the foundation for further criticism. I could
say that anything is art, if I wished, but would that make it art? No, it would
not. Why not? Anyone else could come along and say that they think that what I
call art is NOT art after all - and then where would we be? - We would end up in
verbal fisticuffs, neither side budging, nor relenting on its intuition, on its
feelings. What makes one person's feeling more valid than another person's?
Facing this situation, therefore, it seems best to try and found a criticism
of art on rational principles, so that any reasonable person (no matter what his
tastes may be) can agree that this is at least Art - whatever other qualities it
may or may not display.
> >That which distinguishes fine art from
> >craft, however, would seem to rest on the intellectual component; and if we
> >only regard the beauty or skill of the works, then what have we to
> distinguish it from
> >craft, or even some fragment of nature that is not man-made at all?
>
> i do not agree that the difference between craft and art rests(at least
> solely) on the intellectual component. actually i would find the opposite
> closer to the truth, it is the non-intellectual(intellectual by your
> definition meaning provable by a strict set of physical standards) that
> separates art from craft( and i think the line there is very hazy anyway).
> maybe i am wrong, i am perfectly aware of my ignorance on the subject of the
> Absolute Truth, but i genuinely try to understand to the best of my ability
> what is the truth. so tell me why does "art" rest on the intellectual
> component?
Art-work certainly has a large instinctual element to it, but what seperates it
from basket-weaving or knitting is that art possess an intellectual component --
that is to say, the artist has a deliberate intention which he portrays by means
which it (his intention) becomes comprehensible to human reason; this would
indicate that splashing paint around the canvas, with no attempt made to
concretize the artist's conceptualization, would not be objectively analyzable
by even the most formiddable intellect -- in that bombast of splurged paint, a
mind could read any intention and no intention - in short, there is nothing that
the critic can truthfully criticize. He can *attempt* to criticize it, either by
referring to the artist's comments about what it was intended to "do" or
whatever explanation has caught his fancy (whether it be his own or some other
critic's), but the fact remains that he is no closer to persuading any rational
observer as to the validity of his judgement - in essence, what he has done here
is to merely state his feeling. Now, do not misunderstand me. There is nothing
wrong with feelings, and there is nothing wrong with *stating* your feelings -
there *is* something wrong, however, in stating that your feelings are "facts".
We need more than that to base criticisms of art on - otherwise, anyone can just
roll up and declare, "I feel that Michelangelo wasn't an artist", or, "I feel
that Pollock was the greatest painter", and we would have nothing to seperate
(ie., validate) these feelings other than what *we* feel ourselves!
> >If you wish to feel that representation is not the determining factor in
> >distinguishing art from non-art, then you are quite free to. I will always
> continue to
> >politely differ, however, and attempt to justify my position as clearly and
> rationally as
> >possible.
>
> lian, be patient because i still do not see it. you prove that
> representational art is the determining factor in distinguishing art by
> people who thought only representational art could be art. this to me is
> circular logic. if it isn't give me the cold hard facts, prove it...
I have done this, repeatedly, over the past week. I am not saying that my
argument will stand unassisted when we come to ask the question, "What is
*great* art?", but it appears to be at least sufficient in delineating art from
non-art. Since you request to see my reasoning (based on facts), I would refer
you to the paragraph above this one, where I wrote about Pollock and
Michelangelo. If you would still like further argumentation, I can supply this.
At the present time, however, it seems to me that the aforementioned paragraph
should explain the essentials of my argument fairly well.
> you
> like proving things with objectiveness then do it with the rulebook that you
> use to make these objective criteria.
Does one need a rule-book to agree that a tree exists? All we need to do is
observe it with our own eyes. The same applies when we are considering what
distinguishes art from non-art. I haven't quoted lines from some mysterious
rule-book, I have instead argued from things which we can all observe, using
relatively clear language (as clear as I can make it, at least) and with
examples provided when necessary.
> I could create a book that proves
> that socks are supreme beings and if you could only use my book to prove
> that they were not, then how well would you do? how truly objective would
> that be?
Your argument for the existence of a Supreme Sock might be logically valid, but
that doesn't make it logically *sound*. The former indicates that your argument
is structured correctly; the latter indicates that there is a mistake in one or
more of your premises.
> >We need to know about the artist's intent if we wish to judge how
> >successful the painting is. Please remember that I am not saying that even if
> the painting fails on
> >this account it cannot be beautiful or inspiring to you in some way -- what I
> am saying is
> >that if we can not objectively determine whether the object is even a work of
> art, then we
> >have no place in declaring it to be a good or bad work of art. It becomes
> something else
> >entirely.
>
> ok... who gets to decide the failure of a individuals intent?
Any rational observer.
> now unless
> this is technical(which i would love to know how you actually know was his
> intent, TS Elliot)
T.S. Elliot wrote accompanying notes to "The Wasteland" which were apparently
false - he had written them to mislead his critics. I am not certain of this
myself, but this is what my father (who has been studying Elliot for some years)
has said to me. I referred to Elliot to illustrate a point - we cannot rely
entirely on what the artist says about his work. We need to judge the *work
itself*.
> there is no way you are every going to completely know
> that you are correct on deciphering the intent.
There will always exist ambiguity in some cases. We still ough to try and find
as much as possible that *can* be objectively analyzed - and if there is nothing
there, then we cannot analyze it as art.
> >This is only so if you have no hierarchy of values -- or if you dispute the
> >necessity of having a scale of values. For example, how would you regard a
> >'misanthropic' painting in comparison to a 'philanthropic' painting? Or, if
> you find paintings to
> >remote from every day life, how would you regard a racist book in comparison
> to a
> >humanitarian book which promotes the rights of Man, etc.?
>
> depends, i have found more interesting and valuable lessons in racist
> books(considering most of the greats were racists), than most of the
> humanitarian books.
Then one would have to weigh up the overall message of the novel. How much
immorality is the author promoting? If the sum outweighs the racist parts, then
we may feel satisfied with approving the work as a whole - but this should not
mean that we ignore the racist bits, or gloss over them. In fact, this is a very
prominent concern in English Literature: - the dissection of a book into what it
promotes, and then the judgement of certain parts of the work according to that.
> the rights of man are inherent, only the ignorant or
> blindly lead do not automatically acknowledge them, it is part of the "rite
> of the intellectual",
Just a quick question: How is it that you know that the "rights of man are
inherent"? I am not disputing this with you, I am just curious to hear your
reasoning on this matter.
> preaching to the choir, boring for the most part and
> rarely of great value to the enlightened. it is more of a "cool, my ideas
> are backed up by one of the "greats" activity, it gives you clarity, but
> rarely insight.
There is an good phrase I picked up in a book about the composer Medtner: "Art
should show, not teach."This indicates that good art promotes good values by
example, ie., through sincerity and clarity of expression, as opposed to
dogmatic assertion. Sort of the difference, in life, between "Do what I say",
and "Do what I do".
> >We can certainly say that the racist book has more or
> >less achieved its intention depending upon how skillfully the work was
> >executed to achieve that aim -- but having made this analysis, are we obliged
> to say that the
> >racist book is worth as much as the humanitarian novel?
>
> worth, is that in your book too? why do you hold the definition for worth,
> who wrote this book?
I am referring here to moral worth, not literary worth.
> >If we declare this to be so -- if we hold that there is "no better subject
> >matter" -- then are we not tacitly supporting the racist book by not
> criticizing its
> >message? Or do you consider, perhaps, such values to be out-moded and
> anachronistic in this
> >modern age?
>
> surprised you didn't throw the Nazi argument, your better than this lian.
> just because a racist book has more worth (whatever that is suppose to mean
> in your objective world) than a "humanitarian" book, does not mean that one
> is supporting racism and you know it. no circular logic, no unlinkable
> assumptions.
You have misinterpreted my arguments, therefore your criticism is invalid - it
based on incorrect premises, at least one of which is that I am arguing that a
racist book has less literary worth or social impact than a humanitarian one. If
you read my statements carefully, I think that you will see this is not what I
have been claiming at all.
To clarify my points: -- Firstly, when I refered to judging the "worth" of a
racist book, at that point I was talking about moral worth, not literary worth.
Secondly, a racist book (one which *promotes racism*) may have virtues which
outweigh its immoral aspects - this does not mean that we should ignore or gloss
over those immoral aspects. In fact, it is very important that we make people
aware of them, so that they do not feel that those attitudes are normal or
laudable.
If you still believe that I am just making it up as I go along, consulting some
mystical rule book, or using circular logic, then you will need to show specific
cases where I contradict those two points quoted above.
> >My interest in representationalism is based upon rational principles
> >related to the very purpose of art itself.
>
> maybe i missed them, so could you please list them and of course justify
> them.
Please refer back to my previous paragraph which refered to Leonarda da Vinci
and Jackson Pollock. If you would like further clarification, I can supply it
upon request.
> >The intellectual
> >content is never missing from a work of art - if it is, then it becomes a
> >work of craft, or possibly a work of anti-art.
>
> what if a propose that intellectual is not exclusively objective, how can it
> be until we entirely comprehend the human mind?
The intellect may not be the perfect instrument of objective analysis, but it is
the greatest one, far superior to mere assertion of one's feelings or intuition
as fact.
Iian Neill
> >life-drawing - this is what I meant when I said that they generally only pay
> art
> >lip-service. There is nothing at all wrong with life-drawing, and do not
> think that I
> >disapprove of classes being given -- that is if they are given so as to
> >improve the student's abilities, and not merely to sit there doodling
> >"expressively" for a few hours, smearing charcoal on the page, taking part in
> "blind contour
> >drawing" triviliaties or any number of three or five minute "warm ups" -
> >which in my experience tended to last for a good hour at least!
>
> that is not what i said, implied or meant. life drawing, which was an
> aspect but hardly the total of drawing courses, was not 1hr of blind contour
> and other triviliaties like 3-5 minutes sketches.
I am glad to hear that.
> in a two hour class with a
> model would mean 1/2 hr of trivilaties (not that they really are trival),
That is certainly debatable - at a later time, perhaps.
> 1/2 hr of breaks(mainly for the model) and 1hr pose (and in the advanced
> courses
> this naturally would be a continuation of the work from the previous class).
> i am not arguing that this is even close to the intensity of 17,18,19
> century curricullum, but you are paying lip service to the basis for many
> young artist and i find it rather disconcerning.
What you have reported above doesn't seem at all implausible concerning today's
life-drawing classes. I am not saying that they don't have their positive effect
in their own way, but, as you already know, I do not see them as being any where
near as effective as pre-20th century classes.
> >> i was taught that to break the rules one must
> >> know the rules. my work was exclusively hand-built ceramics, but i still
> >>had to know how to accurately render, with pencil and somewhat with paint.
> >
> >I will have to grant that Ceramics courses generally do place more
> >importance on technique than do Painting and Sculpture ones. Photography also
> has a
> >strong basis in the technical aspects of the craft.
>
> ok, i am just curious, is that a compliment or one of your lian dignified
> put downs? i honestly am not sure.
Ceramics and Photography both have strong grounding in technical skills, which
is something I heartily approve of.
> Are you implying that ceramic and photography craft not art, "strong basis
> in the technical aspects of the craft."?
Yes.
> >> in
> >> the more advances classes we were allowed to break the rules, however if
> >> you tried to jump the step, you were sent right back to rendering.
> >
> >Breaking the rules during university-level study will only send one
> >backwards -- it takes years to achieve even a competent technique, and only a
> confident
> >Master can break the rules - and he never does so with impunity or
> >disregard. In such cases, the rules are not so much broken as they are set
> aside in
> >favour of new ones. Those new ones, however, were based on fundamental
> principles of
> >aesthetic skill - not on the elevation of incompetence to so-called
> >"expression".
>
> Masters? is that in your book... the exact time when a particular artist
> becomes an Master. we do not live in 1708 lian, there are no Masters, that
> requires a long dead system of apprenticship and curricullum that does not
> exist.
There are a number of Master still in existence today. Richard Lack, Nelson
Shanks, Michael Wilkinson come to mind immediately, all of whom are in America
or were educated in America. There are, of course, many other artists of talent
today, some of them approaching Lack, Shanks and Wilkinson to varying degrees.
There may also exist other artists I am not aware about who would easily qualify
to enter their circle.
(Off-hand, Frederick Hart and Ben Long should be considered as well.)
> >It has never been my intention to imply that those who enjoy de Kooning or
> >Pollock or Cezanne do not like the works of the Old Masters. It has been my
> >intention, however, to question whether these men were artists, and if so,
> >whether they were good or bad artists.
>
> de Kooning an artist? you don't have have to tell me if he is good or not, i
> know that answer.
There are certain of his paintings which qualify as art; crude, ugly and
insubstantial art, yes, but art nonetheless, according to my own arguments.
One work comes immediately to mind; I came across it on Mark Harden's site. It
is a "Seated Woman", painted around about 1940. You can find it here:
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/ftptoc/de_kooning_ext.html
> >> of course, i did not have the "old master" tutelage,
> >> but that kind of mentoring opportunity really can't exist in the
> >> universities of today, this is a societal issue more that artistic.
> >
> >It is more of a philosophical issue, which did influence society in the
> >end.
>
> address the point, not my theory for why. i posed that "old master" tutelage
> did not exist.
You are incorrect. I refer you to the "American Society for Classical Realism",
which can trace its 'lineage' back directly to Jean-Leon Gerome, Paul Delaroche
and Jacque-Louis David. The ASCR has a homepage, also:
http://www.ee.pdx.edu/~pamela/ASCR/
In any case, were the ASCR (and scattered institutions like it) not to exist,
this would hardly be proof that they are not needed, or that they would prove
useful.
> >Do not forget that there were many academies and ateliers in the 19th
> >century -- they were not created to just further art that existed for its own
> sake --
> >to lie in the basement somewhere, unseen. Artists who enrolled were as
> >interested as those today in making money, and the best of them were
> interested in
> >making art. Fortunately, this often coincided.
>
> however it was patronage, not salesmanship that made the money...
It depends on what era you are refering to. 19th century artists were not
necessarily tied down to one buyer - their work was often reproduced in
photographs and prints and put up for sale at the Salons, or through a dealer.
> >> is a feeling not an unanalyzed thought...
> >
> >Is not thought all about analysis and concept-formation, when one comes
> >down to it? Animals can feel ... should they make judgements about art? *Can
> they*
> >make judgements about art?
>
> not again with this dirty logic, do you think i am too stupid to see the
> problem with this statement.
No.
> "animals can feel... should they make judgements", please lian. if
> humans (which includes yourself) "feel" in the exact way animals feel then we
> aren't humans. emote, is that better lian, or perhaps you are too busy
> eating the lice out of you mates hair to "feel" obligated to reply? i
> "feel", you owe me an apology!
You have read into my statement a patronizing interpretation that was never
intended to be there. In noting that animals have feelings I was emphasizing my
previous points that one cannot rely on feelings alone to judge what is art and
what is not art.
> >I agree that it would be very difficult to judge the precise merits of a
> >work of art entirely by objective standards. At the moment, however, I am
> arguing
> >that one can distinguish art from non/anti-art using objective methods.
>
> as long as the ojective methods are yours.
Refer to the points I made in the post immediately preceeding this one,
concerning objective judgements.
> LISTEN EVERYONE TO EVERYTHING LIAN HAS TO SAY BECAUSE HE IS THE ONLY LIVING
> BEING WHO KNOWS WHAT ART IS AND EVERYTHING ELSE !!!!
>
> i guess this is the only ojective, hence true, statement i have ever
> uttered.
Both of your statements are incorrect.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
mark webber
On 22 Oct 1998, CROCUSDES wrote:
(snip)
> And that's fair enough. I might ask this and it doesn't require an answer. Do
> the issues raised in this forum help you to better define your own point of
> view and understanding regarding form in your case, idea in mine?
They help me to try to put my views into words, yes, which is something I
haven't tried much to do in the past. I don't think there is a direct
effect on my painting, but it seems to be helping in my teaching. I'm
trying not to be strictly a formalist teacher; trying to represent other
points of view.
That's why I was sorry to see Gabriel Romeu disappear, because he had said
he's a post-modernist. I would have found it really interesting to hear
more about why he calls himself one.
> I find it
> useful to broaden the scope of what I consider important and through something
> like this, other questions arise that I realize would be worth exploring
> further.
Absolutely. Same here.
>
> Case in point is Iian's position regarding content and subject matter. His
> views on this has given me cause to reconsider the issue in ways I haven't
> taken seriously before. That doesn't mean I'll eventually concur with him but
> it does mean that I'll be forced to better understand what my own understanding
> is. I'm assuming the same is true for you regarding any particular issue that
> relates to your particular interest.
Yup.
Mark
CROCUSDES
>Well in the real world I have learned that Modernism has crushed the
>need for illusion in art. The work of art is the reality, it doesn't
>need to refer to anything else.
I share the same feeling about art as a reality in itself Marilyn but I think
we also realize that this is only one approach and one point of view regarding
something as truly pluralistic as "art". I don't think any prior views or
approach is invalidated by what follows but is incorporated into an ever
expanding universe of this practice. So far I'm very much unconvinced that any
truly objective rules either apply or even exists for that matter, on how we
make art or how we view the results. Conventions and guidelines are useful, no
question, but only in a very narrow sense.
As practicing artists, we each choose a path to follow which we normally
embrace as our true vision. It's not unusual to be asked to justify what we're
doing if we are to be included in the "art club". I personally can't think of
anything more healthy and invigorating than to be subjected to the push and
pulls of trying to explain our rationale. The value as I see it is not
necessarily acceptance, because some of us don't give a damn about that. It
does help us to push the limits of what we are attempting to do however, as we
better understand our own practice by trying to articulate our responses.
The more we have to consider our acts, the more we understand what it is we're
trying to do. Artmaking is an intuitive process in my opinion and intuition
doesn't lend itself to understanding through words very well. When we try to
translate intuitive knowledge or experience into argument or statement, then
feelings surface as something more concrete. Now we have something to think
about.
>But with 20 year old Iian, illusion
>remains the the goal. I think that his is the majority view here.
If we are going to explore exteme limits or only the untried, I really think we
need to have folks like Iian around to remind us where we are coming from. We
have stated often enough in so many words here, that without yesterday there
will be no tomorrow. The past will always be an integral part of the future as
well, so long as we have those folks shoring up the foundations of new
structures not fully framed in yet.
As for the reference to Iian's age.....well all I can say is that I don't
remember ever being so thoughtful and articulate as he is when I was that age.
He's well beyond twenty.... imagine Iian at forty!! Let's give him credit for
his ability and effort which is really admirable in my opinion. Doesn't mean
that I'll agree with him though, but I have no confirmation that I'm right
either.
setai
Iian Neill wrote in message <36308AB7...@student.uq.edu.au>...
>> this naturally would be a continuation of the work from the previous
class).
>> i am not arguing that this is even close to the intensity of 17,18,19
>> century curriculum, but you are paying lip service to the basis for many
>> young artist and i find it rather disconcerting.
>
>What you have reported above doesn't seem at all implausible concerning
today's
>life-drawing classes.
life-drawing classes, why so derogatory about any other course work beside
your own(well not your own,i have seen your work. you copy pictures from
books and tv, not life drawing)
> I am not saying that they don't have their positive effect
>in their own way, but, as you already know, I do not see them as being any
where
>near as effective as pre-20th century classes.
lian, you are in "pre-20 century classes"? is it the cartoons or the micheal
stipe/mozart that you credit to the the "Old Master" tutelage? you say you
wish to teach yourself, but that is not the way "old master tutelage"
worked. you have talent, but i have seen better technique and at best you
would be grinding paint at this point. you don't even follow your own rules
lian, how do you expect me, or anyone else to take you seriously? i will
tell you this, if you were under an Old Master, he would slap your silly for
you upstart mouth and you would never be allow to judge what is or isn't art
for another 5-10 years.
*from a previous post of lians*
>Breaking the rules during university-level study will only send one
backwards --
>it takes years to achieve even a competent technique, and only a confident
>Master can break the rules - and he never does so with impunity or
disregard. In
>such cases, the rules are not so much broken as they are set aside in
favour of
>new ones. Those new ones, however, were based on fundamental principles of
>aesthetic skill - not on the elevation of incompetence to so-called
>"expression".
you draw caricatures(and the dr. who ones are not very good) and paint star
trek actors, what rules did you not break? Hypocrite. this kind of idiot
hypocrisy is too pathetic to even express with words. my god lian you are a
20 yr old student in austrialia, you do park art and fantasy art. you are
good at rendering other peoples paintings(not completely accurate rendering,
not that i find that important), but the depth of your work is michael stipe
and geordi? your painting study of nudes makes Cezanne's women look
eloquent, where do you get off judge what is or is not art, when you don't
do art(if we use your rules). get a beret and big clown art smock and i will
pay you $20 to do your fine "OLD MASTER CARICATURES" . lian,your good(not
the best i have seen but good), but not good enough to ever get away with
this.
do you just spout what your professors or art books say and do not
understand how it applies to yourself,or are you merely insane? i am totally
serious!
>> Are you implying that ceramic and photography craft not art, "strong
basis
>> in the technical aspects of the craft."?
>
>Yes.
hypocrite... you say your goal is, "a return to the standards of
craftsmanship and quality as exemplified by the Old Masters" and this some
how means photography(which you have on your web page as your art) and
ceramics are not art. where do you get this rhetoric? I would like to know
how your head got so filled with crap to the point where you have the right
to judge other peoples' art and not even have rational thought about your
own? you tell me how geordi is art and dr. who is art and ceramic isn't?
you tell my how your paintings are art, but you can quip about mark's? i
have taken you to your word and allowed you words equal weight to chris's,
mark's and marilyn's, up till now. you have absolutely no basis for any
judgement, under your own actions and your own rules.
>There are a number of Master still in existence today. Richard Lack, Nelson
>Shanks, Michael Wilkinson come to mind immediately, all of whom are in
America
>or were educated in America. There are, of course, many other artists of
talent
>today, some of them approaching Lack, Shanks and Wilkinson to varying
degrees.
>There may also exist other artists I am not aware about who would easily
qualify
>to enter their circle.
>
>(Off-hand, Frederick Hart and Ben Long should be considered as well.)
would you like to explain to me how lucite sculpture is a valid art, but
ceramic sculpture is merely craft?
>> >> of course, i did not have the "old master" tutelage,
>> >> but that kind of mentoring opportunity really can't exist in the
>> >> universities of today, this is a societal issue more that artistic.
>> >
>> >It is more of a philosophical issue, which did influence society in the
>> >end.
>>
>> address the point, not my theory for why. i posed that "old master"
tutelage
>> did not exist.
does not exist in universities, which you are attending, not ASCR.
>You are incorrect. I refer you to the "American Society for Classical
Realism",
>which can trace its 'lineage' back directly to Jean-Leon Gerome, Paul
Delaroche
>and Jacque-Louis David. The ASCR has a homepage, also:
The American Society of Classical Realism and the Classical Realism Journal:
"Believe that the core of great art is the emotional thrust, but that art
only achieves greatness when the elements of the craft -- drawing,
composition, modeling, perspective, design and color -- are brought together
to support, enhance and intensify that emotion."
emotion... your classical "old master" rhetoric doesn't even follow your
mangled brainwashing... do you understand what a quote out of your own bible
says? objective, no... emotion, yes
>
>
>In any case, were the ASCR (and scattered institutions like it) not to
exist,
>this would hardly be proof that they are not needed, or that they would
prove
>useful.
useful for emotional art.
>
>> >> is a feeling not an unanalyzed thought...
>> >
>> >Is not thought all about analysis and concept-formation, when one comes
>> >down to it? Animals can feel ... should they make judgements about art?
*Can
>> they*
>> >make judgements about art?
>>
>> not again with this dirty logic, do you think i am too stupid to see the
>> problem with this statement.
>
>No.
>
>> "animals can feel... should they make judgements", please lian. if
>> humans (which includes yourself) "feel" in the exact way animals feel
then we
>> aren't humans. emote, is that better lian, or perhaps you are too busy
>> eating the lice out of you mates hair to "feel" obligated to reply? i
>> "feel", you owe me an apology!
>
>You have read into my statement a patronizing interpretation that was never
>intended to be there. In noting that animals have feelings I was
emphasizing my
>previous points that one cannot rely on feelings alone to judge what is art
and
>what is not art.
no, not emotions... those feeling wouldn't tell you if you were good or not,
but it seems that emotion is exactly what ASCR thinks is the most important
part of art, in fact all the skill is just to get to the "feeling part".
>> >I agree that it would be very difficult to judge the precise merits of a
>> >work of art entirely by objective standards. At the moment, however, I
am
>> arguing
>> >that one can distinguish art from non/anti-art using objective methods.
>>
>> as long as the objective methods are yours.
>
how can they be objective, when nothing i do and most of the work i admire
is not art?
lian...
i would still like to know what your criteria for art is. while your at it,
tell me why you caricatures and star trek paintings are art and 95% of 20 th
century art isn't?
what is wrong with you? i understand passion, but this in fanatical... you
don't even follow your own words. you throw around art and artist like they
are ragdolls and think that you have some justification in this. you can
not go around say the things you say without anything to back them up. you
want to be a classical realist fine, but there is more than drawing to be a
classical realist, there is theory(it is based on greek philosophy) that has
to be adhered to. it is not all about rendering and spouting bios and
brochures, it is about you aspiring to certain goals not just physical, but
spiritual, read about the men you say you admire.
tracy
setai
CROCUSDES wrote in message <19981023135413...@ng06.aol.com>...
>As for the reference to Iian's age.....well all I can say is that I don't
>remember ever being so thoughtful and articulate as he is when I was that
age.
>He's well beyond twenty.... imagine Iian at forty!! Let's give him credit
for
>his ability and effort which is really admirable in my opinion. Doesn't
mean
>that I'll agree with him though, but I have no confirmation that I'm right
>either.
chris
i think this is the first time when i have been in complete disagreement
with you. i find nothing thoughtful about his words, articulate yes. I am
only five years older than lian and not even when i was 16 would i have ever
told artist that their work was not art, especially if my own work would not
qualify as art under my own standard. i find nothing to credit in a
immature artist(which includes myself) telling other artist that their views
of art and 90% of modern art is not valid. intelligence is not based in
spewing text, but comprehension of it. passion without understanding is
madness and the making of dangerous fools. when you say only one form of
expression is art(whether it is well articulated or not had said that almost
everyone of us is not an artist or at least not a good one) and you do
caricatures and copies of tv actors, you say nothing, because there is
nothing but regurgitation of others' ideas. when i first started reading
lian's post took him at his word, just as i did you and mark and marilyn,
but it is a pose. lian, i could not imagine that you( an intelligent,
thoughtful, open-minded, and deeply expressive artist and being) were
anything like lian. i am sure you will think this is harsh, but to
flippantly denounce the artmaking of others, that is harsh. lian has talent,
but to me that is not enough.
tracy
Iian Neill
> >remains the the goal. I think that his is the majority view here.
>
> As for the reference to Iian's age.....well all I can say is that I don't
> remember ever being so thoughtful and articulate as he is when I was that age.
> He's well beyond twenty.... imagine Iian at forty!!
Thank you, Chris -- I am honoured.
> Let's give him credit for
> his ability and effort which is really admirable in my opinion. Doesn't mean
> that I'll agree with him though, but I have no confirmation that I'm right
> either.
I believe that you once mentioned that much of art is about the journey itself ...
perhaps you are referring to the process of self-discovery, and the joy in finding
that you can externalize what before had been an intensely personal feeling. Whilst
on the subject of this externalization (or concretization, if you prefer), I hope
you do not mind if I intrude a little and propose a rough and ready proposal for
the defense of skillfull realistic art in our modern.
If we understand art to be that process where our inner state is transferred to the
external world by means of paint, clay, charcoal, sounds or actions, then might we
not also agree that that which facilitates this projection the best is to be
strived for? What I mean is this: If there is a particular approach to expression
which makes our inner state (ideas, feelings, reminiscenes and so forth) that much
more powerful, which increases its profundity and ability to strike to the very
heart of the human soul ... then should we not consider such an approach to be of
immense importance?
Now, have you ever read a novel or watched a movie and found that the events
portrayed therein were so incredible (or so poorly composed, written, etc.) that
your appreciation for the actual message was marred by what one might describe as a
failure of the work to suspend your disbelief? If this example seems a little
abstruse, I am sure that many of you have at some time come across the rather
ludicrous 1950's science fiction films with their unintentionally amusing special
effects. I refer here to science-fiction films merely to illustrate a point: --
Poor technique (in this case, special effects) completely derails the message that
the writers had intended to come across. Accepting the likelihood that many of
these films were pulp to begin with, I am certain that everyone here can think of
at least one book or movie that was so inadequately written or filmed that you
spent more time groaning or laughing at its inadequacies than you were mesmerized
by its tale.
Why is it that the artists' intentions here have so clearly failed? It is because
they *failed to suspend our disbelief*. Human beings are not automata -- they
generally do not mistake films, books or paintings for real life - we all know when
we are faced with a painting as compared to a real person; similarly, when we pick
up a book we are quite conscious that we are not actually taking part in these
events -- **although the skill of the artist may be such that we feel we ARE indeed
immersed in the work**.
And here I arrive at the topic I wish to offer up to discussion, the apologia for
representationalism and visual coherency in art and literature: Human beings (one
hopes!) know the difference between art and life -- it takes a work of great skill
and persuasiveness to actually make us forget that we are anchored in our mundane
lives, standing before a canvas encrusted with paint, or sitting on the chair (or
crowded bus) with a novel in hand. It is the easiest -- and most pointless, and
vapid -- thing in the world to show people that the painting they are looking it is
just a flat surface with paint of it. People realize this much before they enter
art galleries -- they do not need to be instructed on this, and if they did they
need only look up a dictionary. Secondly, for the artist's inner state to be
projected (externalized) most effectively he needs to find some way of suspending
his audience's natural disbelief. People do not automatically become immersed in
literature as soon as they pick up a book -- it takes great skill for a writer to
sweep them up in his rhythmic impulse, characterization, and so forth. Leaving
aside such matters as *what* he or she should write or paint, it seem eminently
reasonable to me (from what I have noted above) that the artist who wants most to
fulfill the purpose of Art (which is to externalize his inner state) will need to
gain the technical and aesthetic skills necessary in suspending the disbelief of
his audience.
"Why is this suspension of disbelief necessary?" you may ask. It simply has to do
with human nature -- human beings do not generally mistake sculpture, paintings or
books for real life -- after all, these things are only paint, marble, bronze or
paper -- if we WERE to mistake such objects for living people it is either an
indication of some perceptual disorder on our part, or a testament to the
incandescent skill of the artist who can sweep us out of the factual realm of paint
on cavas or letters on paper, and immerse us in his *own world* -- the world that
saw its formation inside the artist, and which is now realized in print, marble,
clay or paint (and so on).
Iian Neill
> >today's life-drawing classes.
>
> life-drawing classes, why so derogatory about any other course work beside
> books and tv, not life drawing).
Ceramics, Photography, Sculpture, Painting, Drawing and Textiles were all
mandatory courses in the first year of my Fine Arts course. We took each of
those in the first semester and had to choose two for our majors -- I happened
to choose Painting and Sculpture, narrowly giving away Photography, which at the
time I considered would be very useful for me in my paintings. The only course
from those mentioned above which did not interest me in the slightest was
Textiles.
> > I am not saying that they don't have their positive effect
> >in their own way, but, as you already know, I do not see them as being any
> >where near as effective as pre-20th century classes.
>
> lian, you are in "pre-20 century classes"?
No, but I have read about them, the teaches involved, and I have also seen the
work of students who had attended such classes: Ingres, Delacroix, Delaroche,
Gerome, and many others.
>is it the cartoons or the micheal
> stipe/mozart that you credit to the the "Old Master" tutelage?
I have not been taught by the Old Masters, and will not besmirch their names
with comparison of my efforts to their own.
> you say you
> wish to teach yourself, but that is not the way "old master tutelage"
> worked.
Until I find a Master who will teach me, then that is all I can do -- teach
myself as best as I can.
> you have talent, but i have seen better technique and at best you
> would be grinding paint at this point.
It is debatable whether the grinding of paint is a necessary exercise in this
age of manfuctured oil paints -- still, if grinding paint led to my improving my
abilities in some way, then I would surely do it.
> you don't even follow your own rules.
I have no set rules except for one: -- To push myself ever onwards, to try and
capture more powerfully what is in my mind or what is out there in the world; to
develop my skills at drawing first, so that my paintings will improve. I seem to
remember reading that it was common practice in 19th century schools for
students to study drawing for years at a time, then black and white painting,
then colour, whilst copying Old Master works so as to see how those men solved
the problems of art, etc.
> lian, how do you expect me, or anyone else to take you seriously? i will
> tell you this, if you were under an Old Master, he would slap your silly for
> you upstart mouth and you would never be allow to judge what is or isn't art
> for another 5-10 years.
Fortunately, you are not an Old Master.
> >Breaking the rules during university-level study will only send one
> >backwards -- it takes years to achieve even a competent technique, and only a
> confident
> >Master can break the rules - and he never does so with impunity or
> >disregard. In such cases, the rules are not so much broken as they are set
> aside in
> >favour of new ones. Those new ones, however, were based on fundamental
> principles of
> >aesthetic skill - not on the elevation of incompetence to so-called
> >"expression".
>
> you draw caricatures(and the dr. who ones are not very good) and paint star
> trek actors, what rules did you not break?
The Star Trek pastel was done when I was fifteen, having received no substantial
art education at all.The caricatures were done out of my wish to extend my
skills beyond straight portraiture; they were exercises (as well as a form of
tribute) to develop my feeling for rhythm and the attempt to capture the essence
of the person without strictly confining myself to a too fastidious
representation, which can become a danger at the early stages of drawing.
> Hypocrite. this kind of idiot
> hypocrisy is too pathetic to even express with words. my god lian you are a
> 20 yr old student in austrialia, you do park art and fantasy art.
What I do is not art yet -- it is merely technical/aesthetic preparation for the
day when I will produce art.
> You are
> good at rendering other peoples paintings(not completely accurate rendering,
> not that i find that important), but the depth of your work is michael stipe
> and geordi?
The Michael Stipe/Mozart drawing was executed at seventeen years of age, the
Geordi at fifteen, the Mona Lisa at sixteen. They are not intended to be offered
as works of art in themselves -- merely studies.
> your painting study of nudes makes Cezanne's women look
> eloquent, where do you get off judge what is or is not art, when you don't
> do art(if we use your rules).
The nude-study ("Night-Mare") was sketched from my head, with no reference to
the life-model. The work is quite incompetent, but the idea appealed to me,
which is why I included it on the site.
> get a beret and big clown art smock and i will
> pay you $20 to do your fine "OLD MASTER CARICATURES".
This is, perhaps, an attempt at constructive criticism?
> lian,your good(not
> the best i have seen but good), but not good enough to ever get away with
> this.
We will see, in the end.
> do you just spout what your professors or art books say and do not
> understand how it applies to yourself,or are you merely insane? i am totally
> serious!
Ad hominen argument.
> >> Are you implying that ceramic and photography craft not art, "strong
> >>basis in the technical aspects of the craft."?
> >
> >Yes.
>
> hypocrite... you say your goal is, "a return to the standards of
> craftsmanship and quality as exemplified by the Old Masters" and this some
> how means photography (which you have on your web page as your art)
The page is loosely classified as art because I am not sure of the term which
indicates "studies intended to help one on the road to art". Perhaps the French
word, 'etude'?
> and ceramics are not art. where do you get this rhetoric? I would like to
> know
> how your head got so filled with crap to the point where you have the right
> to judge other peoples' art and not even have rational thought about your
> own?
At no point have I ever given my work (sketches, etc.) airs that they had not
earned.
> you tell me how geordi is art and dr. who is art and ceramic isn't?
The pastel of Geordi was not intended to be a work of art, except in a loose
sense of portraiture, colour harmony (more by instinct back then).
> you tell my how your paintings are art, but you can quip about mark's?
You are wrong in both fronts. I did not enter the discussion on Mark Webber's
work, except to compare aspects of it to Cezanne and two other artists who
escape me at present - the other two were certainly good, and I know that Mark
would not be at all offended by the comparison to Cezanne -- I saw a vague
resemblance there in the handling of volume.
> i have taken you to your word and allowed you words equal weight to chris's,
> mark's and marilyn's, up till now.
If you would like a purely personal opinion, you would be better to take
Chris's words more seriously than mine. He is the more experienced.
> >There are a number of Master still in existence today. Richard Lack, Nelson
> >Shanks, Michael Wilkinson come to mind immediately, all of whom are in
> >America or were educated in America. There are, of course, many other
> artists of
> >talent today, some of them approaching Lack, Shanks and Wilkinson to varying
>
> >degrees. There may also exist other artists I am not aware about who would
> easily
> >qualify to enter their circle.
> >
> >(Off-hand, Frederick Hart and Ben Long should be considered as well.)
>
> would you like to explain to me how lucite sculpture is a valid art, but
> ceramic sculpture is merely craft?
Were you referring to ceramic sculpture (representational) before, or merely to
pots? I do not remember you making a specific mention of which one you had in
mind.
> >You are incorrect. I refer you to the "American Society for Classical
> >Realism", which can trace its 'lineage' back directly to Jean-Leon Gerome,
> Paul
> >Delaroche and Jacque-Louis David. The ASCR has a homepage, also:
>
> The American Society of Classical Realism and the Classical Realism Journal:
>
> "Believe that the core of great art is the emotional thrust, but that art
> only achieves greatness when the elements of the craft -- drawing,
> composition, modeling, perspective, design and color -- are brought together
> to support, enhance and intensify that emotion."
>
> emotion... your classical "old master" rhetoric doesn't even follow your
> mangled brainwashing... do you understand what a quote out of your own bible
> says? objective, no... emotion, yes
I agree with their thoughts on art. My use of objective analysis has chiefly
been confined to the delineation of art from non-art. I have never, at any
point, denied the importance of emotion in art -- I have, however, denied the
applicability of saying that art is merely what you *feel* or whatever your
intuition tells you. I have not yet applied these same criteria to an analysis
of great and bad art-work.
> >In any case, were the ASCR (and scattered institutions like it) not to
> >exist, this would hardly be proof that they are not needed, or that they
> would
> >prove useful.
>
> useful for emotional art.
Indeed.
> >> "animals can feel... should they make judgements", please lian. if
> >> humans (which includes yourself) "feel" in the exact way animals feel
> >> then we aren't humans. emote, is that better lian, or perhaps you are too
> busy
> >> eating the lice out of you mates hair to "feel" obligated to reply? i
> >> "feel", you owe me an apology!
> >
> >You have read into my statement a patronizing interpretation that was never
> >intended to be there. In noting that animals have feelings I was
> >emphasizing my previous points that one cannot rely on feelings alone to
> judge what is art
> >and what is not art.
>
> no, not emotions... those feeling wouldn't tell you if you were good or not,
> but it seems that emotion is exactly what ASCR thinks is the most important
> part of art, in fact all the skill is just to get to the "feeling part".
The technical skills exist to externalize the artist's inner state, which
consists generally of emotions, memories, thoughts, ideas and all of that. My
application of objective analysis to art-criticism has chiefly been confined to
the delineation of art from non-art, in an effort to lend at least SOME
credibility and stability to further art-criticism, whatever form that might
take, whether it is a formal analysis or something else. If we cannot even
rationally agree on what is a work of art, there seems little point in saying
that something is better or worse than another object.
> >> >I agree that it would be very difficult to judge the precise merits of a
> >> >work of art entirely by objective standards. At the moment, however, I
> >> >am arguing
> >> >that one can distinguish art from non/anti-art using objective methods.
> >>
> >> as long as the objective methods are yours.
> >
> how can they be objective, when nothing i do and most of the work i admire
> is not art?
I do not know what work you admire, so I can not answer this.
> lian...
> i would still like to know what your criteria for art is. while your at it,
> tell me why you caricatures and star trek paintings are art and 95% of 20 th
> century art isn't?
My caracitures and the Star Trek pastel were not art-works -- they were merely
works that had an artistic aspect to them; that is to say, an
aesthetic/technical aspect.
> what is wrong with you?
I take it this is a rhetorical question.
> i understand passion, but this in fanatical... you
> don't even follow your own words.
I follow them to the best of my abilities -- perhaps you, like the rest of my
"teachers" would prefer me to sacrifice technical skill on the altar of fashion?
I refuse to do so -- there are any number of others ready to leap to that task.
> you throw around art and artist like they
> are ragdolls and think that you have some justification in this. you can
> not go around say the things you say without anything to back them up.
I have backed up my statements.
> you
> want to be a classical realist fine, but there is more than drawing to be a
> classical realist, there is theory (it is based on greek philosophy) that has
> to be adhered to. it is not all about rendering and spouting bios and
> brochures, it is about you aspiring to certain goals not just physical, but
> spiritual, read about the men you say you admire.
I am aware of all those things mentioned above. Incidentally, I do my best to
refrain from "spouting bios and brochures", and spent most of my time relying on
my own intellectual efforts. I could have quoted any number of authors and
artists in support of what I have been saying -- yet I have not done so. Why? I
am more interested in coming to an understanding of art that has relevance to
me, which means that I will need to work through the whole conceptual process
myself, not merely by "spouting bios", which you erroneously indicate that I do.
-- Iian Neill
Iian Neill
> >Well in the real world I have learned that Modernism has crushed the
> >need for illusion in art. The work of art is the reality, it doesn't
> >need to refer to anything else.
It seems to me that if Art has any purpose, it is to at least externalize that
which is in the artist's mind, heart and so forth. In other words, it is to take
what is inside him (his feelings, thoughts, values, etc.) and make them concrete in
the real world, where others -- *including himself* -- can appreciate it.
This also raises the question: Can an artist make something not intended for the
eyes of others? If he does so, does it remain a work of art, or merely something
with artistic properties?
To answer this, I would ask you to consider why it is that people keep diaries,
take part in arguments, or even talk aloud. Often this urge to verbalize what is
going on inside (even if no-one else is around or will ever read or see it) is
motivated by a desire to take the intangible and the vague (that is, thoughts and
feelings) and to give them some form that you, at least, can reflect upon in the
future. The artist - and anyone who talks to themselves! - is engaged in an
activity of self-reflection; it is an attempt to make what is troubling them easier
to understand -- to remove it from that vague inner realm and to give it some solid
form where we can look upon it with less clouded eyes and hopefully gain some new
understanding of what is going on inside. One, therefore, should not be worried
about those who talk to themselves -- they are merely externalizing (in differing
degrees of success) what is happening inside, in an attempt to better understand
themselves.
Now, if you wish to create objects that mean something only to you, then I have no
qualms with this whatsoever. However, if you wish to offer these self-same objects
up to public scrutiny, then as an artist you are obliged to (by the basic
definition of art) to create a work which successfully externalizes your inner
state, AND COMMUNICATES THIS TO OTHERS.
As I have noted in a previous post, our suspension of disbelief is not to be won
lightly. I am sure that we can all think of those terrible books and films which
are so poorly written/produced that we end up laughing at the result, instead of
being affected by the work as the artist had intended. This indicates a failure on
the part of the artist to communicate his intentions (his *inner life*) to others
-- a failure to effectively externalize the inner state. The artist's only recourse
- if he wishes to improve - is to improve his ability at externalization. This can
only occur if he has a certain level of technical skill which allows him to
concentrate more on expression than on the very act of drawing, painting or
writing; the greater the artist, the more fluent he is at expression, and
therefore, the better he is at externalizing his inner state.
It seems an appropriate point in which to quote Marilyn's sentence:
"Well in the real world I have learned that Modernism has crushed the need for
illusion in art."
I would suggest that Modernism did not crush the need for illusion in art at all --
it merely confused the minds of students, artists and the public enough for them to
unprotestingly accept the indoctrination of a movement which they never understood
(read: *approved of*) nor considered particularly worthwhile. Over time, Modernism
became so entrenched that any one expressing disapproval of its basic tenets was
laughed at as an idiot -- thus, perhaps, setting the Modernists up for the classic
"scorned genius" myth which they themselves encouraged!
In any case, it seems to me that my above arguments (and those in a previous post
in response to Chris) demonstrate the great importance that illusion
(representationalism, realism, etc.) must hold in any successful realization of a
work of art. It is not a mark of intellectual ability to show people that a work of
art is just a canvas with paint applied -- it is merely the statement of an obvious
physical fact and has no bearing on an aesthetic/intellectual critique. It is
tantamount to saying, "Aha! But Shakespeare's work isn't TRUE literature because it
aspires to be more than just a collection of words on a page" - one can immediately
observe that such a declaration is a gross error bordering on the malicious.
The purpose of illusionism is to suspend our disbelief so that we can fully enter
the world of the artist, as externalized in paint, marble, charcoal or whatever.
The person who claims that good painting and sculpture can be created without
recourse to technical skill (and illusionism) is really claiming that the artist
can externalize his inner state without having to go through "all that bother" of
the process of externalization! It is equivalent (in some senses) to a belief in
telepathy - it is, on a deeper level, a philosophy which abhors the hard work which
goes along with artistic expression and offers an easy way out for the
intellectually weak. It says to those with artistic aspirations that they needn't
bother spend years of their life perfecting their technique or studying the works
of older Masters -- all they need do is paint, sculpt or draw whatever they wish
without any pressure put on them to evoke reality. Such art-tricksters assert that
a work of art is a reality in itself, without realizing (or perhaps conscious
rejecting) the fact that the successfully externalization of our inner states can
only succeed *with recourse to a reality of the senses* -- because this is the only
thing that we are all share.
Whatever the state of our inner life may happen to be, we can appreciate and
admire the art of the ancient Greeks because it was externalized so effectively
that we did not need to have the artist's commentary, the writings of critics or to
have grown up in the culture itself. All we need to do to appreciate it is look at
the work, and perhaps check a text on mythology now and then to familiarize
ourselves with the basic structure of the society which gave birth to such art-work
-- even this secondary step is not necessary for a visual (and emotional)
appreciation of the work.
In conclusion, to assert that "Modernism has crushed the need for illusion in
art" is to misunderstand the vital role that such representationalism plays in the
externalization of our inner states. Without recourse to the reality of the senses
(that is, without selecting and reproducing it in his work), the artist can not
succesfully transmit his intention to others.
In short, the artist who rejects technical skill and illusionism has already
defeated themselves; they have deprive themselves of the most effective means of
externalizing their thoughts, dreams and emotions.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
mdeli
>
Iian Neill wrote:
>>
>> Now, the reason I dislike Cezanne has very little (if anything) to do with the
>> *subject matter* of his paintings.
>
>I didn't mean to imply that you dislike his subject matter. What I meant
>was that the subject matter isn't of primary importance.
>
>> I object to Cezanne because of his technical/aesthetic deficiencies.
>
>And that is the root of our disagreement - you equate technique with
>esthetics. I don't.
>
>I'll allow you to continue to feel that representation is the bottom line
>if you'll allow me to feel that it isn't.
Cezanne like Webber's work happens to be pure representational art.
The subject matter is totally conventional while the technique and
craftsmanship are pure incompetence.
Whether art is abstract or representational is irrelevant. If it looks
like most anyone can do it, its nothing special.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage (updated Sept.13 - new pictures) to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
setai
Iian Neill wrote in message <3631CB7D...@student.uq.edu.au>...
>Ceramics, Photography, Sculpture, Painting, Drawing and Textiles were all
>mandatory courses in the first year of my Fine Arts course. We took each of
>those in the first semester and had to choose two for our majors -- I
happened
>to choose Painting and Sculpture, narrowly giving away Photography, which
at the
>time I considered would be very useful for me in my paintings. The only
course
>from those mentioned above which did not interest me in the slightest was
>Textiles.
photography can be useful to painting, but clearly stated that photography
was not art. lian, this is were i have serious problems with your
restrictive hold on art. denying photography, ceramics, anything that is
not representational, and all art that is not up to your standard of
classical realism is bad art. you leave nothing but a limited and to my
opinion narrow view of art. you have with your "criteria" insulted every
living artist i admire and the exact reason i am an artist. no matter how
subtly you say it or how general you attempt to be, your art and non-art
critique is just as ridiculous as say only ab ex is the only real art form.
i have asked for your criteria for art, but you snip it out everytime you
respond. back it up lian, you want to say what is and isn't art, give me
your rule book and then we can see if it will stand.
>> stipe/mozart that you credit to the "Old Master" tutelage?
>
>I have not been taught by the Old Masters, and will not besmirch their
names
>with comparison of my efforts to their own.
so you are saying your not an artist, well i guess your are being fair. i
don't agree with that statement, and it makes no sense to me why you create
work which never could be considered art and then display it. however, if
really mean that then you better change your site, because that is not what
you say. one question though, why would you choose genre opposed to your
own rules of art. i personally see nothing wrong with caricatures and
direct copying from books(i wouldn't find it helpful, drawing from nature
makes more sense to me), but i do not go around saying that this art form or
style is not art. i think you are good at rendering, not precise but good,
actually it is when you do not completely grasp the form is what i find most
interesting in your work. emmultation of the Old Masters is fine, even
admirable but deifying them and then judging others by their product(not
even their ideals) makes it a cult. comparison of your work to Titian is
not blasphemy, he was a man, not a god.
>> you say you
>> wish to teach yourself, but that is not the way "old master tutelage"
>> worked.
>
>Until I find a Master who will teach me, then that is all I can do -- teach
>myself as best as I can.
that is great, but you have made derogatory comments to modern art schools
and professors and you have knowledge of only one. i would like to know how
you can say 90% of universities, when you have no idea of what goes on in
90% of universities. when i said that i could only speak for the school i
went to and described a drawing course, to explain that not all post-modern
artist do not pay lip-service, you blather on about blind contour and it be
trivial.
>> you have talent, but i have seen better technique and at best you
>> would be grinding paint at this point.
>
>It is debatable whether the grinding of paint is a necessary exercise in
this
>age of manufactured oil paints -- still, if grinding paint led to my
improving my
>abilities in some way, then I would surely do it.
the point i was making was that if you wish to hold yourself and everyone
else by very strict standards, then you have to go by them. this means you
would be following rules given to you and performing small task(like
grinding paint) , not going around saying what is and is not art. art
critique was left for at least intermediate pupils(if you are not sure what
an intermediate pupil's art would look like look at the ASCR site, they will
show you a very good example), children were seen not heard(under "Old
Master" rules every single one of us is a child). luckily i do not hold
myself or others to those rules, but you say you do.
>> you don't even follow your own rules.
>
>I have no set rules except for one: -- To push myself ever onwards, to try
and
>capture more powerfully what is in my mind or what is out there in the
world; to
>develop my skills at drawing first, so that my paintings will improve.
that is not true... you have plenty of rules for art vs. non-art. by saying
what is and is not art(there by invalidating any of it for discussion) then
you say that everyone else's push is invalid.
>I seem to
>remember reading that it was common practice in 19th century schools for
>students to study drawing for years at a time, then black and white
painting,
>then color, whilst copying Old Master works so as to see how those men
solved
>the problems of art, etc.
i read it too, brochure #3 i think in the ASCR.
>> lian, how do you expect me, or anyone else to take you seriously? i will
>> tell you this, if you were under an Old Master, he would slap your silly
for
>> you upstart mouth and you would never be allow to judge what is or isn't
art
>> for another 5-10 years.
>
>Fortunately, you are not an Old Master.
i never implied i was, i would be slapped silly too. you still did not
address the question. if you want to hold up these standards, then you
should follow them.
>> >Breaking the rules during university-level study will only send one
>> >backwards -- it takes years to achieve even a competent technique, and
only a
>> confident
>> >Master can break the rules - and he never does so with impunity or
>> >disregard. In such cases, the rules are not so much broken as they are
set
>> aside in
>> >favour of new ones. Those new ones, however, were based on fundamental
>> principles of
>> >aesthetic skill - not on the elevation of incompetence to so-called
>> >"expression".
>>
>> you draw caricatures(and the dr. who ones are not very good) and paint
star
>> trek actors, what rules did you not break?
>
>The Star Trek pastel was done when I was fifteen, having received no
substantial
>art education at all.The caricatures were done out of my wish to extend my
>skills beyond straight portraiture; they were exercises (as well as a form
of
>tribute)
they are still breaking the rules, you criticized others choices in drawing
technique and you do the same thing. caricatures are not part of the strict
regiment and hierarchy of classical realism, you know it and so do i(and
many have 1997,1998 on them). i posed that many artist(which you say are
not) do understand realism they choose to follow another path, not for a
lack of skill but for emotional results. you call that elevation of
incompetence, but for you it is an exercise(diversion do not work).
> to develop my feeling for rhythm and the attempt to capture the essence
>of the person without strictly confining myself to a too fastidious
>representation, which can become a danger at the early stages of drawing.
lian, "Old Master" tutelage, especially in its modern form, is strictly
confining yourself to a too fastidious representation. do not insult modern
schools and then skirt around your own personal choices, follow the rules!
>
>What I do is not art yet -- it is merely technical/aesthetic preparation
for the
>day when I will produce art.
you do not do art, ok, that is your opinion(i do not agree, but i do not
claim i know what is and what isn't art for everybody else).
>The Michael Stipe/Mozart drawing was executed at seventeen years of age,
the
>Geordi at fifteen, the Mona Lisa at sixteen. They are not intended to be
offered
>as works of art in themselves -- merely studies.
you should change the site, because they definitely appear to be art and
presented as such. actually, only the a Master and other pupils should be
able to see your studies, under you own rules you shouldn't be showing it at
all.
>> get a beret and big clown art smock and i will
>> pay you $20 to do your fine "OLD MASTER CARICATURES".
>
>This is, perhaps, an attempt at constructive criticism?
this is an attempt at holding up a mirror to your self-righteous behavior.
blanket statements of photography is not art, non-representational work is
not art, non-classical realism is at best ,bad art... this is far worse than
my words. remember what you said about subtle immorality in work, no matter
how articulate your words are i find them to be insulting and facist and not
enough basis to be anything but regurgitation.
>> lian,your good(not
>> the best i have seen but good), but not good enough to ever get away with
>> this.
>
>We will see, in the end.
i was talking about right now.
>> >> Are you implying that ceramic and photography craft not art, "strong
>> >>basis in the technical aspects of the craft."?
>> >
>> >Yes.
>>
>> hypocrite... you say your goal is, "a return to the standards of
>> craftsmanship and quality as exemplified by the Old Masters" and this
some
>> how means photography (which you have on your web page as your art)
>
>The page is loosely classified as art because I am not sure of the term
which
>indicates "studies intended to help one on the road to art". Perhaps the
French
>word, 'etude'?
i still think it is hypocritical( not because you want to follow, but you
judge others who don't) to even loosely(which is not what the webpage says)
to claim to return to the standards and show work that is opposite of these
standards.
>> and ceramics are not art. where do you get this rhetoric? I would like
to
>> know
>> how your head got so filled with crap to the point where you have the
right
>> to judge other peoples' art and not even have rational thought about
your
>> own?
>
>At no point have I ever given my work (sketches, etc.) airs that they had
not
>earned.
then you should look at your work, more importantly your words with an
objective eye. you give the air of authority of centuries of experience and
theory, when you simply have not had the time or contemplated the theories.
>> you tell me how geordi is art and dr. who is art and ceramic isn't?
>
>The pastel of Geordi was not intended to be a work of art, except in a
loose
>sense of portraiture, colour harmony (more by instinct back then).
then why display it, that is what you are doing.
>> you tell my how your paintings are art, but you can quip about mark's?
>
>You are wrong in both fronts. I did not enter the discussion on Mark
Webber's
>work, except to compare aspects of it to Cezanne and two other artists who
>escape me at present - the other two were certainly good, and I know that
Mark
>would not be at all offended by the comparison to Cezanne -- I saw a vague
>resemblance there in the handling of volume.
see, i know what you mean when you compare it to Cezanne, it is a quip. to
you Cezanne is a bad, bad artist who does not deserve any recognition and in
your self righteous thinking has defiled the "Old Masters" by being
considered good art. if i compare a person to someone i despise, it is an
insult( in a most cowardice way).
>> i have taken you to your word and allowed you words equal weight to
chris's,
>> mark's and marilyn's, up till now.
>
>If you would like a purely personal opinion, you would be better to take
>Chris's words more seriously than mine. He is the more experienced.
of course it is a personal opinion, wait i forgot, your words are objective
truth about art.
and yes chris is more experience, but that is not the point.
>
>> >There are a number of Master still in existence today. Richard Lack,
Nelson
>> >Shanks, Michael Wilkinson come to mind immediately, all of whom are in
>> >America or were educated in America. There are, of course, many other
>> artists of
>> >talent today, some of them approaching Lack, Shanks and Wilkinson to
varying
>>
>> >degrees. There may also exist other artists I am not aware about who
would
>> easily
>> >qualify to enter their circle.
it is nice you leave us three living artist who are create art and hopes of
a handful more.
>> >(Off-hand, Frederick Hart and Ben Long should be considered as well.)
>>
>> would you like to explain to me how lucite sculpture is a valid art, but
>> ceramic sculpture is merely craft?
>
>Were you referring to ceramic sculpture (representational) before, or
merely to
>pots? I do not remember you making a specific mention of which one you had
in
>mind.
i did say sculpture, and some of it is representational, but whether it was
pots or i did utterly realistic paintings, i find your blatant disregard for
entire mediums as non-art offensive and judgmental.
>> >You are incorrect. I refer you to the "American Society for Classical
>> >Realism", which can trace its 'lineage' back directly to Jean-Leon
Gerome,
>> Paul
>> >Delaroche and Jacque-Louis David. The ASCR has a homepage, also:
>>
>> The American Society of Classical Realism and the Classical Realism
Journal:
>>
>> "Believe that the core of great art is the emotional thrust, but that art
>> only achieves greatness when the elements of the craft -- drawing,
>> composition, modeling, perspective, design and color -- are brought
together
>> to support, enhance and intensify that emotion."
>>
>> emotion... your classical "old master" rhetoric doesn't even follow your
>> mangled brainwashing... do you understand what a quote out of your own
bible
>> says? objective, no... emotion, yes
>
>I agree with their thoughts on art. My use of objective analysis has
chiefly
>been confined to the delineation of art from non-art.
well their definition of art deals with emotion, the core of great art.
actually, no where does their "core of great art" eliminate all the art you
call non-art.
>I have never, at any
>point, denied the importance of emotion in art -- I have, however, denied
the
>applicability of saying that art is merely what you *feel* or whatever your
>intuition tells you. I have not yet applied these same criteria to an
analysis
>of great and bad art-work.
feeling is to have emotions, words have more that one meaning. to feel is to
perceive, this can mean perceive a bodily implies(pain, hunger, fear) or a
state of mind(emotions).
>> >In noting that animals have feelings I was
>> >emphasizing my previous points that one cannot rely on feelings alone
to
>> judge what is art
>> >and what is not art.
as far as i know scientist have not proven that animals had emotions. you
ask if animals should be allowed to judge art on their feelings, are you
saying that you have know that animals can be emotionally affected by(a
definition of feelings, look it up) art? if you can provide me with such an
animal then i would have to consider it, if not then exactly what point were
you trying to prove?
>> no, not emotions... those feeling wouldn't tell you if you were good or
not,
>> but it seems that emotion is exactly what ASCR thinks is the most
important
>> part of art, in fact all the skill is just to get to the "feeling part".
>
>The technical skills exist to externalize the artist's inner state, which
>consists generally of emotions, memories, thoughts, ideas and all of that.
My
>application of objective analysis to art-criticism has chiefly been
confined to
>the delineation of art from non-art, in an effort to lend at least SOME
>credibility and stability to further art-criticism, whatever form that
might
>take, whether it is a formal analysis or something else. If we cannot even
>rationally agree on what is a work of art, there seems little point in
saying
>that something is better or worse than another object.
i do not rationally agree on your opinion(which until you give me a
justification, a reference, or a list from someone who creates art or is
accredited to judge art). I find bowing down to your definition of art
leans no credibility to our discussion. just because you say your criteria
is right, does not mean that it is objective or based on anything but your
opinion. is any one else willing to say post-modern art as a whole is not
art, photography, ceramics, collage, and just about everything else is not
art?
>> >> >I agree that it would be very difficult to judge the precise merits
of a
>> >> >work of art entirely by objective standards. At the moment, however,
I
>> >> >am arguing
>> >> >that one can distinguish art from non/anti-art using objective
methods.
>> >>
>> >> as long as the objective methods are yours.
>> >
>> how can they be objective, when nothing i do and most of the work i
admire
>> is not art?
>
>I do not know what work you admire, so I can not answer this.
enough of non-classical representational and art that you classify as
non-art to make it so.
>> lian...
>> i would still like to know what your criteria for art is.
and i would still like to know what your criteria for art is, with the
appropriate documentation to qualify it as objective.
>> i understand passion, but this in fanatical... you
>> don't even follow your own words.
>
> I follow them to the best of my abilities -- perhaps you, like the rest of
my
>"teachers" would prefer me to sacrifice technical skill on the altar of
fashion?
>I refuse to do so -- there are any number of others ready to leap to that
task.
though my mentors wished me to be a teacher, i am not. it is a good thing
that your "teachers" are as patient as they must be, what part of the "Old
Master" ideal says to be disrespective to your teachers, they might not be
masters, but you have much to learn from them. i have no desire to teach
you anything, i am hear to learn by understanding the ideas of others to
clarify my own thoughts. i think your implication that i, or all the evil
post-modern professors ask anyone "to sacrifice technical skill on the altar
of fashion"(which is a direct quote from a bio of mr. lank and you artist
statement was almost word for word) is simply not the truth. that is a out
right manipulation of the truth for your own frustrations at your experience
of art school and one of those of your justifications for saying what is and
isn't art. are there any art professors out there who would like to tell me
that they do force the student not to use technical skills?
>> you throw around art and artist like they
>> are ragdolls and think that you have some justification in this. you can
>> not go around say the things you say without anything to back them up.
>
>I have backed up my statements.
saying that your criteria is objective is not backing anything up. i have
given just a few examples of how you do not even follow the "Old Master"
guidelines and the ASCR definition for the core of great art does not
eliminate all the work you state is non-art. if it is so objective, then you
can write it down and give reasons for every single criteria, so do it.
>> you
>> want to be a classical realist fine, but there is more than drawing to be
a
>> classical realist, there is theory (it is based on greek philosophy) that
has
>> to be adhered to. it is not all about rendering and spouting bios and
>> brochures, it is about you aspiring to certain goals not just physical,
but
>> spiritual, read about the men you say you admire.
>
>I am aware of all those things mentioned above. Incidentally, I do my best
to
>refrain from "spouting bios and brochures", and spent most of my time
relying on
>my own intellectual efforts. I could have quoted any number of authors and
>artists in support of what I have been saying -- yet I have not done so.
Why? I
>am more interested in coming to an understanding of art that has relevance
to
>me, which means that I will need to work through the whole conceptual
process
>myself, not merely by "spouting bios", which you erroneously indicate that
I do.
erroneous, ok. you gave me sites to look up and this is what i found, maybe
i was reading too much into it.
directly from lian's webpage
"Who am I to put all of this up? I am a twenty-year old student of the
University of Queensland, trying for a Bachelor of Arts. . I have had an
interest in art since I was twelve, but have not been able to locate any one
who can teach the kind of art I desire to learn. “What kind is that?”, you
might ask. Well, I desire a return to the standards of craftsmanship and
quality as exemplified by the Old Masters. There are very few people in the
world today who have been taught in that tradition, and next to none in
Australia, so I am determined to teach myself."
bio of richard lack, by Rebbeca Anderson
"After graduation from high school, Lack enrolled in the Minneapolis School
of Art, where he studied for two and one-half years on a partial
scholarship. But his heart was set on learning to paint in the tradition of
the Old Masters, a knowledge that none of his teachers could provide."
earlier words in lian's post
> I follow them to the best of my abilities -- perhaps you, like the rest of
my
>"teachers" would prefer me to sacrifice technical skill on the altar of
fashion?
>I refuse to do so -- there are any number of others ready to leap to that
task.
bio of richard lack
"What an artist wants from the public is genuine interest, even if that
interest is disapproval. I would rather hear the honest opinion of a person
who has no grounding in art than that of a false connoisseur who merely
repeats the fashionable opinions of the day.”
brochure of ASCR
"Students begin with pencil and charcoal studies. Pencil is continued
throughout the course of study as a way of ever sharpening and refining
skills; extended studies on a larger scale are done first in charcoal and,
as the student progresses, black and white oil and finally color."
lian
>I seem to
>remember reading that it was common practice in 19th century schools for
>students to study drawing for years at a time, then black and white
painting,
>then colour, whilst copying Old Master works so as to see how those men
solved
>the problems of art, etc.
tracy
Iian Neill
> Photography, which
> >at the time I considered would be very useful for me in my paintings. The
> only
> >course from those mentioned above which did not interest me in the slightest
> was
> >Textiles.
>
> was not art.
I think that photography can certainly be *artistic* - I am not yet convinced
that left unaltered it is a complete art form in itself. The reason for my doubt
chiefly rests on the issue of how much work is the artist actually doing? I
don't want to imply that the greatest photographers are slouches by any means -
there is an important technical aspect to photography, and it's certainly more
than just clicking off a holiday-snap at the beach - well, if it claims to be an
art-form it will have to be more than that. And it *is* more than just an idle
past-time. So, why do I have doubts about photography? Simply because I wonder
how much of the image the photographer actually has control over -- how much is
there according to artistic design, and how much to luck and circumstance. You
will point out quite rightly that the photographer controls at the least three
things: (a) The objects used in the shoot; (b) the way these are lit; and (c)
From what angle or particular technique he photographs this scene. One can
legitimately add a (d), which I would designate as 'dark room retouching'. In
this day and age, though, it is important not to forget the (e), which is:
computer manipulation.
So, we have (with traditional photography) three of the things that are
required for representational art (we'll start with this at the moment):
Arrangement of objects, lighting and method.
Are these in themselves sufficient for a work of art? I won't deny that
photography can produce artistic results -- but I would emphasize that this is
*in proportion to how much control the photographer has over the result*. So, I
would find it easier to regard computer manipulated photographs as art because
the artist has here far more opportunity to carry across his intention - whereas
with the normal techniques there is, so far as I can tell (I'd like to hear more
from photographers about this topic, too, so I can make a more informed
judgement), there is less control over the final result as there is in, say,
painting, sculpture or drawing. In a painting or sculpture, the artist has
*complete* control over what appears, and he is entirely responsible for the
finished work - with photography, where so much of it is drawn from the
impressions of light on film, how much of the artist is in the final result? We
can certainly find him in the composition, lighting and other effects, but what
about the sheer fact of the *forms themselves*. He did not create these - the
human bodies came pre-formed - the props he used were (probably?) also
manufactured by someone else, or taken from nature, etc.
In deciding fairly whether a particular photographer is an artist, oughtn't we
to consider exactly how much artistic control he has over the work? The results
may be more verisimiltudinous than even the most technical representationalist
... but here is where I offer a somewhat startling view to those who haven't
perhaps read my comments closely: It is not enough for art to merely copy
reality without interpretation. It is the stylization of reality (the *selective
re-creation* to use a phrase coined by Ayn Rand) that gives an artist his
individuality, and gives the finished work his particular touch. I would find
the artist who reproduces reality with absolute precision, with no
interpretation at all, as quite dull in formal terms. The whole point of art is
to put your slant on things - and how much can photography achieve this, keeping
in mind the points I have raised above?
> lian, this is were i have serious problems with your
> restrictive hold on art. denying photography, ceramics, anything that is
> not representational, and all art that is not up to your standard of
> classical realism is bad art.
Classical Realism isn't necessarily my standard - I am as much of a fan of Goya,
Rubens and Fragonard as I am of such people as Gerome, Bouguereau and so forth.
I am not so much fussed about the particular style of art-work - so long as the
style doesn't mangle the transmission of the artist's intention (the projection
of his inner state). Classical Realism is one form of art - not the only kind.
> you leave nothing but a limited and to my
> opinion narrow view of art.
Can you really conclude that when you know little about my actual artistic
interests?
> you have with your "criteria" insulted every
> living artist i admire and the exact reason i am an artist.
I am going to have to say that that isn't reason enough for me to abandon my
position. I am happy to discuss the way we both see art and try and meet you on
some common ground ... but I can't really give my criteria up only on the
grounds that I've offended somebody. I'm happy to amend/alter them if you
present a convincing rebuttal - speaking of which, you have raised some
interesting questions I will answer later in this response.
> no matter how
> subtly you say it or how general you attempt to be, your art and non-art
> critique is just as ridiculous as say only ab ex is the only real art form.
> i have asked for your criteria for art, but you snip it out everytime you
> respond. back it up lian, you want to say what is and isn't art, give me
> your rule book and then we can see if it will stand.
I will have to admit that I am a bit confused here. You've asked me for my
criteria, but for the past week I have been talking precisely about that: -- I
claimed that for a critic to be able to say that an object is a work of art, he
would need to be able have enough non-ambiguous (which is to say, realistic)
material in there to analyze. It is hard to put it clearer than that - if he
wants to call the object "art", then the object needs to stand up to objective
analysis. This objective analysis isn't anything mysterious - it is simply
correlating what the intention of the work is against the appearance of the work
itself. If the artist claims that the work is about the First World War, and if
we can find no forms in it that are recognizable, then how can we say that the
work is actually about the First World War? Consequently, how can we say the
artist has achieved his intention? Consequently, if the artist has not achieved
his attention (so far as the objective critic can determine) how can the critic
say that the object is a work of art? This doesn't prevent anyone else from
saying it's a work of art; I think it would limit how much the *critic* (or
anyone else pretending to give a strictly rational analysis of it) could
actually say about it. There is no real rule book here except for what seems to
me to be common sense.
> >> stipe/mozart that you credit to the "Old Master" tutelage?
> >
> >I have not been taught by the Old Masters, and will not besmirch their
> >names with comparison of my efforts to their own.
>
> so you are saying your not an artist, well i guess your are being fair. i
> don't agree with that statement, and it makes no sense to me why you create
> work which never could be considered art and then display it.
Why does a craftsman display his work? In essence this what I am at present,
with a few exceptions in my ouevre. The reason I put the work up, though, is
because I sense the potential for art in it -- to me it isn't art yet. There is
a long way to go for it to be that (at least by my standards).
> however, if
> really mean that then you better change your site, because that is not what
> you say.
To be honest, I am really not sure how to refer to the works on my site. To me
they are not entirely craft, yet they aren't yet art. What are they? I call them
art-studies, but that's a rather clumsy description of them.
> one question though, why would you choose genre opposed to your
> own rules of art.
Well, my artistic skills aren't very strong yet - my drawings from photographs
are generally passable, but there remains a lot more work to be done in my
life-drawing skills. Well ... I am patient. I will continue to work at it as the
opportunity presents itself.
> i personally see nothing wrong with caricatures and
> direct copying from books (i wouldn't find it helpful, drawing from nature
> makes more sense to me),
Life-drawing makes more sense to me as well, but there are a conspicuous lack of
models around my place, and an unfortunate placing of the life-drawing classes
against my university requirements ...
> emmultation of the Old Masters is fine, even
> admirable but deifying them and then judging others by their product(not
> even their ideals) makes it a cult. comparison of your work to Titian is
> not blasphemy, he was a man, not a god.
I deify no-one - I merely give those artists the respect they are due. To do
less on my part would be to me, at least, insolence. I worship no-one and
no-thing, and I am a member of no cult - nor have I established a cult. If you
really think this about me, then you have made a grave error.
> >Until I find a Master who will teach me, then that is all I can do -- teach
> >myself as best as I can.
>
> that is great, but you have made derogatory comments to modern art schools
> and professors and you have knowledge of only one.
I have knowledge of two actually ... and vicarious knowledge through various
correspondants.
> i would like to know how
> you can say 90% of universities, when you have no idea of what goes on in
> 90% of universities.
Certainly my numbers (99%, incidentally) weren't based in literal facts - they
were an exaggeration of the situation, but I am not sure they were meant to be
taken literally. I do have contact with the Classical Realists here and there,
and from what I hear of them, there are very few schools that teach the Old
Master principles - since they are pretty much in a position to know that
information, I thought it was safe enough to conclude that the Pomo teaching was
enormously prevalent. Subsequent encounters with other universities confirmed my
suspicion that my initial university was by no means unique - they were, in some
respects, probably more moderate - in other respects they were clearly lacking,
even by Pomo standards. I remember that a large group of students themselves
complained (I was not amongst them, as I wasn't consulted on the issue) to the
Department heads that they were dissatisfied with the kind of un-practical
'teaching' they had been receiving for the whole year. I was as surprised as
anyone to hear that even they were displeased, particularly since they'd been
brainwashed all year with assertions of how irrelevant technique really is - and
if technical praise was given, it was usually to the most trivial effects.
> when i said that i could only speak for the school i
> went to and described a drawing course, to explain that not all post-modern
> artist do not pay lip-service, you blather on about blind contour and it be
> trivial.
Blind contour drawing was really forced upon us in the drawing course - I am not
kidding.
> the point i was making was that if you wish to hold yourself and everyone
> else by very strict standards, then you have to go by them. this means you
> would be following rules given to you and performing small task(like
> grinding paint) , not going around saying what is and is not art.
No thing and no-one will force me to abdicate the power of my own intellect. I
don't care whether I end up being wrong - I will not be told by anyone to not
think, to not judge to the best of my ability. I hope to remain open to other
possibilities, certainly, but not so much so that I won't have a mind of my own.
> art critique was left for at least intermediate pupils(if you are not sure
> what
> an intermediate pupil's art would look like look at the ASCR site, they will
> show you a very good example), children were seen not heard(under "Old
> Master" rules every single one of us is a child). luckily i do not hold
> myself or others to those rules, but you say you do.
I have never denied anyone the right to make judgements/statements about art.
Why should I want to do that?
> >> you don't even follow your own rules.
> >
> >I have no set rules except for one: -- To push myself ever onwards, to try
> >and capture more powerfully what is in my mind or what is out there in the
> >world; to develop my skills at drawing first, so that my paintings will
> improve.
>
> that is not true... you have plenty of rules for art vs. non-art.
Well, one major rule. It can be broken down into smaller ones.
> by saying
> what is and is not art (there by invalidating any of it for discussion) then
> you say that everyone else's push is invalid.
It would seem that way. But then, I am happy to hear their take on the issue as
well.
> >I seem to
> >remember reading that it was common practice in 19th century schools for
> >students to study drawing for years at a time, then black and white
> >painting, then color, whilst copying Old Master works so as to see how those
> men
> >solved the problems of art, etc.
>
> i read it too, brochure #3 i think in the ASCR.
I wasn't thinking of the ASCR brochures when I wrote that - in fact, I was
remembering an obscure text-book on 19th century teaching methods in the
ateliers. I don't remember the title, but I do remember it was at my old
university. It's interesting to see that the ASCR made the same observations as
that text.
> >> lian, how do you expect me, or anyone else to take you seriously? i will
> >> tell you this, if you were under an Old Master, he would slap your silly
> >>for you upstart mouth and you would never be allow to judge what is or
> isn't
> >>art for another 5-10 years.
> >
> >Fortunately, you are not an Old Master.
>
> i never implied i was, i would be slapped silly too. you still did not
> address the question. if you want to hold up these standards, then you
> should follow them.
I follow them as far as I can at present. I've never claimed to be more
skillfull than I actually am - if I could paint as well as an Old Master, I
assure you I would be painting "Old Master" works. (Except they would really be
New Master works.)
> >> you draw caricatures(and the dr. who ones are not very good) and paint
> >>star trek actors, what rules did you not break?
> >
> >The Star Trek pastel was done when I was fifteen, having received no
> >substantial art education at all.The caricatures were done out of my wish to
> extend my
> >skills beyond straight portraiture; they were exercises (as well as a form
> >of tribute)
>
> they are still breaking the rules, you criticized others choices in drawing
> technique and you do the same thing. caricatures are not part of the strict
> regiment and hierarchy of classical realism, you know it and so do i(and
> many have 1997,1998 on them).
Are you so sure you know that? Don't you remember the caricatures by Leonardo da
Vinci, Gian Lorenzo Bernini, Dantan, Gustave Dore and others? Mine aren't as
good as theirs by any means, but they considered it a legitimate medium to
express a more humorous side to art. The caricatures certainly wouldn't be in
the strict heirarchy of classical realist teaching, but who says that I wish to
conform to any particular school? My only wish is to develop my skills and
perception enough so that I can express what I want to say, in the way I want to
say it. In my view, without those skills or perception one is left crippled,
unable to fully bring to fruition what you had dreamed about. It may prove that
I am barren of inspiration - well, so be it. But I would rather give myself the
chance of at least successfully expressing myself instead of blocking the
inspiration through clumsy drawing, painting, etc. Did I mention that I am
untrained? This means I have had no teacher in the old methods - this means that
I can only progress through experimentation, hard work, reading the words of the
Masters, and through copying them now and again (to see what they meant when
they said those words).
> i posed that many artist(which you say are
> not) do understand realism they choose to follow another path, not for a
> lack of skill but for emotional results. you call that elevation of
> incompetence, but for you it is an exercise(diversion do not work).
Which of these artists understood realism? How can going for an emotional
result at all compromise realism? Realism has proven itself time and again
eminently suitable for the most subtle and profound artistic expression. Just as
sentences, paragraphs and chapters have proven vital for writers.
> > to develop my feeling for rhythm and the attempt to capture the essence
> >of the person without strictly confining myself to a too fastidious
> >representation, which can become a danger at the early stages of drawing.
>
> lian, "Old Master" tutelage, especially in its modern form, is strictly
> confining yourself to a too fastidious representation.
Do you really think so? How about Goya, El Greco, Delacroix? These men wer
undoubtedly talented, but would you really say they were 'too fastidiously
realistic'? No, they had their own style well within the boundaries of realism -
it was superb, yes, but I am not sure whether fastidious is the precise word to
describe a Delacroix, a Goya, or an El Greco.
> do not insult modern
> schools and then skirt around your own personal choices, follow the rules!
Do not tell me what to do, unless you can enforce it. I am sorry to be so blunt,
but that's the essence of it.If you'd like to argue against me, then by all
means do so - my theories aren't perfect - there is much room for improvement. I
do think, though, that they are on the right track, despite the clumsiness of
their realization in words. The idea is in my mind - but translating that into
pure logic is always the hard part.
> >The Michael Stipe/Mozart drawing was executed at seventeen years of age,
> >the Geordi at fifteen, the Mona Lisa at sixteen. They are not intended to be
>
> >offered as works of art in themselves -- merely studies.
>
> you should change the site, because they definitely appear to be art and
> presented as such.
Until I can think of a proper way to phrase it, the wording will remain the
same.
> actually, only the a Master and other pupils should be
> able to see your studies, under you own rules you shouldn't be showing it at
> all.
Where did I say that a person could or could not display their work? I have
already admitted to you that I am not sure how to classify what is up there - it
isn't quite craft, but it isn't yet art. It's somewhere in-between.
> >> get a beret and big clown art smock and i will
> >> pay you $20 to do your fine "OLD MASTER CARICATURES".
> >
> >This is, perhaps, an attempt at constructive criticism?
>
> this is an attempt at holding up a mirror to your self-righteous behavior.
> blanket statements of photography is not art, non-representational work is
> not art, non-classical realism is at best ,bad art...
Reign those horses in a bit here ... if you still think I am against
non-Classical Realism, then re-read what I have written above in this letter.
> this is far worse than my words. remember what you said about subtle
> immorality in work, no matter
> how articulate your words are i find them to be insulting and facist and not
> enough basis to be anything but regurgitation.
Insulting ... Fascist ... nothing but vomit ...
Very pictorial.
> >> lian,your good(not
> >> the best i have seen but good), but not good enough to ever get away with
> >> this.
> >
> >We will see, in the end.
>
> i was talking about right now.
Ahh, sorry, I misinterpreted you. Well, I think it is fair to say that I have
never claimed that my own work was the pinnacle of art. I have never bragged
about it, dressed it up, or even really talked about it on this newsgroup until
this particular discussion. Some people like what I have done, and some do not -
and some have offered useful criticism, which I was most grateful for.
> >> hypocrite... you say your goal is, "a return to the standards of
> >> craftsmanship and quality as exemplified by the Old Masters" and this
> >> some how means photography (which you have on your web page as your art)
I enjoyed setting up the photographs, and I was intruiged with the superficially
Caravagiesque results (ie., the lighting). They were never meant to be serious
excursions into the artistic, and I had never intended for anyone to take them
that way.
> >The page is loosely classified as art because I am not sure of the term
> >which indicates "studies intended to help one on the road to art". Perhaps
> the
> >French word, 'etude'?
>
> i still think it is hypocritical( not because you want to follow, but you
> judge others who don't) to even loosely(which is not what the webpage says)
> to claim to return to the standards and show work that is opposite of these
> standards.
To quote my page:
"Well, I desire a return to the standards of craftsmanship and quality as
exemplified by the Old Masters."
I made no claims here that my own work was up to the 'standards of craftsmanship
and quality' of the Old Masters. I merely stated my desire to achieve those
standards.
Secondly, I wrote:
" ... so I am determined to teach myself [those standards]."
This pretty much sums up the thrust of the site: a collection of a student's
efforts down the road to art. No more, no less.
> >At no point have I ever given my work (sketches, etc.) airs that they had
> >not earned.
>
> then you should look at your work, more importantly your words with an
> objective eye. you give the air of authority of centuries of experience and
> theory, when you simply have not had the time or contemplated the theories.
How do you know this? Do you know how much I study art? I think that's a fair
question to raise.
> >> you tell me how geordi is art and dr. who is art and ceramic isn't?
> >
> >The pastel of Geordi was not intended to be a work of art, except in a
> >loose sense of portraiture, colour harmony (more by instinct back then).
>
> then why display it, that is what you are doing.
How much do you want me to brow-beat my own work? I have said on previous
occassions that what's up there isn't art, and it isn't quite craft either. I am
not claiming it belongs to either category, and nothing in my statement on the
first page can support a counter-claim to that effect.
I wish I were a better "artist", and one day I will be a real artist. Until
then, it's entirely within my rights to exhibit any drawings, paintings that I
wish. I left an email address at the bottom of the page for comments/criticisms,
so there is at least a chance for feedback. Besides, having the page has proved
a useful way to let people know what it is exactly that I do, without them
having to come over and look through my drawings.
> >> you tell my how your paintings are art, but you can quip about mark's?
> >
> >You are wrong in both fronts. I did not enter the discussion on Mark
> >Webber's work, except to compare aspects of it to Cezanne and two other
> artists who
> >escape me at present - the other two were certainly good, and I know that
> >Mark would not be at all offended by the comparison to Cezanne -- I saw a
> vague
> >resemblance there in the handling of volume.
>
> see, i know what you mean when you compare it to Cezanne, it is a quip. to
> you Cezanne is a bad, bad artist who does not deserve any recognition and in
> your self righteous thinking has defiled the "Old Masters" by being
> considered good art. if i compare a person to someone i despise, it is an
> insult( in a most cowardice way).
I was not being insulting to Mark, I was stating something I thought was
evident. I thought there was a similarity between his figures and some of
Cezanne's. Maybe I was wrong. In any case, the tone of the letter wasn't
hostile, and it wasn't definitive. I was making no claim as to state any facts,
and I certainly hope that Mark didn't misinterpret my Cezanne comment as
insulting in any way.
> >> i have taken you to your word and allowed you words equal weight to
> >>chris's,
> >> mark's and marilyn's, up till now.
> >
> >If you would like a purely personal opinion, you would be better to take
> >Chris's words more seriously than mine. He is the more experienced.
>
> of course it is a personal opinion, wait i forgot, your words are objective
> truth about art. and yes chris is more experience, but that is not the point.
Well, it was part of the point for me. I respect what Chris has to say, and I
admire the way he says it. And I don't agree with those who say he speaks
gibberish, or that he's incoherent, or whatever. I don't always agree with his
views, but neither does he agree with mine. That does not stop my admiring his
obvious artistic and literary abilities.
> >> >There are a number of Master still in existence today. Richard Lack,
> Nelson
> >> >Shanks, Michael Wilkinson come to mind immediately, all of whom are in
> >> >America or were educated in America. There are, of course, many other
> >> artists of
> >> >talent today, some of them approaching Lack, Shanks and Wilkinson to
> varying
> >>
> >> >degrees. There may also exist other artists I am not aware about who
> would
> >> easily
> >> >qualify to enter their circle.
>
> it is nice you leave us three living artist who are create art and hopes of
> a handful more.
It is to be understood that my list was not meant to be definitive. Merely off
the top of my head.
> >> >(Off-hand, Frederick Hart and Ben Long should be considered as well.)
> >>
> >> would you like to explain to me how lucite sculpture is a valid art, but
> >> ceramic sculpture is merely craft?
> >
> >Were you referring to ceramic sculpture (representational) before, or
> >merely to pots? I do not remember you making a specific mention of which one
> you had
> >in mind.
>
> i did say sculpture, and some of it is representational, but whether it was
> pots or i did utterly realistic paintings, i find your blatant disregard for
> entire mediums as non-art offensive and judgmental.
As you wish.
> >> >In noting that animals have feelings I was
> >> >emphasizing my previous points that one cannot rely on feelings alone
> >> >to judge what is art
> >> >and what is not art.
>
> as far as i know scientist have not proven that animals had emotions. you
> ask if animals should be allowed to judge art on their feelings, are you
> saying that you have know that animals can be emotionally affected by(a
> definition of feelings, look it up) art?
I have looked up the definition of feelings already, for an assignment in
Philosophy. As for animals and feelings ... well, I have no scientific proof
that they experience feelings, but every dealing I have had with them, or heard
about from anyone else (and this so far hasn't been contradicted by science to
my knowledge), suggests that they do experience feelings, emotions, and so on.
> if you can provide me with such an
> animal then i would have to consider it, if not then exactly what point were
> you trying to prove?
A fair enough point - my animal/feeling analogy was obscure.
> >The technical skills exist to externalize the artist's inner state, which
> >consists generally of emotions, memories, thoughts, ideas and all of that.
> >My application of objective analysis to art-criticism has chiefly been
> >confined to the delineation of art from non-art, in an effort to lend at
> least SOME
> >credibility and stability to further art-criticism, whatever form that
> >might take, whether it is a formal analysis or something else. If we cannot
> even
> >rationally agree on what is a work of art, there seems little point in
> >saying that something is better or worse than another object.
>
> i do not rationally agree on your opinion(which until you give me a
> justification, a reference, or a list from someone who creates art or is
> accredited to judge art).
Ahh ... do I need an authority, now? Why can one not make reasonable
(hopefully!) observations and offer them up for discuss, refutation and so
forth. To give you a quote from a man accredited to judge art:
"Those who rely on quotations use their memory, and not their intellect."
-- Leonardo da Vinci.
(Granted, the actual wording may be different, but that was the drift of his
statement."
> I find bowing down to your definition of art
> leans no credibility to our discussion. just because you say your criteria
> is right, does not mean that it is objective or based on anything but your
> opinion.
I have stated my criteria on a number of occassions. If you have an alternative
set, feel free to introduce them and we can discuss their merits.
> is any one else willing to say post-modern art as a whole is not
> art, photography, ceramics, collage, and just about everything else is not
> art?
Jean-Leon Gerome would come to mind ... however, such artists as these are long
dead, and I can not speak for them. I remember that Delaroche viewed the
invention of the camera with some horror, as did a large number of contemporary
critics who saw it as a negative effect on the young artists. From a visual
point of view, I can see what their concern was, but it wasn't the camera which
ended up eradicating representational art from the academies. It was philosophy,
or, to be more precise, a particular branch of philosophy.
> >> how can they be objective, when nothing i do and most of the work i
> >> admire is not art?
> >
> >I do not know what work you admire, so I can not answer this.
>
> enough of non-classical representational and art that you classify as
> non-art to make it so.
I still cannot answer this until I know that you understand what kind of art I
applaude.
> >> lian...
> >> i would still like to know what your criteria for art is.
>
> and i would still like to know what your criteria for art is, with the
> appropriate documentation to qualify it as objective.
Why should one be compelled to offer documentation - which I take as meaning
references, quotes, and so on - when discussing the criteria of art? It is
certainly useful to refer to artist-statements, but how do we know that they are
all correct? What Bouguereau or Ingres said might be at complete odds with what
Pollock declared. Which one should we take more seriously? Should it be a battle
of reputations?
> > I follow them to the best of my abilities -- perhaps you, like the rest of
> >my "teachers" would prefer me to sacrifice technical skill on the altar of
> >fashion? I refuse to do so -- there are any number of others ready to leap to
> that
> >task.
>
> though my mentors wished me to be a teacher, i am not. it is a good thing
> that your "teachers" are as patient as they must be,
I left the university course in 1996.
> what part of the "Old
> Master" ideal says to be disrespective to your teachers, they might not be
> masters, but you have much to learn from them.
That is if you agree with their definition of art. The whole point was that I
did not consider them competent teachers in the branch of art that I was
interested in. There was no point in my staying - they had neither the skills
nor desire to instruct me in the manner I had hoped for.
> i have no desire to teach
> you anything, i am hear to learn by understanding the ideas of others to
> clarify my own thoughts. i think your implication that i, or all the evil
> post-modern professors ask anyone "to sacrifice technical skill on the altar
> of fashion"
They were not evil.
> (which is a direct quote from a bio of mr. lank and you artist
> statement was almost word for word) is simply not the truth.
It was not a quote from the biography of Mister Lack (?) - if I quote someone, I
make it clear that I do. I have nothing but contempt for plagiarisers.
> that is a out
> right manipulation of the truth for your own frustrations at your experience
> of art school and one of those of your justifications for saying what is and
> isn't art. are there any art professors out there who would like to tell me
> that they do force the student not to use technical skills?
Physical force would hardly be used. Intellectual pressure is the medium at
universities. In any case, by denying a student his right to an artistic
education (in an art course!) a teacher has easily and effectively cut off one
route to a non-Pomo approach to art. The student who remains technically inept,
and who has been told that this is a proper and desirable thing, will always be
unsure of whether the technical skills are at all worthwhile - even though they
themselves often admire the works of the Old Masters, and perhaps late at night
wish that they could create such marvels. In the absence of teaching, the
interested student is compelled to strike off on their own.
> >> you throw around art and artist like they
> >> are ragdolls and think that you have some justification in this. you can
> >> not go around say the things you say without anything to back them up.
> >
> >I have backed up my statements.
>
> saying that your criteria is objective is not backing anything up
I have also stated these criteria on a number of occassions. You are welcome to
question them.
> . i have
> given just a few examples of how you do not even follow the "Old Master"
> guidelines and the ASCR definition for the core of great art does not
> eliminate all the work you state is non-art. if it is so objective, then you
> can write it down and give reasons for every single criteria, so do it.
I have been writing down at least general guidelines for the delineation for art
from non-art. Some folks don't agree with what I've written, and that's fine -
they have also, generally, come back with their own critiques and forced me to
do a bit of work. That's all productive activity ... but although you have
repeatedly claimed my criteria are not objective, you have yet to show me why
this is so, beside asserting that I need to quote someone to back me up.
Objective statements need only reality and reason to back them up. If those
statements are wrong, then there is an error in the reasoning process, or a
mistake in the "facts" - where is the error in my reasoning process?
> directly from lian's webpage
>
> "Who am I to put all of this up? I am a twenty-year old student of the
> University of Queensland, trying for a Bachelor of Arts. . I have had an
> interest in art since I was twelve, but have not been able to locate any one
> who can teach the kind of art I desire to learn. “What kind is that?”, you
> might ask. Well, I desire a return to the standards of craftsmanship and
> quality as exemplified by the Old Masters. There are very few people in the
> world today who have been taught in that tradition, and next to none in
> Australia, so I am determined to teach myself."
>
> bio of richard lack, by Rebbeca Anderson
>
> "After graduation from high school, Lack enrolled in the Minneapolis School
> of Art, where he studied for two and one-half years on a partial
> scholarship. But his heart was set on learning to paint in the tradition of
> the Old Masters, a knowledge that none of his teachers could provide."
It would really be unfair to compare the circumstances of my life to Richard
Lack's and to say that I have in some way deliberately imitated him. The fact is
that I have not. If you want the facts of my life, here they are:
"Iian Neill enrolled at the University of Tasmania in 1996, in the Bachelor of
Fine Arts. He studied there for one year, and transferred to the Queensland
College of Art in early 1997. Having finally realized that this form of
schooling was of no use to him - and a drain on his financial resources - he
left the College of Art within the first few weeks, so that he would not suffer
any academic penalties or incur unnecessary charges if he had, for example, left
that till later. His heart has always been set on skillfull and beautiful art,
nothing which he judged his previous 'teachers' is able to provide in the
particular area he wished to pursue."
I have deliberately written that paragraph in the style of the Lack bio - there
is nothing at all like that on my web-page, nor anywhere else in my writings. I
do not plagiarise anyone.
> bio of richard lack
>
> "What an artist wants from the public is genuine interest, even if that
> interest is disapproval. I would rather hear the honest opinion of a person
> who has no grounding in art than that of a false connoisseur who merely
> repeats the fashionable opinions of the day.”
Thank you for quoting this one - I had forgotten that Lack had said that.
CROCUSDES
> >Well in the real world I have learned that Modernism has crushed the
> >need for illusion in art. The work of art is the reality, it doesn't
> >need to refer to anything else.
In his response to her, Iian replied (only a partial section is included here):
>(big snip) In conclusion, to assert that "Modernism has crushed the need for
>illusion in art" is to misunderstand the vital role that such
representationalism >plays in the externalization of our inner states. Without
recourse to the reality >of the senses (that is, without selecting and
reproducing it in his work), the >artist can not succesfully transmit his
intention to others. In short, the artist >who rejects technical skill and
illusionism has already defeated themselves; >they have deprive themselves of
the most effective means of externalizing their >thoughts, dreams and
emotions.(snip)
Now I thought that this excerpt from his long post is a fair representation of
Iian's general point of view although I can't say that with authority. It does
appear to be a reasonable position even with the do this and don't do that
stance. At least it clearly states one of his arguments in favor of
representational work.
I'm tempted to just let the matter stand as is without further comment. I may
not agree wholeheartedly with his premise but I do appreciate this moment of
simple reflection on his part. Yes, I think I'll just leave this alone for now
and post.
G*rd*n
| I think that photography can certainly be *artistic* - I am not yet convinced
| that left unaltered it is a complete art form in itself. The reason for my doubt
| chiefly rests on the issue of how much work is the artist actually doing? I
| don't want to imply that the greatest photographers are slouches by any means -
| there is an important technical aspect to photography, and it's certainly more
| than just clicking off a holiday-snap at the beach - well, if it claims to be an
| art-form it will have to be more than that. And it *is* more than just an idle
| past-time. So, why do I have doubts about photography? Simply because I wonder
| how much of the image the photographer actually has control over -- how much is
It could be very hard to tell. Take Weegee, for example.
Much of his art seems to be happenstance, a case of being in
the right place at the right time. But then how is it he
produced so many arresting photographs? It seems as if he
had an intuition about events, about when and where that
right time was going to occur in such a way as to bring his
heavy newspaper reporter's camera to bear on it. He
certainly didn't operate off some kind of program or other
rhetoric -- most of the things he said about it photographs
were poppy, silly, or downright dumb. But he was a genius
with his camera.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 10/8} <-adv't
setai
Iian Neill wrote in message <36347CB6...@student.uq.edu.au>...
>I think that photography can certainly be *artistic* - I am not yet
convinced
>that left unaltered it is a complete art form in itself.
then you should not say photography is not an art form, since you are not
sure. unless you can back up such a judgmental(and that it is, considering
there are many photographer who believe themselves to be artist), then you
should not state it in a factual way. if you say you have objective(proven
by physical facts) reasoning that something is not art, then you claim to
have some authority on the matter.
>The reason for my doubt
>chiefly rests on the issue of how much work is the artist actually doing? I
>don't want to imply that the greatest photographers are slouches by any
means -
>there is an important technical aspect to photography, and it's certainly
more
>than just clicking off a holiday-snap at the beach - well, if it claims to
be an
>art-form it will have to be more than that.
which you are not sure of, so how could you know, by your objective
criteria?
>And it *is* more than just an idle
>past-time. So, why do I have doubts about photography? Simply because I
wonder
>how much of the image the photographer actually has control over -- how
much is
>there according to artistic design, and how much to luck and circumstance.
You
>will point out quite rightly that the photographer controls at the least
three
>things: (a) The objects used in the shoot; (b) the way these are lit; and
(c)
>From what angle or particular technique he photographs this scene. One can
>legitimately add a (d), which I would designate as 'dark room retouching'.
In
>this day and age, though, it is important not to forget the (e), which is:
>computer manipulation.
this is just quick list off the top of my head, in no ways the only ways
(a) composition, content
(b) light, shadow, mood
(c) again composition, mood, light
(d) the list here could be endless, but that is better left to a
photographer. i will just say, it isn't all about "retouching"
(e) that is another discussion(but i do agree on the merits of its worth)
as you can see, an artist has control over the photograph which would be
considered artistic skills. i personally find, considering there is limits
to control over expression, it takes a very skilled artist to create an
artistic photograph. capturing a specific emotion with only a instance to do
so, is not an easy goal. your comment on vacation photos should make you
realize that it isn't a lucky guess to create something more than a
snapshot.
>The whole point of art is
>to put your slant on things - and how much can photography achieve this,
keeping
>in mind the points I have raised above?
ditto
>Classical Realism isn't necessarily my standard - I am as much of a fan of
Goya,
>Rubens and Fragonard as I am of such people as Gerome, Bouguereau and so
forth.
>I am not so much fussed about the particular style of art-work - so long as
the
>style doesn't mangle the transmission of the artist's intention (the
projection
>of his inner state). Classical Realism is one form of art - not the only
kind.
ok, so i went a little far with the classical realism, how about styles
bound to a reasonably accurate visual representation of physical matter. i
will just call it realism or would representational be better? the intent of
the statement is the same.
>> you leave nothing but a limited and to my
>> opinion narrow view of art.
>
>Can you really conclude that when you know little about my actual artistic
>interests?
>
>> you have with your "criteria" insulted every
>> living artist i admire and the exact reason i am an artist.
>
>I am going to have to say that that isn't reason enough for me to abandon
my
>position.
and i did not say you should. you said all non-rep( styles bound....) art
is either not art or at the very best bad art and i was simply stating i
found it insulting. if you could prove(which i doubt) that your
criteria(whatever it maybe) is truly objective, then why should it matter if
the truth insults me. obviously you do not care about the feelings of others
or you wouldn't go around with blanket statements about what is and is not
art. personally i think it is a callous and cruel thing to say, even if it
were true, and makes you a very insensitive being. if you do have the
objective truth(as you claim), what good is if finding a forum of
artists(who tend to be overly sensitive) and tell at least 75% of them they
are not artists?
> I am happy to discuss the way we both see art and try and meet you on
>some common ground ... but I can't really give my criteria up only on the
>grounds that I've offended somebody. I'm happy to amend/alter them if you
>present a convincing rebuttal - speaking of which, you have raised some
>interesting questions I will answer later in this response.
why in the world would you think your offensive behavior would make me want
you to give up any criteria(opinions not objective criteria, that is). you
do realize, that is where the problem lies, it isn't in your ideas... it is
the fact that you would call them OBJECTIVE, based on fact. if you go
around saying you have objective criteria, then whatever you say is tested
by objective criteria has been proven by physical fact and hence true.
>> no matter how
>> subtly you say it or how general you attempt to be, your art and non-art
>> critique is just as ridiculous as say only ab ex is the only real art
form.
>> i have asked for your criteria for art, but you snip it out everytime you
>> respond. back it up lian, you want to say what is and isn't art, give me
>> your rule book and then we can see if it will stand.
>
>I will have to admit that I am a bit confused here. You've asked me for my
>criteria, but for the past week I have been talking precisely about
that: -- I
>claimed that for a critic to be able to say that an object is a work of
art, he
>would need to be able have enough non-ambiguous (which is to say,
realistic)
>material in there to analyze.
and that is exactly what you haven't given me... your exact criteria of
qualities and allowed anyone to challenge why exactly they could not be
analyzed if they were not realistic. i am not going to take your word for
it, why should i? oh, and just the word of lian, does not make them
objective, so you have to be able to back up the criteria(with some facts of
some sort or another) before anyone could possible take them as objective.
just because you believe something is true, doesn't make it so, unless you
can prove it to be. proof is what separates opinion from
truth(objectiveness).
>It is hard to put it clearer than that - if he
>wants to call the object "art", then the object needs to stand up to
objective
>analysis. This objective analysis isn't anything mysterious - it is simply
>correlating what the intention of the work is against the appearance of the
work
>itself.
that statement does not exclude non-rep work or does it prove that realistic
work is the best technique for correlating intent of work to the appearance.
the statement is not clear and the logic does not hold( logic is an
important part of classical anything, by the way).
>If the artist claims that the work is about the First World War, and if
>we can find no forms in it that are recognizable, then how can we say that
the
>work is actually about the First World War?
since you seem to agree with the ASCR idea of the core of art , then i will
use it, the intent of art is to express emotion through skills. first
problem with your logic is implying that WWI is an emotion, it is an event.
an artist uses events(objects and light and color and line...) to express
emotions. a war or a person or an apple is not an emotion, but a tool to
express an emotion, you do accept this basic concept? you must except this,
since that was your problem with photography, that is just documented an
event or object and did not express an emotion through skill, since you
admitted that there was great skill and technique to photography.
on to the next problem
since the event or object is not the intent, but the emotion behind the
visual metaphor, there is no logical reason why other visual metaphors could
not express emotion.
here is a basic proof that should show you why your assumption that because
an event or object could express emotion, therefore they are the only way to
express emotion is invalid.
all fish live under water(true)
all trout are fish(true)
carp are not trout(true)
hence
carp are not fish (not true)
just because rep- art expresses emotion and expressing emotion is art, does
not mean only rep-art is art.
>Consequently, how can we say the
>artist has achieved his intention? Consequently, if the artist has not
achieved
>his attention (so far as the objective critic can determine) how can the
critic
>say that the object is a work of art?
if the artist intent was to express emotion through a different metaphor,
then they could easily achieve their intent without rep-art(accurate
rendering). emotion can be portrayed by many different things(color, line,
light, composition...), in fact it is arguable that some of these thing
could portray and emotion(a non-objective thing) far better than a physical
item.
>This doesn't prevent anyone else from
>saying it's a work of art; I think it would limit how much the *critic* (or
>anyone else pretending to give a strictly rational analysis of it) could
>actually say about it. There is no real rule book here except for what
seems to
>me to be common sense.
another problem with your logic is that a critic can objectively(by physical
facts) determine the artist intent(the emotion expressed through skill)
through the content(being non-rep or rep art). just because you can prove or
recognize that the picture is about WWI, does not automatically mean you
understand the artist intent(the emotion being expressed). there is no, and
i restate NO, objective criteria for discovering the emotional intent of the
artist. you can guess, but that is exactly what it is a guess, no matter how
obvious it might seem. a guess, even an educated and refined one is not
objective.
>Well, my artistic skills aren't very strong yet - my drawings from
photographs
>are generally passable, but there remains a lot more work to be done in my
>life-drawing skills. Well ... I am patient. I will continue to work at it
as the
>opportunity presents itself.
i asked why you would claim to follow "Old Master" rules, when you chose to
work on genre that does not fit under "Old Master" tutelage? I was not
saying that you are not good enough, just that there are specific(limited)
lessons and styles that can be considered following "Old Master" tutelage
and you do not stay within these limits(not that you should, unless you
claim to follow them).
>> i personally see nothing wrong with caricatures and
>> direct copying from books (i wouldn't find it helpful, drawing from
nature
>> makes more sense to me),
>
>Life-drawing makes more sense to me as well, but there are a conspicuous
lack of
>models around my place, and an unfortunate placing of the life-drawing
classes
>against my university requirements ...
then, if you wish to follow the "Old Master" or even the ASCR curriculum,
you would draw(not paint) still lifes and life masks. i do not agree with
the rules, but i do not claim to aspire to "Old Master" quality through
their rigorous tutelage.
>> emmultation of the Old Masters is fine, even
>> admirable but deifying them and then judging others by their product(not
>> even their ideals) makes it a cult. comparison of your work to Titian is
>> not blasphemy, he was a man, not a god.
>
>I deify no-one - I merely give those artists the respect they are due.
and say anyone who doesn't wish to follow their ideals are not artist or
really bad ones. i give the christian god his due respect and all other
people who do not follow his tenants are going to hell, um?
>To do
>less on my part would be to me, at least, insolence. I worship no-one and
>no-thing, and I am a member of no cult - nor have I established a cult. If
you
>really think this about me, then you have made a grave error.
your the one who said you wouldn't dare besmirch the "Old Master" name by
comparing yourself to them. blasphemy?
>> >Until I find a Master who will teach me, then that is all I can do --
teach
>> >myself as best as I can.
>>
>> that is great, but you have made derogatory comments to modern art
schools
>> and professors and you have knowledge of only one.
>
>I have knowledge of two actually ... and vicarious knowledge through
various
>correspondants.
still not 99%, as you clarified for me.
>> i would like to know how
>> you can say 90% of universities, when you have no idea of what goes on in
>> 90% of universities.
>
>Certainly my numbers (99%, incidentally) weren't based in literal facts -
they
>were an exaggeration of the situation, but I am not sure they were meant to
be
>taken literally. I do have contact with the Classical Realists here and
there,
>and from what I hear of them, there are very few schools that teach the Old
>Master principles
you said pay lip service to rendering, not following Old Master principles,
incidentally.
> since they are pretty much in a position to know that
>information, I thought it was safe enough to conclude that the Pomo
teaching was
>enormously prevalent.
and another logic issue
not Old Master= Pomo
>Subsequent encounters with other universities confirmed my
>suspicion that my initial university was by no means unique - they were, in
some
>respects, probably more moderate - in other respects they were clearly
lacking,
>even by Pomo standards. I remember that a large group of students
themselves
>complained (I was not amongst them, as I wasn't consulted on the issue) to
the
>Department heads that they were dissatisfied with the kind of un-practical
>'teaching' they had been receiving for the whole year. I was as surprised
as
>anyone to hear that even they were displeased, particularly since they'd
been
>brainwashed all year with assertions of how irrelevant technique really
is - and
>if technical praise was given, it was usually to the most trivial effects.
and this equals 99% how?
>> when i said that i could only speak for the school i
>> went to and described a drawing course, to explain that not all
post-modern
>> artist do not pay lip-service, you blather on about blind contour and it
be
>> trivial.
>
>Blind contour drawing was really forced upon us in the drawing course - I
am not
>kidding.
and just because your professors, from a school and teacher you don't
admire, means that mine(who i do) paid lip service to rendering, how?
>> the point i was making was that if you wish to hold yourself and everyone
>> else by very strict standards, then you have to go by them. this means
you
>> would be following rules given to you and performing small task(like
>> grinding paint) , not going around saying what is and is not art.
>
>No thing and no-one will force me to abdicate the power of my own
intellect. I
>don't care whether I end up being wrong
i am forcing you to nothing. i am saying if you wish to imply that art
schools are teaching non-art and that "Old Master" principles are the way to
go(implying the only way) that if you do not follow them, you are being a
hypocrite. if i said ab-ex art was the only valid art form and said i
wanted to become an artist, then i would be an hypocrite if i painted
realistically. i am sorry, i thought "unless you are a hypocrite" was
implied when i said follow the rules. i do not care if you are a blatant
hypocrite.
>
> I will not be told by anyone to not
>think, to not judge to the best of my ability. I hope to remain open to
other
>possibilities, certainly, but not so much so that I won't have a mind of my
own.
"Old Master" principles tell you what to do and what you should think is
important. to follow these principles is to not be open to other
possibilities. you claimed that the mind of your own chose to follow the
"Old Master" principles, but that doesn't mean whatever the hell you want to
do, but what they tell you to do. if you don't have a mind of your own, it
was your own choice.
>
>> art critique was left for at least intermediate pupils(if you are not
sure
>> what
>> an intermediate pupil's art would look like look at the ASCR site, they
will
>> show you a very good example), children were seen not heard(under "Old
>> Master" rules every single one of us is a child). luckily i do not hold
>> myself or others to those rules, but you say you do.
>
>I have never denied anyone the right to make judgements/statements about
art.
>Why should I want to do that?
I said art critique was left for at least the intermediate pupils, and you
have claimed you are not. you by saying you follow the "Old Master"
principles you have said you will follow their rules, or you don't follow
the principles.
so by your own accord, unless craftmen(which you said you are) were allowed
to judge what was and wasn't art(which they were not), you can not(by your
own principles)say what is or is not art.
>> >> you don't even follow your own rules.
>> >
>> >I have no set rules except for one: -- To push myself ever onwards, to
try
>> >and capture more powerfully what is in my mind or what is out there in
the
>> >world; to develop my skills at drawing first, so that my paintings will
>> improve.
"Old Master" principles and Classical Realism both have strict rules(and
many of them). either you have one rule(meaning you are not aspiring to
"Old Master"/Classical Realism principles) or you do, pick!
>> that is not true... you have plenty of rules for art vs. non-art.
>
>Well, one major rule. It can be broken down into smaller ones.
and they are? you don't have to answer this, if you could not disprove all
of the logic problems above, because then it is not objective, and you have
no objective criteria.
>> by saying
>> what is and is not art (there by invalidating any of it for discussion)
then
>> you say that everyone else's push is invalid.
>
>It would seem that way. But then, I am happy to hear their take on the
issue as
>well.
and say imply they are wrong everytime you use the term "objective
criteria". it is not taking on anything, it is saying wrong, wrong, wrong
anytime you don't agree(because you have objective criteria).
>> i never implied i was, i would be slapped silly too. you still did not
>> address the question. if you want to hold up these standards, then you
>> should follow them.
>
>I follow them as far as I can at present. I've never claimed to be more
>skillfull than I actually am - if I could paint as well as an Old Master, I
>assure you I would be painting "Old Master" works. (Except they would
really be
>New Master works.)
no, i did not say if you hold them up, you should paint as well as they do.
i said you should follow their principles and tutelage(process not product).
>Are you so sure you know that? Don't you remember the caricatures by
Leonardo da
>Vinci, Gian Lorenzo Bernini, Dantan, Gustave Dore and others? Mine aren't
as
>good as theirs by any means, but they considered it a legitimate medium to
>express a more humorous side to art. The caricatures certainly wouldn't be
in
>the strict heirarchy of classical realist teaching, but who says that I
wish to
>conform to any particular school?
but students had to follow the rules and if you are hazy, go look at
ASCR(your the own who told me about their linage), and by their(which you
say are your) standards you should be drawing still-lifes. oh, and who says,
you did( need me to post multiple quotes, including your artistic intent on
your own webpage)!
>My only wish is to develop my skills and
>perception enough so that I can express what I want to say, in the way I
want to
>say it. In my view, without those skills or perception one is left
crippled,
>unable to fully bring to fruition what you had dreamed about.
which you said was through "Old Master" principles.
>It may prove that
>I am barren of inspiration - well, so be it. But I would rather give myself
the
>chance of at least successfully expressing myself instead of blocking the
>inspiration through clumsy drawing, painting, etc.
i never implied that you were barren of anything, but logic. we are talking
about a theory you say you hold yourself to and seem to hold others
too(which is my problem). i do not think there is anything wrong with your
inspiration or your technique or your genre or even your talent(i think you
are talented). i think that if you intend to hold yourself and more
importantly others to a standard, then you better follow it or take the
heat.
> Did I mention that I am
>untrained? This means I have had no teacher in the old methods - this means
that
>I can only progress through experimentation, hard work, reading the words
of the
>Masters, and through copying them now and again (to see what they meant
when
>they said those words).
and following their words and the principles... right?
>> i posed that many artist(which you say are
>> not) do understand realism they choose to follow another path, not for a
>> lack of skill but for emotional results. you call that elevation of
>> incompetence, but for you it is an exercise(diversion do not work).
>
>Which of these artists understood realism?
are you honestly trying to say that because people do not chose to use
realism they did not understand it. there were plenty of artist who were
classically trained(i could start a list and i am sure someone far better at
art history could post pages and pages) and chose not to do accurately
representational work.
> How can going for an emotional
>result at all compromise realism?
a logic problem
just because you can have an emotional with realism, does not mean you can
not have emotional without realism.
> Realism has proven itself time and again
>eminently suitable for the most subtle and profound artistic expression.
Just as
>sentences, paragraphs and chapters have proven vital for writers.
again
just because realism works, does not imply nothing else does.
>> > to develop my feeling for rhythm and the attempt to capture the essence
>> >of the person without strictly confining myself to a too fastidious
>> >representation, which can become a danger at the early stages of
drawing.
>>
>> lian, "Old Master" tutelage, especially in its modern form, is strictly
>> confining yourself to a too fastidious representation.
>
>Do you really think so? How about Goya, El Greco, Delacroix? These men wer
>undoubtedly talented, but would you really say they were 'too fastidiously
>realistic'? No, they had their own style well within the boundaries of
realism -
>it was superb, yes, but I am not sure whether fastidious is the precise
word to
>describe a Delacroix, a Goya, or an El Greco.
and if they followed "Old Master" tutelage, then they followed the lessons
of their "Old Masters", which meant they first learned to be "fastidiously
realistic", before they went on as Masters to do what they wished.
>> do not insult modern
>> schools and then skirt around your own personal choices, follow the
rules!
>
>Do not tell me what to do, unless you can enforce it.
sorry, insert the implied(unless you are a blatant hypocrite!)
i do not wish to tell you what to do, in fact if you wish to be a hypocrite,
all the better for me... then the rest of us can continue the dialogue
without having to have you say, "that example isn't art, objectively".
> I am sorry to be so blunt,
>but that's the essence of it.If you'd like to argue against me, then by all
>means do so - my theories aren't perfect - there is much room for
improvement. I
>do think, though, that they are on the right track, despite the clumsiness
of
>their realization in words. The idea is in my mind - but translating that
into
>pure logic is always the hard part.
i am patient and i perfectly willing to wait for the logic behind your
theories of why all non-rep is not art(or very bad art). your words are not
clumsy though, just wrong. i am not saying i know exactly what makes art,
but i do know that you are WRONG! prove me wrong, i love a good challenge
and you are quite a challenge.
>Where did I say that a person could or could not display their work? I have
>already admitted to you that I am not sure how to classify what is up
there - it
>isn't quite craft, but it isn't yet art. It's somewhere in-between.
as far as i know(art historians in the group should be able to clarify this
if you disagree) pupils of the "Old Masters" never displayed their art in
the same venues as their "Masters". i think it is great to see art(i know
you don't call it that, but i do) even if it wouldn't be considered Master
work.
>Reign those horses in a bit here ... if you still think I am against
>non-Classical Realism, then re-read what I have written above in this
letter.
i know... rep art
>> this is far worse than my words. remember what you said about subtle
>> immorality in work, no matter
>> how articulate your words are i find them to be insulting and facets and
not
>> enough basis to be anything but regurgitation.
>
>Insulting ... Fascist ... nothing but vomit ...
>
>Very pictorial.
thank you i try.
>Ahh, sorry, I misinterpreted you. Well, I think it is fair to say that I
have
>never claimed that my own work was the pinnacle of art. I have never
bragged
>about it, dressed it up, or even really talked about it on this newsgroup
until
>this particular discussion. Some people like what I have done, and some do
not -
>and some have offered useful criticism, which I was most grateful for.
and i am not saying you are not good, just under "Old Master" principles not
advanced enough to claim to know what is or is not art. the only critical
comment i made about you art(the rest were your theory and logic) was that
the dr. who's were not that good. i told you i thought you had talent and i
liked your copies and even gave you useful criticism( it would make sense to
draw from nature). i never said you were not good or good enough, i merely
pointed our where you were not following the principles you say you hold so
dear.
>I enjoyed setting up the photographs, and I was intruiged with the
superficially
>Caravagiesque results (ie., the lighting). They were never meant to be
serious
>excursions into the artistic, and I had never intended for anyone to take
them
>that way.
>
>> >The page is loosely classified as art because I am not sure of the term
>> >which indicates "studies intended to help one on the road to art".
Perhaps
>> the
>> >French word, 'etude'?
i understand, it just is not clear on your page... i am sure others would
make the same error.
>To quote my page:
>
>"Well, I desire a return to the standards of craftsmanship and quality as
>exemplified by the Old Masters."
>
>I made no claims here that my own work was up to the 'standards of
craftsmanship
>and quality' of the Old Masters. I merely stated my desire to achieve those
>standards.
and i never made any comparisons to your quality or said you should have
that level. I merely stated that your intent was to return to the
standards.... and you are only picking and choosing which is not "Old
Master" at all.
>How do you know this? Do you know how much I study art? I think that's a
fair
>question to raise.
i know enough about "Old Master" tutelage(even if i didn't they are well
spelled out in ASCR), so i know you are breaking their rules(which is not
acceptable for "Old Master" training).
>> >The pastel of Geordi was not intended to be a work of art, except in a
>> >loose sense of portraiture, colour harmony (more by instinct back then).
>>
>> then why display it, that is what you are doing.
>
>How much do you want me to brow-beat my own work? I have said on previous
>occassions that what's up there isn't art, and it isn't quite craft either.
I am
>not claiming it belongs to either category, and nothing in my statement on
the
>first page can support a counter-claim to that effect.
i do not want you to brow beat anything, but perhaps your logic. i disagree
that your work should not be considered art, you are the only one saying
that. All i asked, which is very fair, is: i know that if i did not
consider something i did good enough to be considered art, then i would not
display it. so if you feel this way, why do you? this is a fair question,
especially considering that pupils did not display their work in galleries
under "Old Master" tutelage.
>I wish I were a better "artist", and one day I will be a real artist. Until
>then, it's entirely within my rights to exhibit any drawings, paintings
that I
>wish. I left an email address at the bottom of the page for
comments/criticisms,
>so there is at least a chance for feedback. Besides, having the page has
proved
>a useful way to let people know what it is exactly that I do, without them
>having to come over and look through my drawings.
i don't think of you as an unreal artist, only you do. growing artist, young
artist, developing artist, yes(but that is nothing i do not consider
myself), but never a non-artist. i think it is not only a right, but a good
idea to display your art(i have mine displayed). i however, do not claim to
follow anybody's principles and definitely would never follow such strict
principles. i even admire you for following "Old Master" principles, i just
think you should follow them all, not the ones you pick and choose and then
go around bashing universities(which you know nothing about) for doing the
same thing you do, picking and choosing the principles of the "Masters"
which fit for you. even if all the universities did pay lip service to
"Masters" at least they did not go around claiming that they were following
them.
>
>I was not being insulting to Mark, I was stating something I thought was
>evident. I thought there was a similarity between his figures and some of
>Cezanne's. Maybe I was wrong. In any case, the tone of the letter wasn't
>hostile, and it wasn't definitive. I was making no claim as to state any
facts,
>and I certainly hope that Mark didn't misinterpret my Cezanne comment as
>insulting in any way.
i am sure he didn't, but he is a generous man(and one of those pomo
professor who you claim pay lip service to rendering, a teacher who forces
students to sacrifice technique to the alter of fashion) and took it as a
compliment, since Cezanne is nothing to be insulted by. however, you and i
know what you said about the technique's of Cezanne and that he was a bad
artist. you made definitive, actually objective, statements of Cezanne and
other art which was not accurately rendered.
>Well, it was part of the point for me. I respect what Chris has to say, and
I
>admire the way he says it. And I don't agree with those who say he speaks
>gibberish, or that he's incoherent, or whatever. I don't always agree with
his
>views, but neither does he agree with mine. That does not stop my admiring
his
>obvious artistic and literary abilities.
i respect chris and i even think sometimes he does speak gibberish(though i
think he does it on purpose, to get to mark). i never said you did or did
not admire him, i know i went for the throat, but you are getting paranoid.
however, i do know that you have said you have objective criteria and that
criteria(if it were objective, which it is not) would prove that some of the
artists he admires(and some of his art) as bad or non-art.
>> >> >degrees. There may also exist other artists I am not aware about who
>> would
>> >> easily
>> >> >qualify to enter their circle.
>>
>> it is nice you leave us three living artist who are create art and hopes
of
>> a handful more.
>
>It is to be understood that my list was not meant to be definitive. Merely
off
>the top of my head.
"there may also exist" makes it sound like there are so many others.
>> i did say sculpture, and some of it is representational, but whether it
was
>> pots or i did utterly realistic paintings, i find your blatant disregard
for
>> entire mediums as non-art offensive and judgmental.
>As you wish.
and i do, i am not the only person who feels this way, but i am sure
insulting ceramists is not important to you.
>I have looked up the definition of feelings already, for an assignment in
>Philosophy. As for animals and feelings ... well, I have no scientific
proof
>that they experience feelings, but every dealing I have had with them, or
heard
>about from anyone else (and this so far hasn't been contradicted by science
to
>my knowledge), suggests that they do experience feelings, emotions, and so
on.
>
>> if you can provide me with such an
>> animal then i would have to consider it, if not then exactly what point
were
>> you trying to prove?
>
>A fair enough point - my animal/feeling analogy was obscure.
if you mean by obscure, not very accurate, then yes. you implied animal
feelings and human feelings about art were the same and therefore why
shouldn't animals be able to critique art.
>> i do not rationally agree on your opinion(which until you give me a
>> justification, a reference, or a list from someone who creates art or is
>> accredited to judge art).
>
>Ahh ... do I need an authority, now? Why can one not make reasonable
>(hopefully!) observations and offer them up for discuss, refutation and so
>forth.
because is it an observation(an opinion) without documentation and
authority. you said you were not using opinions but objective
criteria(factual evidence for judging art).
>To give you a quote from a man accredited to judge art:
>
>"Those who rely on quotations use their memory, and not their intellect."
>
> -- Leonardo da Vinci.
>
>(Granted, the actual wording may be different, but that was the drift of
his
>statement."
ha ha
>> is any one else willing to say post-modern art as a whole is not
>> art, photography, ceramics, collage, and just about everything else is
not
>> art?
>
>Jean-Leon Gerome would come to mind ... however, such artists as these are
long
>dead, and I can not speak for them. I remember that Delaroche viewed the
>invention of the camera with some horror, as did a large number of
contemporary
>critics who saw it as a negative effect on the young artists. From a visual
>point of view, I can see what their concern was, but it wasn't the camera
which
>ended up eradicating representational art from the academies. It was
philosophy,
>or, to be more precise, a particular branch of philosophy.
this was a question directed to other members of the ng.
>> >> how can they be objective, when nothing i do and most of the work i
>> >> admire is not art?
>> >
>> >I do not know what work you admire, so I can not answer this.
>>
>> enough of non-classical representational and art that you classify as
>> non-art to make it so.
>
>I still cannot answer this until I know that you understand what kind of
art I
>applaude.
>
you asked what kind of art i admired... I said the work i admire, you say is
non-art. you say non-rep work is not art, since i admire non-rep and
rep-art, then i admire non art(logic).
>> and i would still like to know what your criteria for art is, with the
>> appropriate documentation to qualify it as objective.
>
>Why should one be compelled to offer documentation - which I take as
meaning
>references, quotes, and so on - when discussing the criteria of art?
because opinions are subjective and to be objective you need evidence.
there must be proof for something to be factual, otherwise it is just your
opinion.
>It is
>certainly useful to refer to artist-statements, but how do we know that
they are
>all correct? What Bouguereau or Ingres said might be at complete odds with
what
>Pollock declared. Which one should we take more seriously? Should it be a
battle
>of reputations?
i do not need to know which artist statements are more correct, or that they
both can not be correct for themselves, equally. i see not reason why we
would have to take the ideas of one artist over another to judge art as a
whole.... but i do not hold that i have OBJECTIVE CRITERIA!
>> i have no desire to teach
>> you anything, i am hear to learn by understanding the ideas of others to
>> clarify my own thoughts. i think your implication that i, or all the
evil
>> post-modern professors ask anyone "to sacrifice technical skill on the
altar
>> of fashion"
>
>They were not evil.
if my professor forced me to sacrifice anything to the altar of fashion, i
would think it was pretty bad.
>Physical force would hardly be used. Intellectual pressure is the medium at
>universities. In any case, by denying a student his right to an artistic
>education (in an art course!) a teacher has easily and effectively cut off
one
>route to a non-Pomo approach to art.
they wouldn't let you draw? they pressured you into doing abstract art? they
taught you nothing?
if they did, i am sorry, but that is not the way it is in all universities.
>The student who remains technically inept,
>and who has been told that this is a proper and desirable thing, will
always be
>unsure of whether the technical skills are at all worthwhile - even though
they
>themselves often admire the works of the Old Masters, and perhaps late at
night
>wish that they could create such marvels. In the absence of teaching, the
>interested student is compelled to strike off on their own.
well, all i can say is that my professor allowed me and helped me with my
own interest. when i was in painting and the other students(all 2-d and i
was 3-d) were painting more expressionistic painting and i wanted to
continue on with my representational still life, they supported it(even
though it took most of the semester). i can not speak for anything but mine
and the people i know experiences, but i really do think you should say that
all pomo professors force students(even if it is intellectual pressure) when
you do not know that.
>> . i have
>> given just a few examples of how you do not even follow the "Old Master"
>> guidelines and the ASCR definition for the core of great art does not
>> eliminate all the work you state is non-art. if it is so objective, then
you
>> can write it down and give reasons for every single criteria, so do it.
>
>I have been writing down at least general guidelines for the delineation
for art
>from non-art. Some folks don't agree with what I've written, and that's
fine -
>they have also, generally, come back with their own critiques and forced me
to
>do a bit of work. That's all productive activity ... but although you have
>repeatedly claimed my criteria are not objective, you have yet to show me
why
>this is so, beside asserting that I need to quote someone to back me up.
>Objective statements need only reality and reason to back them up. If those
>statements are wrong, then there is an error in the reasoning process, or a
>mistake in the "facts" - where is the error in my reasoning process?
i guess we will find out when you answer my questions.
>"Iian Neill enrolled at the University of Tasmania in 1996, in the Bachelor
of
>Fine Arts. He studied there for one year, and transferred to the Queensland
>College of Art in early 1997. Having finally realized that this form of
>schooling was of no use to him - and a drain on his financial resources -
he
>left the College of Art within the first few weeks, so that he would not
suffer
>any academic penalties or incur unnecessary charges if he had, for example,
left
>that till later. His heart has always been set on skillfull and beautiful
art,
>nothing which he judged his previous 'teachers' is able to provide in the
>particular area he wished to pursue."
lian, i am honestly sorry you had such a bad experience with art school, i
am sure you are not alone. actually, i had some myself, but it didn't
convince me that all university programs were bad. i think it is wonderful
if you want to work in Classical Realism, and if you want to have high
principles for your path, it is admirable. i just do not find it correct to
say you have objective criteria on what is art and go around say you know
what is and is not art and that all non-rep is not even art.
tracy
Marilyn
You have defended your position and it seems to me that
your position doesn't really need defense. From my point
of view, taking into consideration that in my country
the "household name" artists, like Robert Bateman and
Ken Danby, Alex Colville, Christopher Pratt are all
very successful and rich doing representational work.
You may be a rebel in some context but you wouldn't
be a rebel among the general population of my country.
Rather conventional...
The modernist position is not one which condemns the
representational work of the past, but rather points
the way to a new genre on the basis of the idea that
it's all been done before.
What you say about rep. work, technical skill and
painting from the inner self, can be applied to
much modern, late modern and post-modern work.
The difference being that these works do not
necessarily point to something else in the external world.
They offer something new in themselves. So you don't want
to accept it, that's fine.
M.
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com
In last few weeks I have read a couple hundread pages in this discussion,
and it seems to lead nowhere. Those pages are now full of underlines and
sidemarks, but when I am ready to answer, the discussion has
proceeded several layers with new questions. I can't afford reading
all postings, hardly all of this thread. I can't afford jumping aside either,
so much have I learned here.
First I have to say I admire you Iian, you have fought your way.
Keep it, in spite of what we had said in previous postings. Acquire
all possible skill, you are prone to need it.
There is only one step left to go.
Then I have to apologise that I do not answer your recent questions.
I owe you one, so much I have learned from you. I hope the answers
have their time later.
Now I am ready to attack your Rational Observer. Last night I was reading
your postings, and Ralf Gothoni was in telly speaking about music.
He said that Mozart is the most difficult, as it is so perfect there
is only a narrow passage into it. Shostakovitch makes as good music,
but there is much broader access. When a musician goes on stage, he must
have something to say, a personality.
You are right in your criticism of Greenbergian theory.
Litterature is not about putting words on a two dimensional
square piece of paper. However, if your Rational Observer sorts
litterature on objective criteria, he will never reach to Shakespeare.
On top comes business contracts written by lawyers. Nowhere are the authors
intents so clearly expressed, most skillfully formulated.
Extreme attention is paid to fill all formal criteria. Any objective mind
can make the same judgements, beyond any reasonable doubt.
That is not what *you* are looking for in art. Skill, clarity are valid
points, but restricting to them leaves the essence out.
How blind we have been, missing the crucial ingredient. Hagan said it
in his selling of artwork. Mark has known it all the time, but prefers to
question it, the damd Sokrates. In their romantic way Tracy and
Marilyn use it all the time.
If you want to become an artist, you must answer one question. Why me,
Iian Neill. Rendering, expression of beauty has been done better
hundred years before. It is done better every day by hundreads of
good illustrators.
Take Ingres, for example and draw a line from Faidros to him.
You can easily trace the history of idealism along that line. Then
continue the other end of the line. Where does this lineage of ideal beauty
surface in our time. On the pages of Vogue!
When you display your works, you must have a reason for it. Why should
anyone buy or even look at a Iian Neill? There is only one answer, because He
has something to say, because of his personality.
And that lies beyond formal criteria. Call it telepathy if you will.
- lauri
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Marilyn
Bravo!
I guess you never heard of the criteria meters on this ng .
There are two, a maniometer, and an iianometer. The 2nd
one is a little more user-friendly (to quote Jonathan Clift
from England).
I have a quote from a catalogue from a recent show I attended,
the quote deals with Cezanne and the beginnings of modernism.
"Painting was pulled into sculpture's gravitational orbit,
as in the
reversal of perspective in Cezanne's much-thought-about fruit.
The canvas finally burst under the literal weight it had come to
bear. Not least of what tumbled out were all the miseries
and frights of history, the dumb cruelties, tortures,
humiliations stored up in art, the day-in-day-out of it,
the display of women, the traumas that art once re-enacted
and mollified;
all were sent packing to walk the streets on their own,
factually,
no longer as memory of what occurred, but as occurences
the acts, the traumas themselves, capable of being
photographed."
This is a great liberation but some like to remain in
the prison of the past.
Marilyn
mark webber
On Tue, 27 Oct 1998 lauri.levanto, from a different North Country, wrote:
(snip of thoughtful encouragement and challenge)
>
> How blind we have been, missing the crucial ingredient. Hagan said it
> in his selling of artwork. Mark has known it all the time, but prefers to
> question it, the damd Sokrates. In their romantic way Tracy and
> Marilyn use it all the time.
Friend Lauri, I'm not sure what you are refering to here, and since you
attribute some possession of it to me, I feel I need to quickly know what
it is. Can you tell me what you mean?
(I'm wondering if I missed something again - Marilyn and Tracy, do you
know something I don't?)
>
> If you want to become an artist, you must answer one question. Why me,
> Iian Neill.
Is this what you mean? Do you mean "drive", or something like a need to
work?
> Take Ingres, for example and draw a line from Faidros to him.
> You can easily trace the history of idealism along that line. Then
> continue the other end of the line. Where does this lineage of ideal beauty
> surface in our time. On the pages of Vogue!
Pardon my intrusion, but it seems to me that the diffence between Vogue
and Ingres is the difference between subject matter and form.
(i.e. Beautiful women and beautiful paintings)
> When you display your works, you must have a reason for it. Why should
> anyone buy or even look at a Iian Neill? There is only one answer, because He
> has something to say, because of his personality.
>
> And that lies beyond formal criteria. Call it telepathy if you will.
>
Lauri, are you sure that someone can't say all they have to say with form
and color?
I don't know how to put anything *but* those things into a painting, and
in addition, I don't know how anyone else would.
Please say more about this, because, even though we've touched on it a few
times, I still don't really know what you mean by it.
warmly,
Mark
setai
Marilyn wrote in message <36362...@news.victoria.tc.ca>...
> tracy:
>
>Bravo!
>
>I guess you never heard of the criteria meters on this ng .
>There are two, a maniometer, and an iianometer. The 2nd
>one is a little more user-friendly (to quote Jonathan Clift
>from England).
but just as stubborn. it is challenge, lian firmly believes that he has an
absolute criteria on what is and is not art. i admire him greatly for his
resolve and style, but i refuse to surrender all primitive and modern art to
his passionate conjecture.
>I have a quote from a catalogue from a recent show I attended,
>the quote deals with Cezanne and the beginnings of modernism.
>
>"Painting was pulled into sculpture's gravitational orbit,
>as in the
>reversal of perspective in Cezanne's much-thought-about fruit.
>The canvas finally burst under the literal weight it had come to
>bear. Not least of what tumbled out were all the miseries
>and frights of history, the dumb cruelties, tortures,
>humiliations stored up in art, the day-in-day-out of it,
>the display of women, the traumas that art once re-enacted
>and mollified;
>all were sent packing to walk the streets on their own,
>factually,
>no longer as memory of what occurred, but as occurences
>the acts, the traumas themselves, capable of being
>photographed."
that is lovely, the spinning of a poet not a critic. not a sport caster blow
by blow of technique, but the emotions, the essence of the experience. what
better testament to the "artness" of modern art?
>This is a great liberation but some like to remain in
>the prison of the past.
fear of the unknown is a harsh jailer. when the path was blown away with the
storm of modernism, many stood defiantly still. i do not know where i am or
where i go, but i confidently stride forward in the darkness.
tracy
setai
mark webber wrote in message ...
>
>
>
>On Tue, 27 Oct 1998 lauri.levanto, from a different North Country, wrote:
>> How blind we have been, missing the crucial ingredient. Hagan said it
>> in his selling of artwork. Mark has known it all the time, but prefers to
>> question it, the damd Sokrates. In their romantic way Tracy and
>> Marilyn use it all the time.
>
>Friend Lauri, I'm not sure what you are refering to here, and since you
>attribute some possession of it to me, I feel I need to quickly know what
>it is. Can you tell me what you mean?
>
>
>(I'm wondering if I missed something again - Marilyn and Tracy, do you
>know something I don't?)
mark,
i can understand her alluding to Sokrates, you do give answers by asking
questions, personally i would take the reference as a compliment. both
marilyn and i tend to lean toward a more metaphorical and with marilyn
lyrical means to the end. i wonder what chris would be? however, i have no
idea what the crucial ingredient that she is referring to. lauri, if you
know something, i beg you tell us! mark if you are holding out, until you
question the answer out of us, i will personally hand you the cup of
hemlock!
as always
tracy
Iian Neill
> First I have to say I admire you Iian, you have fought your way.
Thank you Lauri ... it has certainly been a most vigorous exercise!
> Keep it, in spite of what we had said in previous postings. Acquire
> all possible skill, you are prone to need it.
> There is only one step left to go.
I may end up ammending or modifying some of the criteria that I suggested before
were objective. This isn't to imply that the criteria were objective - what I
mean is that I can see that putting them into practise is going to be a very
difficult task, and a deeper level of sensitivity is required to not disserver
criticism from the reality of art itself. I will go into this later.
> Then I have to apologise that I do not answer your recent questions.
> I owe you one, so much I have learned from you. I hope the answers
> have their time later.
You have repaid the debt with your letter here; you have raised some important
questions.
> Now I am ready to attack your Rational Observer. Last night I was reading
> your postings, and Ralf Gothoni was in telly speaking about music.
> He said that Mozart is the most difficult, as it is so perfect there
> is only a narrow passage into it. Shostakovitch makes as good music,
> but there is much broader access. When a musician goes on stage, he must
> have something to say, a personality.
Is Gothoni saying that because Mozart is harder to express satisfactorily, he is
therefore the better composer? I have some sympathy with the idea of what he was
trying to get across, which sounds like it is this: -- Mozart is the better
composer because his ideas are richer and on a higher intellectual plain than
those of Shostakovitch -- therefore, Mozart requires a more sensitive performance
- the musician must have a strong personality to do his job properly. The
implication here is that a performer can cheat a little with Shostakovitch --
that the musical ideas are so confused and bizarre that if he doesn't fully grasp
what's going on, it won't really matter because no one else grasps it either! I
have much sympathy with that view ... but I am not sure whether Gothoni has
really shown - unequivocally - that Mozart is the better composer, or even that
he is a clearer composer. There will always be fans of the avant-garde who will
leap to Shostakovitch's defense, possibly by declaring that there is great
intelligence in his work - it is just that he doesn't appeal to the sensuous side
of music that Mozart taps into. What Gothoni needs to show - or at least try to
- is that the laws of harmony Mozart was working from are in someway better than
the rules that Shostakovitch followed; the difficulty with this approach is that
it often ends up in assertions of taste as fact: for example, Mozart expresses
true Beauty, therefore he is a better composer; Shostakovtich doesn't express
true Beauty, therefore he is a lesser composer. The problem with this is that
there will always be others who say that your idea of Beauty is either wrong or
too narrow. And how can you reply to that except to say, "Well, isn't it obvious
that Mozart's work is more Beautiful and therefore more true?" and they will
reply with an emphatic, "No! That's just what you think."
So, we have come to an en passe ... or have we? What we have shown so far is
that arguments supported by taste can be questioned by anyone - why is that? - It
is because we all have different tastes. To say that something is good because it
is Beautiful is tantamount to saying it is good because you find it pleasurable -
after all, is not the Beautiful that which pleases you in some way? And if you
base a theory of criticism on merely what is pleasing to you, you leave it open
to attacks from other people who will say, "What you find pleasing is what I find
ugly." In the end, such systems - which seem to rely too heavily on subjectivity
as their foundation - will result in a stalement, with at least three camps
discernible: (A) will declare that their idea of Beauty is superior, (B) will
take an opposite view, and (C) will simply say that because (A) and (B) disagree,
there ARE NO standards of Beauty at all. And where does this leave our aesthetic
theory? In an absolute shambles -- and this is the state which it has lain for
hundreds of years.
> You are right in your criticism of Greenbergian theory.
> Litterature is not about putting words on a two dimensional
> square piece of paper. However, if your Rational Observer sorts
> litterature on objective criteria, he will never reach to Shakespeare.
> On top comes business contracts written by lawyers. Nowhere are the authors
> intents so clearly expressed, most skillfully formulated.
> Extreme attention is paid to fill all formal criteria. Any objective mind
> can make the same judgements, beyond any reasonable doubt.
> That is not what *you* are looking for in art. Skill, clarity are valid
> points, but restricting to them leaves the essence out.
You raise an excellent point, but one which is already covered by my theory so
far - perhaps not explicitly, though. Before I continue, do you think it
reasonable to agree that theory as you understand it, while it mightn't detect a
Shakespeare, it does still separate literature (or at least coherent writing)
from non-literature? It might not be able to approach the level we need to
appreciate Shakespeare, but it should allow us to delineate a book of poetry from
a book of random squiggles, or meaningless sentences. So ... we have here
eliminated, if you will agree, a certain amount of so-called Post-Modernist
"art". Not all of it by any means, merely the most ridiculous examples of it, the
most vacuous and brainless.
That said, does my theory really see no difference between Shakespeare and a
legal contract? I think that it *does* make this distinction. And how is that?
Simply because a work of art - according to this theory - is to be judged on how
well it realizes the intention of the person creating it. The legal contract was
not created to express an emotion, a memory, or an aesthetic concept - it was
created to state clearly and unequivocably (in legal language) the terms
necessary for a number of parties to keep in mind for a contract. It wasn't
intended to make someone weep, laugh, or wonder at beauty - its function is a
legal one.
The function of a Shakespearean play is different from a legal contract, and so
cannot be considered in the same way. Shakespeare's works were written to express
an inner state, an aesthetic concept, ideal and so on - not to lay out in legal
terminology some point of law, or an agreement between two people. If that was
Shakespeare's actual goal, then his plays failed miserably by anyone's standards!
Flowery, poetic language is superfluous (not to say inappopriate) in a legal
document - the aim in such works is for semantic clarity, not artistic
expressiveness. Since artistic expressiveness was never the goal of such
contracts, they cannot be judged as works of art - they were never intended to
be.
> How blind we have been, missing the crucial ingredient. Hagan said it
> in his selling of artwork. Mark has known it all the time, but prefers to
> question it, the damd Sokrates. In their romantic way Tracy and
> Marilyn use it all the time.
>
> If you want to become an artist, you must answer one question. Why me,
> Iian Neill. Rendering, expression of beauty has been done better
> hundred years before. It is done better every day by hundreads of
> good illustrators.
We create art to fulfill a spiritual need - the need to express ourselves. It's
not a physical need like shelter or the eradication of annoying insects (!), so
the function (and the consequent form) is entirely different.
> Take Ingres, for example and draw a line from Faidros to him.
> You can easily trace the history of idealism along that line. Then
> continue the other end of the line. Where does this lineage of ideal beauty
> surface in our time. On the pages of Vogue!
Good point - beauty is present in the photographs of Vogue. But is it the same
intention that Ingres had? It does feel a little empty, doesn't it, all of these
slick models and the glossy advertising; this wasn't what Ingres was after. It
seems to me that the photos of Vogue magazine are not intended to express
anything beyond the enjoyment of physical beauty - and they can be appreciated on
that level. I have not observed any attempt to penetrate any deeper, however, any
wish to express emotion or intellectual concepts; merely a joy in beauty. And
that's fine.
> When you display your works, you must have a reason for it. Why should
> anyone buy or even look at a Iian Neill? There is only one answer, because He
> has something to say, because of his personality.
That's right. I don't see how this is incompatible with my theory, though - the
theory isn't questioning the importance or relevance of art - it is asking the
question, "Accepting the fact that art has some existence, and therefore an
identity, might we not consider what is art, as opposed to what is not art?"
> And that lies beyond formal criteria. Call it telepathy if you will.
Formal criteria is useful - but it is only useful because we, as human beings,
have a need for it. In fact, it is only we, as human beings, who even have a need
for art. Animals don't make it, and we don't make art for animals. Criteria can
help us sort through the complexity that is art, trying to distill some of its
essence. I think that some aspects of art can be defined objectively, but that
most of it is tantamount to a set of guidelines.
Regards,
Iian Neill
Iian Neill
stars***.
> I may end up ammending or modifying some of the criteria that I suggested before
> were objective. This isn't to imply that the criteria were ***NOT*** objective -
> what I
> mean is that I can see that putting them into practise is going to be a very
> difficult task, and a deeper level of sensitivity is required to not disserver
> criticism from the reality of art itself. I will go into this later.
Sometimes when I type fast I skip words ... sorry for the inconvenience.
Regards,
Iian Neill
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 27 Oct 1998 lauri.levanto, from a different North Country, wrote:
>
>
> >
> > in his selling of artwork. Mark has known it all the time, but prefers to
> > question it, the damd Sokrates. In their romantic way Tracy and
> > Marilyn use it all the time.
>
> attribute some possession of it to me, I feel I need to quickly know what
> it is. Can you tell me what you mean?
>
> (I'm wondering if I missed something again - Marilyn and Tracy, do you
> know something I don't?)
>
> >
> > Iian Neill.
>
> work?
Mark, drive is here not precise enough. It may be an obsession,
strong enough to break all barriers, to paint with your own blood
on a prison wall, if nothing else isavailable. Drive may be only a gentle
push producing pretty pictures, like humming a song. I thought I was
clear enough, I wrote about personality.
In eight-to-four world, I teach computer trivia.
It is not a drive, I have to (two and half years more).
I can't and will not live by sculpturing.
I give a few different half day classes, recurring week after week.
But every morning, before each class, I ask myself "why me".
What can I give to my pupils that they do not get elsewhere.
In front of my class I am an actor capturing my audience, an artist.
In my art studies, I complete given excercises. Sometimes they come
out just nice, sometimes the result is mine, and afterwards the
excercise seems to be just an excuse, initial puff.
This is what I meant by personality. To have something own to say.
> > Take Ingres, for example and draw a line from Faidros to him.
> > You can easily trace the history of idealism along that line. Then
> > continue the other end of the line. Where does this lineage of ideal beauty
> > surface in our time. On the pages of Vogue!
>
> Pardon my intrusion, but it seems to me that the diffence between Vogue
> and Ingres is the difference between subject matter and form.
> (i.e. Beautiful women and beautiful paintings)
You must know better what kind of magazines specialize to beautiful women :-)
Vogue is more about fashion, mainly. Like Ingres, representing the ideals of
beauty. ( I have suspected a long time, that in your pursuit of formalism,
you include the subject into form when necessary. Chris, am I only
paranoid, or do you have the same feeling?)
> > When you display your works, you must have a reason for it. Why should
> > anyone buy or even look at a Iian Neill? There is only one answer, because
He
> > has something to say, because of his personality.
> >
> > And that lies beyond formal criteria. Call it telepathy if you will.
> >
>
> Lauri, are you sure that someone can't say all they have to say with form
> and color?
Oh Mark, why not. Some of us are simply not sculptors or drawers :-)
Whatever is your media, *you* have to have something *you have to say*.
Is it better English: Something that must be said by you.
- lauri
> I don't know how to put anything *but* those things into a painting, and
> in addition, I don't know how anyone else would.
>
> Please say more about this, because, even though we've touched on it a few
> times, I still don't really know what you mean by it.
>
> warmly,
>
> Mark
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
mark webber
On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, setai wrote:
>
> mark,
>
> i can understand her alluding to Sokrates, you do give answers by asking
> questions, personally i would take the reference as a compliment.
Yes; actually, Lauri and I have emailed a few times, and he (by the way,
Lauri's name is a masculine name in his language, I believe) and I have
mentioned the Socratic method, and I do appreciate that as a compliment.
> both
> marilyn and i tend to lean toward a more metaphorical and with marilyn
> lyrical means to the end.
Yes, that seems accurate to me.
> i wonder what chris would be? however, i have no
> idea what the crucial ingredient that she is referring to. lauri, if you
> know something, i beg you tell us! mark if you are holding out, until you
> question the answer out of us, i will personally hand you the cup of
> hemlock!
Very good, Tracy, and I will dutifully drink it. No, I really do want
Lauri to go into a little more detail for us. I am baffled.
warm regards,
Mark
mark webber
> Mark, drive is here not precise enough. It may be an obsession,
> strong enough to break all barriers, to paint with your own blood
> on a prison wall, if nothing else isavailable. Drive may be only a gentle
> push producing pretty pictures, like humming a song. I thought I was
> clear enough, I wrote about personality.
But isn't that - personality - conveyed very well in each decision the
artist makes? I call it sensibility.
(snip)
>
> In my art studies, I complete given excercises. Sometimes they come
> out just nice, sometimes the result is mine, and afterwards the
> excercise seems to be just an excuse, initial puff.
>
> This is what I meant by personality. To have something own to say.
That may well be *why* we work, but is it *how* we work?
>
> > > Take Ingres, for example and draw a line from Faidros to him.
> > > You can easily trace the history of idealism along that line. Then
> > > continue the other end of the line. Where does this lineage of ideal beauty
> > > surface in our time. On the pages of Vogue!
> >
> > Pardon my intrusion, but it seems to me that the diffence between Vogue
> > and Ingres is the difference between subject matter and form.
> > (i.e. Beautiful women and beautiful paintings)
>
> You must know better what kind of magazines specialize to beautiful women :-)
> Vogue is more about fashion, mainly. Like Ingres, representing the ideals of
> beauty.
What I meant was that in a fashion magazine, the photography isn't the art
issue, the fashion is - so as a result we are looking at pictures of
beautiful clothes or women - not necessarily beautiful pictures.
> ( I have suspected a long time, that in your pursuit of formalism,
> you include the subject into form when necessary.)
How do you mean that? When I talk about it I include subject as part of
form, or when I paint I consider subject to be part of form? Hopefully, I
do neither.
>
> > > When you display your works, you must have a reason for it. Why should
> > > anyone buy or even look at a Iian Neill? There is only one answer, because
> He
> > > has something to say, because of his personality.
> > >
> > > And that lies beyond formal criteria. Call it telepathy if you will.
I think there might be a number of reasons. Some people don't pay
attention to formal issues - they are only interested in illustration and
subject matter. Others couldn't care less what the subject is, they want
to see how it is painted.
When I was in Arezzo last summer, I went to the Cathedral to look at
Piero's "Magdalene". I'm not a devout person - she has no religious
meaning for me. I was looking at Piero's decisions, his choices about how
much drapery to put where, how deep to make the folds, and what impact
those contrasts have on the viewer.
But most of the other people there where attuned to the subject matter,
and were in prayer.
> > >
> >
> > Lauri, are you sure that someone can't say all they have to say with form
> > and color?
>
> Oh Mark, why not. Some of us are simply not sculptors or drawers :-)
> Whatever is your media, *you* have to have something *you have to say*.
> Is it better English: Something that must be said by you.
Yes, I see. But the only way I know to say it is with colors and shapes,
and I don't know how to "inject" feeling in any other way.
warmly,
Mark