Balthus
DNALJM
A poster looking for the name of Balthus called him "naive." I think
that he's an accomplished figurative artist who chose to make up his own
anatomy and didn't work out of ignorance. His self-portraits that predate the
highly stylized young women that he grew fond of painting were relaxed,
anatomically accurate, and show subtle handling. The drawing of himself from
1943 is particularly nice, displaying modulation of line weight and great
shadow that totally defines the form and gives emotional impact. Picasso and
George Tooker let the cat out of the bag by not going from refined realism to
their own stylization and their poor drawing mistakes crop up again and again,
because they never resolved them. I think what Balthus is doing is owning
these women through his art, making their forms echo the interiors that they
are posed in and making their bodies follow rigid axes like a broken paper doll
he can play with sexually. What makes his semen slickened doll houses work is
that everything is taken down to the same degree of stylized manipulation.
What makes Tooker's work look amateurish is that he does what high school kids
do, likes to draw eyeballs on their book covers and focuses more on that part
than other equally important portions of the face and body. To see his
self-portrait where the hand in the foreground looks like a bag of rotten
sardines and his face highly rendered breaks the spell and calls your attention
to the poorly-constructed part. Balthus was the first modern figurative
painter that really spoke to me. He's one of the reasons why I decided to work
in a traditionalist manner. I thought that I would learn all I could about
anatomy and use his method of drawing and painting works of the old masters to
learn about composition. When I go to the page or the panel I always say, how
can I make considered alterations in my anatomy that will lock it into the
architectural space and build my own world? How can I make magic realism of my
own?
A while back I had a Mani-esque rant on my web page that I removed due to
hate mail. One hostile bitch who was full of personal insults didn't address
any of my points respectfully, but called me names and said that elongations in
necks and extentions of shoulders that echoed the curvature of woodworking on a
grandfather clock in the background and also the curve in some silver were
"abstractions." This person obviously had to wring her panties out after
reading Lucie-Smith and was full of modern art school tripe, because she
couldn't tell the difference between someone making a choice and someone
barfing all over the surface in ignorance like Jim Dine. So: if you like to
elongate things for example, make all things equal so that the figure is still
proportional, and if you change one thing have a reason and know how to do it
right beforehand so it doesn't look clunky and calls attention to itself.
Balthus lived to be 93 even though he worked with carcinogenic art
materials, smoked, and had sex with young women. This is because god smiled on
him because his art didn't suck like Picasso's.
Another quality art criticism moment brought to you by
Jane
Mani Deli
>
> A poster looking for the name of Balthus called him "naive." I think
>that he's an accomplished figurative artist who chose to make up his own
>anatomy and didn't work out of ignorance.
Balthus isn't hype. He's just another nothing who got into museums
instead of someone else just as dull. Modern curators are an emotional
vain lot. Its evolution. One curator was probably friends with the
artist and got him into some museum or some artzy dealer pushed his
work on a prominent richie or he just went to the right parties.
Balthus' work is really very ordinary third rate illustrator. Take a
look At his "Golden Days" The color is dull browns all painted in the
opaque technique of a very average art student. The head on the main
subject is broken at the neck. I suppose that sort of thing expresses
how modern he is supposed to be. But the best part is the figure in
the right corner and the dull fire and the fireplace. It is as student
drawing as you can get. The subject matter is the very ordinary
uninspired utterly conventional realism artzy fartsys endlessly
complain about, by someone who can't draw well.
Balthus' "Golden Days" has subject matter similar to Rockwell's "Girl
at the Mirror" 1954. While Balthus' simple detail deteriorates to
formless schmier Rockwell's is clear. Balthus was incapable of
painting the mirror or handselling the complexity in drawing, and the
composition of the small details. Just compare the composition and
color.
Presently, Balthus is just a temporary fashion blip among
no-skill-realists. No-skill-realists love Balthus because they
believe the can at least aspire to his mediocre heights.
No skill no art!
Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Thur
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:pl33e09ersg1reuv5...@4ax.com...
of his paintings?
I can't make head or tail of them.
When someone bothers to include a certain amount of Realism,
then they must expect the viewer to try to understand them,
else they are just a waste of time.
Saying as the previous poster does that he deliberately draws
poorly does not explain why his works are hung in a gallery.
Isn't there an artist, possibly a Portuguese, who paints "sexually charged"
and disturbing domestic scenes?
His work I can make some sense of at least, even if it turns me right off.
Thur
Mani Deli
Much the same as any other.
>I can't make head or tail of them.
>When someone bothers to include a certain amount of Realism,
>then they must expect the viewer to try to understand them,
>else they are just a waste of time.
I have no qualms with his subject matter.
>Saying as the previous poster does that he deliberately draws
>poorly does not explain why his works are hung in a gallery.
>
Its an excuse for the poor drawing of the poster.
>Isn't there an artist, possibly a Portuguese, who paints "sexually charged"
>and disturbing domestic scenes?
>His work I can make some sense of at least, even if it turns me right off.
>Thur
>
>
DNALJM
>poorly does not explain why his works are hung in a gallery.
>
That's a misrepresentation of what I said. I didn't say he drew
"poorly." I said that he consciously altered drawing to serve an end, unlike
people who draw poorly, ie out of ignorance. Do you think Parmigianino
"couldn't draw" because he made certain alterations to fit his end?
Jane
DNALJM
>>poorly does not explain why his works are hung in a gallery.
>>
>It's an excuse for the poor drawing of the poster.
I'm no Master but I wouldn't call my drawing skills "poor." I've won
prizes for cast drawing, I worked hard to achieve a level of ability. You may
not agree with my assessment of Balthus but I really don't think that's a fair
representation of my personal ability. How about "average" or "fair?"
Besides, I thought it was a point of personal frustration that people attack
your own work that you try to seperate from your opinions of art history?
Jane
Kayso Dias
says...
> Balthus lived to be 93 even though he worked with carcinogenic art
>materials, smoked, and had sex with young women. This is because god smiled
>on him because his art didn't suck like Picasso's.
"Hhaving sex with young women" was undoubtedly the
secret to his longevity. Works for me!! OTOH, IMO there
is a vast difference between "sex with young women" and
"sex with young girls" - the latter being implied
in his many paintings of "young girls."
DNALJM
>secret to his longevity. Works for me!! OTOH, IMO there
>is a vast difference between "sex with young women" and
>"sex with young girls" - the latter being implied
>in his many paintings of "young girls."
I think sex with children is disgusting but really it's sort of a murky area
after puberty because the body is saying, "I am ready for sex." Canadian
statutory rape laws are different from the US for example. Sometimes a 14 year
old can look and act like someone in their twenties, and sometimes an "adult"
can really be emotionally and mentally a child. People used to marry and have
kids after their first period but now that we live long we pick arbirary points
to extend that portion of life so people have a chance, we argue, to catch up
emotionally. I find the paintings to be of "young women" as they have developed
breasts but maybe grapple in this hazy area that is the subject of so much
debate. In E. Munch's pubery* painting the gawky girl is unsure of herself and
seems to be burdened by sexuality and a new body. In Balthus' paintings they
play at being temptresses, which is something that also goes on in a young
woman's life and mind when she suddenly develops breasts and other parts men
are acutely interested in.
Jane
*http://www.museumsnett.no/nasjonalgalleriet/munch/eng/innhold/ngm00807.html
Mani Deli
>>>Saying as the previous poster does that he deliberately draws
>>>poorly does not explain why his works are hung in a gallery.
>>>
>
>
>>It's an excuse for the poor drawing of the poster.
>
>
> I'm no Master but I wouldn't call my drawing skills "poor."
I would, but I add that you, unlike like most here, have the ability
to do far better.
> I've won
>prizes for cast drawing, I worked hard to achieve a level of ability.
In my opinion you have talent but lack knowledge. I know you work
hard, it shows. But working hard is usually useless without the
necessary knowledge. In fact with knowledge things are really much
easier because you save so much time not correcting mistakes.
Ask yourself this question. Why try to rediscover for yourself what
took the best minds hundreds of years to figure out?
>You may
>not agree with my assessment of Balthus but I really don't think that's a fair
>representation of my personal ability. How about "average" or "fair?"
I always find that people aspire to lots of poor work because it
matches their lack of ability.
>Besides, I thought it was a point of personal frustration that people attack
>your own work that you try to seperate from your opinions of art history?
Don't quite understand what you mean.
]
Mani Deli
>>Saying as the previous poster does that he deliberately draws
>>poorly does not explain why his works are hung in a gallery.
>>
>
> That's a misrepresentation of what I said. I didn't say he drew
>"poorly."
He draws poorly. Perhaps he impresses people familiar with art because
they can instinctively sense that he is so much better than the likes
of demigods like Cezanne and Matisse who couldn't draw at all.
> I said that he consciously altered drawing to serve an end, unlike
>people who draw poorly, ie out of ignorance.
and I say its an excuse..
> Do you think Parmigianino
>"couldn't draw" because he made certain alterations to fit his end?
>
Just compare the two. P. mannered his figures by elongating them as
did many artists of the period. The form is completely round, the
color, detail and master technique are all there. All the paint
becomes form. Indeed its not realism, most fine work isn't.
B. couldn't refine much of anything, much just looks wrong. That's why
I point out the detail. His subject matter has interesting mystery but
he couldn't carry it off well. However, I do consider him an artist
compared to a master fumbleklotz like Matisse who is little more than
an excuse.
DNALJM
>>your own work that you try to seperate from your opinions of art history?
>
>Don't quite understand what you mean.
What I mean is, when someone responds to the critcism on your page by
saying that you merely rip off Dali.
http://www.grossmccleaf.com/artistpages/noelpage.htm
What do you think of this person? I ask because I think he's a good
representational painter. I don't think that you would like him because he's
more concerned it seems with the space as a whole rather than resolving
individual things highly. I'm really surprised that you don't like certain
artists but then what you call them to task for seems to be more a matter of
taste or interest rather than ability.
****
http://www.geocities.com/teslathemothgod/otherroom.html
Like here, maybe you could flit around and say that the bottom of the ear is
a bit clunky, but really, maybe the affect of the room and the figure made me
happy at that point so I stopped. I mean honestly, does the overall
draftsmanship evidenced here call into your mind the question of if I could or
not?
Or Balthus, whose figures became more styilized but the rooms became more
complex? The point of being a figural artist is to reach a point where you can
develop *your* interest and not have to make up some bullshit story. I mean I
get the feeling that you could walk up to an alla prima painting where
something's a bit off but there's a lot of great merit and say "crap, sorry."
***
http://www.legacyvisions.com/traditionaloil.htm
I found this d00d on the web and he doesn't post here. Now *this* is
"poor" drawing and painting. He talks a good line like someone's going to pay
him to repaint the Sistine chapel but as you can see he's trying to draw with
the paint because he can't paint and things are off because he can't draw. You
can't even get emotionally wrapped up in this milky wonderful world that
Balthus or S. Noel creates because there is no depth. The shadows don't follow
the form is the biggest problem.
***
Jane
Thur
to do with the subject.
http://www.dareonline.org/artwork/rego/rego4.html
Paula Rego
Thur
"Thur" <a@spamless.z> wrote in message
news:BjjEc.12$dQ...@newsfe5-gui.server.ntli.net...
Greenbud
: What do you think of this person? I ask because I think he's a good
: representational painter. I don't think that you would like him because
he's
: more concerned it seems with the space as a whole rather than resolving
: individual things highly. I'm really surprised that you don't like
certain
: artists but then what you call them to task for seems to be more a matter
of
: taste or interest rather than ability.
: ****
:
Same thing for this guy, my painting professor:
http://grossmccleaf.com/artistpages/ahlstedpage.htm
Greenbud
DNALJM
>
>http://grossmccleaf.com/artistpages/ahlstedpage.htm
>
>Greenbud
You go to PAFA right? Who else do you enjoy taking classes from?
Jane
DNALJM
I like his work a lot btw.
Jane
Greenbud
:
: You go to PAFA right? Who else do you enjoy taking classes from?
:
: Jane
He was my painting professor at Stockton College in South Jersey back in
the 80's. He probably is still there, it was a sweet gig (all classes on
Tue & Thu, full Professor pay). I learned a lot from him, mainly
conceptual, he didn't teach any technique except to answer the odd question
from us. I think he would have liked that your work has a consistent
direction unique to you.
Thanks for asking,
Greenbud
GusHedberg
grasp. Rockwell is a fine old painter, Balthus is currently enjoying a run --
and a predictable correction -- but Jane may be the best thing the future has
to offer -- great drawings and paintings with deadly strength. Be careful, you
just come off as a silly derivative snob and you probably know better.
Mani Deli
" I recently retired after teaching college level studio art for 30
years. Towards the end of that career I felt more and more keenly the
lack
of traditional techniques and values available to me to pass on to
others. I
attended art schools in the 60s under the 'tutelage' of worn out
abstract
expressionists and Joseph Albers disciples...talk about confusing!
I remember vividly my painting worksghop instructor telling me that if
I
ever painted anymore of that 'illusionistic shit'in his class again
he'd
throw me out.
I became an 'underground realist' and made it through. I managed to
teach
myself what I could of old master technique and did at least stay true
to
the narrative core of my work which to me makes it all with doing.
My drawing was least effected by my so called 'education' and remains
my
strength.
More and more as the years went by I steered my students to
traditional
paths, emphasizing drawing above all else. I only wish that I had done
a
better job of mastering the painting skills that I was never taught.
I'm
retired now and hope that 60 is not to advanced an age to begin again.
I
would value greatly more of the workshop demonstrations I've seen
here.
Although I may not be as absolute in my
criticism of all modern art as you are, I applaud your obviously
succesful
efforts towards rehabilitating an extraordinary body of work from the
dust
bin where it had been unjustly thrown and wish that ARC had been
around when
I was in the springtime of my own creative years.
Thanks for a truly wonderful experience.
All my students, alas only those of the last two years, know of you."
DNALJM
>I
>ever painted anymore of that 'illusionistic shit'in his class again
>he'd
>throw me out.
I wonder why people go to art schools that are unsympathetic to what they
want to learn. Academies have been around for hundreds of years and you can
always go to Italy to study traditional art techniques. I guess the person put
the premium on the degree that they could get so they could teach instead of
caring about the actual body of information.
It seems that art schools want to teach these things, all of their entry
requirements ask for work from observation, self-portraits, etc. Their only
folly is being money hungry and accepting excuses from people who are too lazy
to apply themselves and use moderism as an excuse. Their other mistake is
teaching basics for two years and then expecting students to come up with some
novel body of work on their own. Since it takes a lifetime to master these
skills they can at least just teach tech for four years and let the person make
a body of work on their own. Again probably just money, it's cheaper to walk
into someone's studio and say "I love the toilet paper collage" rather than sit
for three hours with a model and point out mistakes.
Jane