@@@ NEW ART From DR. SLICK! @@@
Dr. Slick
Up from the archives.
Let me know what you think.
Nikolaus Maack
I like "ass one". It's a nice combination of erotic and abstract.
Simple, well executed, and strangely entertaining.
I have to ask about "angela" -- were you working from pictures out of a
porn mag? That's a classic porn mag pose. I ask, not to embarrass or
offend, but because I've done the same thing -- drawn and painted from
porn magazines. The faces of the women there can be... well, extremely
depressing, but good subject matter. And if you need access to nudes,
and can't get models, it's good enough in a pinch.
I don't remember that self-portrait from the last time I went to your
site. That's also quite interesting -- although there's something very
teenage-ish about guitars with spotlights. Still, it's a fun painting.
todd
> Never before seen, never before published material!
>
> Up from the archives.
>
> Let me know what you think.
>
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Paul Mesken
"Ass One" is really great, you should check out Serpieri (he's the
reigning "ass artist" AFAIK) He does his stuff in about the same style
"Ass One" is done.
Dr. Slick
> >
> > http://www.drslick.org/
>
> I like "ass one". It's a nice combination of erotic and abstract.
> Simple, well executed, and strangely entertaining.
>
LOL! Never heard that description of the effect of a piece of
art: "Strangely Entertaining" ...do you mind if i use it as a title
for a painting or song?
> I have to ask about "angela" -- were you working from pictures out of a
> porn mag? That's a classic porn mag pose. I ask, not to embarrass or
> offend, but because I've done the same thing -- drawn and painted from
> porn magazines. The faces of the women there can be... well, extremely
> depressing, but good subject matter. And if you need access to nudes,
> and can't get models, it's good enough in a pinch.
>
Err, uhh...No way man, that's my girlfriend..uh.. Yeah! That's my
girlfriend, dude! What the hell are you talkin' about?
Ain't she puurty, tho'?
> I don't remember that self-portrait from the last time I went to your
> site. That's also quite interesting -- although there's something very
> teenage-ish about guitars with spotlights. Still, it's a fun painting.
>
Well, remember Boston's first album cover? Same idea, except
spotlights added for effect.
Slick
> Nik
> http://www.nikart.ca
Dr. Slick
> >
> >http://www.drslick.org/
>
> "Ass One" is really great, you should check out Serpieri (he's the
> reigning "ass artist" AFAIK) He does his stuff in about the same style
> "Ass One" is done.
>
> http://www.druuna.net/
Paolo Euleteri Serpieri, the God of the fine Ass. Absolutely a
fantastic artist, and not just his erotic stuff.
And the situations Drunna finds herself in: just incredibly
erotic and horrific at the same time! Wow.
Slick
Dr. Slick
> Interesting work, I think "Modern Man 2" is your strongest piece.
>
Yeah, some people don't like color too much, they prefer black
and white stuff.
Sometimes the simple stuff is the best..
Dr. Slick
Nikolaus Maack
> LOL! Never heard that description of the effect of a piece of
> art: "Strangely Entertaining" ...do you mind if i use it as a title
> for a painting or song?
Sure thing.
> Well, remember Boston's first album cover? Same idea, except
> spotlights added for effect.
I knew it seemed familiar! That explains it.
Your (cough) picture of your girlfriend might have inspired me to do art
based on porn mag pictures. Uh, I mean, of my "girlfriend".
Dr. Slick
> Dr. Slick wrote:
> > LOL! Never heard that description of the effect of a piece of
> > art: "Strangely Entertaining" ...do you mind if i use it as a title
> > for a painting or song?
>
> Sure thing.
>
Actually, "Strangely Entertaining" would be a good title for the
piece that inspired the description!
> > Well, remember Boston's first album cover? Same idea, except
> > spotlights added for effect.
>
> I knew it seemed familiar! That explains it.
>
Actually, i wasn't consciously thinking of the Boston album when
i was drawing the pic, but later i became aware that i un-consciously
"borrowed" the idea. Art is like the Blues, where you have influences
and take other peoples stuff and make it your own.
> Your (cough) picture of your girlfriend might have inspired me to do art
> based on porn mag pictures. Uh, I mean, of my "girlfriend".
>
> Nik
> http://www.nikart.ca
Ehhm, you mean you ain't rich/good-looking enough to have a
girlfriend like my Angela to pose for you anytime you want?
Well, uh..(cough) work on it.
Slick
Mani Deli
Art school no-skill-realism! The drawings show the cost of a lack of
knowledge.
Just about the best an average art school gets out of talented people
by putting them on the road to failure.
The guy likes good work, has ideas but is totally unaware of how
little he knows.
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Dr. Slick
> >
> >http://www.drslick.org/
>
> Art school no-skill-realism! The drawings show the cost of a lack of
> knowledge.
>
Your shitty art work shows you just a Salvador Dali Wanna-Be!
Why don't try doing something more original?
> Just about the best an average art school gets out of talented people
> by putting them on the road to failure.
>
I never went to art school, numbfuck, so i have never been
exposed to how bad they brainwashed you.
> The guy likes good work, has ideas but is totally unaware of how
> little he knows.
>
And you are going to teach me? Ha!
Nobody knows everything. "If I claim to be a wise man, Surely it
means that I don't know."
> ...no skill no art!
>
And you are very Skillful at the Art of being an Asshole!
Dr. Slick
Paul Mesken
>Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<o0l0avc18csmmu6ga...@4ax.com>...
>> ...no skill no art!
>>
>
> And you are very Skillful at the Art of being an Asshole!
Just killfile him Slick. He has nothing else to contribute to this
group but insults. In the 5+ years that I visited this group I've
never seen him posting anything that was constructive or positive.
Todd gave this link to a free newsreader called XNews which can
killfile :
frankvo...@web.de
wrote:
>On 18 Apr 2003 18:27:46 -0700, radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote:
>
>>Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<o0l0avc18csmmu6ga...@4ax.com>...
>>> ...no skill no art!
>>>
>>
>> And you are very Skillful at the Art of being an Asshole!
>
>Just killfile him Slick. He has nothing else to contribute to this
>group but insults. In the 5+ years that I visited this group I've
>never seen him posting anything that was constructive or positive.
If everybody would see his own arguments from the viewpoint of
constructivism (by Watzlawick) then one could say that everybody is
right in his own way and this includes Mani's viewpoint.
By the way I myself would not say that I'm a constructivist. But it is
an interesting philosophy which is free of any value judgement.
Dr. Slick
> On 18 Apr 2003 18:27:46 -0700, radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote:
>
> >Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<o0l0avc18csmmu6ga...@4ax.com>...
> >> ...no skill no art!
> >>
> >
> > And you are very Skillful at the Art of being an Asshole!
>
> Just killfile him Slick. He has nothing else to contribute to this
> group but insults. In the 5+ years that I visited this group I've
> never seen him posting anything that was constructive or positive.
>
Paul, I've noticed the same thing.
Mani is actually AFRAID to say something nice to anyone here, or
about anyone's art. It would be too much of an admission that
somebody else might be "skillful", or that someone else's art was
actually effective. It's very clear to me that the guy is very
insecure and frightened to communicate (notice his one-sentence
replies), and perhaps he was very hurt during art-school, so now in
the safety of the anonymous internet, now it is his turn. And he is
DYING for attention, so I'll give it to him, in my own way...hehe. :)
The real problem here is that i don't want people to think that i
only wanna hear the good things people have to say. I know that my
artwork isn't for everyone, and I am open to honest criticism and I
wanna know what people _really_ think (what works, what doesn't, etc).
But criticism should be given with a little bit of tact, and i
can usually tell if someone just means to be a jerk/bitch.
Like most people, i'm usually my own worst critic, anyways.
Anymore honest-but-tactful Critiques from someone else?
Slick
Paul Mesken
Well, that's the problem of the philosophy. People always impose some
kind of value judgement to everything they encounter. Especially in
the case of Deli's rantings. His central thesis (that art should
involve skill) is sound and endorsed by a great many here. Also his
critique of ignoring great artists like Rockwell, Vargas, Disney, etc.
by the so called "art elite" is well noted. However, this is not
central to his postings. He's mainly concerned with insulting people
here who show their stuff. I believe this is quite rude and chases new
people away who come here not to be insulted but to learn something of
the collective experience of this group.
>Frank
>http://www.opartandmore.de
It's a nice site, I played around with the interactive art :-)
Mani Deli
>Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<o0l0avc18csmmu6ga...@4ax.com>...
>> >
>> >http://www.drslick.org/
>> Just about the best an average art school gets out of talented people
>> by putting them on the road to failure.
>>
>
> I never went to art school, numbfuck, so i have never been
>exposed to how bad they brainwashed you.
Never said you went to art school. Read the sentence. Your work is
better than o'conner's who I suspect spent years in art school.
>> The guy likes good work, has ideas but is totally unaware of how
>> little he knows.
>>
>
> And you are going to teach me? Ha!
Were did I say anything about teaching you?
> And you are very Skillful at the Art of being an Asshole!
>
>
and It doesn't make your pathetic artwork any better.
Mani Deli
> Mani is actually AFRAID to say something nice to anyone here, or
>about anyone's art.
I've complimented work I like here many times.
If its just NICE things you want to hear about your work just say it
instead of saying "Let me know what you think."
If it will help your sleep just write your own self compliments like
Nilges did,
> It would be too much of an admission that
>somebody else might be "skillful", or that someone else's art was
>actually effective.
In your case It would be too much of an admission. I'm sure Mesken
loves your work. Isn't that enough?
> It's very clear to me that the guy is very
>insecure and frightened to communicate (notice his one-sentence
>replies), and perhaps he was very hurt during art-school, so now in
>the safety of the anonymous internet, now it is his turn. And he is
>DYING for attention, so I'll give it to him, in my own way...hehe. :)
What about your one sentence replies that make it clear that you are
fishing for compliments you don't deserve. Say anything you want about
my work or what you think of me. I couldn't care less. You work like
that of most here is pathetic because you lack knowledge. Mainly, you
can't draw and all your stuff is about drawing. Bad drawing
unfortunately!
> The real problem here is that i don't want people to think that i
>only wanna hear the good things people have to say.
The real problem is you.
Mani Deli
wrote:
>. People always impose some
>kind of value judgement to everything they encounter.
A guy asked, "Let me know what you think.."
>Especially in
>the case of Deli's rantings.
Ranting in this guys pathetic is not saying only nice things about
some ones artwork.
>His central thesis (that art should
>involve skill)
>is sound and endorsed by a great many here. Also his
>critique of ignoring great artists like Rockwell, Vargas, Disney, etc.
>by the so called "art elite" is well noted. However, this is not
>central to his postings.
Is that all I'm supposed to talk about according to you.?
>He's mainly concerned with insulting people
>here who show their stuff.
This is BS. Telling someone the reasons his work is bad isn't an
insult. I don't take Slick's messages as an insult because he doesn't
like my work.
> I believe this is quite rude and chases new
>people away who come here not to be insulted but to learn something of
>the collective experience of this group.
>
I written many more articles than you about artwork and art history
here. I also think it is important to explain the incompetence and
charlatanism that permeates modern art today and to point out what's
wrong with some of the work shown here.
Its not RUDE to take a talented student's money, teach him almost
nothing for years and tell him he's just great. Its a tragedy.
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>On 19 Apr 2003 10:19:56 -0700, radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote:
>
>> Mani is actually AFRAID to say something nice to anyone here, or
>>about anyone's art.
>
>I've complimented work I like here many times.
We all know that you like Vargas, Dali, Rockwell, etc. They don't
visit this ng (for obvious reasons).
Ofcourse you can't mean that you actually complimented work of people,
who visit(ed) this group, on a regular (or any) basis. That would be
an outrageous claim.
Nor can you claim to make even the most minimal effort to improve the
skill or knowledge of people here by giving them some form of
constructive advice or critique unless you believe "Learn how to draw"
to be any valuable advice.
Ofcourse you might argue that you're not here to make any contribution
to the skill of others, however limited this medium of a ng might be,
but I think that's something everybody here already knows.
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 20:53:42 +0200, Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl>
>wrote:
>>. People always impose some
>>kind of value judgement to everything they encounter.
>
>A guy asked, "Let me know what you think.."
>
>>Especially in
>>the case of Deli's rantings.
>
>Ranting in this guys pathetic is not saying only nice things about
>some ones artwork.
I think the people here know what I mean by your rantings.
>>His central thesis (that art should
>>involve skill)
>>is sound and endorsed by a great many here. Also his
>>critique of ignoring great artists like Rockwell, Vargas, Disney, etc.
>>by the so called "art elite" is well noted. However, this is not
>>central to his postings.
>
>Is that all I'm supposed to talk about according to you.?
Nope, but out of curiosity : would it make any difference? ;-)
>>He's mainly concerned with insulting people
>>here who show their stuff.
>
>This is BS. Telling someone the reasons his work is bad isn't an
>insult.
You're right about one thing : telling someone the _reasons_ why a
work is bad or pointing out where it is bad is not an insult. It's
advice.
*You* however only tell that a work is bad in no uncertain terms and
don't provide any kind of advice :
"Art school no-skill-realism! The drawings show the cost of a lack of
knowledge."
"Average art school no-skill-realist drivel"
"... does fifth rate incompetent repeats of failure art school
production."
etc.
Ofcourse it doesn't come as a surprise to you when I say that such
phrasings without any constructive advice are interpreted as
insulting. After all, this has been pointed out to you for as long as
I can remember by members who like to see this ng as a helpfull medium
to starting artists, amateur artists, interested people, etc.
Your persistence in using what is clearly interpreted as rudeness
shows you're out on hurting people's feelings.
"Liking" has nothing to do with it, you don't say you don't _like_ the
work. You _ridicule_ people's skill in a way which can only be seen as
embarrassing. A lot of people come here to learn, they're not waiting
to be ridiculed on a public forum for all the world to see. They're
hoping to get some advice or information.
Your rudeness damages the case of a great deal of regulars here who
are genuinely trying to help others.
>> I believe this is quite rude and chases new
>>people away who come here not to be insulted but to learn something of
>>the collective experience of this group.
>>
>I written many more articles than you about artwork and art history
>here.
What a shame that all that work is overshadowed by your rudeness. You
could do very well without it since it's not helpfull in either way.
>I also think it is important to explain the incompetence and
>charlatanism that permeates modern art today and to point out what's
>wrong with some of the work shown here.
I wholeheartedly agree. There's a lot of crap sold for good money,
there's indeed a lot of hollow artzy fartzy talk responsible for it.
But that and enthusiasts looking for help here are two different
things. Few people here are established artists, they're enthusiasts
wanting to share their work and information. The rudeness you confront
them with is completely misplaced.
>Its not RUDE to take a talented student's money, teach him almost
>nothing for years and tell him he's just great. Its a tragedy.
As I already stated, your central thesis and case is sound and
endorsed by a great many here. However : it is *your* rudeness that's
under fire here.
Dr. Slick
> On 19 Apr 2003 10:19:56 -0700, radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote:
>
> > Mani is actually AFRAID to say something nice to anyone here, or
> >about anyone's art.
>
> I've complimented work I like here many times.
>
Never seen you do that to anyone. Nothing but negativity from
your keyboard, not just to me, but to everyone.
> If its just NICE things you want to hear about your work just say it
> instead of saying "Let me know what you think."
>
Ok, give me your honest, BUT TACTFUL, critiques, and i will
definitely listen to them. You have never given me anything but one
sentence "Learn to draw" critiques. Pick out a piece and tell me what
you would do differently.
> If it will help your sleep just write your own self compliments like
> Nilges did,
>
Ok, "I'm a Genius". Wow, i feel so much better!
:)
> > It would be too much of an admission that
> >somebody else might be "skillful", or that someone else's art was
> >actually effective.
>
> In your case It would be too much of an admission. I'm sure Mesken
> loves your work. Isn't that enough?
>
No! everyone including you has to love me too! I won't sleep
until you tell me you love me Mani!! Pleeeze!!!
> > It's very clear to me that the guy is very
> >insecure and frightened to communicate (notice his one-sentence
> >replies), and perhaps he was very hurt during art-school, so now in
> >the safety of the anonymous internet, now it is his turn. And he is
> >DYING for attention, so I'll give it to him, in my own way...hehe. :)
>
> What about your one sentence replies that make it clear that you are
> fishing for compliments you don't deserve. Say anything you want about
> my work or what you think of me. I couldn't care less. You work like
> that of most here is pathetic because you lack knowledge. Mainly, you
> can't draw and all your stuff is about drawing. Bad drawing
> unfortunately!
>
You can't draw for shit, nitwit! I don't care how many melting
faces you draw! Do something else besides copying Dali!
I ain't fishing for compliments, just constructive criticism that
will help me improve (there, i admitted that i wanna improve, are you
happy now?). I wanna get people's reaction.
But if someone is out to give me shit, well i'm gonna fight back,
ButtMunch!
>
> ...no skill no art!
>
> Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
>
> Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Learn to draw, dipshit!
...no confidence no appreciation of others!
Want to look at stuff that insecure art school jerks are AFRAID
to admit required skill?
Check out my web page http://www.drslick.org/
Erik A. Mattila
>>Its not RUDE to take a talented student's money, teach him almost
>>nothing for years and tell him he's just great. Its a tragedy.
>
>
> As I already stated, your central thesis and case is sound and
> endorsed by a great many here. However : it is *your* rudeness that's
> under fire here.
Paul, this makes me think of Sisyphus for some strange reason. One day
I asked myself "I wonder what Sisyphus' crime was that he should be
punished by forced futility for eternity?" So I did the research, and
here's what happened. Sisyphus was hiding behind a bush when Zues came
down had screwed the brains out or a local maiden. But his voyeurism
wasn't the crime. He was punished for attempting to tell others about
what he had witnessed. Interesting.
So why are you pushing the Mani Rock up the hill for eternity? It
doesn't make sense. True, your crime is attempting to tell others about
it, by why be so arrogant and try to anticipate the punishment that the
Gods of Olympus will met out to you even before you have crossed the
Styx? ;-)
BTW, the historical Sisyphus, King of Corinth and grandfather of
Odysseus, had his downfall by attempting to revive the old matriarchy
system. It was the women themselves who opposed him, and used subtle
political trickery to overthrow his power.
Erik
>
Dr. Slick
> >
> >
> and It doesn't make your pathetic artwork any better.
>
I really don't think you draw better than i do, and i don't see
anything more "skillful" on your site than mine.
What i do see is someone who focuses too much on technical
drawing and painting, and has ignored Composition as another important
skill.
You have followed the faults of Dali, by having too many points
of interest in one piece...there is no focus to your work, just random
things strewn everywhere. You seem to think that more complexity will
make a better painting, i totally disagree. Dali, although i am a big
fan of his, made the same mistake in many of his paintings.
George Lucas makes the same mistake sometimes in his movies: too
many points of interest becomes boring.
And in general, i find your work ugly, no matter how technically
well done.
Of course, people think this of my work too, ha!
Different likes for different bites!
Dr. Slick
Dr. Slick
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 18:29:14 -0400, Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >On 19 Apr 2003 10:19:56 -0700, radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote:
> >
> >> Mani is actually AFRAID to say something nice to anyone here, or
> >>about anyone's art.
> >
> >I've complimented work I like here many times.
>
> We all know that you like Vargas, Dali, Rockwell, etc. They don't
> visit this ng (for obvious reasons).
>
> Ofcourse you can't mean that you actually complimented work of people,
> who visit(ed) this group, on a regular (or any) basis. That would be
> an outrageous claim.
>
Very good point Paul, you would first have to be dead and famous
already to even have a slim chance at a compliment from this Asshole.
> Nor can you claim to make even the most minimal effort to improve the
> skill or knowledge of people here by giving them some form of
> constructive advice or critique unless you believe "Learn how to draw"
> to be any valuable advice.
>
> Ofcourse you might argue that you're not here to make any contribution
> to the skill of others, however limited this medium of a ng might be,
> but I think that's something everybody here already knows.
Extremely well put.
Dr. Slick
Paul Mesken
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>Paul Mesken wrote:
>
>>>Its not RUDE to take a talented student's money, teach him almost
>>>nothing for years and tell him he's just great. Its a tragedy.
>>
>>
>> As I already stated, your central thesis and case is sound and
>> endorsed by a great many here. However : it is *your* rudeness that's
>> under fire here.
>
>Paul, this makes me think of Sisyphus for some strange reason. One day
>I asked myself "I wonder what Sisyphus' crime was that he should be
>punished by forced futility for eternity?" So I did the research, and
>here's what happened. Sisyphus was hiding behind a bush when Zues came
>down had screwed the brains out or a local maiden. But his voyeurism
>wasn't the crime. He was punished for attempting to tell others about
>what he had witnessed. Interesting.
>
>So why are you pushing the Mani Rock up the hill for eternity? It
>doesn't make sense. True, your crime is attempting to tell others about
>it, by why be so arrogant and try to anticipate the punishment that the
>Gods of Olympus will met out to you even before you have crossed the
>Styx? ;-)
Well, I was bored. There weren't many posts here on Easter :-)
Dr. Slick
> >. People always impose some
> >kind of value judgement to everything they encounter.
>
> A guy asked, "Let me know what you think.."
>
I didn't mean, "be an asshole".
> >Especially in
> >the case of Deli's rantings.
>
> Ranting in this guys pathetic is not saying only nice things about
> some ones artwork.
>
You can be nice about telling someone a better way to do
something. I've never seen you type out a "thank you" to someone for
anything.
>
> >He's mainly concerned with insulting people
> >here who show their stuff.
>
> This is BS. Telling someone the reasons his work is bad isn't an
> insult. I don't take Slick's messages as an insult because he doesn't
> like my work.
>
Maybe not to you, because you WANT the punishment. Other people
prefer a little more tact when they are being criticized. I reserve
respect for those who deserve it.
Learn to Draw, asswipe.
> > I believe this is quite rude and chases new
> >people away who come here not to be insulted but to learn something of
> >the collective experience of this group.
> >
> I written many more articles than you about artwork and art history
> here. I also think it is important to explain the incompetence and
> charlatanism that permeates modern art today and to point out what's
> wrong with some of the work shown here.
>
> Its not RUDE to take a talented student's money, teach him almost
> nothing for years and tell him he's just great. Its a tragedy.
Boy, you really are stupid aren't you? I don't know how many
times it has been pointed out to you that your "learn to draw"
critiques are not helping anyone. You have never specifically pointed
out what is wrong with anyone's particular piece of art.
I'm not asking that you tell me I'm great if you don't think
it's true.
But I really don't think you are capable of decency, so don't
expect any from me.
Sad, because it's really hard to imagine that you aren't this
way to the people around you in your daily life!
:/
Slick
Mani Deli
> I really don't think you draw better than i do, and i don't see
>anything more "skillful" on your site than mine.
Fine!
I think you are intelligent and have talent but you haven't made an
effort to learn the craft. What I said about your work my not by
polite by other's standards but I doubt it is incorrect.
> What i do see is someone who focuses too much on technical
>drawing and painting, and has ignored Composition as another important
>skill.
I think that most of what is said about composition these days is
double talk bordering on baloney. Artwork containing practically
nothing isn't composition and bad drawing negates everything.
> You have followed the faults of Dali,
I have!
> by having too many points
>of interest in one piece...there is no focus to your work, just random
>things strewn everywhere. You seem to think that more complexity will
>make a better painting, i totally disagree.
I like complexity and am certainly aware that complexity is out of
fashion. I have never felt that it is completely random but that is
for the viewer to decide.
I also find that my simpler work, sketches, details and simpler
compositional idea stuff sells far better. However I like my complex
stuff and am in a position where I no longer have to care. I was
always in a position to paint what I like.
> Dali, although i am a big
>fan of his, made the same mistake in many of his paintings.
This is indeed considered a mistake from the modern art point of view.
Obviously I don't agree.
> George Lucas makes the same mistake sometimes in his movies: too
>many points of interest becomes boring.
>
> And in general, i find your work ugly, no matter how technically
>well done.
Most do. My highly finished work often gets the comment, "its fine
work but I wouldn't want it."
Indeed there is a much larger market for simplistic Modern Academic
work. What Dali called "lazy art." However there millions of so called
artists cranking out this stuff so proportionally very few sell.
Finely crafted work which is out of fashion has a small audience of
buyers but few artists who can supply it. That is why I said that
those who know their craft and make an effort to find buyers will most
likely be successful in spite of the prevailing fashion and a few rich
charlatans.
> Of course, people think this of my work too, ha!
>
> Different likes for different bites!
I have lots of new stuff which I haven't put on site. Too lazy! I'll
post it soon.
BTW why not tell us which Dali works I ape. Name a few paintings.
Mani Deli
wrote:
>You're right about one thing : telling someone the _reasons_ why a
>work is bad or pointing out where it is bad is not an insult. It's
>advice.
>
>*You* however only tell that a work is bad in no uncertain terms and
>don't provide any kind of advice :
I said "learn to draw long ago. " That's the limit of my direct advice
when the drawing lacks foundational knowledge.
>"Art school no-skill-realism! The drawings show the cost of a lack of
>knowledge."
>
>"Average art school no-skill-realist drivel"
>
>"... does fifth rate incompetent repeats of failure art school
>production."
>
>etc.
Am I wrong? If so tell us why I'm wrong.
>
>Your persistence in using what is clearly interpreted as rudeness
>shows you're out on hurting people's feelings.
Lots here have told me things that might hurt the feelings of others.
No one here has complained of this. I never said they were rude etc.
The advantage of a free forum is that people can say what they really
think.
I was what you call rude in art school because I said what I thought
rather than what the silly code of politeness required. I judged my
work the same way. It got me to learn what most of the others didn't.
I never needed a job since.
>"Liking" has nothing to do with it, you don't say you don't _like_ the
>work. You _ridicule_ people's skill in a way which can only be seen as
>embarrassing.
Yes and that just might get someone with less vanity to consider the
matter and even do something about it.
>A lot of people come here to learn, they're not waiting
>to be ridiculed on a public forum for all the world to see. They're
>hoping to get some advice or information.
The guy asked for an opinion and I wrote one. If you don't like it
that's one thing. Now just tell us if its wrong.
>>I also think it is important to explain the incompetence and
>>charlatanism that permeates modern art today and to point out what's
>>wrong with some of the work shown here.
>
>I wholeheartedly agree. There's a lot of crap sold for good money,
>there's indeed a lot of hollow artzy fartzy talk responsible for it.
>But that and enthusiasts looking for help here are two different
>things.
Those who are looking for help here are free to state the matter in
plain English. The statement "tell me what you think" isn't about
help.
> Few people here are established artists, they're enthusiasts
>wanting to share their work and information. The rudeness you confront
>them with is completely misplaced.
Many here attempt to sell their work and write about it.
>
>>Its not RUDE to take a talented student's money, teach him almost
>>nothing for years and tell him he's just great. Its a tragedy.
>
>As I already stated, your central thesis and case is sound and
>endorsed by a great many here. However : it is *your* rudeness that's
>under fire here.
I will continue to be rude in the sense that you see it. I'm not here
to teach fundamentals although I written more than most about them
including mentioning books and what to study. Nor do I have to
compliment what I feel doesn't deserve it. Anyone who can't handle it
is free to kill file my messages.
Mani Deli
wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 18:29:14 -0400, Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>On 19 Apr 2003 10:19:56 -0700, radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote:
>>
>>> Mani is actually AFRAID to say something nice to anyone here, or
>>>about anyone's art.
>>
>>I've complimented work I like here many times.
>
>We all know that you like Vargas, Dali, Rockwell, etc. They don't
>visit this ng (for obvious reasons).
>
Etc. is about 500 other artists and I wrote about many others here.
>Ofcourse you can't mean that you actually complimented work of people,
>who visit(ed) this group, on a regular (or any) basis. That would be
>an outrageous claim.
I compliment what I like, which is the same thing you do. The fact
that I rarely find any work to compliment here isn't my fault.
>Nor can you claim to make even the most minimal effort to improve the
>skill or knowledge of people here by giving them some form of
>constructive advice or critique unless you believe "Learn how to draw"
>to be any valuable advice.
I wrote lots of constructive stuff about artists art history and
drawing. Look at my past messages.
>
>Ofcourse you might argue that you're not here to make any contribution
>to the skill of others, however limited this medium of a ng might be,
>but I think that's something everybody here already knows.
Especially people like you who don't read my messages.
Nikolaus Maack
> I like complexity and am certainly aware that complexity is out of
> fashion. I have never felt that it is completely random but that is
> for the viewer to decide.
>
> I also find that my simpler work, sketches, details and simpler
> compositional idea stuff sells far better. However I like my complex
> stuff and am in a position where I no longer have to care. I was
> always in a position to paint what I like.
And I wish to God you'd put all this stuff on your website for me to
see. Please? I'm dying to see more of your stuff.
By the way, I do still want to visit you in Toronto sometime. Can I
crash on your couch?
If you lack the technological equipment to easily get your stuff online,
I could bring my digital camera along for the ride.
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 02:46:57 +0200, Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl>
>wrote:
>
>
>>You're right about one thing : telling someone the _reasons_ why a
>>work is bad or pointing out where it is bad is not an insult. It's
>>advice.
>>
>>*You* however only tell that a work is bad in no uncertain terms and
>>don't provide any kind of advice :
>
>I said "learn to draw long ago. " That's the limit of my direct advice
>when the drawing lacks foundational knowledge.
Hm, I wonder what your definition of "foundational knowledge" is.
>>"Art school no-skill-realism! The drawings show the cost of a lack of
>>knowledge."
>>
>>"Average art school no-skill-realist drivel"
>>
>>"... does fifth rate incompetent repeats of failure art school
>>production."
>>
>>etc.
>
>Am I wrong? If so tell us why I'm wrong.
You're not wrong if you see this platform as a medium to unjustly
ridicule people. The freedom this platform gives us should not be
taken as an opportunity to show disrespect even though it gives us
that opportunity.
>>Your persistence in using what is clearly interpreted as rudeness
>>shows you're out on hurting people's feelings.
>
>Lots here have told me things that might hurt the feelings of others.
>No one here has complained of this. I never said they were rude etc.
>The advantage of a free forum is that people can say what they really
>think.
Nevertheless, it's advisable to give people some respect, especially
when it is about something as personal as art. I have nothing against
critique as long as it's not meant to ridicule people for no reason
whatsoever. Most of the people here are not scam artists, they're
enthusiasts. They should be treated as such.
>I was what you call rude in art school because I said what I thought
>rather than what the silly code of politeness required.
Basic politeness is not silly. It's a way to prevent conflict.
Although politeness can degrade into unproductive rituals, there's no
reason to skip it.
>I judged my
>work the same way. It got me to learn what most of the others didn't.
>I never needed a job since.
>
>>"Liking" has nothing to do with it, you don't say you don't _like_ the
>>work. You _ridicule_ people's skill in a way which can only be seen as
>>embarrassing.
>
>Yes and that just might get someone with less vanity to consider the
>matter and even do something about it.
You actually think ridiculing (possibly less vain) people will make
them better artists?
>>A lot of people come here to learn, they're not waiting
>>to be ridiculed on a public forum for all the world to see. They're
>>hoping to get some advice or information.
>
>The guy asked for an opinion and I wrote one. If you don't like it
>that's one thing. Now just tell us if its wrong.
Your reply was (at best) wrongly phrased. It looked more like an
insult to me than an opinion (there is a difference).
>>>I also think it is important to explain the incompetence and
>>>charlatanism that permeates modern art today and to point out what's
>>>wrong with some of the work shown here.
>>
>>I wholeheartedly agree. There's a lot of crap sold for good money,
>>there's indeed a lot of hollow artzy fartzy talk responsible for it.
>>But that and enthusiasts looking for help here are two different
>>things.
>
>Those who are looking for help here are free to state the matter in
>plain English. The statement "tell me what you think" isn't about
>help.
Taken literally the statement "tell me what you think" is most
unclear. However, the success of human communication relies on humans
seeing other humans as intentional agents. Their statements should
thus be seen as being made with an intention which might very well be
different from the literal reading. It has been shown that it's hardly
possible to perform any communication without taking intention into
the equation.
In short : if someone asks you "Do you know what time it is?" then you
typically reply with the current time even though the question, if
taken literally, can only be answered with "yes" or "no". It is the
intention of the question that is answered, not the literal reading of
it.
Alternatively, given the same question in the same context, there is
also read an intentional difference in the answers "The perspective is
off", "It's not my taste" and "Art school no-skill-realism!". The
first one will be interpreted as pointing out a flaw, the second as a
personal opinion and the third one as an insult.
Ofcourse you can be of a different opinion but the days that
propositional logic was believed to form the core of human
communications has long been past.
>> Few people here are established artists, they're enthusiasts
>>wanting to share their work and information. The rudeness you confront
>>them with is completely misplaced.
>
>Many here attempt to sell their work and write about it.
That's mostly spam and it doesn't come from the enthusiasts I'm
talking about.
>>>Its not RUDE to take a talented student's money, teach him almost
>>>nothing for years and tell him he's just great. Its a tragedy.
>>
>>As I already stated, your central thesis and case is sound and
>>endorsed by a great many here. However : it is *your* rudeness that's
>>under fire here.
>
>I will continue to be rude in the sense that you see it.
I do not doubt that :-)
Paul Mesken
Don't forget to make some pictures of your visit. It would be great to
have another "photo comic" on your site of your visit to Deli :-)
Paul Mesken
wrote:
Well, that's clearly not true. After all, my replies have references
in them to your posts' contents which proves I've read them. Besides :
I read everything on this ng (apart from 2 who I kill filed).
Mani Deli
<nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Mani Deli wrote:
>> I like complexity and am certainly aware that complexity is out of
>> fashion. I have never felt that it is completely random but that is
>> for the viewer to decide.
>>
>> I also find that my simpler work, sketches, details and simpler
>> compositional idea stuff sells far better. However I like my complex
>> stuff and am in a position where I no longer have to care. I was
>> always in a position to paint what I like.
>
>And I wish to God you'd put all this stuff on your website for me to
>see. Please? I'm dying to see more of your stuff.
Just wonder why?
>By the way, I do still want to visit you in Toronto sometime. Can I
>crash on your couch?
I'd be glad to meet you. However, my crashpad days are over.
>If you lack the technological equipment to easily get your stuff online,
>I could bring my digital camera along for the ride.
>
I got all the best equipment but other stuff keeps me busy.
Mani Deli
wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:50:33 -0400, Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 02:46:57 +0200, Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl>
>>wrote:
>>
>>I said "learn to draw long ago. " That's the limit of my direct advice
>>when the drawing lacks foundational knowledge.
>
>Hm, I wonder what your definition of "foundational knowledge" is.
Roughly speaking, its the knowledge one needs in order to render form.
Its the knowledge that any idiot can sense is lacking when that is the
case.
>
>>>"Art school no-skill-realism! The drawings show the cost of a lack of
>>>knowledge."
>>>
>>>"l"
>>>
>>>"... does fifth rate incompetent repeats of failure art school
>>>production."
>>>
>>>etc.
>>
>>Am I wrong? If so tell us why I'm wrong.
>
>You're not wrong if you see this platform as a medium to unjustly
>ridicule people.
I'M NOT WRONG? Really? So what are you really saying, its not nice to
be right?
Dr. Slick
> On 21 Apr 2003 19:54:30 -0700, radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote:
>
> > I really don't think you draw better than i do, and i don't see
> >anything more "skillful" on your site than mine.
>
> Fine!
>
> I think you are intelligent and have talent but you haven't made an
> effort to learn the craft. What I said about your work my not by
> polite by other's standards but I doubt it is incorrect.
>
What the hell do you mean "learn the craft"? By your standards?
Everyone has their own definition of craft. Can you be more specific?
I never said i didn't want to improve. I've had many critiques
of my work, and i'm not afraid of constructive criticism. I'm also
not afraid of assholes such as you who are just out to hurt people's
feelings, I just fight back, much to your dismay.
> > What i do see is someone who focuses too much on technical
> >drawing and painting, and has ignored Composition as another important
> >skill.
>
> I think that most of what is said about composition these days is
> double talk bordering on baloney. Artwork containing practically
> nothing isn't composition and bad drawing negates everything.
>
Just because you can paint light and shadow well (which you do),
doesn't mean you can compose a picture well, which you don't do well
in my opinion.
Just because you have a good make-up artist and good actors,
doesn't mean that the director of the film is any good. Great actors
with a great script can be ruined by poor direction.
> > You have followed the faults of Dali,
>
> I have!
>
At least you admit this.
> > by having too many points
> >of interest in one piece...there is no focus to your work, just random
> >things strewn everywhere. You seem to think that more complexity will
> >make a better painting, i totally disagree.
>
> I like complexity and am certainly aware that complexity is out of
> fashion. I have never felt that it is completely random but that is
> for the viewer to decide.
> I also find that my simpler work, sketches, details and simpler
> compositional idea stuff sells far better. However I like my complex
> stuff and am in a position where I no longer have to care. I was
> always in a position to paint what I like.
>
I don't say your stuff is too complex because that is the
fashion. Today's fashion can take a hike. I love J. S. Bach, and
he's not exactly top-10 right now. But...I predict his music will
outlast 99% of what you hear on the popular radio today.
You are obviously not a professional artist. Try being a tattoo
artist and see how difficult it would be to make a living doing only
what YOU want to do. But if your art is only for you to perform a
little narcissistic Art-masturbation, so be it, we all do some of
that.
> > Dali, although i am a big
> >fan of his, made the same mistake in many of his paintings.
>
> This is indeed considered a mistake from the modern art point of view.
> Obviously I don't agree.
>
I don't speak for the "modern art" POV, and i dislike a lot of
the elitism and arrogance of todays art world as you do, and i have
agreed with you in the past.
Thank God we all don't like the same art/music...what a boring
world that would be.
> > George Lucas makes the same mistake sometimes in his movies: too
> >many points of interest becomes boring.
> >
> > And in general, i find your work ugly, no matter how technically
> >well done.
>
> Most do. My highly finished work often gets the comment, "its fine
> work but I wouldn't want it."
>
Your "Faces" painting has a chance, it's the best of the
bunch...but still too many points of interest for me, too many faces.
> Indeed there is a much larger market for simplistic Modern Academic
> work. What Dali called "lazy art." However there millions of so called
> artists cranking out this stuff so proportionally very few sell.
>
Dali was full of sh** about a lot of things, and of course he was
threatened by abstract modern work because it threatened his chunk of
the art market.
He shouldn't talk about laziness...I read somewhere that near the
end of his life, he was having his art helpers paint most of a
painting in his style, then he would add a few finishing touches of
his genius, and then the painting could be considered an authentic
Dali. Not to mention his signing of blank sheets of paper....
nevertheless, i agree that some of the modern abstract can be a
bit too simplistic even for an economical artist such as myself.
> Finely crafted work which is out of fashion has a small audience of
> buyers but few artists who can supply it. That is why I said that
> those who know their craft and make an effort to find buyers will most
> likely be successful in spite of the prevailing fashion and a few rich
> charlatans.
>
I used to think the idea situation would be to be so rich that I
could just stay at home and solo mast-Art-bate all day, and just paint
what I wanted, without having to please potential buyers.
But my experiences as a tattoo artist has taught me something
about COLLABORATION, which is working together with someone else or a
group of people, and getting a sort of consensus from a group. And
these people have pushed me in directions i would never have taken on
my own.
>
> I have lots of new stuff which I haven't put on site. Too lazy! I'll
> post it soon.
>
> BTW why not tell us which Dali works I ape. Name a few paintings.
Your stuff is VERY Dali to me, in the randomness of the subject
matter. You have perhaps unconsciously "borrowed" the style of Dali's
portraits of Picasso, and of course, certainly the subject.
H. R. Giger is someone else your stuff looks like.
Don't worry, EVERYONE has/had influences. No one is totally
original.
Put your new shit up, and i'll put up mine.
Dr. Slick
Nikolaus Maack
>>And I wish to God you'd put all this stuff on your website for me to
>>see. Please? I'm dying to see more of your stuff.
>
>
> Just wonder why?
Part of it is just that I want to see everyone's art. All the art I see
influences and charms me. Authors improve their writing skills by
constantly reading. Artists improve their artistic skills by constantly
looking at art. If we know what's out there, we can determine what is
cliche and what is innovative, what moves us and what makes us feel flat.
Also, you're so passionate in an art philosophy way. I'm curious to see
if this same passion is present in your drawings and paintings. Right
now, what's on your website is pretty much Dali writ Mani. I'd be
interested in seeing the full scope of your work.
>>By the way, I do still want to visit you in Toronto sometime. Can I
>>crash on your couch?
>
> I'd be glad to meet you. However, my crashpad days are over.
Is your couch that bad, or are you worried I'm some sort of madman? *grin*
>>If you lack the technological equipment to easily get your stuff online,
>>I could bring my digital camera along for the ride.
>
> I got all the best equipment but other stuff keeps me busy.
I know how you feel. Life is constantly dragging me around the city.
Still, I hope you get around to putting more of your stuff online. I
know I'm not the only one interested in seeing it.
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 00:20:32 +0200, Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:50:33 -0400, Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 02:46:57 +0200, Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>
>>>I said "learn to draw long ago. " That's the limit of my direct advice
>>>when the drawing lacks foundational knowledge.
>>
>>Hm, I wonder what your definition of "foundational knowledge" is.
>
>Roughly speaking, its the knowledge one needs in order to render form.
>Its the knowledge that any idiot can sense is lacking when that is the
>case.
>
>>
>>>>"Art school no-skill-realism! The drawings show the cost of a lack of
>>>>knowledge."
>>>>
>>>>"l"
>>>>
>>>>"... does fifth rate incompetent repeats of failure art school
>>>>production."
>>>>
>>>>etc.
>>>
>>>Am I wrong? If so tell us why I'm wrong.
>>
>>You're not wrong if you see this platform as a medium to unjustly
>>ridicule people.
>
>I'M NOT WRONG? Really? So what are you really saying, its not nice to
>be right?
>
Hehe, no, I'm saying that it's right to be nice so by this definition
you're wrong.
Dr. Slick
Mani Deli
<nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Right
>now, what's on your website is pretty much Dali writ Mani. I'd be
>interested in seeing the full scope of your work.
Its all like that. Perhaps you can tell us which Dali a particular
painting resembles.
>> I'd be glad to meet you. However, my crashpad days are over.
>
>Is your couch that bad, or are you worried I'm some sort of madman? *grin*
Its very bad and has large protruding spikes which I prefer to keep
very clean.
Mani Deli
>Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<7k5bav4p5v92nmlro...@4ax.com>...
>> On 21 Apr 2003 19:54:30 -0700, radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote:
> What the hell do you mean "learn the craft"? By your standards?
>Everyone has their own definition of craft. Can you be more specific?
No.
> I never said i didn't want to improve. I've had many critiques
>of my work, and i'm not afraid of constructive criticism. I'm also
>not afraid of assholes such as you who are just out to hurt people's
>feelings, I just fight back, much to your dismay.
Good move!
>> > You have followed the faults of Dali,
>>
>> I have!
>>
>
> At least you admit this.
> Thank God we all don't like the same art/music...what a boring
>world that would be.
>
>> Indeed there is a much larger market for simplistic Modern Academic
>> work. What Dali called "lazy art." However there millions of so called
>> artists cranking out this stuff so proportionally very few sell.
>>
>
> Dali was full of sh** about a lot of things, and of course he was
>threatened by abstract modern work because it threatened his chunk of
>the art market.
Dali sold everything he wanted to sell. Take a look at his early
abstractions, they are far better than any Picasso. Dali's work is
full of abstraction. It just isn't the schmiery kind that's in
fashion.
> He shouldn't talk about laziness...I read somewhere that near the
>end of his life, he was having his art helpers paint most of a
>painting in his style, then he would add a few finishing touches of
>his genius, and then the painting could be considered an authentic
>Dali. Not to mention his signing of blank sheets of paper....
Many if not most artists had assistants. Dali did the working
drawings, composition, details and the direction on his large work.
The smaller pieces are his completely.
Picasso had some help with Guernica. It didn't help.
> I used to think the idea situation would be to be so rich that I
>could just stay at home and solo mast-Art-bate all day, and just paint
>what I wanted, without having to please potential buyers.
I still do.
> But my experiences as a tattoo artist has taught me something
>about COLLABORATION, which is working together with someone else or a
>group of people, and getting a sort of consensus from a group. And
>these people have pushed me in directions i would never have taken on
>my own.
>
To each his own. I think that good artists should be rich. Its better
to be rich and healthy than poor and sick. And its especially better
to be rich if you're sick.
>> BTW why not tell us which Dali works I ape. Name a few paintings.
>
> Your stuff is VERY Dali to me, in the randomness of the subject
>matter. You have perhaps unconsciously "borrowed" the style of Dali's
>portraits of Picasso, and of course, certainly the subject.
Gee, Its a portrait inspired by Marilyn Welch. I thought it was a good
likeness. I don't think Dali ever knew her.
> H. R. Giger is someone else your stuff looks like.
He did some good stuff but I don't like Geiger. Gee, much of his work
is cluttered with stuff.
All my work is in a classical surrealist format. That includes Dali
and lots of classical painters.
> Don't worry, EVERYONE has/had influences. No one is totally
>original.
We all work from imitation to creation. Some artists are a lot more
difficult to imitate than others. Many here never get beyond imitating
each other on an art school level because their technical abilities
are that limited
> Put your new shit up, and i'll put up mine.
>
I hope to soon.
Nikolaus Maack
> Its all like that. Perhaps you can tell us which Dali a particular
> painting resembles.
Are you denying the powerful influence of Dali in your work? The big
empty skies, the background and foreground mixing, the vaguely Freudian
symbolism, distorted and elongated body parts, the "dream like" quality
mixed with a hyper-realism, etcetera, etcetera?
It's a criticism many have brought to your work. It's very much like
Dali. I agree with the idea that artists should carefully choose which
critics to pay attention to -- but if everyone says the same thing upon
seeing your work, they're probably on to something.
>>>I'd be glad to meet you. However, my crashpad days are over.
>>
>>Is your couch that bad, or are you worried I'm some sort of madman? *grin*
>
>
> Its very bad and has large protruding spikes which I prefer to keep
> very clean.
How convenient! And I thought I'd have to bring my spiked sleeping bag
to Toronto, when you had a spiked couch all along!
Dr. Slick
> On 23 Apr 2003 11:01:59 -0700, radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote:
>
> >Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<7k5bav4p5v92nmlro...@4ax.com>...
> >> On 21 Apr 2003 19:54:30 -0700, radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote:
>
> > What the hell do you mean "learn the craft"? By your standards?
> >Everyone has their own definition of craft. Can you be more specific?
>
> No.
>
Then maybe you should define it yourself first, before
recommending it to others.
> > I never said i didn't want to improve. I've had many critiques
> >of my work, and i'm not afraid of constructive criticism. I'm also
> >not afraid of assholes such as you who are just out to hurt people's
> >feelings, I just fight back, much to your dismay.
>
> Good move!
>
You sick motherfu**er, you actually LIKE the abuse, don't you?
That's why you are always pissing people off. Well, when ever you
need a cyber "kick-in-the-balls", let me know.
> >
> > Dali was full of sh** about a lot of things, and of course he was
> >threatened by abstract modern work because it threatened his chunk of
> >the art market.
>
> Dali sold everything he wanted to sell. Take a look at his early
> abstractions, they are far better than any Picasso. Dali's work is
> full of abstraction. It just isn't the schmiery kind that's in
> fashion.
>
Stuff like Mondrian can be interesting in a certain
geometrical/mathematical/divisions-of-a-plane way, but god, i would
never want his stuff hanging on my walls.
>
> Many if not most artists had assistants. Dali did the working
> drawings, composition, details and the direction on his large work.
> The smaller pieces are his completely.
>
So the really big ones like the Columbus one where actually done
by other people, but when it came time for the cameras to come
around...Dali is there!
> Picasso had some help with Guernica. It didn't help.
>
I've disagreed with you on Picasso before, and although i agree he
is more famous than he should be...some of his stuff is very unique
for me. I like Guernica, with the twisted horse, and the dude flying
through the window, and the light buld shining above...it's unique
(even if totally unrealistic), which is not an easy thing to be.
> > I used to think the idea situation would be to be so rich that I
> >could just stay at home and solo mast-Art-bate all day, and just paint
> >what I wanted, without having to please potential buyers.
>
> I still do.
>
> > But my experiences as a tattoo artist has taught me something
> >about COLLABORATION, which is working together with someone else or a
> >group of people, and getting a sort of consensus from a group. And
> >these people have pushed me in directions i would never have taken on
> >my own.
> >
> To each his own. I think that good artists should be rich. Its better
> to be rich and healthy than poor and sick. And its especially better
> to be rich if you're sick.
>
Rich so they don't have to create on the whims of the public's
taste, for the most part i agree with this. But popular art and music
is an interesting social phenomenon in itself, if you don't mind
"selling out" a bit. "Selling out" is another word for successful in
many cases.
> >> BTW why not tell us which Dali works I ape. Name a few paintings.
> >
> > Your stuff is VERY Dali to me, in the randomness of the subject
> >matter. You have perhaps unconsciously "borrowed" the style of Dali's
> >portraits of Picasso, and of course, certainly the subject.
>
> Gee, Its a portrait inspired by Marilyn Welch. I thought it was a good
> likeness. I don't think Dali ever knew her.
>
Still very Dali, your stuff is.
> > H. R. Giger is someone else your stuff looks like.
>
> He did some good stuff but I don't like Geiger. Gee, much of his work
> is cluttered with stuff.
>
> All my work is in a classical surrealist format. That includes Dali
> and lots of classical painters.
He makes the same mistake as Dali sometimes. My homage to Giger
painting is purposefull busy...something about the Dali surrealism of
having lot's of shit flying around.
But Giger does it well, better than Dali did in many instances.
With more symmetry and order and form.
> All my work is in a classical surrealist format. That includes Dali
> and lots of classical painters.
>
Some people are bothered by the many diverse styles that i have
from one work to the next, which i can understand. But i'm not very
prolific, and i get bored with one style quickly...still experimenting
I guess. Hopefully always will be...
Garvin Yee
Dr. Slick
> Mani Deli wrote:
> > Its all like that. Perhaps you can tell us which Dali a particular
> > painting resembles.
>
> Are you denying the powerful influence of Dali in your work? The big
> empty skies, the background and foreground mixing, the vaguely Freudian
> symbolism, distorted and elongated body parts, the "dream like" quality
> mixed with a hyper-realism, etcetera, etcetera?
>
> It's a criticism many have brought to your work. It's very much like
> Dali. I agree with the idea that artists should carefully choose which
> critics to pay attention to -- but if everyone says the same thing upon
> seeing your work, they're probably on to something.
>
100% on the mark Nik. I just couldn't put it into words like you
have. he!
Although H. R. Giger was very much influenced by Dali (he had pix
of him visiting Dali in his Necronomicon), Giger has made a more
complete jump into his own style, in my opinion. His airbrush
technique was a big help in making him unique from Dali.
Honestly, Mani, your technical "skills" are there, but perhaps you
are still looking for your identity in terms of a unique Conceptual
Style, for lack of a better term.
I NOT just saying this to piss you off, believe it or not.
Slick
Mani Deli
>Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<eltdav0pe3e88fol1...@4ax.com>...
>> On 23 Apr 2003 11:01:59 -0700, radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote:
>>
>> >Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<7k5bav4p5v92nmlro...@4ax.com>...
>> >> On 21 Apr 2003 19:54:30 -0700, radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote:
> You sick motherfu**er, you actually LIKE the abuse, don't you?
It doesn't bother me and its fun returning it.
>That's why you are always pissing people off. Well, when ever you
>need a cyber "kick-in-the-balls", let me know.
That's what's nice about words. Just think of how pissed they got you.
Why not just let it pass or were they telling enough to hit on
something?
> Stuff like Mondrian can be interesting in a certain
>geometrical/mathematical/divisions-of-a-plane way, but god, i would
>never want his stuff hanging on my walls.
Mondrian like most Modern Academic Art starts with a question in the
viewers mind. What's this thing doing here? There's nothing in
Mondrian except inflated talk by someone who claims he's more
sensitive and understands. So out comes a load of BS and the viewer
backs off. Not me!
>> Many if not most artists had assistants. Dali did the working
>> drawings, composition, details and the direction on his large work.
>> The smaller pieces are his completely.
>>
>
> So the really big ones like the Columbus one where actually done
>by other people, but when it came time for the cameras to come
>around...Dali is there!
>
I guess you imagine that Dali had nothing much to do with it and all
those images where the result of the guys who filled in some of the
drawing.
>> Picasso had some help with Guernica. It didn't help.
> I've disagreed with you on Picasso before, and although i agree he
>is more famous than he should be...some of his stuff is very unique
>for me. I like Guernica, with the twisted horse, and the dude flying
>through the window, and the light buld shining above...it's unique
>(even if totally unrealistic), which is not an easy thing to be.
It isn't unique its just a big second rate cartoon which unlike most
cartoons is blown up big and done in genuine oil paint. Artzy Fartzies
thing big schmiery stuff done in oil paint is big deal as long as its
been yacked up by critics.
>> >> BTW why not tell us which Dali works I ape. Name a few paintings.
>> >
>> > Your stuff is VERY Dali to me,
>
> Still very Dali, your stuff is.
Sure is! However its different in many respects.
Dali, draws as well as a master, his technique is much finer and his
lighting is unique. The work is more complex and refined and he can
balance his painterly passages with smooth blends while expressing
great depth and atmosphere. His detail is superb, his color amazing
and his images persist in the mind. His originals even look better
than even the best repros . He's miles past me.
>
>> > H. R. Giger is someone else your stuff looks like.
>>
>> He did some good stuff but I don't like Geiger. Gee, much of his work
>> is cluttered with stuff.
>>
>> All my work is in a classical surrealist format. That includes Dali
>> and lots of classical painters.
>> All my work is in a classical surrealist format. That includes Dali
>> and lots of classical painters.
...no skill no art!
Mani Deli
<nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Mani Deli wrote:
>> Its all like that. Perhaps you can tell us which Dali a particular
>> painting resembles.
>
>Are you denying the powerful influence of Dali in your work?
Never did?
Dr. Slick
>
> > You sick motherfu**er, you actually LIKE the abuse, don't you?
>
> It doesn't bother me and its fun returning it.
>
I get the feeling sometimes it does bother you, especially when it
comes to the issue of how similar your work is to Dali's.
At any rate, if you want an abusive relationship here, you've got
it with me, because i enjoy making you look like a fool in front of
everyone.
> >
> > So the really big ones like the Columbus one where actually done
> >by other people, but when it came time for the cameras to come
> >around...Dali is there!
> >
> I guess you imagine that Dali had nothing much to do with it and all
> those images where the result of the guys who filled in some of the
> drawing.
>
Well, i'm sure he directed everything. But the fact is, that he
didn't do the whole thing himself. I suppose that's a sign that an
artist is truly successful and famous: no time to do your own work,
and no time to stretch your own canvas in the case of all these Gilcee
reproduction artists.
>
> > I've disagreed with you on Picasso before, and although i agree he
> >is more famous than he should be...some of his stuff is very unique
> >for me. I like Guernica, with the twisted horse, and the dude flying
> >through the window, and the light buld shining above...it's unique
> >(even if totally unrealistic), which is not an easy thing to be.
>
> It isn't unique its just a big second rate cartoon which unlike most
> cartoons is blown up big and done in genuine oil paint. Artzy Fartzies
> thing big schmiery stuff done in oil paint is big deal as long as its
> been yacked up by critics.
>
I disagree, I really don't care what the art critics say. I
think the painting is quite unique...who else painted the way Picasso
did? Like who else painted the way Keith Haring did, if not
realistically?
> >
> > Still very Dali, your stuff is.
>
> Sure is! However its different in many respects.
>
We finally have pulled a confession of the obvious from you,
albiet somewhat begrudgingly! Great!
Your work is not different enough to qualify for "original" or
"unique", in my book.
> Dali, draws as well as a master, his technique is much finer and his
> lighting is unique. The work is more complex and refined and he can
> balance his painterly passages with smooth blends while expressing
> great depth and atmosphere. His detail is superb, his color amazing
> and his images persist in the mind. His originals even look better
> than even the best repros . He's miles past me.
>
Drawing as well as a master also included using projected
photographs on the canvas in Dali's case ("Tuna Fishing", etc...). I
used this technique for my self-portrait painting in high school (for
the picture of me, the guitars are freehand), but then everyone did.
The use of photographs is accepted in the art world, esp. the
commercial art world where much time is saved with proportions by
tracings, "squaring up", or projections of photos.
This "short cut" will NOT make you an incredible artist, but it
does cause me to have a bit more respect for the pre-camera-obscura
artists (like Vermeer).
Photography and prints and repros never do justice for anyone's
work, not just Dali's.
Slick
Dr. Slick
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 18:02:51 -0400, Nikolaus Maack
> <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >Mani Deli wrote:
> >> Its all like that. Perhaps you can tell us which Dali a particular
> >> painting resembles.
> >
> >Are you denying the powerful influence of Dali in your work?
>
> Never did?
>
"Perhaps you can tell us which Dali a particular painting
resembles" is an attempt to deny the obvious.
Well, you are back to your one-sentence replies i see. This
typically happens when someone cannot effectively make a point.
Dr. Slick
Mani Deli
>Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<ge3havg89a3snkss7...@4ax.com>...
>> >
>> > So the really big ones like the Columbus one where actually done
>> >by other people, but when it came time for the cameras to come
>> >around...Dali is there!
>> >
>> I guess you imagine that Dali had nothing much to do with it and all
>> those images where the result of the guys who filled in some of the
>> drawing.
>>
>
> Well, i'm sure he directed everything. But the fact is, that he
>didn't do the whole thing himself.
And what's wrong with that? If he lacked assistance he would'nt
havetime to finish all that work.
> I suppose that's a sign that an
>artist is truly successful and famous: no time to do your own work,
>and no time to stretch your own canvas in the case of all these Gilcee
>reproduction artists.
>
It's a sign of most classical artists.
>> >
>> > Still very Dali, your stuff is.
>>
>> Sure is! However its different in many respects.
>>
>
> We finally have pulled a confession of the obvious from you,
>albiet somewhat begrudgingly! Great!
I said I was very influenced by Dali often here. I never minded anyone
noting that. Some of my paintings contain a Dali like format many
don't. However none look like a real Dali for the reasons I stated.
Most here couldn't be influenced by anyone who can draw because they
can't draw. They ape modern styles because their lack of craftsmanship
and skill forces them to. The rest never get beyond modern art school
incompetence.
> Your work is not different enough to qualify for "original" or
>"unique", in my book.
One sentence reply!
>
>> Dali, draws as well as a master, his technique is much finer and his
>> lighting is unique. The work is more complex and refined and he can
>> balance his painterly passages with smooth blends while expressing
>> great depth and atmosphere. His detail is superb, his color amazing
>> and his images persist in the mind. His originals even look better
>> than even the best repros . He's miles past me.
>>
>
> Drawing as well as a master also included using projected
>photographs on the canvas in Dali's case ("Tuna Fishing", etc...).
So did Manet, Degas, Picasso and I suspect Matisse, Larry Rivers,
Canaletto, Vermeer etc. etc. and me. What counts is the finished
product not how you did it. One should use any and all means to
produce fine work.
> This "short cut" will NOT make you an incredible artist, but it
>does cause me to have a bit more respect for the pre-camera-obscura
>artists (like Vermeer).
>
>
> Photography and prints and repros never do justice for anyone's
>work, not just Dali's.
>
Shows how little you know about technique.
Dr. Slick
> >
> > Well, i'm sure he directed everything. But the fact is, that he
> >didn't do the whole thing himself.
>
> And what's wrong with that? If he lacked assistance he would'nt
> havetime to finish all that work.
>
That's a good point, i suppose he had quite a few of those really
large pieces at the height of his career.
> >
> > We finally have pulled a confession of the obvious from you,
> >albiet somewhat begrudgingly! Great!
>
> I said I was very influenced by Dali often here. I never minded anyone
> noting that. Some of my paintings contain a Dali like format many
> don't. However none look like a real Dali for the reasons I stated.
>
They almost all look like Dali type works to me.
> Most here couldn't be influenced by anyone who can draw because they
> can't draw. They ape modern styles because their lack of craftsmanship
> and skill forces them to. The rest never get beyond modern art school
> incompetence.
>
I'd trade a little "skill" for a unique style anyday. Who cares
whether Keith Haring could draw realistically? Certainly not me!
You have Compositional incompetence in my opinion.
Maybe you should change your mantra to: "...all skill...no
originality!"
> > Your work is not different enough to qualify for "original" or
> >"unique", in my book.
>
> One sentence reply!
The truth hurts, doesn't it? One sentence is all you need in
this case.
> >
> > Drawing as well as a master also included using projected
> >photographs on the canvas in Dali's case ("Tuna Fishing", etc...).
>
> So did Manet, Degas, Picasso and I suspect Matisse, Larry Rivers,
> Canaletto, Vermeer etc. etc. and me. What counts is the finished
> product not how you did it. One should use any and all means to
> produce fine work.
>
> > This "short cut" will NOT make you an incredible artist, but it
> >does cause me to have a bit more respect for the pre-camera-obscura
> >artists (like Vermeer).
> >
> >
> > Photography and prints and repros never do justice for anyone's
> >work, not just Dali's.
> >
> Shows how little you know about technique.
>
Shows you how arrogant you are.
And I never claimed to be an expert.
Dr. Slick
Mani Deli
>Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<uh3jav47568sucsnr...@4ax.com>...
>> >
>> Most here couldn't be influenced by anyone who can draw because they
>> can't draw. They ape modern styles because their lack of craftsmanship
>> and skill forces them to. The rest never get beyond modern art school
>> incompetence.
>>
>
> I'd trade a little "skill" for a unique style anyday. Who cares
>whether Keith Haring could draw realistically? Certainly not me!
You haven't a little skill to trade.
> Maybe you should change your mantra to: "...all skill...no
>originality!"
Your mantra is "no skill, no originality."
>> > Drawing as well as a master also included using projected
>> >photographs on the canvas in Dali's case ("Tuna Fishing", etc...).
>>
>> So did Manet, Degas, Picasso and I suspect Matisse, Larry Rivers,
>> Canaletto, Vermeer etc. etc. and me. What counts is the finished
>> product not how you did it. One should use any and all means to
>> produce fine work.
>>
>> > This "short cut" will NOT make you an incredible artist, but it
>> >does cause me to have a bit more respect for the pre-camera-obscura
>> >artists (like Vermeer).
>> >
>> >
>> > Photography and prints and repros never do justice for anyone's
>> >work, not just Dali's.
>> >
>> Shows how little you know about technique.
>>
>
> Shows you how arrogant you are.
>
> And I never claimed to be an expert.
>
>
You're barely a beginner.
Dr. Slick
> On 25 Apr 2003 23:56:35 -0700, radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote:
>
> >Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<uh3jav47568sucsnr...@4ax.com>...
> >> >
>
> >> Most here couldn't be influenced by anyone who can draw because they
> >> can't draw. They ape modern styles because their lack of craftsmanship
> >> and skill forces them to. The rest never get beyond modern art school
> >> incompetence.
> >>
> >
> > I'd trade a little "skill" for a unique style anyday. Who cares
> >whether Keith Haring could draw realistically? Certainly not me!
>
> You haven't a little skill to trade.
>
Got more than you. I'm resorting to one-sentences like you.
> > Maybe you should change your mantra to: "...all skill...no
> >originality!"
>
> Your mantra is "no skill, no originality."
>
The truth really does hurt you! That's one of the most hurtful
things you can say to an artist: Your stuff looks like "So-and-so's".
My art is not for everyone, but no one complains about it being
too similar to someone elses work. At least it's a unique style:
mine!
Can't say the same about your stuff, tho.
> >
> > Shows you how arrogant you are.
> >
> > And I never claimed to be an expert.
> >
> >
> You're barely a beginner.
And you need to go back to art school, and find an original
style.
If all you want to do is insult people and tell them how much
they suck, why don't you become an art critic.
Go back to copying Dali, shit brain. You won't get very far
ripping another artist's style, that is for sure.
Dr. Slick