Art links
gerberk
Just in case Mani's site isn't providing the necessary information.
Mani Deli
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/reference_pictures/puz_1.jpg
Puzzle
What do you think of this abstraction?
Color?
Technique?
Meaning?
Who did this AE masterpiece?
...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/
Mani Deli
>http://witcombe.sbc.edu/ARTHLinks.html
>
>Just in case Mani's site isn't providing the necessary information.
>
Notice in 19th century No academics except one really bad repro of a
Gerome (unsharp and the wrong color)
That's about what you learn about this period in art school and books
on 19th cent. art.
If you want to see what else was done check out
http://www.artrenewal.org/
One of the best art sites on the net.
Flying_Naked_People
painting. An OLD one at that. None of your questions can be answered
without seeing the ENTIRE painting that this snatch came from.
What is the purpose of this "puzzle"???
In article <t6oufvklre55gnokg...@4ax.com>,
ma...@sympatico.ca says...
> Subject: Puzzle-Who did it etc.?
> From: Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
>
> Check it out at:
> http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/reference_pictures/puz_1.jpg
>
> Puzzle
> What do you think of this abstraction?
>
> Color?
>
> Technique?
>
> Meaning?
>
>
> Who did this AE masterpiece?
>
>
>
>
gerberk
work.It's totally irrelevant what it is.Technique is great Colour is good
Composition is great. But it's probably a trick.Anyway it's good.
Richter but it's a shot. I dont know It doesn't even matter.
I have a love hate with these abstracts but some of these things are really
good.This is a good abstract painting.
And dont tell me you did it because you cant do it.
And if you can you'r in the money because my guess is that this would sell.
No it's a famous abstract which you hate somehow.
So it's a Richter .
that was easy.
regards
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> schreef in bericht
news:t6oufvklre55gnokg...@4ax.com...
Erik A. Mattila
Thur wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
> It's a blow-up of a small part of his palette, IMHO.
> Thur
It's an attention-getting device. harharharhar. Seriously, knowing the
single dimension of Mind of Mani so well, it's a detail of a realistic
painting - "proving once and for all that abstract art is nothing new."
Erik
>
> "gerberk" <ger...@home.nl> wrote in message
> news:bdorjl$31g$1...@news3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...
Paul Mesken
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>
>
>Thur wrote:
>> x-no-archive: yes
>> It's a blow-up of a small part of his palette, IMHO.
>> Thur
>
>It's an attention-getting device. harharharhar. Seriously, knowing the
>single dimension of Mind of Mani so well, it's a detail of a realistic
>painting - "proving once and for all that abstract art is nothing new."
Either that or it has *enormous* crackle :-)
Mike Stengl
It's an astrological weather forcast showing the moon (clearly) rising
up someone's Pisces. Tip of the hat to Mani...
Mani Deli
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>
>
>Thur wrote:
>> x-no-archive: yes
>> It's a blow-up of a small part of his palette, IMHO.
>> Thur
>
>It's an attention-getting device. harharharhar. Seriously, knowing the
>single dimension of Mind of Mani so well, it's a detail of a realistic
>painting - "proving once and for all that abstract art is nothing new."
>
>Erik
>
This is the best Pinhead Mattila can answer.
Mani Deli
>Don't know who did it must admit.But it's good There has been a painter at
>work.It's totally irrelevant what it is.Technique is great Colour is good
>Composition is great. But it's probably a trick.Anyway it's good.
Its a small detail of a Vermeer turned sideways. Not that I expected
anyone to identifying the painting. I only wanted to show where some
of my opinions come from. They come from looking at artwork and a
knowledge of technique, not from reading theoretical
pseudo-philosophical bullshit.
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/vermeer/kitchen-maid/kitchen-maid.jpg
It shows that blind AE fans rarely look at detail in classic painting
and in my opinion also shows that AE is little more than poorly done
imitation of detail in classic painting blown up tinto large wall
decoration.
It also shows that technique is recognizable, good and bad. .
>Richter but it's a shot. I dont know It doesn't even matter.
>
>I have a love hate with these abstracts but some of these things are really
>good.
>This is a good abstract painting.
My point! Good abstract painting is found in most all classic art, by
anyone willing to look. However, fine work is more than abstract
painting. I also believe that most AE is bad abstract painting and
that the better variety exists on towels bed sheets etc. Abstract
artwork is nothing new. What's new is the bullshit that goes along
with Modern Academic Art. Read Mattila for some good examples here.
>And dont tell me you did it because you cant do it.
I can't! If you ever looked at the original you would see why. However
Iv'e sold abstract bullshit when it suited me. I learned Artspeak at a
prestigious Bauhaus Academy and from keeping up with art reviews.
>
>And if you can you'r in the money because my guess is that this would sell.
>
>No it's a famous abstract which you hate somehow.
>
>So it's a Richter .
>
>that was easy.
Abstract fans are easily conned. This is because they judge artwok by
signatures. In most all cases the artwork is really of no interest
whatever.
The real artists of AE are the critics who write the accompanying
bullshit and the con men who advertise the signatures.
Erik A. Mattila
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:55:27 -0700, "Erik A. Mattila"
> <emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Thur wrote:
>>
>>>x-no-archive: yes
>>>It's a blow-up of a small part of his palette, IMHO.
>>>Thur
>>
>>It's an attention-getting device. harharharhar. Seriously, knowing the
>>single dimension of Mind of Mani so well, it's a detail of a realistic
>>painting - "proving once and for all that abstract art is nothing new."
>>
>>Erik
>>
>
>
> This is the best Pinhead Mattila can answer.
Well, you know...like the rest of us on this ng, I spent thousands of
hours in artschool memorizing obscure parts of paintings. But being a
pinhead, I didn't remember the famous part you have presented. And to
think, you do know what it is. You must be a regular Brainiac.
Pinhead
Erik A. Mattila
Funny you should mention that:
"It's an attention-getting device. harharharhar. Seriously, knowing
the single dimension of Mind of Mani so well, it's a detail of a
realistic painting - "proving once and for all that abstract art is
nothing new." -- Erik A. Mattila Jun 30, 2003 "
"This is the best Pinhead Mattila can answer." Mani Deli, Jul 1, 2003
Now, this pinhead want's to know - why is it when you say "abstract
artwork is nothing new" it is Kozmik truff? But when I say that's what
you are going to say, with great acuity and clairvoyance, you condemn me
to pinheaddom (which isn't that bad, really.)
Zippy
gerberk
> signatures. In most all cases the artwork is really of no interest
> whatever.
>
> The real artists of AE are the critics who write the accompanying
> bullshit and the con men who advertise the signatures.
>
everything about abstract art.Some of these guys are skilled painters.They
just see no use in painting something that can also be photographed.
btw great composition you made of that Vermeer.I knew you was an artist.But
you simply carry things too far now and then.
Wonderderful painter Vermeer, few people would disagree.
regards
Andrew D
>There is no doubt much truth in these remarks but it simply does not explain
>everything about abstract art.Some of these guys are skilled painters.They
>just see no use in painting something that can also be photographed.
Few representational artists produce work which could easily be matched
with photography. There are always compositional adjustments, shifts in
tone, colour and contrast and that little bit of som ething that makes
each work personal.
As far as Abstract Expressionism goes, vomit can also be photographed. ;)
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Mani Deli
>btw great composition you made of that Vermeer.I knew you was an artist.But
>you simply carry things too far now and then.
You can do that with any area of Vermeer, A lot of Artzy fartzy yak is
devoted to nebulous talk about composition.
If you look at fine classical painting you will notice that most any
area in the painting, abstract or realistic, can be cut out and it
looks fine. Mark off rectangles in any area of a Vermeer and it will
look interesting and unique in technique.Often each area looks
complete. That's what makes fine composition. That's why details of
great painting are as great as the whole and that's why most modern
abstraction is worthy of little more than a fifteen second glance.
Modern abstraction hasn't enough complexity to rate as anything more
than attempts at decoration. Most isn't even that.
Andrew D
<ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[snip]
>If you look at fine classical painting you will notice that most any
>area in the painting, abstract or realistic, can be cut out and it
>looks fine. Mark off rectangles in any area of a Vermeer and it will
>look interesting and unique in technique.Often each area looks
>complete. That's what makes fine composition. That's why details of
>great painting are as great as the whole and that's why most modern
>abstraction is worthy of little more than a fifteen second glance.
I'd suggest each section of an AE painting is equally as good as every
other section - in the same way one dirty nappy smells as good as the
next.
Mani Deli
I agree only if you change the sentence to, " each section of an AE
painting is equally as bad as every other section."
Andrew D
<ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 09:33:17 +0800, right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew
>D) wrote:
>
>>In article <2rn6gvgkehrqrs6o6...@4ax.com>, Mani Deli
>><ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>>If you look at fine classical painting you will notice that most any
>>>area in the painting, abstract or realistic, can be cut out and it
>>>looks fine. Mark off rectangles in any area of a Vermeer and it will
>>>look interesting and unique in technique.Often each area looks
>>>complete. That's what makes fine composition. That's why details of
>>>great painting are as great as the whole and that's why most modern
>>>abstraction is worthy of little more than a fifteen second glance.
>>
>>I'd suggest each section of an AE painting is equally as good as every
>>other section - in the same way one dirty nappy smells as good as the
>>next.
>>
>I agree only if you change the sentence to, " each section of an AE
>painting is equally as bad as every other section."
Like I said Mani - it's "good" in "the same way one dirty nappy smells as
'good' as the next."
Andy D.
gerberk
To be honest i wouldn't hang a dubious abstract expressionist painting or
even a De Kooning poster on my walls either although i used to have a
Kandinsky poster for a long time.
I do however have a large Picasso poster hanging
Buste de femme au chapeau Mougins 1962
The original is not even a painting It's a Linoleum with colour dont know
what you call it in english. But i love it.The thing is magical.Why ? how
would i know? I saw it and fell in love with it.
regards
"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> schreef in bericht
news:right-03070...@i160-094.nv.iinet.net.au...
Mani Deli
>LOL you guys seem to agree on anything.
>
>To be honest i wouldn't hang a dubious abstract expressionist painting or
>even a De Kooning poster on my walls either although i used to have a
>Kandinsky poster for a long time.
>
>I do however have a large Picasso poster hanging
>
>Buste de femme au chapeau Mougins 1962
>
>The original is not even a painting It's a Linoleum with colour dont know
>what you call it in english. But i love it.The thing is magical.Why ? how
>would i know? I saw it and fell in love with it.
I have bath towels which I hang and love. I also hang Persian rugs of
the finest composition and design.
Andrew D
<ger...@home.nl> wrote:
>LOL you guys seem to agree on anything.
Nah. I'm not fond of Salvador Dali.
>To be honest i wouldn't hang a dubious abstract expressionist painting or
>even a De Kooning poster on my walls either although i used to have a
>Kandinsky poster for a long time.
>
>I do however have a large Picasso poster hanging
>
>Buste de femme au chapeau Mougins 1962
>
>The original is not even a painting It's a Linoleum with colour dont know
>what you call it in english. But i love it.The thing is magical.Why ? how
>would i know? I saw it and fell in love with it.
And I don't think anyone would deny you the right to do so.
Andrew D
<ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:57:22 +0200, "gerberk" <ger...@home.nl> wrote:
>
>>LOL you guys seem to agree on anything.
>>
>>To be honest i wouldn't hang a dubious abstract expressionist painting or
>>even a De Kooning poster on my walls either although i used to have a
>>Kandinsky poster for a long time.
>>
>>I do however have a large Picasso poster hanging
>>
>>Buste de femme au chapeau Mougins 1962
>>
>>The original is not even a painting It's a Linoleum with colour dont know
>>what you call it in english. But i love it.The thing is magical.Why ? how
>>would i know? I saw it and fell in love with it.
>
>
>I have bath towels which I hang and love. I also hang Persian rugs of
>the finest composition and design.
Stop agreeing with me - people are starting to talk.
gerberk
http://www.roland-collection.com/rolandcollection/section/14/596.htm
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> schreef in bericht
news:ah89gvs7c08lk8tce...@4ax.com...
Seagull Manager
> > Abstract fans are easily conned. This is because they judge artwork by
> > signatures. In most all cases the artwork is really of no interest
> > whatever.
> >
> > The real artists of AE are the critics who write the accompanying
> > bullshit and the con men who advertise the signatures.
> >
> There is no doubt much truth in these remarks but it simply does not
explain
> everything about abstract art.Some of these guys are skilled painters.
A few.
> They just see no use in painting something that can also be photographed.
What they paint often can be photographed. Some photographers have great fun
taking pictures that look like abstract paintings, but happen to be details
or unusual angles of ordinary objects. A lot of scientific photography looks
like abstract painting, too. The funny thing is, by trying to avoid making
their pictures resemble anything, abstract painters create a very restricted
aesthetic environment for themselves. Representational artists have much
more freedom.
As for geometrical abstraction and Op Art, computers can be programmed to
generate limitless amounts of the stuff, so people who continue making such
images by hand are wasting their time.
Nikolaus Maack
> As for geometrical abstraction and Op Art, computers can be programmed to
> generate limitless amounts of the stuff, so people who continue making such
> images by hand are wasting their time.
Realistic portraiture can be done using cameras. Just about everything
can be done now using a machine. Does that mean we should discard
everything?
I sent this to you using a machine. Feel free to ignore it -- the
message AND the machine.
Seagull Manager
"Nikolaus Maack" <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3F08938A...@sympatico.ca...
> Seagull Manager wrote:
> > As for geometrical abstraction and Op Art, computers can be programmed
to
> > generate limitless amounts of the stuff, so people who continue making
such
> > images by hand are wasting their time.
>
> Realistic portraiture can be done using cameras. Just about everything
> can be done now using a machine. Does that mean we should discard
> everything?
No, though I'd suggest you'd need a camera plus some time with Photoshop (or
some other software) to do what a painter does in a portrait. (We'll leave
aside the printing issues, which apply to both realistic and abstract art.)
I'd suggest using the technology creatively to do things that the technology
alone cannot achieve. Eventually, I suppose, we will reach a point where
machine creativity makes all human ingenuity redundant, but we don't tell
athletes not to run because they can take the bus. Even redundant creativity
might be rewarding to exercise and appreciate. The important bit, as far as
I'm concerned, is that abstractionists cannot throw that "why do what a
camera can do?" challenge at representationalists any more (if they ever
legitimately could).
Andrew D
>Seagull Manager wrote:
>> As for geometrical abstraction and Op Art, computers can be programmed to
>> generate limitless amounts of the stuff, so people who continue making such
>> images by hand are wasting their time.
>
>Realistic portraiture can be done using cameras.
Neither film cameras nor digital cameras are yet capable of capturing the
full range and depth of colour and will usual;ly miss out either highlight
areas, shadow areas - or both. An artist working from life has the luxury
of choosing what to keep and what to throw away but a photographer is
severely limited by his/her equipment.
Plus, few painted portraits look anything like photos.