Re: Art Renewal Center - Yes!
david
Biljo White wrote:
> I just looked at the art renewal center website, after seeing it mentioned
> here a number of times. It's wonderful! This is the best put-on on the web,
> and a lot of work has gone into it: an entire structure based on pretending
> that the last 100 years never happened. The 'evil modernists' are denounced
> in fine fruitcake prose by one 'Fred Ross,' defender of the faith. I
> laughed until my sides hurt, and I still have a lot of the 'site' to see.
>
> Everyone take a look.
>
> Biljo
King Rundzap
here (and I just realized this today--call me slow)--it's that they
all seem to be assuming that all artists are _trying_ to draw in a
traditional, realist manner, with narrowly traditional notions of
aesthetic worth (traditional western cultural "beauty" for example).
I mean, how twisted is that? How can someone look at the body of work
of Miro, or Picasso, or Matisse, etc. and think that throughout their
careers they were trying to draw (and use coloration) in a
traditional, realist way? It's like they're completing ignoring the
fact that different artists have done, and are trying to do different
things (because if they admit that, then they have to try to support
_why_ everyone _should_ only work in that traditional, realist way),
and they're instead pretending (and I assume in many cases, they've
fooled themselves into believing) that's it's just true for all
artists that they're all shooting for the same goal.
I know that there are occasions where those newsgroup members have
bouts of sanity where they acknowledge that different artists have
different aims, but how often do we see posts where those folks seem
to evaluate works by Picasso, Derain, Matisse and many others as if
those artists are trying to draw realistically and failing? That
approach to criticism couldn't demonstrate more ignorance, made
especially curious if those folks actually have an art school
background, and art schools are actually teaching and emphasizing 20th
Century artists and movements--didn't they pay attention? Didn't they
hear or read about those particular artists and what they were trying
to do? As Biljo said, it's as if they're pretending the last 100
years (although it's an even broader time span than that) never
happened--self-hypnotic denial of varied aims in the artworld.
--King Rundzap
david <rick...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<bCgXc.23$wh2...@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>...
Electric Nachos
King Rundzap wrote in message
<425a3330.04082...@posting.google.com>...
>You know what's oddest about the folks sympathetic to ARC who post
>here (and I just realized this today--call me slow
Ok - you're slow. - Just as I was slow to realize the intentions of modern
artists.
But who's at fault? The modern artist who fails to communicate with
definitive statements? Or the realist artist who fails to accept alternate
realities?
>--King Rundzap
Erik A. Mattila
Hi King,
I once did a survey of all the major "world art" text (Gardner, Jansens,
etc.) and recorded the pages devoted to each art category and the
northern and southern renaissance periods took the prize - on average by
as much of 40% compared to other category's measly 5% or .01%. So it's
a salted mine to begin with. It's quite natural to assume that all
artists strive to hit that standard, since the Renaissance is incribed
as the hegemon in the great book of art (art culture, you might say.)
It might be a character flaw, or a character asset, depending on one's
perspective. I mean most of our fellow human beans don't like a
groundless existence w/o pinions of authority to assuage the insecurity
of living in a universe where most of the substances will kill you
(thank our lucky stars for this little blue marble in space which
protects us from the ravages of the universe, eh?) In other words,
people enjoy being told what to think and what to like or dislike,
regardless of whether or not they are aware of it.
But obviously a fellow with a moniker like "King" isn't in that crowd ;-)
Erik
King Rundzap
Why does someone have to be at fault? You're sounding like my wife
when she gets into those moods where no matter what happens, someone
has to be blamed for everything, lol.
"Communicate with definitive statements", what art does that? You're
not saying that any art would be interpreted by everyone the same way,
are you, because that's obviously false. Which conveniently brings up
another point related to this. Mani loves talking about artspeak
being used in support of modern art, and that's true. But what he's
ignoring (or just not mentioning, more likely) is that in the academic
artworld, artspeak is used in support of _all_ art. It's not just a
phenomenon that occurs with "modern" artworks.
I noticed this last week when reading something about Titian's works.
The author was using some ridiculous "artspeak", and claiming things
about the paintings that I sure didn't get from them (even though I
like Titian a lot). I hadn't noticed it before because I don't mind
it so much--I don't expect to agree with everyone when I read them,
especially when they're giving opinions, but I noticed it last week
because I recalled Mani implying that it's something exclusive to the
art he doesn't like (you know the old "If it takes artspeak to support
it, it's probably not art", or whatever that particular slogan of his
is). I've since noticed it in most of the literature I've read about
art and artists in the last week.
Now, we could say that once one is socialized into a particular niche
of the academic artworld, one can "read" what many classical works
"are supposed to be saying"--like if you went to "Frank's Art School"
(lol) for long enough, or maybe even if you took some single art
appreciation classes that stress parroting views, you'd be able to
talk about the "spiritual majesty offset by detached, skeptical, yet
humble humanity and devoted asceticism" (or whatever the heck they
would say--I'm just making up something that's basically nonsense to
me, but that sounds like something that might actually be said in
relation to the painting) of Piero della Francesca's _Baptism Of
Christ_, but the same is true ("the same" being that you could "repeat
something like the official party line of interpretation") of anyone
socialized into the artspeak of 20th Century works, including the
works of people like Twombly, Motherwell, Kline, Albers, etc. So I
don't think that one type of art over another "communicates with
definitive statements".
--King Rundzap
King Rundzap
> Hi King,
> I once did a survey of all the major "world art" text (Gardner, Jansens,
> etc.) and recorded the pages devoted to each art category and the
> northern and southern renaissance periods took the prize - on average by
> as much of 40% compared to other category's measly 5% or .01%. So it's
> a salted mine to begin with. It's quite natural to assume that all
> artists strive to hit that standard, since the Renaissance is incribed
> as the hegemon in the great book of art (art culture, you might say.)
> It might be a character flaw, or a character asset, depending on one's
> perspective. I mean most of our fellow human beans don't like a
> groundless existence w/o pinions of authority to assuage the insecurity
> of living in a universe where most of the substances will kill you
> (thank our lucky stars for this little blue marble in space which
> protects us from the ravages of the universe, eh?) In other words,
> people enjoy being told what to think and what to like or dislike,
> regardless of whether or not they are aware of it.
> But obviously a fellow with a moniker like "King" isn't in that crowd ;-)
Intersting post, especially the bit about surveying "world art" texts.
On my nickname, one day I was having trouble coming up with a Hotmail
name, for anonymous purposes, that I liked that wasn't taken, and the
last three CDs I had played were King Crimson, Todd Rundgren and Frank
Zappa (not in that order, I don't think), so after various
permutations, I finally liked "King Rundzap".
As for tastes in art, I think of it as being lucky that I was ignorant
of what I was supposed to like and why I was supposed to like it, and
by the time I started researching the "received views" more, I already
knew what I liked, why I liked it, and was old and stubborn enough to
not care about what I was supposed to like. On the other hand, maybe
age doesn't have much to do with it, since I've always been a bit
stubborn and iconoclastic, and even when I was younger, first in
college, I was in a classically-oriented music composition department,
surrounded by "supposed to likes" (although a bit varied from
different source), and I still routinely argued the merits of bands
like AC/DC. So I guess I'm just stubborn, maybe a bit boorish and
narcissistic, and don't care that much about what other people's
opinions are, other than the curiosity factor :-)
Cal Dia
kingr...@hotmail.com says...
>As for tastes in art, I think of it as being lucky that I was ignorant
>of what I was supposed to like and why I was supposed to like it, and
>by the time I started researching the "received views" more, I already
>knew what I liked, why I liked it, and was old and stubborn enough to
>not care about what I was supposed to like.
I had just the opposite experience. I really had no interest
in "art" for the first 30-35 years of my life, but I'd always
been an admirer of the "finely crafted" - no matter the genre.
When I was a teenager I had delusions of becoming a fine
woodworker, for example. By the time I returned to university
at age 50, to pursue two art degrees (BFA,MFA), I found myself suddenly
appreciating all sorts of art, much of which had no hint
of the "finely crafted." Rather I learned to appreciate the
primitive and inventive and spontaneous equally as much.
Electric Nachos
King Rundzap wrote in message
>"Electric Nachos" <aint_...@chew.foo> wrote in message
news:<10isevv...@corp.supernews.com>...
>> King Rundzap wrote in message
>> <425a3330.04082...@posting.google.com>...
>
>> >You know what's oddest about the folks sympathetic to ARC who post
>> >here (and I just realized this today--call me slow
>
>> Ok - you're slow. - Just as I was slow to realize the intentions of
modern
>> artists.
>
>> But who's at fault? The modern artist who fails to communicate with
>> definitive statements? Or the realist artist who fails to accept
alternate
>> realities?
>
>Why does someone have to be at fault? You're sounding like my wife
>when she gets into those moods where no matter what happens, someone
>has to be blamed for everything, lol.
We have a problem called confusion - there is fault - but no one takes
responsibility.
>"Communicate with definitive statements", what art does that? You're
>not saying that any art would be interpreted by everyone the same way,
>are you, because that's obviously false.
ANY* art, no!
>Which conveniently brings up
>another point related to this. Mani loves talking about artspeak
>being used in support of modern art, and that's true. But what he's
>ignoring (or just not mentioning, more likely) is that in the academic
>artworld, artspeak is used in support of _all_ art. It's not just a
>phenomenon that occurs with "modern" artworks.
Very true.
Then why paint realistically at all when a blob (according to you) will say
communicate just as much? One problem of the modern vs. realism debate is
that the modern art defendant attempts to equate abstract art with realistic
art - when the two are simply incomparable.
>--King Rundzap
King Rundzap
Geez, reading that back again, it sounds a bit nasty, eh? LOL. Maybe
that's what I get for trying to compose a post at 5:00 a.m. It's not
that I'm not interested in others' opinions, I mean more that I tend
not to be very influenced by them, and I definitely couldn't care less
about trying to fit in with a particular crowd or not. I don't at all
mind liking stuff that's "not cool" to certain cliques (hey, I even
love Bob Ross!). I'm all too happy to let different people like
different things . . . what I don't like so much is others trying to
discourage those differences. As the years have gone on, and I've
been exposed to more things, what I like just keeps expanding, which
is fun, but gets costly if you try to collect anything. The more I
think about a lot of different issues (including aesthetics, ethics,
various social mores, etc), the more they seem related to herd
instincts. I guess I'm just not a good herd thinker. It's probably a
good thing that I'm a human in the 21st Century and not a zebra, or I
might get eaten by a lion.
Nice comments by Cal Dia below, by the way.
Erik A. Mattila
No nastiness perceived on this end. But I'm skeptical about ideas of
"individuality" to a degree...but it's just a theoretical question - not
something that really matters in my day to day existenz. Have you ever
read Ferderich Jameson's "The Prisonhouse of Language?" It's really
cynical, delightfully so. In fact, the utter futility of book
engendered the strongest criticism...especially from those whose
business it is to be unique individuals.
And the sense of "Prisonhouse" comes from taking a theoretical position
"above" culture. Inside culture there is a wonderful room to flex and
be a unique person among unique persons, but outside culture the view
doesn't make much distinctions between people insofar as individuality
is concerned. Or at least, a unique individual from this perspective
would be rare, and "accultural" as a matter of fact.
But that's the kind of nonesense that is theory, which isn't really
nonsense at all if you are into it. I've lost the author of one of my
favorite quotes: "The theory of modern art is a theory of consumption
disguised as a theory of production." It's just that cultural
processess are more often than not opaque, invisible and unknown,
appearing to us as "universal truths" and "naturalized concepts"...i.e.
"common sense" or "everyone knows that!"
So it all depends on where one is speaking from, in terms of positions
or perspectives etc. Especially from inside or outside culture (if it's
really possible to speak from "outside" culture).
Erik
DNALJM
>bouts of sanity where they acknowledge that different artists have
>different aims, but how often do we see posts where those folks seem
>to evaluate works by Picasso, Derain, Matisse and many others as if
>those artists are trying to draw realistically and failing?
Matisse wrote letters to academies and universities, encouraging students to
master classical skills before finding a more personal mode of expression. If
memory serves he worked in restoration at a museum. That's why his forms are
solid and his color is good, and he doesn't constantly revert to sneaking back
in poorly constructed faces and figures like a lot of "self-taught" people do.
Picasso was highly overrated. Unfortunately Matisse's encouragements fell
on deaf ears and the world was plunged into a dark age of artmaking. His line
is unsure, he keeps reverting to the figure but rather than refine it, and the
more he works on a painting or etching the more mangled and distracting it
becomes. I would be happy to indicate how these paintings are mediocre, even
the early ones that are mistakenly called "traditional", and how distortions
don't serve to enhance the final work, but I fear that it would be pointless
because of the sort of closed-mindedness that ARC people are accused of.
>That
>approach to criticism couldn't demonstrate more ignorance, made
>especially curious if those folks actually have an art school
>background, and art schools are actually teaching and emphasizing 20th
>Century artists and movements--didn't they 8<
It may surprise you to learn that many people who went to very good
schools and excelled in a variety of subjects (that is, they wanted to be
artists, it wasn't the only school they could get into) find that the
continuing cult of modernism is a sham. You can only watch so many people
staple their used tampon to the wall and throw some artspeak at you all morning
when you could be doing something better to realize that the original aims of
the modernists have been used to perpetuate a cult of ignorance and crap "art."
Also humorous and pathetic is the "abstract" painter-student who aimlessly
makes blobs of colors only to be managing a retail store four years later,
never touching a paintbrush again. You ask why people should learn about
color? I will tell you. Because we have ONE frame of reference, and that is
the color spectrum we observe from sunlight passing through our atmosphere. We
may all see color a little differently, but this isn't significant when
learning how to paint. People who make abstract paintings without
understanding color make the same mistakes-"tubish" colors, no harmony of total
composition, etc. Compare Paul Serusier's "The Talisman" to some crappy blobs
from the self-taught/student abstract painter set and you will see what I mean.
People like this don't have to revert to pictoral crappy faces and bodies out
of boredom because they are working with some real color issues.
King Rundzap
> No nastiness perceived on this end. But I'm skeptical about ideas of
> "individuality" to a degree...but it's just a theoretical question - not
> something that really matters in my day to day existenz. Have you ever
> read Ferderich Jameson's "The Prisonhouse of Language?" It's really
> cynical, delightfully so. In fact, the utter futility of book
> engendered the strongest criticism...especially from those whose
> business it is to be unique individuals.
> And the sense of "Prisonhouse" comes from taking a theoretical position
> "above" culture. Inside culture there is a wonderful room to flex and
> be a unique person among unique persons, but outside culture the view
> doesn't make much distinctions between people insofar as individuality
> is concerned. Or at least, a unique individual from this perspective
> would be rare, and "accultural" as a matter of fact.
> But that's the kind of nonesense that is theory, which isn't really
> nonsense at all if you are into it. I've lost the author of one of my
> favorite quotes: "The theory of modern art is a theory of consumption
> disguised as a theory of production." It's just that cultural
> processess are more often than not opaque, invisible and unknown,
> appearing to us as "universal truths" and "naturalized concepts"...i.e.
> "common sense" or "everyone knows that!"
> So it all depends on where one is speaking from, in terms of positions
> or perspectives etc. Especially from inside or outside culture (if it's
> really possible to speak from "outside" culture).
> Erik
I haven't read that, but it sounds interesting. I'll try to check it
out. I'll probably end up disagreeing with a lot of it, but on the
other hand, I don't read much that resembles cultural theory,
philosophy, and so on that I agree with, which is probably more about
my personality.
My view on the topics you mentioned is that one cannot interact with
others without being a part of some culture, and one cannot help but
be unique (I'm a nominalist on the academic philosophical issue of
nominalism vs. universalism). However, I can see saying that often,
"individualism" is parsed relative to some dominant culture or
another, and if one is seen as being so far outside of that culture
that one isn't a part of it, that assessment can't be made in the same
way--usually the assessment is dependent on a particlar cultural
context. But, to me, that's more about how people tend to talk about
things and think about things concerning others, and less about an
analysis of what happens to be the case, whether people tend to think
or talk about it that way or not--that's usually the angle I prefer.
It's basically the difference between the analytic and continental
styles of western academic philosophy. I tend to the analytic side,
even though some of my conclusions are a bit continental in flavor
(such as my emphasis on subjectivism).
--King Rundzap
Gorne
the major "world art" text
Art older than pharaonic Egypt was not "realist".
The view of Man by fairly realistic ancian Grec was a very idealistic
view.
Medieval Art was not "realist".
Renaissance European Art, in spite of all it trompe l'oeil. carfully
selected non realistic subject and made clearly unrealistic
descriptions of the brutality of their political leaders.
When was that realistic traditionstarted and developed and to whose
advantage or interest.
Artists claiming that their representations are realistic seem rather
naive,
What is realistic in 2D representation of a 3D world.
What is realistic in a frozen representation of a moving object.
What is realistic in the vulgarization of an idea?
The Hype about realism is BULL.
When we come to craftmanship this is another thing.
Do you look at the 2004 Olympiad as a major Art Work?
Is High Teck a warrantee of High Artistic Value?
Erik A. Mattila
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote I once did a survey of all
> the major "world art" text
>
> Art older than pharaonic Egypt was not "realist".
> The view of Man by fairly realistic ancian Grec was a very idealistic
> view.
> Medieval Art was not "realist".
> Renaissance European Art, in spite of all it trompe l'oeil. carfully
> selected non realistic subject and made clearly unrealistic
> descriptions of the brutality of their political leaders.
> When was that realistic traditionstarted and developed and to whose
> advantage or interest.
> Artists claiming that their representations are realistic seem rather
> naive,
> What is realistic in 2D representation of a 3D world.
> What is realistic in a frozen representation of a moving object.
> What is realistic in the vulgarization of an idea?
>
> The Hype about realism is BULL.
I agree with you, Gorne, except for one thing. The concept of "realist"
itself is questionable, in my opinion. When I was a teenager, I thought
George Berkeley was daft...way out there on a limb. But over the years
his message gets more and more important in my little mind. "Esse est
percipi" - existence is being perceived. We only "know" nature by the
representation that is in our heads. So "realist" lurks there...inside.
That which is outside is certainly sensible, but hardly "knowable."
Just think how lost in the world we would be if things didn't have
names, for example.
>
> When we come to craftmanship this is another thing.
> Do you look at the 2004 Olympiad as a major Art Work?
> Is High Teck a warrantee of High Artistic Value?
My answer is "no", but that's because I accept "Art" as a cultural
production with specific parameters. But in my mind it includes the
artist, the work, the public, the museums and the galleries, the critics
and so on. The whole thing. And I think when we partition-off part of
the big picture...say talking about "artists" w/o considering the
market, the time, the culture...we get into trouble. Or at least we
construct a distorted view. But it's great material for debate.
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
King Rundzap wrote:
What I understood from Jameson's message was about the impossibility of
operating outside of the cultural paradigm. That's what disturbed a lot
of his critics - that overriding flavor of futility that permeates his
writing, especially those committed to the concept of creativity. But
"Prisonhouse" is an excellent survey text of the critical movement in
the 20th C., from the Russian Formalists to Deconstruction etc., so you
can't go wrong in reading it.
Erik
Thur
Having made a search on Jameson and "Prisonhouse", I came across
this text, which is not directly related, but does quote it.
I thought you might be interested .
Mikhail Epstein's Theses on Culture/Culturology/Transculture
http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/lcl/research/trans_2003_epstien_position.pdf
I am no fan by any means of such subjects and such writers, but
I felt that some of the quotes rang so true to me.
Thur
King Rundzap
> >I know that there are occasions where those newsgroup members have
> >bouts of sanity where they acknowledge that different artists have
> >different aims, but how often do we see posts where those folks seem
> >to evaluate works by Picasso, Derain, Matisse and many others as if
> >those artists are trying to draw realistically and failing?
> Matisse wrote letters to academies and universities, encouraging students to
> master classical skills before finding a more personal mode of expression. If
> memory serves he worked in restoration at a museum. That's why his forms are
> solid and his color is good, and he doesn't constantly revert to sneaking back
> in poorly constructed faces and figures like a lot of "self-taught" people do.
Well, you're not coming right out here and saying that Matisse was
trying to be a realist in his work, which I hope isn't your argument,
because it would be pretty ridiculous in light of his work, and many
other statements he made.
> Picasso was highly overrated.
Well, overrated to whom? You're not "stating your subjective opinion
[to} make it sound like it is universally accepted as unquestionable
truth" I hope.
> Unfortunately Matisse's encouragements fell
> on deaf ears and the world was plunged into a dark age of artmaking.
Maybe art schools are not teaching classical skills prior to
encouraging students to find more personal modes of expression
(although I have to remain taking that claim with a grain of salt as
long as it's based on a few select personal experiences), but just
because you don't like non-realist goals, that doesn't mean that there
was any objective "dark age of artmaking".
> His line is unsure
What does that mean? What is a sure line versus an unsure line, and
why are we preferring one over the other?
> he keeps reverting to the figure but rather than refine it
Why should someone be trying to "refine the figure"? Something to do
with a diet program?
> and the
> more he works on a painting or etching the more mangled and distracting it
> becomes.
Distracting to what? What you'd prefer to see someone do?
> I would be happy to indicate how these paintings are mediocre, even
> the early ones that are mistakenly called "traditional"
I have little doubt that you subjectively judge them to be mediocre.
What is the proper criteria for something to be called "traditional"?
Where did you get the criteria from?
> and how distortions
> don't serve to enhance the final work
Well, you don't like the goals. You prefer different ones. Nothing
wrong with that, but it seems twisted to me to try to squeeze works
done with different goals into the goals that you think are the
correct ones instead.
> but I fear that it would be pointless
> because of the sort of closed-mindedness that ARC people are accused of.
You'd be giving your subjective view. It would probably be pointless
if "pointed" to you entails convincing others of your subjective view
over the subjective view they presently hold.
> It may surprise you to learn that many people who went to very good
> schools and excelled in a variety of subjects (that is, they wanted to be
> artists, it wasn't the only school they could get into) find that the
> continuing cult of modernism is a sham.
It's not a big mystery that many people have that view. That doesn't
help it make any more sense that people are judging works with
criteria that the creators of the works didn't intend to shoot for.
> You can only watch so many people
> staple their used tampon to the wall and throw some artspeak
Artspeak isn't saved for only "modern art". All academic art texts,
about all periods, use it.
> at you all
> morning
> when you could be doing something better to realize that the original aims of
> the modernists have been used to perpetuate a cult of ignorance and
> crap "art."
Now it sounds like you're trying to fit all "modern" artists into the
mold of "the original aims of the modernists". Each artist has their
own goals. They don't have to fit into molds that you're familiar
with, although they can do that if they like. But it's ridiculous to
judge their art as if they were trying to achieve something they never
said they were trying to achieve. That doesn't mean you have to like
it all. But why judge it based on what you think they should be doing
rather than what they were trying to do? It's like criticizing a
Harley Davidson because it doesn't come with 4-wheel drive. You don't
have to like motorcycles, but Harleys wouldn't suck for the fact that
they don't have 4-wheel drive.
> Also humorous and pathetic is the "abstract" painter-student who aimlessly
> makes blobs of colors only to be managing a retail store four years later,
> never touching a paintbrush again.
I think I would judge that person more on their goals over time. I
don't think there's anything inherently wrong with managing a retail
store or deciding that one does not want to paint any longer.
> You ask why people should learn about
> color?
I didn't ask that, exactly. In one post (about Magritte) I criticized
the implied notion that there was a "proper" way to use color.
> I will tell you. Because we have ONE frame of reference,
I don't agree with that, but I'm what's called a perspectivalist in
ontology. I think there are countless frames of reference, no two
identical. I don't buy the notion that there is an "objective" or
preferred frame of reference.
> and that is the color spectrum we observe from sunlight passing through our atmosphere.
And that is necessarily perceived subjectively. However, not that
anyone has to try to match it. Not everyone is a realist, trying to
match the way the real world is.
> We may all see color a little differently,
Well, or completely differently. There is no way to know for sure,
unfortunately.
> but this isn't significant when
> learning how to paint.
Why not? It depends on what one wants to be significant, doesn't it?
Maybe some painters want to try to paint the colors of the actual
world so that they look as close to reality as possible to as many
people as possible who view the artworks. Maybe some painters want to
try to paint the colors of the actual world just as they see them,
regardless of whether they look realistic to others or not. Maybe
some painters want to paint "fictional" colors--the colors they like,
that they'd like to see, that they think possible worlds would have,
etc. There are many different aims that we could think of (and even
more that actual painters could have). Why wouldn't what the painter
wants to do be most significant for that particular painter?
> People who make abstract paintings without
> understanding color make the same mistakes-"tubish" colors
Why is that a mistake? What if you want to use "tubish" colors?
Isn't it ridiculous to judge them on different criteria than what
they're trying to achieve?
> no harmony of total
> composition, etc.
As judged by whom? If I paint something that you say has no harmony
of total composition, but I think it does, which one of us is right
and how do we determine that?
I know academic musical terms a bit better than academic painting
terms, since I went to university for music but not art, and in music,
"harmony" is just notes sounding simultaneously. It's not limited to
"What Joe Blow thinks sounds nice". I would bet that the term is used
similarly in the visual arts, even though lots of people try to impose
their "what sounds nice to them" on the term.
> Compare Paul Serusier's "The Talisman" to some crappy blobs
> from the self-taught/student abstract painter set and you will see what I
> mean.
Since there isn't an objectively correct opinion, as Mani well
understands, I might think that some of the "self-taught/student
abstract painter set crappy blobs" are better (subjectively) than _The
Talisman_ (for example, just looking for something quickly, I like
this: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=20158&item=3743844187&rd=1
better in terms of color, at least).
> People like this don't have to revert to pictoral crappy faces and bodies out
> of boredom because they are working with some real color issues.
Um, there are not "unreal" color issues, although maybe again you're
referring to realism there. But just because you don't like stuff
that you consider "pictorial crappy faces and bodies" doesn't mean
that it is objectively bad. Lots of us like the stuff that you'd call
that, and again, it doesn't seem sane to judge it with the same
criteria.
--King Rundzap
DNALJM
>trying to be a realist in his work, which I hope isn't your argument,
>because it would be pretty ridiculous in light of his work, and many
>other statements he made.
I'm not coming out and saying that because it's not true. I said:
>> Matisse wrote letters to academies and universities, encouraging students
>to
>> master classical skills before finding a ****more personal mode of
expression.*****
>Well, overrated to whom? You're not "stating your subjective opinion
>[to} make it sound like it is universally accepted as unquestionable
>truth" I hope.
To a growing number of people who have mastered some basic skills.
>but just
>because you don't like non-realist goals, that doesn't mean that there
>was any objective "dark age of artmaking".
>
The dark age is now, when those goals are a starting point, and people
graduate from college ignorant to the basics. Who tries to write a novel
without learning about grammar and punctuation?
>What does that mean? What is a sure line versus an unsure line, and
>why are we preferring one over the other?
A sure line is one made by someone not stumbling around hoping to hit the
form "right." The intention of the line defines my preference. A shaky line
could indicate motion, or it could exist because the person is ignorant of the
form.
>Distracting to what? What you'd prefer to see someone do?
Distracting to reading the work and getting the full intentioned emotional
impact.
>What is the proper criteria for something to be called "traditional"?
>
His early works were what we would call figurative. I'm sure the aspects of
them that make it so don't need to be pointed out.
>Where did you get the criteria from?
>
It's a combination of understanding art history and also gaining a working
level of skill myself.
>Well, you don't like the goals. You prefer different ones. Nothing
>wrong with that, but it seems twisted to me to try to squeeze works
>done with different goals into the goals that you think are the
>correct ones instead.
I don't dictate other people's goals. I'm making the observation that
ignorance usually serves to impede the advancement of goals rather than advance
them.
>I think I would judge that person more on their goals over time. I
>don't think there's anything inherently wrong with managing a retail
>store or deciding that one does not want to paint any longer.
It's just a shame that the art school didn't give them something more
personally significant that they would want to keep exploring it rather than
have wasted all that money.
> I don't buy the notion that there is an "objective" or
>preferred frame of reference.
How about a general consesus? That is, if you orated the name of a color 99%
of people would pick the right colored object.
>And that is necessarily perceived subjectively. However, not that
>anyone has to try to match it. Not everyone is a realist, trying to
>match the way the real world is.
Figurative painters do not try to match the real world, as it's a
two-dimentional surface and the real world is three. All art is an
interpretation of something observed or experienced, which is why it's good to
familiarize yourself with the source of that information. "Realism" was an
actual movement in art so it's good to use a different term for observational
work.
>(for example, just looking for something quickly, I like
>this:
>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=20158&item=3743844
187&rd=1
>better in terms of color, at least).
LOL, nobody wants it, I can't imagine why.
King Rundzap
> >Well, you're not coming right out here and saying that Matisse was
> >trying to be a realist in his work, which I hope isn't your argument,
> >because it would be pretty ridiculous in light of his work, and many
> >other statements he made.
>
> I'm not coming out and saying that because it's not true.
Right. The post you were responding to was largely about evaluating
artists by realist criteria, even though they do not have realist
goals .
I said:
> >> Matisse wrote letters to academies and universities, encouraging students
> to
> >> master classical skills before finding a ****more personal mode of
> expression.*****
Yes, you did say that :-)
> >Well, overrated to whom? You're not "stating your subjective opinion
> >[to} make it sound like it is universally accepted as unquestionable
> >truth" I hope.
> To a growing number of people who have mastered some basic skills.
Well some particular basic skills, at least, versus some other basic
skills--you see, there's not just one possible skill set in painting,
drawing, etc. I'm guessing that you're meaning "the basic skill set
that is traditionally involved in realist art", and I'm guessing that
you're meaning, tautologically, those who have mastered those basic
skills and who judge everything based on those skills. I keep
mentioning that _all_ the stuff usually considered art involves some
skill, making Mani's "No Skill No Art" slogan pretty empty, and you
guys keep ignoring it, probably because you realize that what is
really meant is, "No skill of the kind I think should be present, no
art".
At any rate, the idea of the folks who have mastered those particular
basic skills, verus other kinds of skills, judging everything as if
its intended to be an exemplar of those same skills was just the
subject of my post. I was talking about how ignorant it is
("ignorant" non-colloquially, or as in lacking knowledge about
something) to judge all works on that particular set of skills.
> >but just
> >because you don't like non-realist goals, that doesn't mean that there
> >was any objective "dark age of artmaking".
> The dark age is now, when those goals are a starting point, and people
> graduate from college ignorant to the basics.
Those goals are a starting point to those particular goals. If you're
wanting to claim that they must be a starting point for art, period,
you're not providing any argument (any chain of reasoning leading from
accepted premises to the claim "those particular goals are necessary
for creating art, period") to that effect. Again, there's not just
one set of basics, or basic skills. You also seem to be implying
above (considering the statement in the context of their being a "dark
age of artmaking") that ideally, at least, one must attend art school
to create art. That would need some kind of argument, too.
> Who tries to write a novel
> without learning about grammar and punctuation?
Well, plenty of people write without learning or caring about
"traditional" or "proper" grammar and punctuation, which is what I
assume you mean, but even interpreting you that way, I don't think the
analogy really works.
But let's assume it works as an analogy for a minute, though. It's
not even a new phenomenon that people write novels without learning or
caring about "traditional" or "proper" grammar and punctuation--just
think of Ulysses, which I'm sure you're familiar with. I'm sure you'd
say that only the traditional stuff is good literature, too, but
again, that's just a subjective opinion, and different people have
different goals with literature. It doesn't make sense to criticize
Ulysses based on Joyce not using traditional punctuation or
grammar--he wasn't trying to use those things.
However, it would be difficult to write a novel without using/learning
_some_ kind of grammar and punctuation, since a novel has to be
writing, and writing is going to at least have some kind of grammar.
Part of why your analogy doesn't workis that you're forgetting that
_any_ kind of word composition is going to have some grammar, whether
it's constructions like "May I mambo dog face banana patch", "yo it so
bomb diggy" or "bottle cord plaque disc". It's not that only "Joe
went to the store" has an associated grammar.
The equivalent to grammar and punctuation in painting is the mechanics
of painting, and you can't paint without doing that (and in the
process learning it), just like you can't speak without using a
grammar. The mere fact that you're applying paint to a support, with
some means of application, etc. is sufficient for a "grammar" (a way
you tend to use the paints and what you intend by those usages) and
"punctuation" (a way you indicate emphases in your usage of paints) to
emerge.
The analogy that I think is appropriate, instead, is one pertaining to
particular realist goals, since that's the concern here. Plenty of
people write novels without any intention of emulating the actual
world, in the way they have people speak to each other in scenes with
dialogue, to their descriptions of places, facts about those places,
facts about fields such as physics, etc. It's just the same as people
painting without an aim of emulating something about the actual world
(and I'm not talking only about non-representational painting,
although that's included).
To continue the analogy, I'd be pointing out that it's ridiculous, or
ignorant, to judge those kinds of novels on real world criteria. For
example, if you criticized the work, or said that it failed, because
the author, Joe Schmoe, had people speaking to each other in a way
that you don't believe they really talk to each other, then all you're
doing is showing ignorance of the fact that Joe Schmoe isn't _trying_
to write dialogue that way, but some other way (maybe the way he'd
like people to talk to each other, or a way that he believes would be
funny for them to talk to each other, etc.)
Those kinds of ridiculous jabs actually happen in literary criticism,
although I see them far more often in film criticism. They are no
less ignorant there.
> >What does that mean? What is a sure line versus an unsure line, and
> >why are we preferring one over the other?
> A sure line is one made by someone not stumbling around hoping to hit the
> form "right."
And you're believing that Picasso is hoping to "hit the form 'right'
"? What would make you believe that? What makes you believe he is
stumbling around, also, whether he's hoping to "hit the form 'right' "
or not? Where are you getting this information from. It isn't
contained in anything that you can see in the painting itself. That's
just a set of pigments (assuming pigment-oriented media) on some kind
of support.
> The intention of the line defines my preference.
Handy that I just pointed out that the painting itself is not an
intention, and any guess you make about an intention is just that, a
guess, even if you want to take debate route #323 here and call it an
"educated guess"--it's still just a guess.
> A shaky line
> could indicate motion, or it could exist because the person is ignorant of
> the
> form.
Well, or it could exist because the person wants a shaky line there
and it doesn't indicate motion to them, but how they'd like that kind
of form or edge to be, or how they think it would be funny, or tragic,
or melancholy, or anything else to be. Or maybe they have some kind
of nervous disorder, where they can't draw that particular line in
that particular place without it being "shaky", or maybe they want to
depict what that would be like--to paint with that condition, or any
of millions of other possibilties. I could go on and on guessing
possible intentions for a line, but you probably get the point.
> >Distracting to what? What you'd prefer to see someone do?
> Distracting to reading the work and getting the full intentioned emotional
> impact.
Well, it wouldn't be distracting to that if the full intentioned
emotional impact is just what you're getting, including your
distraction, would it? I hope in the next post you provide a whomper
of an argument as to how one can know intention just by looking at a
work. It would be fun to test you on that with some artworks of
artists I know (but who you're not familiar with) to see how well you
can guess their stated intentions.
> >What is the proper criteria for something to be called "traditional"?
> His early works were what we would call figurative. I'm sure the aspects of
> them that make it so don't need to be pointed out.
Something doesn't make sense here. You claimed that Picasso's "early
ones are mistakenly called 奏raditional'". Now you just implied that
the "proper criteria" (or "criterion" as it turned out to be) for
something to be called traditional is that it is figurative, but you
implied that by pointing out that Picasso's "early works were what we
would call figurative". If the proper criterion for being called
traditional is that it involves figures, and Picasso's early work
involved figures (which is true, as it is true that most of his works,
period, involved figures), then Picasso's work meets the proper
criterion for being called "traditional", and "Picasso's early works
are mistakenly called 奏raditional'" would be false.
However, "involves figures" seems inadequate to me to call something
traditional. As I just pointed out, Picasso's later works mostly
involve figures, but I wouldn't call them traditional, and most others
wouldn't either. So there probably needs to be more than one
criterion to call something traditional, at least to try to match the
term to popular usage (although I agree that you're not trying to
match the term to popular usage, exactly, as popular usage has it that
Picasso's early works are traditional, and you want to argue that that
is a misconception). But at any rate, given your presently implied
criterion, you have to say that most of Picasso's output over his
career is traditional.
> >Where did you get the criteria from?
> It's a combination of understanding art history and also gaining a working
> level of skill myself.
But you're disagreeing with the standard view in art history, which is
that Picasso's early works are traditional. So I wouldn't say that
the criterion is _coming_ from that understanding alone. There's
something you're disagreeing with.
Also, how would your skills give you a criterion of what is
traditional? Could you explain that process a bit more?
> >Well, you don't like the goals. You prefer different ones.
Nothing
> >wrong with that, but it seems twisted to me to try to squeeze works
> >done with different goals into the goals that you think are the
> >correct ones instead.
> I don't dictate other people's goals.
I'd agree with that, and I didn't say that you are trying to _dictate_
other people's goals. What I said is that you're trying to "squeeze
works done with different goals into the goals that you think are the
correct ones instead"擁n other words, you're trying to interpret
object X in the context of mold that you like rather than the "mold"
that the creator of object X was concerned with in the creation of the
object. I'm still hammering on the same point of the post, basically,
that it's ridiculous to judge these works on the same criteria that
you judge other works on.
> I'm making the observation that
> ignorance usually serves to impede the advancement of goals rather than advance
> them.
Ignorance in the form of judging works on the criteria not intended?
> >I think I would judge that person more on their goals over time. I
> >don't think there's anything inherently wrong with managing a retail
> >store or deciding that one does not want to paint any longer.
> It's just a shame that the art school didn't give them something more
> personally significant that they would want to keep exploring it rather than
> have wasted all that money.
But maybe the guy didn't think it was a waste of money. Maybe the
experience _was_ personally significant for him (just for reference in
the thread, the scenario was of an art school student doing what Mani
de Li likes to call "schmier" work, graduating, then giving up
painting and managing a retail store).
Now, I agree that if he wasn't getting what he wanted out of a
particular art school, and it wasn't personally significant for him,
he was wasting his money. However, to me, the problem in that
scenario isn't that the art school sucks, but that there is something
odd with someone who continues to pay for a service that they think
sucks. If you think you're wasting your money, why would you continue
to pay for something, and let it occupy your time, for four years?
There are serious psychological issues there.
But you are continuing to imply that it's better to keep painting than
not to keep painting, and that there is something worse about running
a retail store. I don't agree with either of those assertions, as
"objective" claims. I prefer to keep painting and not manage a retail
store, but someone else might not have those preferences, and my
preferences aren't better than theirs, "objectively", just because
they're my preferences. If the guy isn't painting any longer, I'd say
his preference is to not keep painting, or again, we're getting into
territory where the guy just has psychological issues--maybe he likes
angst, playing a martyr, etc. (it's pretty apparent, for example, that
some people _like_ complaining about things, for example, because they
are given easy solutions for their complaints, but ignore them so they
can just keep complaining). If he wanted to keep painting, he could
easily keep painting.
> > I don't buy the notion that there is an "objective" or
> >preferred frame of reference.
> How about a general consesus?
Sure, there are consensuses about various things, in the context of
different populations/cultures.
>That is, if you orated the name of a color 99%
> of people would pick the right colored object.
Well, pick the "same" colored object, sure. Although that doesn't say
anything about what the color looks like to them subjectively. (This
is related to "inverted spectrum" thought experiments. If "red" to
Joe seems experientially like @ (just a symbol for his experience, to
him) and seems experientially to Frank like #, there's nothing to stop
both Joe and Frank from pointing to object X in response to "point to
something red", even though red isn't at all the same, experientially,
to them).
> >And that is necessarily perceived subjectively. However, not that
> >anyone has to try to match it. Not everyone is a realist, trying to
> >match the way the real world is.
> Figurative painters do not try to match the real world, as it's a
> two-dimentional surface and the real world is three.
Well, I don't agree that no one tries to do that--it's trivially
false. But for the sake of argument, let's assume that no one tries
to do that, since you believe it to be true. In that case, it would
be strange to judge someone on those kinds of criteria. In other
words, it's strange to judge someone's colors, figure drawing, etc. by
whether it matches the way colors, figures, etc. are in the real
world, if no one tries to match the real world. For example, in a
past thread about your work (and I like your work a lot, by the way),
someone (I think it was Paul) was pointing out that some aspects of
your anatomy in your work didn't match how "people really stand"
(paraphrasing), or that your perspective didn't exactly emulate
perspective in the real world. Now, if you're not trying to match the
real world, as you believe you aren't, those kinds of "constructive
criticisms" are pretty far off-base, because they're about something
you're not trying to do.
> All art is an
> interpretation of something observed or experienced,
That is also trivially false, unless you just mean it tautologically,
or definitionally ("I won't call something art unless it is an
interpretation of something observed or experienced"). Forgetting
about the implicit claim that art has to have intention behind it, or
have persons creating it (that would lead to a tangent of "what is
art?" that we'd both probably prefer to avoid in this discussion, at
least), art could be representational, but about what someone would
like to observe or experience, or any number of possibilities
("fictional painting" or "fictional artwork" adapting a literary term
to painting). Art can also be non-representational and not about
observations or experiences.
> which is why it's good to
> familiarize yourself with the source of that information.
Except that it's trivially false that all art is interpretation of
something observed or experienced.
But familiarize yourself with the source of what information, an
interpretation? You can't do that because you can't be in someone
else's mind.
Surely you don't mean to familiarize yourself with something observed
or experienced. You can observe or experience other people's
observations or experiences, either (at best, they can only try to
report them to you).
But even stronger than that fact, if art isn't about the observations
or experiences, but is about interpretations of them, familiarizing
yourself with the observations or experiences isn't actually about the
art part.
> "Realism" was an
> actual movement in art so it's good to use a different term for observational
> work.
I just mean "letting the real world dictate content" in some way, as
opposed to fantasizing, focusing on fictional content, being
non-representational, etc. If one is using actual-world anatomy,
colors, perspective, etc. as some kind of overall arbiter (as a judge
of whether the work is successful overall or not), then that's what
I'm meaning in this thread by "realism".
> >(for example, just looking for something quickly, I like
> >this:
> >http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=20158&item=3743844
> 187&rd=1
> >better in terms of color, at least).
> LOL, nobody wants it, I can't imagine why.
However, I like the colors better than those in Paul Serusier's _The
Talisman_. Different people like different things, and have different
ideas of what they want to do with art, what they'd like art to do,
etc. The composition of the work I gave a link to doesn't
particularly appeal to me, but neither does the composition of _The
Talisman_. I wouldn't buy either work, personally, but the issue was
color.
Most artworks, no matter what they are, do not sell on eBay, although
plenty of artworks do sell. I was just trying to quickly find
something abstract, by an outsider artist, that had colors I
personally like better than _The Talisman_. Doing more than that
would have taken more time (such as finding a work that had colors
that I like as well as composition that I like). And finding a work
that has colors I like better, composition I like better, and is
selling would take even more time, etc. I didn't want to spend an
hour or so searching through eBay for something I'm not looking to buy
anyway.
--King Rundzap
King Rundzap
post at 5:00 a.m. I counted at least five or six typos, and at least
one "negation" typo, where I said "can" when I wanted to write
"can't". Plus, there are a bunch of things I could have worded
better. If anything isn't clear and anyone is interested (versus
sleeping because they think the post is boring, annoyed because they
think I'm anal, etc.), I'll clear it up.
--King Rundzap
kingr...@hotmail.com (King Rundzap) wrote in message news:<425a3330.04082...@posting.google.com>...
> dna...@aol.com (DNALJM) wrote in message news:<20040828224503...@mb-m18.aol.com>...
> > >Well, you're not coming right out here and saying that Matisse was
> > >trying to be a realist in his work, which I hope isn't your argument,
> > >because it would be pretty ridiculous in light of his work, and many
> > >other statements he made.
> >
> > I'm not coming out and saying that because it's not true.
>
> Right. The post you were responding to was largely about evaluating
> artists by realist criteria, even though they do not have realist
> goals .
. . . and blah blah blah :-)