Criteria for Judging Painting
Marilyn
"ONE: ...What is the
content of the work? By this I don't mean 'Is there a message
or a moral or an obvious social statement?' I mean 'has this
been a real rexperience?'
TWO: Is it stated with adequate means? ...has the artist used the
vehicles at his or her disposal with clarity and intelligence?
THREE:... does the artist keep her
or himself out of it, leaving something for our imagination
to complete, thus involving us in his or her process?
FOUR: ...have the
artist's influences been truly digested?
FIVE: Does the whole performance have a vitality? Is it vital
(the first necessity), and sensitive in the sense that it
takes us deeper into the subtle areas of experience opening
us up to insight."
The above is a precis of the criteria used by Jack Shadbolt,
eminent Canadian artist, 1908 - 1998
Marilyn
mdeli
>Criteria for Selecting Paintings
>"ONE: ...What is the
>content of the work? By this I don't mean 'Is there a message
>or a moral or an obvious social statement?' I mean 'has this
>been a real rexperience?'
Please explain the difference between a real and a fake experience.
>TWO: Is it stated with adequate means? ...has the artist used the
>vehicles at his or her disposal with clarity and intelligence?
I find most of the subject matter in the finest religious paintings
utterly stupid. Are these adequate? (whatever that means)
>THREE:... does the artist keep her
>or himself out of it, leaving something for our imagination
>to complete, thus involving us in his or her process?
Does this eliminate all self portraits. Is Pollock in or out of it?
>FOUR: ...have the
>artist's influences been truly digested?
Are you referring to the post digestional technique apparent in so
much Modern Art.
>FIVE: Does the whole performance have a vitality? Is it vital
>(the first necessity), and sensitive in the sense that it
>takes us deeper into the subtle areas of experience opening
>us up to insight."
This is a good one for all artzy fartzies to make use of since like
most of their precepts it doesn't mean a damned thing.
>The above is a precis of the criteria used by Jack Shadbolt,
>eminent Canadian artist, 1908 - 1998
Shadbolt is a Canadian local yokel who produced the usual abstract
crap but isn't generally known because he didn't hang around with the
NY phonies long enough.
For a detailed description of the local yokel phenomenon check out my
book which will be advertised on my web site shortly.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage to see some of my work and read about a skeptical view of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
peter nelson
>Criteria for Selecting Paintings
. . .
>THREE:... does the artist keep her
>or himself out of it, leaving something for our imagination
>to complete, thus involving us in his or her process?
I'm not sure I understand this one.
A. Why should the artist leave HIMSELF out of the work?
Shouldn't it be just the opposite? Shouldn't an artist put
himself into the work, both in terms of personal investment
of effort and skill, but also in terms of making a clear statement?
I.e., this isn't just "Motif #1", this is MARYLIN'S "Motif #1".
B. What does this have to do with leaving something to the
imagination? I agree, at least in narative or illustrative art,
that it's often best to deliberately leave something out of a
work - something to pique the viewer's curiosity or introduce
a little mystery.
---peter
Marilyn
This is the complete version of #3
"THREE:
Is the artist over-anxious to convince us, resorting to heavy
dramatics and melodramatic statement? Is he or she trying to win
us over by sentimentality or cuteness? Are there painting 'tricks'
present, or is there too much technical bravura? Is there a self-
conscious attitude, or does the artist keep himself out of it and
leave something for our imagination to complete, thus involving
us in his or her process?"
Is that more clear? Putting one's ego aside to aspire to something
more universal is my interpretation for "keeping himself out of it."
I accept your points.
Marilyn
mil...@cove.com
Marilyn <m...@britishcolumbia.ca> wrote:
> Criteria for Selecting Paintings
>
> "ONE: ...What is the
> content of the work? By this I don't mean 'Is there a message
> or a moral or an obvious social statement?' I mean 'has this
> been a real rexperience?'
>
> vehicles at his or her disposal with clarity and intelligence?
>
> or himself out of it, leaving something for our imagination
> to complete, thus involving us in his or her process?
>
> artist's influences been truly digested?
>
> (the first necessity), and sensitive in the sense that it
> takes us deeper into the subtle areas of experience opening
> us up to insight."
>
> eminent Canadian artist, 1908 - 1998
>
How does one use these criteria? Aren't they all just a matter of personal
reaction to the painting?
Milt
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
br...@wralaw.com
mil...@cove.com wrote:
> Marilyn <m...@britishcolumbia.ca> wrote:
Criteria for a failed prejudice!
> > "ONE: ...What is the
> > content of the work? By this I don't mean 'Is there a message
> > or a moral or an obvious social statement?' I mean 'has this
> > been a real rexperience?'
It has been a real experience for you the viewer. Actuality requires
telepathology, I will admit that a work of art is a phychic device
but having the premise of such endevor be judgement leads to failure
if the work itself does not beg judgement.
> > TWO: Is it stated with adequate means? ...has the artist used the
> > vehicles at his or her disposal with clarity and intelligence?
> > THREE:... does the artist keep her
> > or himself out of it, leaving something for our imagination
> > to complete, thus involving us in his or her process?
> > FOUR: ...have the
> > artist's influences been truly digested?
> > FIVE: Does the whole performance have a vitality? Is it vital
> > (the first necessity), and sensitive in the sense that it
> > takes us deeper into the subtle areas of experience opening
> > us up to insight."
> > The above is a precis of the criteria used by Jack Shadbolt,
> > eminent Canadian artist, 1908 - 1998
These are wonderful edifices for writing a text-blah on an artwork.
However the presumption of criteria, relies on a scatalogical
utilization of linguistic esthetics provoking inspiration
against realization which is deleterious to real enlightement
-which is more often the fatality of prejudices than their birth.
Or for Marilyn and most reasonable people who don't know
artspeak which I so brilliantly expelled above. Only
Faulkner himself could write such a line!
Art-crit relies on its own words to provoke a profound
experience. The profound experience is often the
assimulation of prejudice. This isn't good.
A psychic commune with the artists is the only way to judge an
an artist.
If they get their emotions out there they have succeded to
communicate even if their emotions are bad.
The artists mind is exactly the value of that art.
> > Marilyn
> How does one use these criteria? Aren't they all just a matter of personal
> reaction to the painting?
Yes. But since encultural evolution seems to have stamped out the
same moron 4 billion times, we all have the same prejudices.
Sentimentality bad, Big Mac Good.
> Milt
> >
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
Bryn Ayers
"Man has measured Heaven, has studied the path of the comets, he has
discovered the traction, has invented the steam engine...and he still
is not able to grow truffles". M.Burnet (1836)
Andrew Werby
<leon...@microtech.com.au> wrote:
Is there a self-
> > conscious attitude, or does the artist keep himself out of it and
> > us in his or her process?"
> >
> > more universal is my interpretation for "keeping himself out of it."
>
> becomes accessible to everyone when it appeals to the eye, and the
> conceptual functions of the brain.
[I'm not sure even the most optimistic artists think their art will
be "accessible to everyone". Different people come to art looking
for very different things. You, for example, seem to want every
picture to tell a story. Others are turned off as soon as they
recognize a representation of something- in fact, some religions
specifically prohibit this, so a realistic realist would have to
deduct a large number of people at the outset.]
One could declare that a smear or a
> splatter represented a certain mood, emotion or idea, but would only
> achieve universality (in any objective sense) by painting in a manner
> that made your idea comprehensible to those who are not privvy to one's
> eccentrities.
[The "idea" an artist has in mind when creating a piece of art does
not necessarily constitute the thing he or she is trying to communicate
with that piece; it can be a starting place for a process which the
artist is involved in, the result of which is unknown at the outset
and only becomes evident at the end.]
In other words, to write a poem we must use langauge, and
> we must use it in such a way that it makes *sense* to other people -
> otherwise one does not achieve universality.
[This persistant equating of language with visual art obscures the
fact that they are very different modes of creation. While it may be
true that the purpose of language is to communicate an idea as clearly
as possible (although many writers seem to disagree), the purpose of
art can be similar- or not. Many people make art as a means of
working something out for themselves, and care little whether it
"makes sense" to anybody else. From my perspective, this is often
better art than the stuff turned out by people who are always looking
over their shoulders to see if their audience is following along.]
their own The message - the idea, etc.
> - becomes imprisoned in subjectivity, inaccessible to anyone but its
> creator. Incidentally, if art *is* the expression of self why should one
> wish to "keep himself out of it"? This question does not in itself imply
> whether realism is superior (or not), it merely asks questions the role
> of the individual.
>
> Regards,
>
> Iian Neill.
[I don't think that art has to be about "expression of self". A geometric
abstractionist, for example, may feel he or she is merely allowing the
innate beauty of triangles to manifest itself, acting more in the role of
facilitator than auteur. When Issac Newton delved into physics, he wasn't
trying to express his individuality but to discover something fundamental
about matter and energy. An artist can have a similar point of view.
Einstein's work didn't make a lot of sense to most people when he wrote
it, but it achieved "universality" nonetheless. Although the paths of
science and art- originally the same subject- have diverged, it might be
a more useful metaphor than literary composition if one truly wishes to
understand what happens as one creates a work of art. At its best, art is
a voyage of discovery, not the transmission of a message to as many people
as possible.]
Andrew Werby
UNITED ARTWORKS- Sculpture, Jewelry, and other art stuff
http://unitedartworks.com
http://www.computersculpture.com for 3d design tools
Iian Neill
> "THREE:
> Is the artist over-anxious to convince us, resorting to heavy
> dramatics and melodramatic statement? Is he or she trying to win
> us over by sentimentality or cuteness? Are there painting 'tricks'
> conscious attitude, or does the artist keep himself out of it and
> leave something for our imagination to complete, thus involving
> us in his or her process?"
>
> Is that more clear? Putting one's ego aside to aspire to something
> more universal is my interpretation for "keeping himself out of it."
One can aspire towards universality, but a painting or a sculpture only
becomes accessible to everyone when it appeals to the eye, and the
conceptual functions of the brain. One could declare that a smear or a
splatter represented a certain mood, emotion or idea, but would only
achieve universality (in any objective sense) by painting in a manner
that made your idea comprehensible to those who are not privvy to one's
eccentrities. In other words, to write a poem we must use langauge, and
we must use it in such a way that it makes *sense* to other people -
otherwise one does not achieve universality. The message - the idea, etc.
zi...@interport.net
living not too far from Indonesians, New Guineans and Australian
blacks, are you saying that all of you can fit into one universal art
idea? Or are you saying that they can't yet, but they had better start
doing it or you will make them! [ethnocide]
Do you know what happened during the war at Guadalcanal.? The
Australians showed pictures of Japanese battleships [excellemnt
photographs] to local people in order to get some identification and
find out whether they were around or not. The local people did not
know what they were looking at. Those grey things on a piece of paper
had no connection with Japanese battleships. When small scale models
in three dimensions were made, then they could recognize them as
smaller versions of the real thing and help, which they wanted to do.
The one thing I know for sure is that there are only cultural truths
in the arts. There are no universals.
There may be some universals in human life but artistic styles and
ideas are not. Show me some evidence?
By the way, have you ever seen anyone with a Greek nose? A nose which
goes right down from the forehead without chang in plane? I have, once
or twice, in Greece [real people not statues].
Gabriel
G*rd*n
| ...
| Those who claim that abstract "art" is meritorious because it is
| "conceptual" do not seem to recognize any scale of values of concepts.
| ...
Which abstract art? Some abstract art, like Chinese
calligraphy or Hopi pottery design, seems to have a
considerable conceptual apparatus attached to it. But
some, like abstract expressionism or Arabic calligraphy,
isn't supposed to represent things. I would think they
would have a lot of trouble conveying concepts in and of
themselves.
Of course, people can impose concepts on them, but that's
different.
Note that I'm not speaking of something like
http://www.etaoin.com/gcf02.htm (adv't)
which is a parody of the Chinese flag and not, in my
estimation, abstract expressionism, although it's certainly
pretty abstract.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/10 <-adv't
Marilyn
The word universal was used cautiously like this:
Is that more clear? Putting one's ego aside to aspire to something
more universal is my interpretation for "keeping himself out of it."
How you could read all that you have into that, is really amazing.
Marilyn
G*rd*n
| ...
| The one thing I know for sure is that there are only cultural truths
| in the arts. There are no universals.
Well, there _could_ be. Saying "there are no universals" is
postulating a universal. The question I ask universalists
is what they think they are, and how they know.
| There may be some universals in human life but artistic styles and
| ideas are not. Show me some evidence?
Curiously, however, almost all communities of human beings
have at least a subset of their populations regularly
involved in practices which are recognizable across wide
cultural distances, for example decorating flat surfaces
with abstract designs and the dipiction of actual and
imaginary objects, the results often being held to be of
great spiritual or religious importance.
| ...
Andrew Werby
> they do, then they have abandoned all pretence at objective analysis by merely
> declaring to see something in a work of "art" which no other can rationally
> confirm. And what do I mean by "rationally confirm"? - I mean simply this: If
> someone claims that a particular painting by Jean-Léon Gérôme or Ingres
> represents a Turkish Harem and, consequently, reflects something of the
> artist's views on women, sexuality, and the Middle East, then one can readily
> confirm whether or not the critic is telling the truth - by looking at the
> work one can rapidly ascertain whether or not it represents a harem, how many
> women there are there, of what type, their actions, build, attitude, gestures
> and so forth.
[Who cares what Ingres' views on women's sexuality in the Middle East were?
If his painting were merely a vehicle to express thoughts of this nature-
which could be more cogently explored in an essay- who would look at it?
The harem scene was an excuse to depict the undraped female form, something
artists have been interested in for a long time, for reasons that have
nothing much to do with geo-politics. The painting is still interesting today
because of its masterly depiction of flesh, and not because of the artist's
opinions- whatever they were.]
abvout If the critic were to say of a non-representational work: "This
> work represents the artist's reaction to the Gulf War", then his statement
> could not be confirmed by another rational observer. This is simply because
> the critic has made a judgement of the painting which cannot be substantiated
> by any of the picture elements in the work itself. In a Gérôme or an Ingres we
> can certainly agree that the painting is of a Harem, but we cannot agree that
> this hypothetical non-representational work is indeed about the Korean War, or
> any other subject for that matter. There is nothing in the picture that lends
> itself to objective analysis. Indeed, we might declare that certain strokes,
> colours, lines and shapes *suggest* the brutality of conflict, or that "most
> bestial madness" that constitutes war - but we would not be able to
> demonstrate objectively - and hence, rationally - that this is definitely what
> the work is about. We have merely made a subjective statement.
> If one can only make a subjective statement about a supposed work of art,
> then how can we possible declare it to be "universal"? This is not to say that
> people do not react individually to art - but it is to suggest that if we
> cannot even analyse the work on a basic level (ie., being able to identify its
> subject, or what it is the artist even wanted to say) then we have no right to
> declare unilaterally that this object is "universal". It is even doubtful
> whether it is anything more than a pleasing (or displeasing) conglomeration of
> shapes, colours and lines.
[By insisting that every work of art has to have a "subject", you lose
all chance of universality. Isn't a pleasing combination of shapes more
universal than an arbitrarily chosen subject? If you look at the
decorations on pottery, for instance, you will see similarities between
ancient Chinese work, Greek ware of the geometric period, and modern
Pueblo pots. I'd submit to you that these patterns are more universally
comprehensible- though not in a narrative sense- than the most realistic
depiction of the Gulf War, which many people on earth even today have never
heard of.]
mdeli
wrote:
>[Who cares what Ingres' views on women's sexuality in the Middle East were?
DO you realize how much of a threat this statment is to the
Artspeakers Here?
snip
>The harem scene was an excuse to depict the undraped female form, something
>artists have been interested in for a long time, for reasons that have
>nothing much to do with geo-politics. The painting is still interesting today
>because of its masterly depiction of flesh, and not because of the artist's
>opinions- whatever they were.]
Flesh? There is no such thing in art. FLesh is out.
If you like anything that doesn't look like floor covering posing as
art you're behind the times.
Mailyn tell this guy where its at!
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments.
at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
G*rd*n
| >[Who cares what Ingres' views on women's sexuality in the Middle East were?
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli):
| DO you realize how much of a threat this statment is to the
| Artspeakers Here?
| ...
So you guys are saying the picture has no cognitive content?
If so, why did Ingres place it in the Middle East? He could
have depicted undraped female forms anywhere or nowhere.
And won't the content folks please step forward and either
rescue Ingres from these decognitionists, or agree with them
and damn the picture?
John Haber
> Is that more clear? Putting one's ego aside to aspire to something
> more universal is my interpretation for "keeping himself out of it."
You're on to something there. One needn't have the ultimate truth
across centuries to get the chip off one's shoulder.
John (www.haberarts.com)
John Haber
I can't think of anything more condescending to an artist than not
taking how he thought and the cultural background to his time
seriously. Before one gets hostile to modern art, one should at least
make an effort to appreciate older art. An understanding of one might
get one looking ab BOTH instead of talking.
John (www.haberarts.com
Iian Neill
> living not too far from Indonesians, New Guineans and Australian
> blacks, are you saying that all of you can fit into one universal art
> idea? Or are you saying that they can't yet, but they had better start
> doing it or you will make them! [ethnocide]
I have told no one to do nothing. The present question has to do with the
nature of "universality" in art. The very topic does by its nature imply an
objective reality - hence the emphasis on a universal, and not subjective,
experience - which one can measure and analyse. It would seem to be a wild
leap of logic - if logic it is - to conclude that I am proposing some form of
ethnocide, or even censorship in the arts. If there are those who disagree
with my conclusions, they are free - and welcome - to dispute them with
arguments of their own.
> Do you know what happened during the war at Guadalcanal.? The
> Australians showed pictures of Japanese battleships [excellemnt
> photographs] to local people in order to get some identification and
> find out whether they were around or not. The local people did not
> know what they were looking at. Those grey things on a piece of paper
> had no connection with Japanese battleships. When small scale models
> in three dimensions were made, then they could recognize them as
> smaller versions of the real thing and help, which they wanted to do.
Your anecdote is an interesting one, but does not refute the power that
realism has in communicating abstract concepts. In this case it would appear
that the people involved did not respond well to paintings or - presumably -
photographs. This may have been due to unusual cultural taboos (perhaps they
were forbidden to look at two-dimensional representations of reality) or to
their relative unfamiliarity with painting or photography itself. In any case,
your last line confirms the very efficacy of realism, as the people could
identify the battleships at all because they were represented in a life-like -
albeit miniaturized - manner. If the Australians had instead shown them an
Abstract Expressionist interpretation of battleships, it hardly seems likely
that these natives would have been able to identify the vessels in question.
This is by no means unusual, as the hypothetical Abstract work in question did
not make even the remotest referrence to reality. In essense, there would have
been nothing for the native's to analyse and interpret, merely a vague
sensation of colour, or of line.
Those who claim that abstract "art" is meritorious because it is
"conceptual" do not seem to recognize any scale of values of concepts. Or if
they do, then they have abandoned all pretence at objective analysis by merely
declaring to see something in a work of "art" which no other can rationally
confirm. And what do I mean by "rationally confirm"? - I mean simply this: If
someone claims that a particular painting by Jean-Léon Gérôme or Ingres
represents a Turkish Harem and, consequently, reflects something of the
artist's views on women, sexuality, and the Middle East, then one can readily
confirm whether or not the critic is telling the truth - by looking at the
work one can rapidly ascertain whether or not it represents a harem, how many
women there are there, of what type, their actions, build, attitude, gestures
and so forth. If the critic were to say of a non-representational work: "This
work represents the artist's reaction to the Gulf War", then his statement
could not be confirmed by another rational observer. This is simply because
the critic has made a judgement of the painting which cannot be substantiated
by any of the picture elements in the work itself. In a Gérôme or an Ingres we
can certainly agree that the painting is of a Harem, but we cannot agree that
this hypothetical non-representational work is indeed about the Korean War, or
any other subject for that matter. There is nothing in the picture that lends
itself to objective analysis. Indeed, we might declare that certain strokes,
colours, lines and shapes *suggest* the brutality of conflict, or that "most
bestial madness" that constitutes war - but we would not be able to
demonstrate objectively - and hence, rationally - that this is definitely what
the work is about. We have merely made a subjective statement.
If one can only make a subjective statement about a supposed work of art,
then how can we possible declare it to be "universal"? This is not to say that
people do not react individually to art - but it is to suggest that if we
cannot even analyse the work on a basic level (ie., being able to identify its
subject, or what it is the artist even wanted to say) then we have no right to
declare unilaterally that this object is "universal". It is even doubtful
whether it is anything more than a pleasing (or displeasing) conglomeration of
shapes, colours and lines.
> The one thing I know for sure is that there are only cultural truths
> in the arts. There are no universals.
>
> There may be some universals in human life but artistic styles and
> ideas are not. Show me some evidence?
Realism (with a small "r") is not an artistic style - it is a medium of
expression. Romanticism, Classicism and Impressionism are styles in art - in
short, they are stylizations of reality, each different according to its basic
philosophical premises. Realism is the manner by which an abstract idea is
translated into objective elements, which are then presented to an audience -
the audience then re-interprets the picture or sculpture and arrives at their
own understanding of the art-work. It may be that they feel something wildly
different from what the artist intended. This may be because the artist's
technical skills were feeble, or his imagination sterile - or it may also be
that his work is obscure, deliberately or not. All art is conceptual to a
degree, and the greatest works are more so. This is not to imply that they are
visually vague or symbolistic - far from it. The highest concepts demand the
clearest, most poetic expression. A vague, flabby, obscure technique can only
serve to imprison the artist's ideas in the realm of sheer subjectivity, thus
robbing it of any universal appeal.
> By the way, have you ever seen anyone with a Greek nose? A nose which
> goes right down from the forehead without chang in plane? I have, once
> or twice, in Greece [real people not statues].
The Greeks had no intention of depicting people exactly as they were in real
life. They created their statues according to their own philosophical system,
which (if we are refering to the Classical period) held that beauty, strength
and confidence were valuable qualities. The Greeks also esteemed Man's faculty
of reason, and they had a passion for mathematics, a passion that was almost
divine in certain circles (see the Pythagoreans). It was their belief that
perfect proportions reflected Man's inherent dignity and intellectual
superiority, so they created art-work which showed men as gods. They were not
- by and large - concerned with offering up to us the sick, the deceased, the
psychotic, the perverted, or the homicidal. It is telling that our own age
esteems most those works which "shock" or "redefine the boundaries of art" -
it is interesting to note that the works (and the artists) which seem to
receive the most acclaim are ones which express aliennation, hostility,
viciousness, ugliness, psychosis, sexual perversion, or sheer
incomprehensibility. In many ways our own era is a degenerate cousin of the
Dark Ages, when heroism, vitality and physical beauty were pretty much
outlawed in the depiction of Man. But where the Middle Ages at least valued
the power of rationality, the ability of the mind to comprehend and analysis
concepts, it is our own era which has reverted to the mental equivalent of a
primitive - it reveres chaos, destruction, endless and meaningless rebellion,
nihilism. Is it any wonder that such a barren philosophy has actively
encouraged art that expresses its nature so well?
Times are changing, though. There are those who have tasted the bitterness
of ashes and who have realized that there is more to life than a disassociated
jumble of Pollock-esque splatters, or Webern shrieks at the night.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
Iian Neill
> > > more universal is my interpretation for "keeping himself out of it."
> >
> > becomes accessible to everyone when it appeals to the eye, and the
> > conceptual functions of the brain.
>
> be "accessible to everyone".
That's a fair enough point Andrew - it also reminds me of an old saying: "You
can't please all of the people all of the time." This certainly does apply to
WHAT one decides to paint or write about - there will be subjects that some
will frown upon, or enthusiastically applaude. But we are discussing - at
present - the very means of expression, not particular subjects. The fact that
you have used comprehensible language, and well-constructed sentences, to
communicate to me proves that clarity of expression (in this case accurate and
effective language) has succeeeded - at least to some degree - in conveying
your ideas. If you had merely decided to speak to me in a jumble of
impressionistic phrases, then it would seem likely that your ideas would not
have been communicated.
Perhaps there will be some who will say: "Well, what of that? Perhaps an
artist wishes only to communicate these vague, impressionistic ideas."
And I would say unto them: "Be that as it may. Should we not distinguish,
though, between crude, primitive ideas and those of an elevated, highly
sophisticated nature? Surely I could write a poem or story in the most obscure
language that is meant to convey some disassociated, abstracted feelings, but
does this mean that we should value such work above the most lucid, profound,
ingenious ideas? If you answer 'yes' to this then there would be no point to
our talking on this topic any further. If, on the other hand, you do agree that
there is some scale of values involved, that some concepts are more
sophisticated than others, then would it not follow logically that the higher
the concept, the more rigorous and exceptional the technical equipment needs to
be to convey it with absolute intellectual AND emotional precision?
"Let me explain further," I wouldst continue. "If one truly does possess a
sophisticated idea, and if one is conversing - or corresponding - with others,
then it would seem irrational not to strive for the clearest possible way of
communicating this idea. In literature it may take the form of poetry, or
novels, or philosophical essays - in the visual arts it is often manifested
through painting and sculpture. If we consider the fine arts to be as elevated
as the literary ones, then it is only fair that they too must be placed under
the same standards of clarity."
Different people come to art looking
> for very different things. You, for example, seem to want every
> picture to tell a story. Others are turned off as soon as they
> recognize a representation of something- in fact, some religions
> specifically prohibit this, so a realistic realist would have to
> deduct a large number of people at the outset.]
A picture does not necessarily have to "tell a story", as you say, to meet with
my enthusiastic approval. Generally speaking, though, a story told subtely and
with panache on a canvas would probably earn higher respect from me than would
merely a painting of a dead fish, a garbage heap, or some other discarded
object. This is not to say that such still-lives do not have aesthetic merit,
or that the genre itself is incapable of expressing concepts (because it is) -
a narrative picture does, though, suggest a more intellectual approach than
merely duplicating what one sees before you. Yes, the arrangement of the parts
in a painting is very important, its composition, colouring, form, etc. - but
all of these things are there to serve an end, to concretize a concept that
exists in the artist's mind. He gives it form with paint or marble or pencil -
he gives it form so that it might, by its being present in front of him, gain
the immediacy of a real object of event. It is true that an artist often "comes
to an idea" after long experimentation, but the fact is that there is usually
some seed there in his mind before-hand, some driving force, some motivation,
something inside which is constantly comparing his experiments to an aesthetic
barometer (of sorts). When the artist approaches this concept in his mind, then
he feels exhilirated, he feels that he approaches his quarry, that he is in the
midst of creation, of true expression.
> One could declare that a smear or a
> > splatter represented a certain mood, emotion or idea, but would only
> > achieve universality (in any objective sense) by painting in a manner
> > that made your idea comprehensible to those who are not privvy to one's
> > eccentrities.
>
> [The "idea" an artist has in mind when creating a piece of art does
> not necessarily constitute the thing he or she is trying to communicate
> with that piece; it can be a starting place for a process which the
> artist is involved in, the result of which is unknown at the outset
> and only becomes evident at the end.]
That is certainly true. This is why the artist experiments in the first place,
why he makes sketches, cartoons, oil studies and so on. It would be nothing
less than unprofessional, though, to show these experiments in public at the
outset.
> In other words, to write a poem we must use langauge, and
> > we must use it in such a way that it makes *sense* to other people -
> > otherwise one does not achieve universality.
>
> [This persistant equating of language with visual art obscures the
> fact that they are very different modes of creation. While it may be
> true that the purpose of language is to communicate an idea as clearly
> as possible (although many writers seem to disagree), the purpose of
> art can be similar- or not. Many people make art as a means of
> working something out for themselves, and care little whether it
> "makes sense" to anybody else. From my perspective, this is often
> better art than the stuff turned out by people who are always looking
> over their shoulders to see if their audience is following along.]
When you wrote this paragrah, were you "looking over your shoulder"? I am not
saying that folks shouldn't be creative for therapeutic reasons. If they find
that painting a landscape calms them down, then by all means they should feel
free to go for it. But if they take work that is clearly amateur and intend to
peddle it around as high art, then I believe it is fair enough to question such
actions. Or the philosophies which encourage those actions.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
Kay Kane
Andrew Werby wrote in message ...
>> "conceptual" do not seem to recognize any scale of values of concepts.
**Please, you are speaking as though abstraction and conceptual art are the
same thing...
Or if
>> they do, then they have abandoned all pretence at objective analysis by
merely
>> declaring to see something in a work of "art" which no other can
rationally
>> confirm.
**Recognizable imagery is no longer important since the invention of the
camera. What artists and art lovers "see" is form, line, space or content
which can be interpreted by individuals according to their own personal
observations. If you want to see something familiar, take a picture. If
you want to "feel" look at contemporary art.
And what do I mean by "rationally confirm"? - I mean simply this: If
>> someone claims that a particular painting by Jean-Léon Gérôme or Ingres
>> represents a Turkish Harem and, consequently, reflects something of the
>> artist's views on women, sexuality, and the Middle East, then one can
readily
>> confirm whether or not the critic is telling the truth - by looking at
the
>> work one can rapidly ascertain whether or not it represents a harem, how
many
>> women there are there, of what type, their actions, build, attitude,
gestures
>> and so forth.
>
>
>[Who cares what Ingres' views on women's sexuality in the Middle East were?
>If his painting were merely a vehicle to express thoughts of this nature-
>which could be more cogently explored in an essay- who would look at it?
>The harem scene was an excuse to depict the undraped female form, something
>artists have been interested in for a long time, for reasons that have
>nothing much to do with geo-politics. The painting is still interesting
today
>because of its masterly depiction of flesh, and not because of the artist's
>opinions- whatever they were.]
**I agree. Most white male European painters traveled to these "exotic"
locations. The idea of a harem would have appealed to them. Sexuality, the
male gaze, etc. (100s of articles about this)
>
>abvout If the critic were to say of a non-representational work: "This
>> work represents the artist's reaction to the Gulf War", then his
statement
>> could not be confirmed by another rational observer. This is simply
because
>> the critic has made a judgement of the painting which cannot be
substantiated
>> by any of the picture elements in the work itself.
**Yes, it could. Look at Picasso's "Guernica". It is not very
representational, but I know of many, many people who have broken into tears
when viewing it in person. A viewer could get the same feeling from seeing
a work depicting the "Gulf War" (if there is a universality of feeling on
that subject) if you are NOT looking to find the site reproduced. There is
no purpose to that.
In a Gérôme or an Ingres we
>> can certainly agree that the painting is of a Harem, but we cannot agree
that
>> this hypothetical non-representational work is indeed about the Korean
War, or
>> any other subject for that matter. There is nothing in the picture that
lends
>> itself to objective analysis. Indeed, we might declare that certain
strokes,
>> colours, lines and shapes *suggest* the brutality of conflict, or that
"most
>> bestial madness" that constitutes war - but we would not be able to
>> demonstrate objectively - and hence, rationally - that this is definitely
what
>> the work is about. We have merely made a subjective statement.
**All art is subjective, personal to the observer.
>> If one can only make a subjective statement about a supposed work of
art,
>> then how can we possible declare it to be "universal"? This is not to say
that
>> people do not react individually to art - but it is to suggest that if we
>> cannot even analyse the work on a basic level (ie., being able to
identify its
>> subject, or what it is the artist even wanted to say) then we have no
right to
>> declare unilaterally that this object is "universal".
**O.K. More accurately stated would be "universal" for people with exposure
to the arts in Western Culture.
It is even doubtful
**To whom?
>> whether it is anything more than a pleasing (or displeasing)
conglomeration of
>> shapes, colours and lines.
**Go see a Mark Rothko. Go many times. Eventually you will "experience"
the feeling of spirituality from the colors. We don't like what we don't
know. To form such an opinion is to do a disservice to yourself. I know
many artists, art styles & techniques. While I have my preferences,
Surrealism & Expressionism, and some that leave me cold (hard-edge
abstraction), I can appreciate the genius that went into each creation and
am in awe of most. Anyone, anyone, anyone - who divides a photograph into a
grid can make a realistic work of art. There is no genius in that. It is
common.
'ART IS NOT PRETTY - ART IS PROFOUND'
Kay Kane
scarl...@theriver.com
mdeli
>I can't think of anything more condescending to an artist than not
>taking how he thought and the cultural background to his time
>seriously.
I presume you know how he thought. And of course you take "the
cultural background" more seriously than I do. Whatever that means
>Before one gets hostile to modern art, one should at least
>make an effort to appreciate older art.
I'm not hostile to Modern Art, just to most of the bullshit that poses
as art in the modern sections of museums. Most here have seen no more
contemporary art than what they have been fed. And they have never
taken a close look at it and compared it to other things.
Marilyn
"Anyone, anyone, anyone - who divides a photograph into a
grid can make a realistic work of art. There is no genius in that. It is
common."
That's the answer to Iian's & Mani's meter for judging paintings, (and copying
paintings.) That is basically all there is to it, except they call it skill and
criteria.
More than that, in a previous thread "The Near Death of Painting" I am led to
question the motivation behind painting. Why are we doing it? If it is some kind of
decor item for the homes, of middle-class and rich people, what kind of a
contribution is that in today's world?
If it is a show of virtuosity and skill to please our own egos, what kind of a
contribution is that?
For therapuetic value, as personal expression, well that is benign enough, and
doesn't really merit much discussion beyond technique & materials.
An interesting fact in today's culture is that, while not that many people are
buying paintings, many people are looking at them (the line-ups at major shows)
and many people are learning to paint. How-to classes are filling up, with
waiting lists. As much as we might want to keep it for the elite, the masters of
the art and craft of it, painting is very available to everyone who wants to do it.
The contemporary galleries I know would never show oil on canvas
or watercolour on paper paintings. Those conventional paintings would not pass the
visual arts committee which is composed of young graduates of
major universities with degrees in Fine Arts.
They would show drawings pinned on the wall though.
Thanks Kay for bringing up some interesting points and keeping the discussion
from going round & round.
Marilyn
Brian Shapiro
common observer who saw the painting would not realize that it was supposed
to express something until he was told so. Then, he would have to put
himself in the mind of the artist who did the work and try to figure out
what he was trying to express, basing his guess on common beliefs about
colors and forms (red=violence, etc etc). The common viewer on average will
not see any universalities of reality---just bland theory. On the other
hand, all people can relate to pictures of THINGS. If anything is universal,
it is reality. And from pictures of things, you can tell a lot that is
cross-cultural. One element is simple things like expressions on people's
faces, objects, etc. However, even so, pre-modern painting was never about
just painting a picture of reality. It WAS about painting universals,
through the idealization of reality. Through form, color, etc etc the artist
would ADD things to a depiction of reality, like mood, tone etc. By doing
this, the artist would convey some universal, but ALSO convey it in a way
that could be UNDERSTOOD and appreciated to the fullest extent. Thus, a
painting would represent reality, -through the eyes of humans- (with all of
their poetic baggage ;), and successfully portray a human ideal. I can get a
larger impression from expressions on a face, etc. than from blobs of paint
in things like abstract expressionist paintings. And don't pretend that
non-abstract art can't be cross-cultural and nonuniversal. I think that
representational art is by far the best way to create something universal.
If you look at the paintings of Bouguereau, there are many different styles
and genres. One of them refers to ancient mythology and Christianity.
However, when you look at these paintings, you can understand them even
without knowing the references. Part of this is due to his expert skill at
telling stories in picutures, but part of it is due to the purely abstract
qualities of his paintings. Even if M. Bouguereau's paintings were reduced
to an abstract level, I am sure you could appreciate them. Bouguereau's
allegories are even more clear and universal, as they attempt to portray
universal concepts and ideals. Modern art, I suppose you could say, had the
door opened to it through the emergence of impressionism. But the idea that
impressionists were geniuses could not be further from the truth. Before
Bouguereau and other academic artists started their final paintings, they
worked on a colored sketch of their concepts, which looked very similar to
impressionistic paintings. However, people like Bouguereau did not even
think to consider art; it was merely a sketch that was used as a tool to
create the final painting. The only thing that the impressionists did was
end their process at the sketch stage, and never go on to make a more
detailed painting. They didn't come up with any startling new techniques
that nobody had thought about, etc.. Most impressionists and
post-impressionists were just bad at art. Van Gogh, for instance, was very
unsatisfied with his skills and once even remarked "I wish I could draw as
well as Bouguereau." Now, Renoir.. that is a different story... he was
myopic, and after his vision was finally corrected, he exclaimed "Good God,
I see like Bouguereau!". These artists are often celebrated for being
creative geniuses who were able to rise above culture for the sake of art. I
think that if you look close at historical documents, you will realize they
were just bad artists who didn't mind doing away with standards of beauty to
get famous. Bouguereau himself blamed the emergence of Modern art on the
sensationalist press, saying that if it wasn't there, trying to make a fuss
out of everything, that nobody would have paid attention to Modern art
misfits. I don't really doubt this. When asked about what it is to be an
artist, Bouguereau replied that for him, it was to be a poet. And that is
what artists from the Renaissance through the 19th century strove to be:
poets. You can see the poetry in any work of Bouguereau's. They are not
merely "pictures" of reality, nor were they meant to be. They were always
meant to be idealizations. Bouguereau and other academics, for this reason
expressed as much dislike for Realists like Courbet as for other Modern
artists. Oh dear, I'm sorry for rambling on (almost) incoherently... I need
some sleep ;)
--Brian Shapiro
Marilyn <m...@britishcolumbia.ca> wrote in message
news:36AA17...@britishcolumbia.ca...
>Gabriel & Iian:
>
>The word universal was used cautiously like this:
>
> Is that more clear? Putting one's ego aside to aspire to something
> more universal is my interpretation for "keeping himself out of it."
>
Marilyn
By "universal" you really mean, Western Culture, mostly in the USA.
Have you ever considered what a Muslim in Saudi Arabia or a Tibetan, or etc.
would get from a Bougereau?
And have you considered that what you are talking about is illustrative
& narrative painting only?
Marilyn
mdeli
wrote:
>Kay Kane wrote:
>
> "Anyone, anyone, anyone - who divides a photograph into a
>grid can make a realistic work of art. There is no genius in that. It is
>common."
>
Art school Mythology. Try it.
Degas, Picasso Delacroix Courbet etc. used photographs. The one thing
art school artzy fartzies don't do is copy photographs. If they did,
even that would reveal how little skill they possess.
>That's the answer to Iian's & Mani's meter for judging paintings, (and copying
>paintings.) That is basically all there is to it, except they call it skill and
>criteria.
The average artzy fartzy can hardly imitate a patch quilt.
>An interesting fact in today's culture is that, while not that many people are
>buying paintings,
Where did you hear that? I guess you are referring to your type of
stuff,
> many people are looking at them (the line-ups at major shows)
>and many people are learning to paint. How-to classes are filling up, with
>waiting lists. As much as we might want to keep it for the elite, the masters of
>the art and craft of it, painting is very available to everyone who wants to do it.
>
>The contemporary galleries I know would never show oil on canvas
>or watercolour on paper paintings.
I'm sure that's true of the ones you know.
> Those conventional paintings would not pass the
>visual arts committee which is composed of young graduates of
>major universities with degrees in Fine Arts.
The same group don't get anywhere because their technical expertise is
on the level with Rothko and above average monkeys. When anything
better turns up they have been taught to turn up their noses and
mutter their mantra, "kitsch."
Brian Shapiro
a Bouguereau. The paintings that he did which included some sort of cultural
references, did not RELY on them. These paintings, often narrativve, he did
in his early career, but as he matured,he moved away from them to a broader
style---so most of his paintings are mainly allegories, which present
singular concepts or universalities. Making his art to be allegorical and
representative of ideas, he is not being narrative. He kept his paintings
very simple, clear, and plain---so they could plainly illustrate the concept
he was incorporating. One more thing---I doubt if you showed a Rothko or
Pollock to ANY pre-20th century culture (European, Asian, African, etc) they
would think much of it. But I would bet they would all find some sort of
appeal with a Bouguereau or an earlier artwork. Right now, Japan has many
galleries that display Baroque art. Apparently, they found something
"universal".
--Brian Shapiro
Marilyn <m...@britishcolumbia.ca> wrote in message
news:36ADC8...@britishcolumbia.ca...
G*rd*n
| ... One more thing---I doubt if you showed a Rothko or
| Pollock to ANY pre-20th century culture (European, Asian, African, etc) they
| would think much of it. But I would bet they would all find some sort of
On what experience or knowledge of pre-20th-century cultures
do you form this estimate? If the Africans, Chinese or
Arabs would have liked Bouguereau so much, why didn't they
_do_ stuff like Bouguereau? Too dumb?
DFRussell
|> Kay Kane wrote:
|>
|> "Anyone, anyone, anyone - who divides a photograph into a
|> grid can make a realistic work of art. There is no genius in that. It is
|> common."
:-)
"Contemporary Artists" dispense with the photo and painting parts and try
to sell the grid.
|>
|> That's the answer to Iian's & Mani's meter for judging paintings, (and copying
|> paintings.) That is basically all there is to it, except they call it skill and
|> criteria.
You reference someone's opinion as proof [again]. Let's test your theory:
I'll post a jpg of a photo, you get Mark to do a realistic photo of it that
is comparable in quality to Wyeth, Homer, or Bateman (not to slight our
neighbors to the north).
Let me know when you're ready for the jpg.
[big snip]
|> An interesting fact in today's culture is that, while not that many people are
|> buying paintings,
Au contraire. Anything decent seems to do quite well. The yuppies are
into furnishings for their houses :)
|> many people are looking at them (the line-ups at major shows)
|> and many people are learning to paint. How-to classes are filling up, with
|> waiting lists. As much as we might want to keep it for the elite,
Personal opinion, I assume?
|> the masters of
|> the art and craft of it, painting is very available to everyone who wants to do it.
True. However, desire implies nothing regarding talent.
|>
|> The contemporary galleries I know would never show oil on canvas
|> or watercolour on paper paintings.
Well, that certainly means that there is no market for them. :)
--
Views expressed are personal and not necessarily shared by my employer.
Brian Shapiro
like Bouguereau and other European artists like him. You seem to assume that
before the 20th century, there was much hostility to European culture. In
fact, to a large degree, it was embraced by others voluntarily. At that time
European artists were becoming interested in Asian art as well. It is only
later that other cultures felt that they had to revolt against Europe,
around the same time that Modern art was being developed. At any rate, to
why their cultures didn't create art like that? The same reason that roaming
hordes of Goths and Vandals didn't do things like Bouguereau. And the same
reason why even Renaissance artists didn't do things like Bouguereau, even
though by that point they had the goals.
-Brian Shapiro
G*rd*n <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:78l4vi$h71$1...@panix2.panix.com...
>"Brian Shapiro" <ba...@uclink4.berkeley.edu>:
>| ... One more thing---I doubt if you showed a Rothko or
>| Pollock to ANY pre-20th century culture (European, Asian, African, etc)
they
>| would think much of it. But I would bet they would all find some sort of
Kay Kane
mdeli wrote in message <36acfa87...@news.interlog.com>...
>>grid can make a realistic work of art. There is no genius in that. It is
>>common."
>>
>Degas, Picasso Delacroix Courbet etc. used photographs. The one thing
>art school artzy fartzies don't do is copy photographs. If they did,
>even that would reveal how little skill they possess.
>
>
>>That's the answer to Iian's & Mani's meter for judging paintings, (and
copying
>>paintings.) That is basically all there is to it, except they call it
skill and
>>criteria.
>
>
are
>>buying paintings,
** What about Bill Gates, David Bowie, Barbra Streisand (and the list goes
on and on)?
>Where did you hear that? I guess you are referring to your type of
>stuff,
>
>> many people are looking at them (the line-ups at major shows)
>>and many people are learning to paint. How-to classes are filling up, with
>>waiting lists. As much as we might want to keep it for the elite, the
masters of
>>the art and craft of it, painting is very available to everyone who wants
to do it.
>>
>>The contemporary galleries I know would never show oil on canvas
>>or watercolour on paper paintings.
>
>I'm sure that's true of the ones you know.
>
>> Those conventional paintings would not pass the
>>visual arts committee which is composed of young graduates of
>>major universities with degrees in Fine Arts.
>
>The same group don't get anywhere because their technical expertise is
>on the level with Rothko and above average monkeys. When anything
>better turns up they have been taught to turn up their noses and
>mutter their mantra, "kitsch."
** FYI, Robert Colescott, a figurative painter represented the U.S. in the
last Venice Bienelle.
Kay Kane, M.F.A.
Kay Kane
mdeli wrote in message <36acfa87...@news.interlog.com>...
>On Mon, 25 Jan 1999 08:43:58 -0800, Marilyn <m...@britishcolumbia.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>Kay Kane wrote:
>>
>>grid can make a realistic work of art. There is no genius in that. It is
>>common."
>>
>Degas, Picasso Delacroix Courbet etc. used photographs. The one thing
>art school artzy fartzies don't do is copy photographs. If they did,
>even that would reveal how little skill they possess.
>
>
>>That's the answer to Iian's & Mani's meter for judging paintings, (and
copying
>>paintings.) That is basically all there is to it, except they call it
skill and
>>criteria.
>
>The average artzy fartzy can hardly imitate a patch quilt.
** That's a silly comment based on nothing concrete.
>>An interesting fact in today's culture is that, while not that many people
are
>>buying paintings,
** Here's a fact, jack: when people achieve money, status & success, they
always turn to art (Bill Gates, for example has started collecting art).
David Bowie is a huge collector. And the list goes on and on...
>
>Where did you hear that? I guess you are referring to your type of
>stuff,
>
>> many people are looking at them (the line-ups at major shows)
>>and many people are learning to paint. How-to classes are filling up, with
>>waiting lists. As much as we might want to keep it for the elite, the
masters of
>>the art and craft of it, painting is very available to everyone who wants
to do it.
>>
>>The contemporary galleries I know would never show oil on canvas
>>or watercolour on paper paintings.
>
>I'm sure that's true of the ones you know.
>
>> Those conventional paintings would not pass the
>>visual arts committee which is composed of young graduates of
>>major universities with degrees in Fine Arts.
** Didn't Robert Colescott, a figurative painter, represent the U.S. in the
last Venice Biennial?
>
>The same group don't get anywhere because their technical expertise is
>on the level with Rothko and above average monkeys. When anything
>better turns up they have been taught to turn up their noses and
>mutter their mantra, "kitsch."
**LOL!
Kay Kane
Brian Shapiro
Not just Asia, but all over the world ;) The idea that foreigners didn't
like Western culture is a myth.
--Brian Shapiro
mdeli <hug...@interlog.com> wrote in message
news:36ae9573...@news.interlog.com...
>On 26 Jan 1999 14:27:46 -0500, g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>
>>"Brian Shapiro" <ba...@uclink4.berkeley.edu>:
>>| ... One more thing---I doubt if you showed a Rothko or
>>| Pollock to ANY pre-20th century culture (European, Asian, African, etc)
they
>>| would think much of it. But I would bet they would all find some sort of
>>| appeal with a Bouguereau or an earlier artwork. ...
>>
>>On what experience or knowledge of pre-20th-century cultures
>>do you form this estimate? If the Africans, Chinese or
>>Arabs would have liked Bouguereau so much, why didn't they
>>_do_ stuff like Bouguereau? Too dumb?
>>
>Too dumb indeed. You show your Modern Academic ignorance.
>
>From Japan west thru asia where the rulers could afford it. They sent
>artists to France and elsewhere to learn Western painting technique.
>You would see this work if you took the trouble to see something you
>didn't learn about in your slanted Modern Academic Art History
>courses.
>
>Most of this work is second rate because B. was among the best Europe
>had to offer.and that is hard to beat.
br...@wralaw.com
> > When an artist does something in the abstract he prevents universalism. A
> > common observer who saw the painting would not realize that it was supposed
> > to express something until he was told so.
I think that what is actual in abstraction is universal what is spoken
is in many cases the emperors philosophy.
> > himself in the mind of the artist who did the work and try to figure out
> > what he was trying to express, basing his guess on common beliefs about
> > colors and forms (red=violence, etc etc).
Red is not the same as violence, violent acts produce blood... blood
is red... red is not blood
> > The common viewer on average will
> > not see any universalities of reality---just bland theory.
This is what the Art World hopes however Pollack is more the Bourgoise
than the cognoscienti!
> > On the other
> > hand, all people can relate to pictures of THINGS. If anything is universal,
> > it is reality. And from pictures of things, you can tell a lot that is
> > cross-cultural.
My opinion is that object-art can offer both what is obvious and
subliminal. Even(and especially) abstract composition, color, form.
Many abstract artists just hope for great mistakes. Only an artist
who can paint what is more realistic than a photograph without
devices or tricks is in absolute controll of the media. No artist
exists who can do this, all artists are on a level controlled by
media and limited by their technique.
> >One element is simple things like expressions on people's
> > faces, objects, etc.
I'm just nit picking but I don't consider expression in representational
art simple...
> > poets. You can see the poetry in any work of Bouguereau's. They are not
> > merely "pictures" of reality, nor were they meant to be. They were always
> > meant to be idealizations. Bouguereau and other academics, for this reason
> > expressed as much dislike for Realists like Courbet as for other Modern
> > artists.
I think you summed it up.
> By "universal" you really mean, Western Culture, mostly in the USA.
> Have you ever considered what a Muslim in Saudi Arabia or a Tibetan, or etc.
> would get from a Bougereau?
A hard-on!
An artist who is disliked because his nudes were actually attractive.
Of course Picasso was a Feminist. Illustration reveals the artist.
Messes obscure the artist... and reveal the critic!
> And have you considered that what you are talking about is illustrative
> & narrative painting only?
Bryn Ayers
"Man has measured Heaven, has studied the path of the comets, he has
discovered the traction, has invented the steam engine...and he still
is not able to grow truffles". M.Burnet (1836)
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
mdeli
>"Brian Shapiro" <ba...@uclink4.berkeley.edu>:
>| ... One more thing---I doubt if you showed a Rothko or
>| Pollock to ANY pre-20th century culture (European, Asian, African, etc) they
>| would think much of it. But I would bet they would all find some sort of
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
Marilyn <m...@britishcolumbia.ca> wrote:
> Brian Shapiro wrote:
[big snip]
> > artists. Oh dear, I'm sorry for rambling on (almost) incoherently... I need
> > some sleep ;)
> >
> > --Brian Shapiro
> >
>
First of all, when you post a four line followup to a really long post,
learn how to trim the original post.
> By "universal" you really mean, Western Culture, mostly in the USA.
Christ on a bike, are you ever going to get tired of pissing and whining
about the "USA"? What happened to you? Did someone up from the states
doing a little fishing run over your dog when you were little?
> Have you ever considered what a Muslim in Saudi Arabia or a Tibetan, or etc.
> would get from a Bougereau?
They'd probably like it. They don't have your handicap of believing that
western civilization sucked. That's something unique to "multiculturalists"
who happened to be fucking lucky enough to be born into said civilization.
It's particularly virulent in the angry "feminists" who spend every waking
moment ragging on men while emulating their worst characteristics.
In short, shut the fuck up with the political stuff or consider posting
in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh or alt.angst.
> And have you considered that what you are talking about is illustrative
> & narrative painting only?
And 'ave you considered that you're a complete loon, eh?
>
> Marilyn
G*rd*n
| > ...
| >From Japan west thru asia where the rulers could afford it. They sent
| >artists to France and elsewhere to learn Western painting technique.
| >You would see this work if you took the trouble to see something you
| >didn't learn about in your slanted Modern Academic Art History
| >courses.
Certainly. And Europeans ate up East Asian art (major
inspiration for Impressionism) and African art (major
inspiration for Modernism). As far as I know this sort
of thing has been going on for about as long as people have
been doing art. It doesn't prove one sort of art is
superior to another.
DFRussell
|> Mani:
|> | > ...
|> | >From Japan west thru asia where the rulers could afford it. They sent
|> | >artists to France and elsewhere to learn Western painting technique.
|> | >You would see this work if you took the trouble to see something you
|> | >didn't learn about in your slanted Modern Academic Art History
|> | >courses.
|> | > ...
|>
|> Certainly. And Europeans ate up East Asian art (major
|> inspiration for Impressionism) and African art (major
|> inspiration for Modernism). As far as I know this sort
|> of thing has been going on for about as long as people have
|> been doing art. It doesn't prove one sort of art is
|> superior to another.
That wasn't the point.
The comments on western/eastern art were made in response
to marilyn's comment concerning someone from a non-western
background not appreciating western art.
Your statements above indicate that you, also, think she
was incorrect.
She was.
Brian Shapiro
"wouldn't get" art by Bouguereau. I think art produced by one culture can be
certainly appreciated by another. At any rate, it seems to me that when
Europe was in its Gothic stage, it was doing art that was comparable
somewhat to Asian art, and when Europe was in the early Dark Ages, it was
doing art that was comparable somewhat to African art. I sincerely think
that if the Asian and African civilizations were left to develop on their
own, they might have eventually led to something as 'realistic' and
developed as post-Rennaissance western art. Also realize that when European
artists drew inspiration from African art, etc... they were specifically ,
in their own words, trying to capture something more "primitive".. hence you
get sort of a primitivist movement in the arts, led by folks like
Stravinsky, Gaugin, and the fauvists.
--Brian Shapiro
G*rd*n <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:78nbud$3jp$1...@panix7.panix.com...
>Mani:
>| > ...
>| >From Japan west thru asia where the rulers could afford it. They sent
>| >artists to France and elsewhere to learn Western painting technique.
>| >You would see this work if you took the trouble to see something you
>| >didn't learn about in your slanted Modern Academic Art History
>| >courses.
>| > ...
>
>Certainly. And Europeans ate up East Asian art (major
>inspiration for Impressionism) and African art (major
>inspiration for Modernism). As far as I know this sort
>of thing has been going on for about as long as people have
>been doing art. It doesn't prove one sort of art is
>superior to another.
>
DFRussell
|>
|> mdeli wrote in message <36acfa87...@news.interlog.com>...
|> >On Mon, 25 Jan 1999 08:43:58 -0800, Marilyn <m...@britishcolumbia.ca>
|> >wrote:
|> >
|> >>Kay Kane wrote:
|> >>
[snip]
|>
|> >>An interesting fact in today's culture is that, while not that many people
|> are
|> >>buying paintings,
|>
|>
|> ** Here's a fact, jack: when people achieve money, status & success, they
|> always turn to art (Bill Gates, for example has started collecting art).
|> David Bowie is a huge collector. And the list goes on and on...
:)
Another convert.... I'm sure others are also pleased to see that you disagree
with marilyn's statement... she was the one who made it. Check the indentation.
BTW, the 30 million Gates recently paid for a painting was for a Winslow Homer.
G*rd*n
| |> | > ...
| |> | >From Japan west thru asia where the rulers could afford it. They sent
| |> | >artists to France and elsewhere to learn Western painting technique.
| |> | >You would see this work if you took the trouble to see something you
| |> | >didn't learn about in your slanted Modern Academic Art History
| |> | >courses.
| |> | > ...
G*rd*n:
| |> Certainly. And Europeans ate up East Asian art (major
| |> inspiration for Impressionism) and African art (major
| |> inspiration for Modernism). As far as I know this sort
| |> of thing has been going on for about as long as people have
| |> been doing art. It doesn't prove one sort of art is
| |> superior to another.
nob...@nospam.com (DFRussell):
| That wasn't the point.
|
| The comments on western/eastern art were made in response
| to marilyn's comment concerning someone from a non-western
| background not appreciating western art.
|
| Your statements above indicate that you, also, think she
| was incorrect.
|
| She was.
It was my point. I don't believe in any of these simple
rhetorical formulations: whether they're that art is
"culturally determined" or "eternal truth" or whatever.
The idea that the advanced civilizations of Asia were
wasting away waiting for French academic painters to show
them the Light is pretty silly.
Bob C
>
> No, the only thing I was doing was rebutting the idea that foreigners
> "wouldn't get" art by Bouguereau. I think art produced by one culture can be
> certainly appreciated by another. At any rate, it seems to me that when
> Europe was in its Gothic stage, it was doing art that was comparable
> somewhat to Asian art, and when Europe was in the early Dark Ages, it was
> doing art that was comparable somewhat to African art. I sincerely think
> that if the Asian and African civilizations were left to develop on their
> own, they might have eventually led to something as 'realistic' and
> developed as post-Rennaissance western art.
As I recall from my art history, there were several occasions when
ancient egyptian art began moving towards naturalism, but the deviations
from the standards eventually died off and they all went back to doing
what they had done before. That civilization lasted a very long time
without ever moving towards Rennaissance realism as a goal in art;
without outside influences and disruptions they might still be doing the
same thing today. It wasn't that they lacked the skill or knowledge to
develop such a style of art, they simply lacked the desire to do so.
I suspect that this type of thing happens far more often then we are led
to believe. Art history tends to focus almost entirely on those works
which represent and influence the predominant styles of the time and
present the evolution of art as a single main thread of development.
Branches of this evolution which die off relatively quickly are ignored.
But by defining art history in this way, we are only getting half the
picture. Knowing what things a person or culture has had the opportunity
to accept but chose to reject can be just as important as knowing which
things they actually did accept.
- Bob C
mdeli
>Mani:
>| > ...
>| >From Japan west thru asia where the rulers could afford it. They sent
>| >artists to France and elsewhere to learn Western painting technique.
>| >You would see this work if you took the trouble to see something you
>| >didn't learn about in your slanted Modern Academic Art History
>| >courses.
>| > ...
>
>Certainly. And Europeans ate up East Asian art (major
>inspiration for Impressionism) and African art (major
>inspiration for Modernism).
Europeans always liked oriental art when the could get it . But that
isn't the point is it.
> As far as I know this sort
>of thing has been going on for about as long as people have
>been doing art. It doesn't prove one sort of art is
>superior to another.
This POMO fuzz brain has a talent for missing the point.
Kay Kane
DFRussell wrote in message <78nk4o$1gii$1...@rtpnews.raleigh.ibm.com>...
>In article <eGrr2.23075$bf6....@news1.giganews.com>, "Kay Kane"
<scarl...@theriver.com> writes:
>|>
>|> mdeli wrote in message <36acfa87...@news.interlog.com>...
>|> >On Mon, 25 Jan 1999 08:43:58 -0800, Marilyn <m...@britishcolumbia.ca>
>|> >wrote:
>|> >
>|> >>Kay Kane wrote:
>|> >>
>
>[snip]
>
>|>
>|> >>An interesting fact in today's culture is that, while not that many
people
>|> are
>|> >>buying paintings,
>|>
>|>
>|> ** Here's a fact, jack: when people achieve money, status & success,
they
>|> always turn to art (Bill Gates, for example has started collecting art).
>|> David Bowie is a huge collector. And the list goes on and on...
>
>:)
>
>Another convert.... I'm sure others are also pleased to see that you
disagree
>with marilyn's statement... she was the one who made it. Check the
indentation.
**Not really, I disagreed with only one part of her statement...
>BTW, the 30 million Gates recently paid for a painting was for a Winslow
Homer.
**Yes, but keep in mind that he is a beginner as a collector. People's
taste change. I know that what I liked (and did) in art is far removed from
my tastes of the present and I expect to continue to change. Homer has
merit, of course, but as Gates collects more and becomes more knowlegable
about art, we will see a broadening of his tastes.
Kay Kane
>
>
Brian Shapiro
example! I have studied the different phases of Egyptian culture.... For a
long time the Egyptian had descended deeper and deeper into ritualism and
mysticism. While this was happening, the society was becoming more corrupt,
as priests sold magical formulas to get to the otherworld (kind of like
indulgences). As the ritualistic aspect of the religion increased, the
religion became less centered on the ethical aspect. Then came efforts for
reform, and a reformer, Akhenaton came to power. He re-emphasized Egyptian
relgion on the ethical aspect, drawing away from the ritualistic. Akhenaton
went pretty far---he actually instated something like monotheism, which
Egyptians had never seen before. Akhenaton also led the push to make art
more naturalistic. However, the religion established by Akenaton did not
offer salvation for the masses, so it drew no major following. After his
death, the priests restored the religion to its old ways, and called
Akhenaton "the criminal" and "the heretic." And from that point, the
ritualism was brought back to Egyptian religion at a more dramatic level,
and it had completely lost its moral quality. Just as well, After
Akhenaton's death, the priests and pharoahs stopped supporting the making of
naturalistic art. And it is after Akhenaton's death that you generally find
the Egyptian civilization in decline. In the end, they succumbed to more
powerful civilizations that were ascending, like the Romans. I think you
will not only see the dramatic changes in Egyptian culture in the artworks,
but also the themes of the poetry. I think you will find that during the
reign of Akhenaton, the poetry was more meaningful.
I am not saying that any course of evolution, whether it be biological or
cultural, goes in a straight path upward. Just as well, some cultures might
remain the same due to certain circumstances. However, there are certain
reasons why cultures do change in different directions.
I will give you another example apart from the Egyptian one---the Roman
empire. During the growth of the Roman empire, its art was very naturalistic
and high quality. At the beginning of the decline, the art became less
idealistic however, and started to portray frustrated emotions in the
subjects it depicted. Afterwards, the Roman empire already on the path of
decline, the art became increasingly geometric. The faces on the different
statues became exactly the same so you couldn't tell one person from
another. And in general, art became larger, and more bulkier. During this
time, the capital moved to Constantinople, and the emperors began taking up
eastern clothes. The Roman society became more mystic, and numerous cults
began to take over Roman society, one of them being Christianity. Many
people call this the "easternization" of the Roman empire. The Roman empire
gradually faded out, barbarians invaded, and we were left with the dark
ages.
Above you, you see two examples where civilizations had periods of
naturalistic art, and then went to less naturalistic art. In both cases,
what was happening? The societies were becoming more superstitious and
ritualistic. They had lost faith in the world, and had yearned for the
afterlife. They were less humanistic and rational, and more mystic and
irrational. They were becoming more immoral (Roman orgies, etc), corrupt
(selling tickets to heaven), unethical. And, on top of it all, their
civilizations were in decline, fading away.
It's not just these two examples... archaeology studies have shown that all
civilizations that are in decline have their art become more simple and
geometric.
One would not have to think to hard to make comparisons to Modern
civilization... you don't have to agree with such a comparison, but the
point is very clearly made.
By the way, if you want to see a three page summary I once put together
about the different phases I found in the course of Egyptian relgion, just
ask me.. it is pretty interesting... they went from a period of patronage
and animism, to a period of early polytheism, to a period of "messianism",
to a period of ethically-centered polytheism, descending to a period of
ritualistic polytheism, interrupted by a brief period of monotheism, and
continuing the decline into ritualistic polytheism.
Hey, I know my stuff. ;-)
---Brian Shapiro
Bob C <bob...@erols.com> wrote in message news:36AF6D...@erols.com...
DFRussell
>
>DFRussell wrote in message <78nk4o$1gii$1...@rtpnews.raleigh.ibm.com>...
>>In article <eGrr2.23075$bf6....@news1.giganews.com>, "Kay Kane"
><scarl...@theriver.com> writes:
>>|>
>>|> mdeli wrote in message <36acfa87...@news.interlog.com>...
>>|> >On Mon, 25 Jan 1999 08:43:58 -0800, Marilyn <m...@britishcolumbia.ca>
>>|> >wrote:
>>|> >
>>|> >>Kay Kane wrote:
>>|> >>
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>|>
>>|> >>An interesting fact in today's culture is that, while not that many
>people
>>|> are
>>|> >>buying paintings,
>>|>
>>|>
>>|> ** Here's a fact, jack: when people achieve money, status & success,
>they
>>|> always turn to art (Bill Gates, for example has started collecting art).
>>|> David Bowie is a huge collector. And the list goes on and on...
>>
>>:)
>>
>>Another convert.... I'm sure others are also pleased to see that you
>disagree
>>with marilyn's statement... she was the one who made it. Check the
>indentation.
>
>
>**Not really, I disagreed with only one part of her statement...
LOL :-)
Ah, now that you know it wasn't Mani who made the statement, you only
"disagree" with part of it. I guess it's a good example of
relativisim :-)
>
>>BTW, the 30 million Gates recently paid for a painting was for a Winslow
>Homer.
>
>
>**Yes, but keep in mind that he is a beginner as a collector.
It is an *assumption* that "he is a beginner as a collector". A very
poor one, I might add.
Additionally, I suspect even Mr. Gates gave consideration to spending
30 million dollars for a single painting and probably had some 2nd
opinions.
>People's
>taste change.
That's true. Many people who early on bought into the PoMo crap
decide they can't stand looking at it anymore and buy something else.
That's why Homer went for 30mill and PoMo doesn't.
> I know that what I liked (and did) in art is far removed from
>my tastes of the present and I expect to continue to change.
Whatever.
> Homer has
>merit, of course, but as Gates collects more and becomes more knowlegable
>about art, we will see a broadening of his tastes.
Possibly picking up some Wyeths or Sargeants :-)
Frederic Goudal
>
> Flesh? There is no such thing in art. FLesh is out.
Again a stupid statement. There is anything in art.
f.g.
--
FiLH photography. A taste of freedom in a conventional world.
New web site address http://www.i-france.com/filh
e-mail gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr
FAQ frp : http://www.enserb.u-bordeaux.fr/~goudal/frp/faq.html
Frederic Goudal
> On 26 Jan 1999 14:27:46 -0500, g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>
> >"Brian Shapiro" <ba...@uclink4.berkeley.edu>:
> >| ... One more thing---I doubt if you showed a Rothko or
> >| Pollock to ANY pre-20th century culture (European, Asian, African, etc) they
> >| would think much of it. But I would bet they would all find some sort of
> >| appeal with a Bouguereau or an earlier artwork. ...
> >
> >On what experience or knowledge of pre-20th-century cultures
> >do you form this estimate? If the Africans, Chinese or
> >Arabs would have liked Bouguereau so much, why didn't they
> >_do_ stuff like Bouguereau? Too dumb?
> >
> Too dumb indeed. You show your Modern Academic ignorance.
Do you have tested each painter by yourself to be able to say that ?
How do you know that it's not your ellucubrations ??
> From Japan west thru asia where the rulers could afford it. They sent
> artists to France and elsewhere to learn Western painting technique.
But in the same time, the opposite was exactly true, except that
European artists did not really need to go to far east, because a lot
of people brang back a lot of artworks. A lot of french had japanese
art collection. (The estampe joke in France comes from this time).
This has influenced a lot impressionist.
The 19th century artists in France were more inclinated to go to the
arabic countries, but in theese times, it correspond to the colonial
politic of french Empire, and the colonies were considered trendy.
This has influenced a lot first people like Delacroix, Ingres.. and
later with the africa, the cubist painters. (The first well known
african masks in France were owned by a friend of Braques [ and
Picasso of course ] [ this mask is nice, I've seen it here in a recent
exhibition]).
> You would see this work if you took the trouble to see something you
> didn't learn about in your slanted Modern Academic Art History
> courses.
But you are not really less ignorant.
Frederic Goudal
> In article <36ADC8...@britishcolumbia.ca>,
> Marilyn <m...@britishcolumbia.ca> wrote:
> > Brian Shapiro wrote:
> > By "universal" you really mean, Western Culture, mostly in the USA.
>
> Christ on a bike, are you ever going to get tired of pissing and whining
> about the "USA"? What happened to you? Did someone up from the states
> doing a little fishing run over your dog when you were little?
It's not pissing and whining about USA. It's simply clear that a lot of people
here are doing ethnocentricism (or ethnocentrism ??) in an intensive way.
> > Have you ever considered what a Muslim in Saudi Arabia or a Tibetan, or etc.
> > would get from a Bougereau?
>
> They'd probably like it.
How gosh !! I would like to be you. Knowing what somebody you never met thinks ??
THat's the definition of ethnocentricism . Somebody who think that somebody else thinks like him.
br...@wralaw.com
"Kay Kane" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
>
> mdeli wrote in message <36acfa87...@news.interlog.com>...
> >Art school Mythology. Try it.
> >Degas, Picasso Delacroix Courbet etc. used photographs. The one thing
> >art school artzy fartzies don't do is copy photographs. If they did,
> >even that would reveal how little skill they possess.
> >
> **I assume you haven't seen the work of Chuck Close!
What a Moron...
> ** Here's a fact, jack: when people achieve money, status & success, they
> always turn to art (Bill Gates, for example has started collecting art).
> David Bowie is a huge collector. And the list goes on and on...
You tell em...
If only there were more money, status, & sucess in the world there
would be no ozone hole!
Bryn Ayers
And still we are closer to hammering out the collective works of
Shakespeare.....
Kay Kane
DFRussell wrote in message <36afa5da...@news.mindspring.com>...
>"Kay Kane" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>DFRussell wrote in message <78nk4o$1gii$1...@rtpnews.raleigh.ibm.com>...
>>>|>
>>>|> mdeli wrote in message <36acfa87...@news.interlog.com>...
>>>|> >wrote:
>>>|> >
>>>|> >>Kay Kane wrote:
>>>|> >>
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>|>
>>>|> >>An interesting fact in today's culture is that, while not that many
>>people
>>>|> are
>>>|> >>buying paintings,
>>>|>
>>>|>
>>they
>>>|> always turn to art (Bill Gates, for example has started collecting
art).
>>>|> David Bowie is a huge collector. And the list goes on and on...
>>>
>>>
>>>Another convert.... I'm sure others are also pleased to see that you
>>disagree
>>>with marilyn's statement... she was the one who made it. Check the
>>indentation.
>>
>>
>>**Not really, I disagreed with only one part of her statement...
>
>LOL :-)
>
>Ah, now that you know it wasn't Mani who made the statement, you only
>"disagree" with part of it. I guess it's a good example of
>relativisim :-)
No, your statement is a good example of ridiculous.
>>
>>>BTW, the 30 million Gates recently paid for a painting was for a Winslow
>>Homer.
>>
>>
>>**Yes, but keep in mind that he is a beginner as a collector.
>
>It is an *assumption* that "he is a beginner as a collector". A very
>poor one, I might add.
Not my assumption. Widely reported in the news.
>Additionally, I suspect even Mr. Gates gave consideration to spending
>30 million dollars for a single painting and probably had some 2nd
>opinions.
>
Unless he consulted you, considering his choice and the cost, it seems a
little impulsive to me.
> >People's
>>taste change.
>
>That's true. Many people who early on bought into the PoMo crap
>decide they can't stand looking at it anymore and buy something else.
Yet many people are selling their Homeresque type art and buying PoMo
"crap".
>That's why Homer went for 30mill and PoMo doesn't.
>
????
>> I know that what I liked (and did) in art is far removed from
>>my tastes of the present and I expect to continue to change.
>
>Whatever.
>
>> Homer has
>>merit, of course, but as Gates collects more and becomes more knowlegable
>>about art, we will see a broadening of his tastes.
>
>Possibly picking up some Wyeths or Sargeants :-)
Only if he closes his mind as you apparently have. Try reading "Art in
America" instead of "American Artist".
Marilyn
>
> Mani:
> | |> | > ...
> | |> | >From Japan west thru asia where the rulers could afford it. They sent
> | |> | >artists to France and elsewhere to learn Western painting technique.
> | |> | >didn't learn about in your slanted Modern Academic Art History
> | |> | >courses.
>
> G*rd*n:
> | |> Certainly. And Europeans ate up East Asian art (major
> | |> inspiration for Impressionism) and African art (major
> | |> of thing has been going on for about as long as people have
> | |> been doing art. It doesn't prove one sort of art is
> | |> superior to another.
>
> | That wasn't the point.
> |
> | The comments on western/eastern art were made in response
> | to marilyn's comment concerning someone from a non-western
> | background not appreciating western art.
> |
> | Your statements above indicate that you, also, think she
> | was incorrect.
> |
> | She was.
>
> It was my point. I don't believe in any of these simple
> rhetorical formulations: whether they're that art is
> "culturally determined" or "eternal truth" or whatever.
> The idea that the advanced civilizations of Asia were
> wasting away waiting for French academic painters to show
> them the Light is pretty silly.
>
This was my comment:
<By "universal" you really mean, Western Culture, mostly in the USA.>
and it is "correct" as I interpret comments on this newsgroup. There
is an American hegemony, anyone can see this. Ask the people from
France, Finland, Britain as well as Canada.
Marilyn
Marilyn
>
> DFRussell wrote in message <78nk4o$1gii$1...@rtpnews.raleigh.ibm.com>...
> >In article <eGrr2.23075$bf6....@news1.giganews.com>, "Kay Kane"
> <scarl...@theriver.com> writes:
> >|>
> >|> mdeli wrote in message <36acfa87...@news.interlog.com>...
> >|> >On Mon, 25 Jan 1999 08:43:58 -0800, Marilyn <m...@britishcolumbia.ca>
> >|> >wrote:
> >|> >
> >|> >>Kay Kane wrote:
> >|> >>
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >|>
> >|> >>An interesting fact in today's culture is that, while not that many
> people
> >|> are
> >|> >>buying paintings,
> >|>
> >|>
> >|> ** Here's a fact, jack: when people achieve money, status & success,
> they
> >|> always turn to art (Bill Gates, for example has started collecting art).
> >|> David Bowie is a huge collector. And the list goes on and on...
> >
> >:)
> >
> >Another convert.... I'm sure others are also pleased to see that you
> disagree
> >with marilyn's statement... she was the one who made it. Check the
> indentation.
>
> **Not really, I disagreed with only one part of her statement...
>
> Homer.
>
> taste change. I know that what I liked (and did) in art is far removed from
> my tastes of the present and I expect to continue to change. Homer has
> merit, of course, but as Gates collects more and becomes more knowlegable
> about art, we will see a broadening of his tastes.
> >
> >
Hi Kay,
Well, to my mind the mention of a few celebrities doesn't
constitute an art market. Come on, Bill Gates makes 100 million
every second day. He's got to do something with it. He could
actually save Africa if he wanted to but he dabbles a little
in cautious art and donates MS systems to libraries. applause!!!
I'm more interested in motivation. Why do people want to paint?
Do they have some passionate interest in life and living that
cannot be expressed by any other means or are they interested
in making decor items? add the large range of motives in the
centre.
Marilyn
Marilyn
Marilyn
>
> "Kay Kane" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >DFRussell wrote in message <78nk4o$1gii$1...@rtpnews.raleigh.ibm.com>...
> >>In article <eGrr2.23075$bf6....@news1.giganews.com>, "Kay Kane"
> ><scarl...@theriver.com> writes:
> >>|>
> >>|> mdeli wrote in message <36acfa87...@news.interlog.com>...
> >>|> >On Mon, 25 Jan 1999 08:43:58 -0800, Marilyn <m...@britishcolumbia.ca>
> >>|> >wrote:
> >>|> >
> >>|> >>Kay Kane wrote:
> >>|> >>
> >>
> >>[snip]
> >>
> >>|>
> >>|> >>An interesting fact in today's culture is that, while not that many
> >people
> >>|> are
> >>|> >>buying paintings,
> >>|>
> >>|>
> >>|> ** Here's a fact, jack: when people achieve money, status & success,
> >they
> >>|> always turn to art (Bill Gates, for example has started collecting art).
> >>|> David Bowie is a huge collector. And the list goes on and on...
> >>
> >>:)
> >>
> >>Another convert.... I'm sure others are also pleased to see that you
> >disagree
> >>with marilyn's statement... she was the one who made it. Check the
> >indentation.
> >
> >
> >**Not really, I disagreed with only one part of her statement...
>
>
> Ah, now that you know it wasn't Mani who made the statement, you only
> "disagree" with part of it. I guess it's a good example of
> relativisim :-)
>
> >
> >Homer.
> >
> >
> >**Yes, but keep in mind that he is a beginner as a collector.
>
> poor one, I might add.
>
> 30 million dollars for a single painting and probably had some 2nd
> opinions.
>
> >taste change.
>
> That's true. Many people who early on bought into the PoMo crap
> decide they can't stand looking at it anymore and buy something else.
>
> >my tastes of the present and I expect to continue to change.
>
>
> > Homer has
> >merit, of course, but as Gates collects more and becomes more knowlegable
> >about art, we will see a broadening of his tastes.
>
Hey Art Boy Russell
I suppose you think it is fine to pay two million for a lousy
baseball!
Marilyn
Kay Kane
Marilyn wrote in message <36B0CC...@britishcolumbia.ca>...
>Kay Kane wrote:
>>
>> DFRussell wrote in message <78nk4o$1gii$1...@rtpnews.raleigh.ibm.com>...
>> >In article <eGrr2.23075$bf6....@news1.giganews.com>, "Kay Kane"
>> <scarl...@theriver.com> writes:
>> >|>
>> >|> mdeli wrote in message <36acfa87...@news.interlog.com>...
>> >|> >On Mon, 25 Jan 1999 08:43:58 -0800, Marilyn <m...@britishcolumbia.ca>
>> >|> >wrote:
>> >|> >
>> >|> >>Kay Kane wrote:
>> >|> >>
>> >
>> >[snip]
>> >
>> >|>
>> >|> >>An interesting fact in today's culture is that, while not that many
>> people
>> >|> are
>> >|> >>buying paintings,
>> >|>
>> >|>
>> >|> ** Here's a fact, jack: when people achieve money, status & success,
>> they
>> >|> always turn to art (Bill Gates, for example has started collecting
art).
>> >|> David Bowie is a huge collector. And the list goes on and on...
>> >
>> >:)
>> >
>> >Another convert.... I'm sure others are also pleased to see that you
>> disagree
>> >with marilyn's statement... she was the one who made it. Check the
>> indentation.
>>
>> **Not really, I disagreed with only one part of her statement...
>>
>> Homer.
>>
>> taste change. I know that what I liked (and did) in art is far removed
from
>> my tastes of the present and I expect to continue to change. Homer has
>> merit, of course, but as Gates collects more and becomes more knowlegable
>> about art, we will see a broadening of his tastes.
>> >
>> >
>
>
>Hi Kay,
>
>Well, to my mind the mention of a few celebrities doesn't
>constitute an art market. Come on, Bill Gates makes 100 million
>every second day. He's got to do something with it. He could
>actually save Africa if he wanted to but he dabbles a little
>in cautious art and donates MS systems to libraries. applause!!!
>
>I'm more interested in motivation. Why do people want to paint?
>Do they have some passionate interest in life and living that
>cannot be expressed by any other means or are they interested
>in making decor items? add the large range of motives in the
>centre.
>
>Marilyn
>
Every year Art in America devotes an issue which lists many artists,
dealers, museums and collectors. There is no shortage of any. Some people
collect art for the love of art, some for prestige. For altruistic giving,
look at Ted Turned who just gave $2 zillion (I forgot the amount) to the
United Nations. Sure, it is better to feed a starving nation than to buy an
item for one's own consumption, but I'm not the boss of the world and, in
fact, benefit from collectors. I just bought a new car this year and the
old one still worked fine. What logic was that???
To answer your question about motivation to paint, I can only speak for
myself and for people I've known and discussed it with. I constantly was in
trouble in elementary school for drawing during math, history, etc. I don't
know why I did it, didn't call it art, couldn't help myself, got the message
it was bad (since I was called to task for not paying attention). Now that
I'm an adult and have been thru the "system" and received my education in
art and am a practicing artist, I realize that I'm getting the same message
about art (it's not nice to do art, what do you REALLY do) etc. So, I think
people create things because there is something in them that MAKES them do
so. Why I chose painting rather than photography, sculpture, etc., is
because I am in total control from beginning to end, painting allows for
mistakes - very forgiving medium, and has a very sensual feel. Why people
become artists - maybe some of us don't "fit" in the normal world.
Kay
P.S. The other posters out there may have entirely different viewpoints and
experiences. I'm curious too.
DFRussell
|> Hey Art Boy Russell
|>
|> I suppose you think it is fine to pay two million for a lousy
|> baseball!
|>
|> Marilyn
What people do with their money is their business. Even if they
were silly enough to pay two million for a PoMo painting, I
wouldn't complain.
-N.
<ba...@uclink4.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> When an artist does something in the abstract he prevents universalism. A
> common observer who saw the painting would not realize that it was supposed
> to express something until he was told so. Then, he would have to put
> himself in the mind of the artist who did the work and try to figure out
> what he was trying to express, basing his guess on common beliefs about
> colors and forms (red=violence, etc etc). The common viewer on average will
> not see any universalities of reality---just bland theory. On the other
> hand, all people can relate to pictures of THINGS. If anything is universal,
> it is reality. And from pictures of things, you can tell a lot that is
> cross-cultural. One element is simple things like expressions on people's
> faces, objects, etc. However, even so, pre-modern painting was never about
> just painting a picture of reality. It WAS about painting universals,
> through the idealization of reality. Through form, color, etc etc the artist
> would ADD things to a depiction of reality, like mood, tone etc. By doing
> this, the artist would convey some universal, but ALSO convey it in a way
> that could be UNDERSTOOD and appreciated to the fullest extent. Thus, a
> painting would represent reality, -through the eyes of humans- (with all of
> their poetic baggage ;), and successfully portray a human ideal. I can get a
> larger impression from expressions on a face, etc. than from blobs of paint
> in things like abstract expressionist paintings. And don't pretend that
> non-abstract art can't be cross-cultural and nonuniversal. I think that
> representational art is by far the best way to create something universal.
> If you look at the paintings of Bouguereau, there are many different styles
> and genres. One of them refers to ancient mythology and Christianity.
> However, when you look at these paintings, you can understand them even
> without knowing the references. Part of this is due to his expert skill at
> telling stories in picutures, but part of it is due to the purely abstract
> qualities of his paintings. Even if M. Bouguereau's paintings were reduced
> to an abstract level, I am sure you could appreciate them. Bouguereau's
> allegories are even more clear and universal, as they attempt to portray
> universal concepts and ideals. Modern art, I suppose you could say, had the
> door opened to it through the emergence of impressionism. But the idea that
> impressionists were geniuses could not be further from the truth. Before
> Bouguereau and other academic artists started their final paintings, they
> worked on a colored sketch of their concepts, which looked very similar to
> impressionistic paintings. However, people like Bouguereau did not even
> think to consider art; it was merely a sketch that was used as a tool to
> create the final painting. The only thing that the impressionists did was
> end their process at the sketch stage, and never go on to make a more
> detailed painting. They didn't come up with any startling new techniques
> that nobody had thought about, etc.. Most impressionists and
> post-impressionists were just bad at art. Van Gogh, for instance, was very
> unsatisfied with his skills and once even remarked "I wish I could draw as
> well as Bouguereau." Now, Renoir.. that is a different story... he was
> myopic, and after his vision was finally corrected, he exclaimed "Good God,
> I see like Bouguereau!". These artists are often celebrated for being
> creative geniuses who were able to rise above culture for the sake of art. I
> think that if you look close at historical documents, you will realize they
> were just bad artists who didn't mind doing away with standards of beauty to
> get famous. Bouguereau himself blamed the emergence of Modern art on the
> sensationalist press, saying that if it wasn't there, trying to make a fuss
> out of everything, that nobody would have paid attention to Modern art
> misfits. I don't really doubt this. When asked about what it is to be an
> artist, Bouguereau replied that for him, it was to be a poet. And that is
> what artists from the Renaissance through the 19th century strove to be:
> poets. You can see the poetry in any work of Bouguereau's. They are not
> merely "pictures" of reality, nor were they meant to be. They were always
> meant to be idealizations. Bouguereau and other academics, for this reason
> expressed as much dislike for Realists like Courbet as for other Modern
> artists. Oh dear, I'm sorry for rambling on (almost) incoherently... I need
> some sleep ;)
Rubbish.
-N.
See my post re: "Colture [sic], structuralism, and formalism" for a good
example why what you consider universal representation is not. I remember
that tribe that upon first meeting europeans, received gifts of tin cans
of food and boxes of cereal. They misunderstood the signs...they dumped
out the food contained therin and wore the empty containers on their heads
as headdresses.
--
N
To reach me, remove _xxx from my address.
Frederic Goudal
> Mani:
> | > ...
> | >From Japan west thru asia where the rulers could afford it. They sent
> | >artists to France and elsewhere to learn Western painting technique.
> | >You would see this work if you took the trouble to see something you
> | >didn't learn about in your slanted Modern Academic Art History
> | >courses.
> | > ...
>
> Certainly. And Europeans ate up East Asian art (major
> inspiration for Impressionism) and African art (major
> inspiration for Modernism). As far as I know this sort
> of thing has been going on for about as long as people have
> been doing art. It doesn't prove one sort of art is
> superior to another.
But it proves that an artist can't live without exploring new worlds.
Art is fed by the world, and the richest you feed it, the richest it
is. If you live on your own, you usually can get two results :
- either an kind of autistic art, art brut.
- either a kind of artist that is only hatefull.
Frederic Goudal
> When an artist does something in the abstract he prevents universalism. A
> common observer who saw the painting would not realize that it was supposed
> to express something until he was told so. Then, he would have to put
> himself in the mind of the artist who did the work and try to figure out
> what he was trying to express, basing his guess on common beliefs about
> colors and forms (red=violence, etc etc). The common viewer on average will
> not see any universalities of reality---just bland theory.
Here we come again to the same point :
Who is this fucking "common observer". Where does your ellucubration comes from ?
What experience did you do ? What is the scientific basis of such assertions ??
You just put your own ellucubration and mental masturbation in the
mouth of a poor common observer. So you'd better tell :
"When I see the paintin I don't realize that it was supposed..."
I will speak here from a personal experience : I have taken my
daughters last year to the CAPCM which is a contemporary art Museum
here in Bordeaux. They were 3 year old (yes twins).
And what I have seen is that they did react in positive or negative
way in front of abstract painting, exactly the same way they react in
front of 19th century paintings.
I don't think my daughters are more intelligent than the average kid
of their age. I don't think they were able to understand (and they
still are not) the first word of a theorie on abstract art.
Another true experience : I went to a Louise Bourgeois exhibition in
the same place. There was a group of "mentally deficient" people who
was visiting the exhibition, and it is evident that they were not art
experts. What I saw was that they were touched by some works. THey did
not need any theorical explanation.
br...@wralaw.com
> >30 million dollars for a single painting and probably had some 2nd
> >opinions.
30 million is .03 Billion dollars, That would be like a millionaire
spending three thousand on a painting.
Kaye wrote:
> Unless he consulted you, considering his choice and the cost, it seems a
> little impulsive to me.
Well he got in the media for it. This is typical insider hype. The
whole VanGogh deal is the same thing.
> >That's true. Many people who early on bought into the PoMo crap
> >decide they can't stand looking at it anymore and buy something else.
Unkown art market assertion followed by...
> Yet many people are selling their Homeresque type art and buying PoMo
> "crap".
Unkown art market assertion...
>Whatever.
>Homer went for 30mill and PoMo doesn't.
Dho!
> as Gates collects more and becomes more knowlegable
> >>about art, we will see a broadening of his tastes.
> >Possibly picking up some Wyeths or Sargeants :-)
> Only if he closes his mind as you apparently have. Try reading "Art in
> America" instead of "American Artist".
Pro Quo!
Bryn Ayers
emat...@tomatoweb.com
"Kay Kane" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
> To answer your question about motivation to paint, I can only speak for
> myself and for people I've known and discussed it with. I constantly was in
> trouble in elementary school for drawing during math, history, etc. I don't
> know why I did it, didn't call it art, couldn't help myself, got the message
> it was bad (since I was called to task for not paying attention). Now that
> I'm an adult and have been thru the "system" and received my education in
> art and am a practicing artist, I realize that I'm getting the same message
> about art (it's not nice to do art, what do you REALLY do) etc. So, I think
> people create things because there is something in them that MAKES them do
> so. Why I chose painting rather than photography, sculpture, etc., is
> because I am in total control from beginning to end, painting allows for
> mistakes - very forgiving medium, and has a very sensual feel. Why people
> become artists - maybe some of us don't "fit" in the normal world.
> Kay
> P.S. The other posters out there may have entirely different viewpoints and
> experiences. I'm curious too.
>
I can't resist that invitation. I paint as a nervous reaction to my
environment. Early on, I found I could get attention.
But somewhere along the line the paint itself took over. It oozes, stains,
plops, squirts, splashes -- all in wonderful rainbow colors. It's good enough
to eat (but thank god I learned to read the warning labels). I think I enjoy
the intimacy with the stuff -- it's like kozsmic silly putty.
Oh, by the way, there is no 'normal' world. Everything is above average.
Erik
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
Frederic Goudal <gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr> wrote:
> hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) writes:
> >
> > Flesh? There is no such thing in art. FLesh is out.
>
> Again a stupid statement. There is anything in art.
Even elephant shit :P
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
Frederic Goudal <gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr> wrote:
> burnin...@my-dejanews.com writes:
> > In article <36ADC8...@britishcolumbia.ca>,
> > Marilyn <m...@britishcolumbia.ca> wrote:
> > > Brian Shapiro wrote:
> >
> > about the "USA"? What happened to you? Did someone up from the states
> > doing a little fishing run over your dog when you were little?
>
> It's not pissing and whining about USA. It's simply clear that a lot of people
> here are doing ethnocentricism (or ethnocentrism ??) in an intensive way.
That is true. And I certainly wish the French-Canadians and French would
stop their constant bitching and whining about other cultures. You're
conversing in English. Get over it.
>
> > > Have you ever considered what a Muslim in Saudi Arabia or a Tibetan, or
etc.
> > > would get from a Bougereau?
> >
> > They'd probably like it.
>
> How gosh !! I would like to be you.
It would certainly raise the intellectual level of your posts.
> Knowing what somebody you never met thinks ??
I can assume that as easily as Marilyn and apparently you have have
assumed they wouldn't. And considering the rate at which the Japanese
etc. are buying up Western paintings, it would seem that I have a lot
more reason to make my assumption than you do yours.
Also, Americans/Europeans have long admired asian work.
> THat's the definition of ethnocentricism . Somebody who think that somebody
else thinks like him.
It's more like the constant whine that comes from the French when they have
to post in English to get anyone to even read their posts... not that anyone
cares about the content '>P
You guys still doping your wine with antifreeze?
> --
> FiLH photography. A taste of freedom in a conventional world.
> New web site address http://www.i-france.com/filh
> e-mail gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr
> FAQ frp : http://www.enserb.u-bordeaux.fr/~goudal/frp/faq.html
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Frederic Goudal
> In article <uxvhhsd...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr>,
> Frederic Goudal <gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr> wrote:
> > burnin...@my-dejanews.com writes:
> > > In article <36ADC8...@britishcolumbia.ca>,
> > > Marilyn <m...@britishcolumbia.ca> wrote:
> > > > Brian Shapiro wrote:
> > > > By "universal" you really mean, Western Culture, mostly in the USA.
> > >
> > > Christ on a bike, are you ever going to get tired of pissing and whining
> > > about the "USA"? What happened to you? Did someone up from the states
> > > doing a little fishing run over your dog when you were little?
> >
> > It's not pissing and whining about USA. It's simply clear that a lot of people
> > here are doing ethnocentricism (or ethnocentrism ??) in an intensive way.
>
> That is true. And I certainly wish the French-Canadians and French would
> stop their constant bitching and whining about other cultures. You're
> conversing in English. Get over it.
It is not because I'm conversing in english that I have to accept the USA centred view
for some different reason :
- 1 english is a lingua franca on the internet, it has nothing to do with the USA.
- 2 english was first spoken in england, not in the UISA
- 3 english is spoken by a lot of people in the world that do not share the USA culture
> > > > Have you ever considered what a Muslim in Saudi Arabia or a Tibetan, or
> > > > would get from a Bougereau?
> > > They'd probably like it.
> >
> > How gosh !! I would like to be you.
>
> It would certainly raise the intellectual level of your posts.
But you don't explain here how do you know that theese people would
like or dislike a bougereau (or anything else). That's not a proof of your intellectual level.
In fact like a lot of people you build a pseudo-intellectual language,
but as soon as you go to the very basis, we just found personal
statements about things you don't know. I don't call that an
intellectual discussion.
>
> > Knowing what somebody you never met thinks ??
>
> I can assume that as easily as Marilyn and apparently you have have
> assumed they wouldn't.
You assume that I assume they would not. If you carefully read my post
I simply say that you don't know. I have NEVER said I knew anything
about the taste of Tibetan people concerting Bougereau. But here again
you put your thought in the mind of somebody else. But I forget, maybe
you know better than me what I think...
f.g.
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
Frederic Goudal <gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr> wrote:
> burnin...@my-dejanews.com writes:
> > In article <uxvhhsd...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr>,
> > Frederic Goudal <gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr> wrote:
> > > burnin...@my-dejanews.com writes:
> > > > In article <36ADC8...@britishcolumbia.ca>,
> > > > Marilyn <m...@britishcolumbia.ca> wrote:
> > > > > Brian Shapiro wrote:
> > > > > By "universal" you really mean, Western Culture, mostly in the USA.
> > > >
> > > > Christ on a bike, are you ever going to get tired of pissing and whining
> > > > about the "USA"? What happened to you? Did someone up from the states
> > > > doing a little fishing run over your dog when you were little?
> > >
> > > It's not pissing and whining about USA. It's simply clear that a lot of people
> > > here are doing ethnocentricism (or ethnocentrism ??) in an intensive way.
> >
> > That is true. And I certainly wish the French-Canadians and French would
> > stop their constant bitching and whining about other cultures. You're
> > conversing in English. Get over it.
>
> It is not because I'm conversing in english that I have to accept the USA centred view
> for some different reason :
I'll forgive your English reading comprehension problem. Please note that
I've nowhere said you have to accept anything. I said you were pissing and
moaning because you were French and had to post in English to get anyone to
read your posts.
> - 1 english is a lingua franca on the internet, it has nothing to do with the USA.
LOL :-)
Are you this delusional about everything or is it only anglophobia?
The reason the you are posting in English has *everything* to do with the USA.
If the internet had been developed in France or Quebec, we *might* be posting
in French. Fucking get over it.
> - 2 english was first spoken in england, not in the UISA
English, as is French, is derived from other prior/other languages. The
English think the French are scum-sucking shits. At least Americans are
indifferent to you. Given that fact, I'd say your real problem was simply
that you hate anyone who has been successful.
> - 3 english is spoken by a lot of people in the world that do not share the USA culture
And why is that, mon petite garcon? :-))
W e don't give a shit if you "share the USA culture" or not. Fucking do what
you want to. Just don't expect anyone to take your bitching and moaning
seriously.
Did you know that the sales of soap were lower in France than any other place
in the world other than Siberia?
>
> > > > > Have you ever considered what a Muslim in Saudi Arabia or a Tibetan, or
> > > > > would get from a Bougereau?
> > > > They'd probably like it.
> > >
> > > How gosh !! I would like to be you.
> >
> > It would certainly raise the intellectual level of your posts.
>
> But you don't explain here how do you know that theese people would
> like or dislike a bougereau (or anything else). That's not a proof of your intellectual level.
:P
Hey, dumbass, I don't have to explain shit to you. I pointed out that
Marilyn couldn't *assume* that they wouldn't like Western Art.
The point stands. I'm glad you agree.
> In fact like a lot of people you build a pseudo-intellectual language,
LOL :P
Excuse me?
Reread the above statement. Or find a Belgie who will translate it for you.
> but as soon as you go to the very basis, we just found personal
> statements about things you don't know. I don't call that an
> intellectual discussion.
:::>PPPP
The" very basis" of what? That I don't think it valid for Marilyn to make
claims that she knows what other people think? I'm afraid you're going to
have to try a lot harder to confuse the issue than this.
>
> >
> > > Knowing what somebody you never met thinks ??
> >
> > I can assume that as easily as Marilyn and apparently you have have
> > assumed they wouldn't.
>
> You assume that I assume they would not
OK... so if you don't, what the fuck is your point? :P
>. If you carefully read my post
> I simply say that you don't know.
HEY!, Frog-boy!! Clue! No shit! That's what *I* said about Marilyn.....
You're a pretty funny guy :P
> I have NEVER said I knew anything
> about the taste of Tibetan people concerting Bougereau. But here again
> you put your thought in the mind of somebody else. But I forget, maybe
> you know better than me what I think...
LOL
I don't care what you think. You're just another whining french asshole and
I'm killing some time waiting for something to finish.
P.S. Gerry Lewis sucks.
Bon nuit, mon petite garcon! :>)
>
> f.g.
>
> --
> FiLH photography. A taste of freedom in a conventional world.
> New web site address http://www.i-france.com/filh
> e-mail gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr
> FAQ frp : http://www.enserb.u-bordeaux.fr/~goudal/frp/faq.html
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Marilyn
Marilyn wrote:
> >
> >Hi Kay,
> >
> >Well, to my mind the mention of a few celebrities doesn't
> >constitute an art market. Come on, Bill Gates makes 100 million
> >every second day. He's got to do something with it. He could
> >actually save Africa if he wanted to but he dabbles a little
> >in cautious art and donates MS systems to libraries. applause!!!
> >
> >I'm more interested in motivation. Why do people want to paint?
> >Do they have some passionate interest in life and living that
> >cannot be expressed by any other means or are they interested
> >in making decor items? add the large range of motives in the
> >centre.
> >
> >Marilyn
-----------
Kay wrote:
> Hi Marilyn,
> Every year Art in America devotes an issue which lists many artists,
> dealers, museums and collectors. There is no shortage of any. Some people
> collect art for the love of art, some for prestige. For altruistic giving,
> look at Ted Turned who just gave $2 zillion (I forgot the amount) to the
> United Nations. Sure, it is better to feed a starving nation than to buy an
> item for one's own consumption, but I'm not the boss of the world and, in
> fact, benefit from collectors. I just bought a new car this year and the
> old one still worked fine. What logic was that???
> To answer your question about motivation to paint, I can only speak for
> myself and for people I've known and discussed it with. I constantly was in
> trouble in elementary school for drawing during math, history, etc. I don't
> know why I did it, didn't call it art, couldn't help myself, got the message
> it was bad (since I was called to task for not paying attention). Now that
> I'm an adult and have been thru the "system" and received my education in
> art and am a practicing artist, I realize that I'm getting the same message
> about art (it's not nice to do art, what do you REALLY do) etc. So, I think
> people create things because there is something in them that MAKES them do
> so. Why I chose painting rather than photography, sculpture, etc., is
> because I am in total control from beginning to end, painting allows for
> mistakes - very forgiving medium, and has a very sensual feel. Why people
> become artists - maybe some of us don't "fit" in the normal world.
> Kay
> P.S. The other posters out there may have entirely different viewpoints and
> experiences. I'm curious too.
Thanks for the excellent post. The personal experience of the artist interests
me more than art historical debates. It's here and now and it has a ring
of authenticity. I'm not ready to post my own experience yet. I can feel flames
licking the edges of the newsgroup as I write.
Keep your own fires burning Kay!!!
zi...@interport.net
The Malays have a positive word for what you two painters have said.
They don't think it is in any way neurotic or unreasonable. All of us
born on earth have angin [pronounced with a an a as in car and a very
soft g]. Angin is our need toi do various things, not just the arts.
Among Malays a shadow pupetteer has angin, and so does an actor in the
traditional Malay opera, but so does a midwife, a healer, a government
official, and a group of personality types. In my wife's book about
angin she uses as an example for westerners, quotes from the book by
Raphael Soyer where he says I can have all sorts of things wrong with
me in the morning, when I get up, my eye hurt , I get cramps in my
feet. The food tastes awful and I feel logy and iwthout energy. Then I
get into the studio and start painting. And my eyes feel fine, my
hands are too busy to hurt. Suddenly everything is right with the
world." [all paraphrase]
You both have very strong angin. If you thwart it you will feel sick
[psychosomatically], but if you fulfill it you will feel well and
fulfilled, and you will be doing something special for the rest of us.
Gabriel
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 09:25:57 GMT, emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
>In article <GW4s2.370$3J3...@news2.giganews.com>,
> "Kay Kane" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
>
>> To answer your question about motivation to paint, I can only speak for
>> myself and for people I've known and discussed it with. I constantly was in
>> trouble in elementary school for drawing during math, history, etc. I don't
>> know why I did it, didn't call it art, couldn't help myself, got the message
>> it was bad (since I was called to task for not paying attention). Now that
>> I'm an adult and have been thru the "system" and received my education in
>> art and am a practicing artist, I realize that I'm getting the same message
>> about art (it's not nice to do art, what do you REALLY do) etc. So, I think
>> people create things because there is something in them that MAKES them do
>> so. Why I chose painting rather than photography, sculpture, etc., is
>> because I am in total control from beginning to end, painting allows for
>> mistakes - very forgiving medium, and has a very sensual feel. Why people
>> become artists - maybe some of us don't "fit" in the normal world.
>> Kay
>> P.S. The other posters out there may have entirely different viewpoints and
>> experiences. I'm curious too.
>>
>I can't resist that invitation. I paint as a nervous reaction to my
>environment. Early on, I found I could get attention.
>
>But somewhere along the line the paint itself took over. It oozes, stains,
>plops, squirts, splashes -- all in wonderful rainbow colors. It's good enough
>to eat (but thank god I learned to read the warning labels). I think I enjoy
>the intimacy with the stuff -- it's like kozsmic silly putty.
>
>Oh, by the way, there is no 'normal' world. Everything is above average.
>
>Erik
>
emat...@tomatoweb.com
zi...@interport.net wrote:
>
>
> The Malays have a positive word for what you two painters have said.
> They don't think it is in any way neurotic or unreasonable. All of us
> born on earth have angin [pronounced with a an a as in car and a very
> soft g]. Angin is our need toi do various things, not just the arts.
> Among Malays a shadow pupetteer has angin, and so does an actor in the
> traditional Malay opera, but so does a midwife, a healer, a government
> official, and a group of personality types. In my wife's book about
> angin she uses as an example for westerners, quotes from the book by
> Raphael Soyer where he says I can have all sorts of things wrong with
> me in the morning, when I get up, my eye hurt , I get cramps in my
> feet. The food tastes awful and I feel logy and iwthout energy. Then I
> get into the studio and start painting. And my eyes feel fine, my
> hands are too busy to hurt. Suddenly everything is right with the
> world." [all paraphrase]
>
> You both have very strong angin. If you thwart it you will feel sick
> [psychosomatically], but if you fulfill it you will feel well and
> fulfilled, and you will be doing something special for the rest of us.
> Gabriel
That's a very encouraging concept, Gabriel. For my part, it has been a long
time since I've picked up a paintbrush -- much too long. I make art for a
living, but now it's with a computer, designing web sites and report covers
and whatever. I even miss the days as a graphic artist that I had to use an
exacto knife and rubber cement.
I remember seeing a TV program about the "living art treasures of Japan' and
there was a woodcut artist who was paralysed on one side of his body, except
when he was carving wood -- he miracoulsy overcame his disability. It was
wonderful to watch as he set his gouge to a piece of cherry wood and push to
create one two foot long curl of wood that created a long, graceful line.
Angin. What a remarkable concept. Thank you for bringing it into my
attention.
mil...@cove.com
Iian Neill <leon...@microtech.com.au> wrote:
> (snip)
> The present question has to do with the nature of "universality" in art. The
very topic does by its nature imply an objective reality - hence the emphasis
on a universal, and not subjective, experience - which one can measure and
analyse. Certainly, there is no universality in art if by universality one
means universal appeal or understanding. (snip)
> The one thing I know for sure is that there are only cultural truths
> > in the arts. There are no universals.
> >
> > There may be some universals in human life but artistic styles and
> > ideas are not. Show me some evidence?
>
> Realism (with a small "r") is not an artistic style - it is a medium of
> expression. Romanticism, Classicism and Impressionism are styles in art - in
> short, they are stylizations of reality, each different according to its basic
> philosophical premises. Realism is the manner by which an abstract idea is
> translated into objective elements, which are then presented to an audience -
> the audience then re-interprets the picture or sculpture and arrives at their
> own understanding of the art-work. It may be that they feel something wildly
> different from what the artist intended.
The implication is that artists intend that viewers of his work respond in
a certain way. No doubt some painters do so, but certainly many painters have
no such specific objective in mind when they paint. This may be because the
artist's
> technical skills were feeble, or his imagination sterile - or it may also be
> that his work is obscure, deliberately or not. All art is conceptual to a
> degree, and the greatest works are more so.
On what do you base such a statement?
This is not to imply that they are
> visually vague or symbolistic - far from it. The highest concepts
What determines the height of a concept?
demand the
> clearest, most poetic expression. A vague, flabby, obscure technique can only
> serve to imprison the artist's ideas in the realm of sheer subjectivity, thus
> robbing it of any universal appeal.
But nothing has universal appeal, so it can't be robbed.
>
Milt Lauenstein